Talk:Barb horse

Abaco barb section is pretty unencyclopedic with lots of flowery and emotional adjectives that make it sound real POV. May want to tone down the language and be more NPOV. Slapped it with the "peacock" tag. Not a crisis, but needs to be fixed. Montanabw 02:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice

Wow! Great job! I love what you all did with the page! Right on! :D --Cher <3 (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Awesome

It is so said about the abaco barb though —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.159.178 (talk) 03:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. Support arguments and response to pmanderson and herostratus are convincing. --rgpk (comment) 14:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Barb (horse) → Barb horse – Relisting. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Unnecessary parentheses; the word "horse" is part of the name of the breed, not disambiguation. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support Montanabw^(talk) 20:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. If "horse" is part of the name of the breed, it's a proper noun and so it would be "Barb Horse" (capitalized). But the article uses Barb, e.g. "The Barb is..." rather than "The Barb Horse is...". From the article, it looks like the name is Barb. And in the two references that I can see (because they're online) that mention the Barb, it's also Barb (or Abaco Barb or Spanish Barb) and not Barb Horse (or Barb horse). "Barb (horse)" seems the correct way to disambiguate, just as we have "Barb (pigeon)" rather than "Barb Pigeon" (or "Barb pigeon") and "Barb (fish)" rather than "Barb Fish" (or "Barb fish"). Herostratus (talk) 04:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Hero, at WPEQ we have an internal disambiguation problem. We have individually named horses and breeds both. If you go to most horse breed associations, they are (in English) the "XYZ Horse Association" or "XYZ Pony Association." Now, if we have an individual horse who happens to be named "XYZ," I agree that "XYZ (horse") is correct. But the word "horse" is not always an integral part of every breed's name, sometimes with the same breed in different English-speaking nations, but it is common enough to use on a regular basis. Given Wikipedia's capitalization guidelines, if we title these articles "XYZ Horse", we inevitably have some capitalization person go through and change them ALL to lower case (I remember once seeing someone go through and do about 50 at a pop), so it's best to save our efforts for the few where the name looks absolutely ridiculous unless in title case. Montanabw^(talk) 22:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• Further comment:

– Google search for _barb -wikipedia horse_. Google does not allow exclusion of strings, but if anyone knows how to search for _barb horse -"barb horse"_ it'd be good to see the results.

– Google books search for the same

– Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)#Capitalisation of common names of species: "Insofar as there is any consensus among Wikipedia editors about capitalisation of common names of species, it is that each WikiProject can decide on its own rules for capitalisation. In general, common (vernacular) names of flora and fauna should be written in sentence case". Yes, this is a breed and not a species, but that's about the best guidance we get from the MOS.

– This project has elected to capitalise the word "horse" in article titles only when it is an indispensable part of the name of the breed. Compare Quarter Horse and Morgan horse: people can and do talk about a Morgan (once the context is established), but not in any ordinary circumstances about a "Quarter". People can and do talk about a Barb once context is established; but as the searches above show, "horse" is usually a part of the common name.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I've moved the other horse breed pages that were requested at the same time as this one. In this case, since Justlettersandnumbers has just responded to Herostratus' objection, I'd like to wait until Herostratus has had a chance to reply. It only seems polite; else I'd just move the page now, per evidence cited above that "Barb horse" is a common way for writers to indicate the breed.

  Anyway, I've relisted this request. We'll check in again in a week when it gets back down to the backlog section. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Barb (60,000 Google books hits, in the context of horses; is much more common than the phrase Barb Horse or horse (less than a thousand). None of the OED's quotations use "Barb horse," and when reading this discussion, it was new to me. In particular Abaco Barb horse appears to be entirely unusused. No need to move. Changing the disambiguator to (horse breed) would satisfy some of the reasons for moving and may be a reasonable solution. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have tried and failed to think of something that isn't wrong with these arguments. Google is such a dumb tool for this kind of research, as it is "smart". In this particular case, the two searches appear identical, and both lead to a large number of books in which the name "Barb horse" is found; is that intentional? If there had been a search for for "Barb in the context of horses", what steps would have been taken to exclude (1) the string "Barb horse" (2) the wire (3) horses named "Barb" or "The Barb" (4) people called Barbara whose name is abbreviated and (5) other irrelevancies? If there is someone who knows how to search books for (barb + horse -"barb horse"), then it would be good to see those results; I don't. "Abaco Barb horse" is rather widely used "abaco barb horse" breed -wikipedia, estimate 110,000 hits; "abaco barb" -horse breed -wikipedia, estimate 505 hits; and is anyway irrelevant, as it is not an article title, right? And so on. How many of the quotes in the OED (a source worthy of real consideration) are from the last, say, fifty years? If anyone can produce logical arguments to establish whether or not "Barb horse" is common usage, then please do so. As has been shown again and again, just counting Google hits does not usually prove or resolve anything. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Support Barb horse: WP is quite clear that WikiProjects have the authority to deviate slightly from the standard disambiguation and related guidelines for good reasons, and this is one classic case. We have about 400 (or more) horse breed articles in wikipedia. At present, there was only one that was tagged (horse breed) to resolve an ambiguity between it and a named individual animal's article; and that one, I think, just got moved to "horse" not long ago. To the best of my knowledge, this current article on the Barb may now the ONLY breed article out of all of them still titled with (horse). Here, we have a number of breeds that, in their breed name, are already designated as "horse' or "pony" and the consistency of naming has been a fairly longstanding consensus at WPEQ (I've been here over five years and breed articles were predominantly "horse" not (horse) even then. At present, WPEQ has established by consensus of the project members that (horse) is used for individually named horses (such as Secretariat (horse)) and for general interest articles in need of disambiguation. (As in bit (horse) and bay (horse). The breeds use "horse" or "pony" where there is a disambiguation issue in order to avoid confusion and to acknowledge that many breed registries often put "horse" or "pony" in their name. I have no position on second word capitalization; I personally could not care less if someone wants to go through 400 breed articles and use title case on all of them, but will note that if they do, then six months from now, someone else will go through and remove title case from all of them (it's happened in the past, at least for a few dozen at a time, and not all have been consistently fixed). I have no position on capitalization save for those cases where it looks rather absurd to use lower case (American Quarter Horse; New Forest Pony). As for Google, in this particularly situation, it's useless, as we are discussing disambiguation. In reliable reference books and sites, it's either "Barb" or "Barb horse" -- "breed" is implied. (FYI, Abaco Barb is a rare substrain discussed in the article). So let's just wrap this up and please move the article. Montanabw^(talk) 03:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support Barb horse. Very well put, Montanabw (I note you have voted previously however, and perhaps you should have indicated this more clearly). Andrewa (talk) 10:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

explanation

the article mentioned "bereber muslim" peoples invading north africa, and bringing this horse. this is not possible at all. the bereber people, and their horses- were the aboriginal people of north africa at the time of the muslim expansion- the 8th century as cited. i decided to simply remove the bereber reference, so now it is clear that the bereber people where there already when islam arrived — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.108.254 (talk) 10:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Abaco Barbs

The Abaco horses being call Barb is a relatively new concept ( less than 20 years ) , it is generally accepted that the horses are decedents of the logging horses that were used to haul logs at the Normans Castle logging operation that ended in the early 1900's , after the operation ended they released the horses , and livestock . The farm where the horses were living on is only 1 mile from the old Normans castle lumber camp .

There is no evidence that the Spanish ever colonized Abaco or the Bahamas ...see wiki Bahamas history .

A DNA test showing a genetic link to Spanish horses is inconclusive , and cannot be used to prove a theory about a shipwreck hundreds of years ago . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abaconian (talk • contribs)

What we need are sources one way or the other. Can you provide any URLs or other evidence for this? I'm all ears if you can meet verifiability of your information Montanabw^(talk) 04:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

For reference, additional material was included in this edit, but we need better sources per WP:OR. Montanabw^(talk) 04:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Barbed horses

In a history book I'm reading, it states that a 13th English lord paid for one hundred "barbed horses". By this does it mean Barb horses, or is a barbed horse something else? And would Barb horses have been available in 13th century England? Zacwill16 (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Possibly a Barb or Barb type, yes. I'll see if @Ealdgyth: agrees, she's a medieval expert and a horse expert. And maybe ... the Barb horse (as well as the Arab horse) would have come to Europe with the Arab invaders, and Battle of Tours was in 732, so time for the type of horse to disperse. What "history book" is this? Fiction or non-fiction?? Montanabw^(talk) 04:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Without context, it's more likely that we're talking about some sort of armor or something else. Barding or barded would be my first guess, before assuming that it was referring to a type of horse. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

See, this is why I pinged Ealdgyth! Montanabw^(talk) 05:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. The context is here, a book on the seals appended to the Barons' Letter of 1301. Zacwill16 (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's "barded" horses... i.e. wearing horse armor. Not at all the same as "Barb" horses. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Letter reversals. Gotta love 'em! Thanks for straightening that out, E! You rock! Montanabw^(talk) 06:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Montanabw, you've proposed a merge, but haven't given any reasons here. Anyway, I absolutely oppose such a merge – as far as I'm aware, the only thing the two breeds have in common is the word "barb" (we've already got a completely spurious block of stuff about the Abaco Barb here, apparently for the same reason, which I'll deal with in a moment). That's assuming that the Spanish Barb is in fact a breed; if it's just another name for a Spanish Colonial Horse, then wouldn't that be the appropriate merge/redirect target? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I've answered over in the Spanish Barb article (sorry to mess this up). You make a good point about the Abaco Barb. I think we could clean this article up to be about the North African Barb exclusively... I don't know the right solution to the other, but we can discuss that at the Spanish Barb article. Montanabw^(talk) 21:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Inaccurate with regard to role of Arabians in creating the Thoroughbred, which seems somewhat spurious anyway.

Article should be updated based on new research adding to the strong evidence that the Akhal/Teke/Turkoman, not the Arabian, is the breed of foundation stallions of the modern Thoroughbred.

“Contrary to popular belief, we could detect no significant genomic contribution of the Arabian breed to the Thoroughbred racehorse, including Y chromosome ancestry.”

“Recently... an analysis of horse Y chromosome haplotypes has indicated that the Y haplotype of the “Darley Arabian” actually originated from the Turkoman[/Akhal-Teke] horse, an ancient breed from the Middle East and Central Asia that is... also an “Oriental” type breed.”

“Five of the race-use [Arabian] horses carried the Tb-oB1* haplogroup attributed to the “Byerley Turk” foundation sire of the Thoroughbred breed. Tb-oB1* is found within a variety of breeds and lineages, including the Turkomen[/Akhal-Teke]. Therefore, these five horses may carry Y chromosomes derived from ancestors common to both racing Arabians and the Thoroughbred breed.”

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-66232-1 Greenineugene (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

October 2024

1) Per MOS:FORLANG: the subject of the article is not closely associated with the Berber language, unlike Arabic (the language of the majority of the North Africans). The term "Barb X" and "Barbary X" were invented by the Europeans to describe animal breeds that are indigenous to the Barbary coast (Barbary lion, Barbary stag, Barbary dove, Barbary sheep, etc.). 2) The Berbers don't call it "Barb horse". 3) "ⴰⵢⵢⵙ ⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⴳ" is only found in a handful of blogs and other unreliable sources. M.Bitton (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for your concerns; I will gladly address them.

Firstly, what you consider a MOS:FORLANG issue in the subject of this article has been present since 2016, as seen here: [1]. The subject is Berber-related and I do not understand the issue you're trying to refer to? as can be seen in the introduction. Therefore, as it has been, and as is done in other translations, the only correct stance is to place both languages in the translation section. If you read the article, it falls under "If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language." Thus, the argument that it does not fall under the rules is not justified here. Please either show where in the guidelines this is disallowed.

Secondly, you do not need a citation for it as you mentioned. After all, it has always been like this. However, it would be better if you found one. Regarding the argument that "The Berbers don't call it 'Barb horse'," it does not matter for this subject. The horse is referred to as Barb generally.

Lastly, I would advise you to be careful. You have violated the three-revert rule WP:3RR. I don't want to stress this, but next time, try discussing the subject on the talk page to reach a community-wide decision. TahaKahi (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The Barbary horse, Barbary lion, Barbary stag, Barbary dove, Barbary sheep are all related to the Barbary coast (North Africa or the Maghreb if one needs to be precise). I addressed the rest of your concerns and don't need to repeat myself. As for you "advice", I suggest you follow it very carefully. M.Bitton (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Please properly engage in the discussion, i cant figure out what the issue is if you dismiss it. TahaKahi (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Please properly engage in the discussion. I've had it with your aspersions (luckily, the ANI report is still open). M.Bitton (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Kindly move to dispute noticeboard. TahaKahi (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Please fix the short form citations that lack any actual bibliographic details

The recent additions have sfn citations that point to sources that are not given in long form - this basically makes the information unverifiable. It's obvious that this information came from some other article - but the editor did not bother to actually pull all the information - please do NOT add information without full bibliographic details - it's incredibly annoying. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Will rework on them, thank you for pointing it out. TahaKahi (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)