Talk:Irish Draught

Untitled

Merging this with the Irish Draft might be a good idea. Morgana 12:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I merged Irish Draft to this page. User: Eventer

Copyvio

Almost all of this article is a copyvio of IDHS material, dating to 2006. Amusingly, the information separately made its way to the IDHBA website. I will be rewriting as much of it as necessary so as to fit in with the guidelines, so I'm just giving a heads up to explain the seemingly unconstructive edits. Additionally, I will be trying to rescue the deadlinked or incorrect citations. Wasechun tashunka (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Good catch, Wasechun tashunka – there's absolutely no doubt that the content added with this edit is a copyvio – it's acknowledged in the page, and see here for prior publication. Nor does the content that it replaced inspire any confidence. However, the page was apparently completely over-written with this edit in September 2006. Are you seeing copyvio after that point? And if so, of what source (the exact url would be helpful)? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The history of this page may be relevant here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I was mistaken when I referenced the IDHS, the previous history section was copied from the IDHS newsletter (I believe it was actually copied from the website of the Irish Draught Society of Great Britain, because of the citation format), however the new history section is also problematic! The current history is mostly identical to that given on the Irish Draught Horse Breeders' Association website (paras 1, 3 & 4 in the article are the same as paras 2, 3 & 4 on the website, and some of the other lines are also copied verbatim - I don't know where to find older versions, as the website is new due to an internal legal dispute), and the breed standard is identical to that found on both the North American and GB Irish Draught Society websites (an archived version of the latter is available here).

I don't think it would be too much work to rectify this; the breed is discussed in many sources, there have been very solid studies conducted on its pedigrees and genetics, and there is a lot more that could be added (a supposed 17th century reference, an older reference to similar horses in the Annals, its relationship to other breeds and its role in the development of the modern Thoroughbred, etc.).

I think that the Breed Standard section would really have to remain more or less a copy of one of the standards, as a standard is almost impossible to paraphrase (however I believe WP:NFCCEG allows for this if it is clear that it is quoted from a stated source?). I do think however that the standard applied in the country of origin should be used, as it differs from the currently quoted US standard. Wasechun tashunka (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Canon bone

Firstly, Montanabw, you should be well aware of how WP:BRD works. When reverted, stop, go to the Talk Page yourself and discuss. "If you re-revert, then you are no longer following BRD."

I am not opposed to this photo being improved upon, but it should not be removed so long as it serves a useful purpose.

The characteristics section states that the breed should have at least 23 cm of leg bone (that being canon bone circumference measured directly below the carpus, in the context of a breed standard). To a casual reader, what "23 cm of leg bone" means is not clear. However, this is one of the defining features of the breed - for example, from the Irish Draught Horse Society of North America, quoted for your convenience:

Cannon size is cited in historical and current breed descriptions as an important characteristic of the ID as a foundation breed. This characteristic is generally described as a minimum cannon size for the breed. Long-term changes towards smaller cannons in approved horses could threaten this fundamental characteristic of the breed.

So, how does one convey this? An image is ideal for the purpose of showing what exactly "23 cm of leg bone" means. If it isn't clear to you that this is a thick canon bone for the horse size and conformity, maybe placing a photo of another breed's foreleg beside it for comparison may help.

As regards the animal being tied-in, you are incorrect, the photo was taken at the moment of curbing forward motion which I hope you know means the horse will briefly lean forward. For the purpose of showing the width of the foreleg, it is irrelevant what position the leg is in, as the canon bone does not change shape with movement. I am most certainly not opposed to a better quality photo if you can provide one, but as for whether the horse properly shows the correct canon bone confirmation for the breed, do not take my word for it, check the Reliable Sources: here is the horse's linear profile, showing that this Class 1 stallion has perfect canon bone length and is within the ideal range for canon bone circumference (24 cms), with the selection panel's summary stating:

He shows a lot of good Irish Draught characteristics, with a short cannon and good flat bone... This is an attractive true-to-type Irish Draught model with good bone and substance.

I have no problem with improvements, but there is really no reason to remove explanatory information from a page when it demonstrates one of the breed's key characteristics. Wasechun tashunka^HOWL_TRACK 17:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The image is poor. It's also dubious when you are arguing for inclusion of your own work to replace the images of others. Frankly, I don't like the image of the gray now used to replace the image of the much-better posed black horse that was there either, and I'd like to switch that one back as well. (Or, if we are to use the best of your images, crop File:DublinHorseShow2017 CappaCasanova IrishDraught Conformation.jpg closer and use it; that horse is at least stood up correctly, though he looks a bit turned-out behind) The image you used doesn't even include the knee, the horse is leaning forward on the weight bearing leg, it has the horse moving its other leg, in doing so, the tendon contracts and makes the leg look tied-in — the opposite of what we want to see. No horse is "perfect" and that is not what the ad summary you quote above says. If you think an illustration of good bone is useful, then perhaps a diagram showing how the measurement is taken would be suitable. That or take File:DublinHorseShow2017 CappaCasanova IrishDraught Conformation.jpg and crop it down to show the left front, as that horse has good bone and is standing properly on the front end. Montanabw^(talk) 18:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, this discussion is about a photo of an RID canon bone which did not exist before I added it, so accusing me of favouring my own photos over others is a strawman. I'll get back to that replacement I made on the 18th of August later, but if you have a problem with that you should bring it up as a separate point and not confuse both things!

Back to the canon bone photo, I agree the image is not ideal, but the issue I have with File:DublinHorseShow2017 CappaCasanova IrishDraught Conformation.jpg is that firstly the horse is turned away, so the leg is not shown in profile, and secondly there is poor definition at the back of the left foreleg (and the front of the right foreleg) which makes it difficult to see exactly what the width of the leg is, especially with the worsened photo quality from cropping. I haven't been able to find a better candidate on commons either, which is why I included File:DublinHorseShow2017 KillountainCross IrishDraught.jpg, not out of any particular love for my photography!

Regarding the infobox photo, I replaced it because Bridon Belfrey was never graded, and is a bad example of breed standard. The photo I replaced it with is a Grade 1, Double Gold Merit (proven in Side-Saddle, In-Hand and Show Jumping), RID on-standard, and has been top Irish Draught stallion for a number of years, having been made up Irish Draught Champion 3 times, and reserved twice - it is not a case of my own judgement. The breed is in dire condition currently, with what very little conservation to save it being carried out by a small number of individuals, and the promotion of ungraded stallions is not to be taken lightly, particularly when Bridon Belfry has been such a prolific sire already.

I feel like we should have somebody else provide an opinion before making a move on photos, as we appear to be developing a history of conflict over small matters such as this...

Frankly, there is no reason to include a photo of a leg at all, as there is nothing particularly unique to the Irish Draught about having good legs. The only real reason to include isolated body parts is to illustrate a unique breed trait. Here, most breed standards require good bone, some have a specific circumference, others do not, but it's like saying "horses of this breed should have correct conformation, here is a hind leg". As for the infobox, your claims about the quality of the horse should be sourced at the photo page, otherwise, it's OR, particularly as the other image is more professionally done and flattering to the horse. (And if the other horse is not a good example of the breed, then do explain why, as you admit he has been a prolific sire) If you wish to put these two disputes up at WP:EQUINE for other horse editors to discuss, that's fine, but I say we split the difference; leave out the leg photo but keep the photo of the gray so long as you can source your claim that he's the superior animal. I'm not going to make a huge deal out of this. Montanabw^(talk) 22:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I have already given sourcing stating that it is a unique breed trait, but do what you will. As for the infobox photo, I stated in the edit summary that I was replacing a non-graded stallion with a Grade I stallion (Cappa Casanova, or "the grey", as you call him). There is no requirement to "cite" your reasons for making an edit, I gave an image source and that is sufficient (and you cannot claim it's OR when I've given you the sources as soon as you asked for them). A simple google search would tell you that it's Grade I, or you could WP:AGF.

Regarding Bridon Belfrey, he is uphill in his movement when he moves, which the breeder likes to claim is an advantage for dressage but obviously the breed standard prefers a stockier, compact animal closer to the original type and this is an argument that has been fought out by the custodians of the breed since the last report and is honestly too detailed to bother going into. The main reason Bridon Belfrey is a prolific sire to date appears to be linked to how much he is promoted, both by his breeder and the IDHSNA (such as adding the photo to the Wikipedia page with accompanying link), the animal does not even appear in the Irish Irish Draught studbook, in use by the harmonized registries, which many other American-bred sires have qualified for. In general, if the native breed registry identifies certain animals as being superior examples of type, of course these should be presented as examples rather than an animal who has not undergone linear profiling as outlined as a requirement by the standard.

But do what you like, as you already have. Wasechun tashunka^HOWL_TRACK 17:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

This horse's ears are an example of a unique breed trait

Now, don't get whiny; I made an offer for a truce, I'm keeping your gray, your argument on that is adequate for me to live with, though should a promoter of Bridon Belfrey swing by, we could be off to having some drama. On the other, good bone is a characteristic of the breed, but not unique to the breed, many other breeds in Warmblood land have a standard for cannon bone circumference. My advice though, is to cite your claims, and I think you do need to read WP:BURDEN. It would be helpful if you want to post a link or two to the "refined versus stocky" debate, that's useful. I know there are a number of controversies in other breeds that are mentioned in various articles (I know of two cases where lawsuits were filed over various claims of who had the "real" registry and other dramas) Montanabw^(talk) 05:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)