Talk:Mare/Archive 1

Archive 1

Restoration

Gang, restored discussion below. I think we are not supposed to blank article talk pages, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. I don't care one way or the other here, but can our respected admins weigh in on this matter? I know user pages, which we can do whatever with, are different from article talk pages. If consensus is to blank, that's OK, or we could archive the discussion, perhaps? (extending olive branch) Montanabw^(talk) 05:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverts

The revert war needs to end and the disputed content should be civilly discussed here on the talk page. Please confine your comments to the editorial content of the article and refrain from commenting on other editors per WP:NPA. Thanks! Dreadstar † 06:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Since each of the horse racing events in the disputed section are entitled to be referred to as "The Prestigious", it violates WP:UNDUE to give only one of them that qualifier. Adding the phrase to each event would affect the article's readability, and further - this is about horses not the races they are in. Each event mentioned is linked to the subjects article and the details about each race can be found there. Dreadstar † 23:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I won't press this any further but the section 'Uses' describes what a mare can do in the horse world. Winning a race isn't really that big of a deal but winning a race like the Melbourne Cup, which draws some of the best horses from around the world, is a big deal. Presigious was there to highlight this. Actually it said 'prestigious Australian race the Melbourne Cup...'. Montanabw said if the Melbourne Cup is called prestigious then a whole list of prestigious races from around the world would have to be included well this is untrue as it only highlighted the races importance in Australia. Now you have the information make up your own mind. Bananas'n'Cream 01:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI prestigious is used to discribe the Melbourne Cup in article Makybe Diva no one has made a fuss over this. Bananas'n'Cream 01:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

New discussion

An archive would be good but how do you do it? Be a handy thing to learn ;) Bananas'n'Cream 05:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

And what is an olive branch in the terms which you use it? An in what manner or fashion can it be extended? I have never heard it as a saying before. Please explain sounds interesting. Bananas'n'Cream 06:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia to the rescue Olive branch. Ealdgyth | Talk 06:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

And you can use the handy-dandy olive branch to sweep everything into an archive: Help:Archiving a talk page...;) Dreadstar † 06:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah a peace gesture makes sense now, thanks a bzillion Ealdgyth. And I'm learning new things every day ta Dreadstar. Peace out...gotta do some archiving ;) Bananas'n'Cream 06:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Brownies, anyone? Montanabw^(talk) 06:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

perhaps with beer? Montanabw^(talk) 06:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Big Fat F for First Time Archiving

I tried archiving and failed miserably I'll take the beer and leave it to someone who knows the ropes a bit better. ;-) Bananas'n'Cream 07:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You did good, Banana!Dreadstar † 18:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

East Asian words for horse

I am not sure what the crisis is about the East Asian words that sound like "mare" and mean "horse." I didn't write that section, and my reading of wikipedia policy is that challenged material needs a {{fact}} tag before it is removed. It is poor wikiquette to just blank something. And quite honestly I don't understand how this is original research, the words either do sound similar or they don't. It's interesting, that's all. I checked these against babelfish and the Korean character matches up, I will ask the people who know Asian langauages to check the others, but I see no need to just blank the section pending verification. Wikiquette says you take a week or so to allow others to source it. Montanabw^(talk) 20:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

One way to resolve this would be to find some source that in some way makes/assumes the etymological link, even if it's at the level of native speakers of East Asian languages assuming that ma, etc. is related to mare. The source(s) doesn't have to be reliable, because we're trying to prove that the view exists, not that it's accurate. With the source(s) in place, it's reasonable to have a short note that "It is sometimes assumed [by whomever we find takes this view] that there is an etymological link between the word mare and the word for horse in many East Asian languages [list of East Asian horse words follows]. This erroneous connection can be found in [list of places]. However, [explanation of lack of actual link]." That way there's no WP:OR and it's a reasonable explanation of a common missupposition. In the meantime, why not tag it with {{fact}} for a week, and remove the text if not improved? Rupert Clayton (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

One more point, though. We really do need some cite reflecting this view. Otherwise it's no more encyclopedic than if I edited the Domestic sheep article to note that the animal has no etymological connection with the word sheet despite the fact that both are large, pale, soft and sound similar. Rupert Clayton (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I'm a native Japanese. 馬 is the correct kanji for horse in Japanese and the pronunciation is 'uma' as in Uma Thurman, not 'you-ma'. Mare in Japanese is 雌馬/mesu-uma or 牝馬/hinba. I personally think the similarity is just a coincidence. Oda Mari (talk) 09:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

They are Web J to E Dic. pages for 馬 to look up horse [1] and [2]. Oda Mari (talk) 09:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Asian words for horse may be related but that doesn't mean they have anything to do with the English word "mare". According to a few sources, "mare" has a European origin:

• Online Etymology Dictionary: "female horse," O.E. mere (Mercian), myre (W.Saxon), fem. of O.E. mearh "horse," from P.Gmc. *markhjon (cf. O.S. meriha, O.N. merr, O.Fris. merrie, Ger. Mähre "mare"), said to be of Gaulish origin (cf. Ir. and Gael. marc, Welsh march, Bret. marh "horse"). No known cognates beyond Gmc. and Celtic. As the name of a throw in wrestling, it is attested from 1602. Mare's nest "illusory discovery, excitement over something which does not exist" is from 1619.
• Dictionary.com:

mare 1 (mâr)

n. A female horse or the female of other equine species.

[Middle English, alteration of Old English mȳre (influenced by forms of mearh, horse); see marko- in Indo-European roots.]

(Dictionary.com also shows how the word is written in several languages, including Korean, Chinese and Japanese.) Further, the sounds mal (Korean), ma (Chinese), and uma (Japanese) do not sound like mare -- AFAIK the 'a' in mare is a long 'a' while the 'a' in the Asian words is a short 'a'. OTOH, the Asian words undoubtedly have the same origin, which would explain why they have similar sounds and are written similarly. It's fine to bring up the similarity of the Asian words, but their similar to "mare" should be removed until a source can verify this. –panda (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

My thinking on the matter is that this section is fun and is considered in the context of words that do and do not look like or mean "mare." No problem cleaning it up a bit. (By the way, in American English, "mare" it isn't a long A, like "Mayor," it sounds like "Mehr.") After all, there is a section explaining how the Latin "Mare", (Ma-re) meaning "sea," does NOT have any link, and so in light of various words that sound the same, it's sort of a fun little thing. I'll see what sources can be found. Montanabw^(talk) 18:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Mare pronounced as "Mehr" (/mɛər/) and mal/ma/uma (which use the /mɑ/ sound) still don't sound alike. You're also comparing horse (in Korean, Chinese and Japanese) with mare. The fact that they both begin with the "m" sound is probably purely coincidental. Beyond the "m", they have no similar sounds. –panda (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that I wasn't the one who put in the original material, I guess I really have no real ownership stake in the outcome, other than a belief that if something reasonably interesting went into the article, it often went in for a reason that mattered to someone, and hence should attempt to be salvaged when possible. (FYI, the Latin "Mare" is spelled the same, pronounced quite differently.) The real issue here is if the entire asian language sentence should be in or out. And if out, what is the possibility that it will get put back in again a year from now because someone thinks the M sounds are kind of similar, hence reinventing the wheel? And if it gets removed, will someone start whining about a Euro-centric bias and comment that the words are similar so why don't we discuss them? Maybe the person who originally challenged the material is happy enough with the changes, I don't know, that person hasn't weighed in on the topic since it went to the talk page. Thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 23:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You could try asking the original author and the editor who challenged the material about it on their talk pages. I personally see nothing wrong with including info about the Asian words in the Horse article -- it's simply not clear to me why it should be in Mare (horse). It has nothing to do with being Euro-centric. –panda (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll look at the history and see if I can figure out when and who first added it. I did a major rewrite on the article a few months ago and it was in there then, so it's been there a while. If the user is not an IP and is still on wiki, I'll drop them a line. The one who challenged it had just blanked the whole thing a couple of times, must surely have the page on their watchlist, and thus I feel has a responsibility to follow up if they have more to say other than their OR claim. Montanabw^(talk) 03:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Look like it was added by an anon IP on Sept 5, and they appear to not have been on wiki since (either than or got a user name). Given that the person blanking the material is relatively new and appears to be interested in topics related to the Orient, made a couple edits and left, I guess it's a wash. As for horse, there is no etymology section there at all, as far as I recall. I guess when it was added to this article, it seemed interesting and of no harm, my feeling is that there is no need to toss it now if there is accurate and no violation of policy. Montanabw^(talk) 03:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not entirely accurate as the Korean and Chinese characters are for horse. Only the Japanese one is for mare. –panda (talk) 04:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Including words with similar meaning and sorta-similar pronunciation, but without any etymological connection amounts to trivia. Unless someone can show a connection that can be explained by something other than pure coincidence it should be removed.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Trivia in and of itself is discouraged, but not grounds for automatic removal. But let's see how this shakes out for a few more days. Montanabw^(talk) 22:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The wild horse馬(uma, or ba) had been in Japan since Jōmon period, about 14,000 BC to 400 BC, and Kanji propagated from China in mid 4th century. Also, a gift horse presented from Chian to Emperor of Japan in 5th century. Reference web site are: History of horse in Japan and When Kanji came to Japan in both Japanese language. Before Kanji, japanese had no charactor or letters.Korea also got kanji from China. I believe it is better to ask Chinese Wikpedian when and how Letter馬(common letter in China & korea, China is origin in Kanji) horse created and its pronounciation in China historically.--Namazu-tron (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This has absolutely nothing to do with the words for horse in Chinese or any other language unrelated to Englis, but the history and origin of the word "mare", which is what an etymology section is supposed to describe. It's not merely a place to insert translations (we have Wiktionaries for that). There can certainly be varying theories and qualified quesswork from scholars about the history of a word, but this doesn't give the impression of being anything of the sort. Though the article certainly doesn't say it outright, it seems to imply that there is a connection between "mare" and "馬". So we're not merely talking trivia, but highly speculative and unsourced trivia.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There I disagree. It is not "highly speculative" to say that a word for horse with an "M" sound is NOT in fact related to the word for mare... this is no different from the earlier paragraph that explains that the Latin Mare has nothing to do with the Germanic "Mare," either. Likewise, the various words that now mean "Marshall" have a similar sound but are related to horses in general, not just mares. So is it ALL useless? The way I see this section, it touches on the origin of the word, but goes on a bit more to avoid confusion and explain a few cases where a word that might logically seem connected actually is not. And it is interesting that the Asian words for horse have "M" sounds, it is not beyond the pale for a non-oriental languages speaker to come across this and wonder, IMHO. (I mean, obviously someone wondered, it wasn't added by me!) If the sentence needs rephrasing to be sure this is clear, fine, but I see no harm -- nor original research -- in this. (unless a native Japanese speaker like Oda Mari is conducting original research to tell us what a word means!) Montanabw^(talk) 20:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The section doesn't need sources for the meaning of non-English words that appear to have no relation to "mare", but something that actually confirms that the associations are common folk etymologies. Otherwise we're just talking random examples of words that (kinda) sound alike and (sorta) mean the same thing, and that pretty much amounts to a mild form of orginal research.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The current text is like stating:

Many words for horse such as "filly", "colt", "gelding" and "stallion" all contain an "L" or "l" sound. However, any connection to each other appears to be only slightly homophonic and there does not appear to be any linguistic connection.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

There's nothing incorrect about it, but it's still a trivial statement. Why not instead add the etymology of "horse" to the Horse article since the text about the Asian characters for horse has as much to do with mare as filly, colt, gelding and stallion have to do with each other. –panda (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like consensus is to toss the East Asian section. I do think that the latin "Mare" is relevant because the word is spelled the same, but pronounced and used in a wholly different matter. What about the other stuff, the bit on Marshalls and Marescali? Opinions? Montanabw^(talk) 19:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I find everything in the 2nd paragraph irrelevant for this article, starting with "There are some homophones that confuse the etymology of the word. The most common are the uses in astronomy, derived from the Latin mare (ma-re, two syllables), the word for "sea", from which words like marine and maritime were derived." Since the latin "mare" means "the sea" and has nothing to do with a horse, it's irrelevant for the article, nor something a normal person would confuse. The marescalci/marescalsus/marescalcia text is similar to the Asian characters text. It's like comparing "stall", "stallion", and "stable" just because they all start with "sta-" and are words you would use around a horse. There must be hundreds of examples of words that are contained in another word, which are good to know if you play Scrabble, but would be considered trivia here. –panda (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd stick to keeping "mare" (latin) in, because it IS confusing to anyone who isn't familiar with how Latin is spoken. I'm of mixed feelings on the others. Let's give it a day or two for the others who have posted on this thread to weigh in. Montanabw^(talk) 00:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The East Asian info should be removed immidiately, mostly because it equates the romanized spelling with the English spelling, which are entirely different things. Romanizations like pinyin are not properly representative of these languages. And we're still talking about very different (spoken) vowels. I believe that this is exactly the kind of information that keeps blurring the distinction between written and spoken language. As for the Latin mare, it's not as bad as the "sorta kinda almost not really shares the first initial letter"-info, but it's certainly very, very trivial.

What would be good to point out in that section, is the possible, but not decidedly proven, connection to the "mare" in nightmare. Unlike the unreferenced associations with East Asian languages, this is something that is actually mentioned in dictionaries (like OED).

Peter ^Isotalo 07:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a discussion of "nightmare" a bit farther down the page, but it might work to merge the two sections. If the consensus is to toss the east Asian stuff, will do, though I might put it over here on the talk page in case someone wonders about it later. Montanabw^(talk) 16:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC

I strongly support the Latin sea term as well. Etymology sections are supposed to explain actual etymological relationships, not just random homographs.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Material deleted, if ever needed later

Just so the disputed material stays in the record and doesn't get reinvented later (notice that some wikidiscussions have a way of coming around again and again), I'll park it here. It will be archived along with the rest of this discussion. Still looking for consensus on the "marescali" question. Montanabw^(talk) 17:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Additionally, in some East Asian languages, the word for "horse" often contains an "M" or "ma" sound, such as the Korean 말 (mal), Chinese 馬 (ma), and Japanese 馬 (uma or muma). However, any connection to "mare" appears to be only slightly homophonic and there does not appear to be any linguistic connection.

I don't know what consensus we're supposed to be waiting for here, but I don't considering the two paragraphs below in the least relevant to an etymology section. The first sentence hits the speculative ground running by discussing related meanings of unrelated words, ie cross-language semantics, followed by a discussion of a homograph. This is not encyclopedic content, but something that is usually mentioned in Wiktionary articles, and then usually in a more condensed format.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think consensus appears to have come down to you and I. Based on past experience, minor trivia is acceptable even if not enouraged, and people do want to know about broodmares (a type of mare, after all), nightmares and mare's nests, plus the Lunar "mare" thing is confusing. I will restore those, but the rest can stay out as far as I am concerned. Montanabw^(talk) 00:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Make that you, I and panda. We've both argued at some length against "minor trivia". I don't know where you've gotten the idea that it's acceptable from, though. I can agree that it's often found in articles, but it's usually due to neglect and lack of attention from experienced editors. We're talking about Wiktionary material here, and there's plenty of consensus that it doesn't belong on Wikipedia.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I reread WP:TRIVIA. There is no "ban" on trivia. There is also no ban on lists. The guideline is to avoid random lists and to seek better ways to present information, an approach with which I agree: as the article says, " If they must exist, they should in most cases be considered temporary, until a better method of presentation can be determined." Here you created a narrative section, which works well enough for me. But either way, these items are not miscellaneous lists of facts, there is a good argument to be made that a section explaining the origins of the word does well to explain some commonly used or confused terms. As such, consensus appeared to be that the Asian stuff did not seem closely enough related, the medieval words were marginal, but I am of the opinion that what's left is very directly related -- or that the confusion of an unrelated term needed to be clarified. However, there were two different things going on, etymology and related terms, but also a basic vocabulary term was misplaced -- I moved the word "broodmare" up to an earlier section where other daily use words are explained. Montanabw^(talk) 05:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Note also from WP:Trivia (emphasis mine): "There are a number of pervasive misunderstandings about this guideline and the course of action it suggests: This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. - If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all.
This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. - Some information is better presented in a list format.' "A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and unselective list. These disorganized items are in need of cleanup, either by incorporating them into the prose of another section, or by filtering the list to be more selective. A selectively populated list with a narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information within the article."
Anyway, I was OK with your last set of edits, so if things are settled for now, I'll call it a day.Montanabw^(talk) 05:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

---

The term bears no resemblance to the Latin for horse, caballus, nor for knight or rider, eques, further evidence of a non-Latin root for the word. However, there is a Latin homograph that confuses the etymology of the word. "Mare," used primarily in astronomy to descirbe the large, dark, basaltic plains on Earth's Moon, comes from mare (ma-re, two syllables), the Latin word for "sea", from which words like marine and maritime were also derived.

Another word, marescalci, was a title for the Master of the Horse for the Frankish kings; this later became marescalsus, a major cavalry officer, also referred to as a marshall. The word was probably derived from the Latin marescalcia, the right of taking fodder for horses, an honor far beyond that of a mere stable hand.

Categories

Any reason this article is in Category:Types of horses and Category:Famous mares? Ealdgyth | Talk 19:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Etymology revisited

I'm not going to edit the article since I have a mediation pending with Montana, but I'd like to point out that the information about the Latin homograph in "Etymology" should be removed. It's a description of a word that is spelled the same way as the article topic but otherwise has zero relevance to female horses. The supposed confusion is only possible if you've misunderstood what "etymology" actually means.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

We can rename the section "Etymology and homographs", if that helps. I don't know about anyone else, but seems that a lot of kids wonder what "Mares" are doing on the moon! I think it relevant to include somewhere due to how common the confusion is. (At least amongst third-graders) If you want, we can submit this very narrow issue (should the Latin "mare" be noted in this article or not?) to a Third Party review outside of all the other stuff and see what others think. Or if anyone else who monitors this page wants to weigh in, I think that seeking a consensus outside of another endless Montanabw versus Peter argument is wise. Montanabw^(talk) 23:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

*cough* And what about panda?

Peter ^Isotalo 11:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else wants to weigh in, fine with me. In 3-4 days, if no one else appears to care, we can ask for a third party opinion. Montanabw^(talk) 00:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

At what point did panda's opinion cease to matter?

Peter ^Isotalo 12:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I never said it didn't matter. Feel free to contact Panda and ask. And there is no consensus on this issue. I will submit it to a third party opnion. Montanabw^(talk) 20:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks like Panda hasn't edited since last April, so that is sort of moot point. I have no problem with the Latin lingo being included in the article. Peter, if you'd like to rename the section as Montana suggested above, "Etymology and homographs", I also have no problem with that. Does that work for a third opinion, or should we bring a bunch more outside editors into this horse page as well as all of the other ones we've dragged them into over the past month or two? Dana boomer (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

But don't you see that you're demanding me to come up with support to remove unsupported statements of private opinions. Homographs have absolutely nothing to do with etymology, because it's really just pure dictionary information. This is very actively discouraged by WP:DICDEF. Saying that similarly spelled words are worthy of inclusion in article is like including off-topic comments in biographical articles that two people happen to look alike or have the same name. Unless there is evidence that the two words have affected one another, it's just a random fun fact. You might very well think it's fun to keep around random factoids, but defending it in this manner amounts to a variant of WP:USEFUL.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I put in for a third party opinion. I hope it doesn't go on forever. I made "homographs" into a subsection in an attempt at compromise. Montanabw^(talk) 22:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion: This article is about a female horse, not about an English word and its various usages. A section dealing with a completely different topic that happens to have a similar name is not relevant to the topic under discussion, and therefore should be removed. Disambiguation belongs on pages set up for that purpose or, if necessary, hatnotes. —BradV 04:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• I agree the bit about the homograph should be removed as it is unrelated to the topic of the article. The hatnote points to Mare (disambiguation), which appropriately points to Lunar mare. That's sufficient for an article about horses. —Angr 06:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. I will abide by this consensus. I'm still a little uncomfortable with just the disambiguation, but at least it does point to the relevant article. However, I am still somewhat concerned that little kids will wonder why there are girl horses on the moon! LOL! But I guess we can wait until someone brings it up. Montanabw^(talk) 05:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

Based on what I know of Indo-European etymology, the etymology section is completely false. Certainly there is no proof that 'mare' is from Gaulish, and there are cognates for 'mearh' in many non-Germanic languages. I'll find a source and revisit this. --Saforrest (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatever is sourcable and verifiable. All we know is what we can find in neutral sources. Montanabw^(talk) 19:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)