Talk:Thoroughbred/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Questions

The article states that thoroughbread horses stand 64 inches high. Is this to the top of their head? How high does the rider sit? The article also does not state how much these horses generally weigh. Added this information would be appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaedglass (talk • contribs) 22:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

If they didn't wikilink hands in the article, someone needs to. All horses are always measured at the withers, thus the average Thoroughbred is 16 hands or 64 inches at the place where the horse's neck meets the back--the highest point on the horse when the horse has its neck lowered. The photos show where the rider sits and as for weight, that is quite variable but I suppose someone could find an average. 1,200 lbs is probably close. Montanabw 04:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is quite incomplete. Half of the article is devoted to the breakdown rate and the possible causes of the breakdowns. It is severly lacking in a discussion about the history of the breed. Gcal1971 15:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

So expand the history section. The article gets added to by those who are interested. If you have good historical material than can be properly verified and referenced, I'm sure we would all be glad to see it added! Montanabw 19:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

ok, I will work on that. Gcal1971 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to test drive any material, post it here if you want. Montanabw 02:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The whole article is about horse racingDog jumper100 20:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

There may be a place for some work to be done jointly with the horse racing article. Possible the controversies section would fit better there. But, I don't have the time to do it. For now, I say, if you see a need to expand other sections, expand them. The article is not ready for anything like FA status, but it isn't getting dinged with the "exceeds 32 kb" tag, either, so there is room for expansion without getting into the realm of bloating. My motto: don't whine, fix it. If you are afraid people won't like your fixes, post them on this discussion page first and see who salutes. Montanabw 22:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Origins

This sentence - "All modern Thoroughbreds carry the genetics of three stallions imported to England from the Middle East in the late 17th and early 18th centuries: the Darley Arabian, to whom 95% of today's Thoroughbred pedigrees trace" .. shouldn't this be that 95% of all Thoroughbreds descend from the Darley Arabian in the male line? I'm pretty sure that 100% of Thoroughbreds descend in all lines from the Big Three ... and didn't I see a study somewhere that had a statistical analysis of the percentage of ancestry all of the ancestor stallions had contributed to the Thoroughbred that showed that one of the lesser known stallions actually contributed more to the Thoroughbred than one of the Big Three? Hm.. off to search the library....Ealdgyth | Talk 01:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Find the info, cite it, stick it in with footnotes and let's see how it holds up. Post a draft version here on this page if you want. Eclipse is also significant as far as appearing in an overwhelming majority of pedigrees and should be mentioned. Best to be fair and cite prevalance of all of the big three in pedigrees overall, the male line isn't the only significant source of genetic material, remember... <Grin> Montanabw 19:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Find the info? Ack! I was hoping someone else might have an idea of where to hunt down the information. Hm, I'll keep looking. Anyone else have any clue?Ealdgyth | Talk 21:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Google has always been my best friend (grin). Many times you can indirectly pick up the cite from other works that reference it even if you can't access it directly. The Jockey Club websites (USA and UK) may also have useful links. Montanabw 02:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

racing or the breed itself?

It seems to me this article is confused if it's about the thoroughbred horse as a breed or thoroughbred horse racing. I think the section discussing "controversies" in horse racing would be better moved to the horse racing article, which is in dire need of help (as I stated there). I also noticed there seemed to be very few in-text citations, but I'm not sure of WP's specific policy on this.

As a kid my forte was the TB and racing in general, so I'd like to see this article improve and do the breed some justice. Are thoroughbred lovers not as passionate as Arabian people? ;) There's quite a bit of squabbling over even the tiniest words over there... -jett

Sorry Montanabw -- I apparently skimmed the other comments inefficiently. I would love to make changes myself, but internet doesn't come out in the boonies where me 'n' my ponies live, so I'm making quick comments at work. If the cable companies ever discover that we have running water and even (gasp!) electricity where I live, I'll be the first one on the horse articles like flies on honey. -jett

I understand, I am editing at a whopping 28K dial up myself. My problem is that dealing only with horse articles still has me with something like 450 pages on my watchlist =:-O So I sort of try to dedicate myself to one major article improvement project at a time, and at the moment I have three, so this one is on the back burner. My thinking is that much of what is here could move to horse racing, but perhaps the thing to do is to tune up what's in horse racing first, then add this once the other article is better structured. Also note that there appears to be a UK horse racing article and a USA horse racing article, they might be suitable for merging. Just going through the categories and figuring out what's here can be a chore--I had to merge three separate articles people had started on Pottok pony, just as an example...multiple spellings and no redirects created confusion... sigh... Montanabw 00:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

When I get a chance, I'll try to at least get some citations into this article. I agree the controversies part could probably move to Thoroughbred Racing, as it's pretty much directly related to racing. I'm not really up on the current debates about the breakdown rate and such, so I'll steer clear of that. Let me get through getting the American Quarter Horse Hall of Fame into shape first.. And I'm still hunting for that reference on the percentage of ancestry!Ealdgyth | Talk 00:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Threw some sources and in-line citations up. Let me know if they look good before I go digging deeper for more to flesh things out. Probably need a section on Thoroughbreds in Great Britain, France, Italy (Tesio anyone?), Australia and anywhere else they race. My library is almost exclusivly United States oriented, and pretty much devoted to Thoroughbreds before 1950 or so, since the main purpose of my library is to support my research in Quarter horse bloodlines. Ealdgyth | Talk 01:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you like someone else to take over writing? I have still have some reservations about the way this article has been structure and its empahiases (sp.) on thoroughbred injuries. --Gcal1971 (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

IMHO the article needs to first be organized, then some decisions made about whether to move some material into the horse racing article (which, by the way, is way worse off than this one, if you are looking for a rehab project). My thinking is that the injuries content needs to be SOMEWHERE, whether here or in the racing article, and the question of whether TBs have genetically reached the limits of their abilities, are raced too young, etc. is definitely required for complete and unbiased coverage of the topic ("everything's coming up roses" is as POV as too much negative), a "controversies" section that "teaches the controversy" often fends off POV edits later. Montanabw^(talk) 03:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

English thoroughbred

As the breed this article is describing is "English thoroughbred" and the word thoroughbred applies to different breads of animals (OED: 2. Of a horse: Of pure breed or stock; spec. applied to a race-horse whose pedigree for a given number of generations is recorded in the studbook. Also of a dog, bull, etc.), I think that this article should be moved to English thoroughbred --Philip Baird Shearer 14:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the use of the word "thoroughbred" to mean "purebred" has come mainly from people who were confused as to its true meaning, and that definition has now become a generalized term used by the public. I've never heard a knowledgeable horse person refer to their horse as a thoroughbred unless it was a horse of that breed, whereas my friends ask "you have a Thoroughbred cross? How can you have a Thoroughbred cross?" It’s just the misinformed public. And speculating (and this is ONLY speculation) I think the name "Thoroughbred" has always been held in high-esteem as a status symbol because the horses were considered fine-quality stock in the 17th century. You can still see this idea today, in movies directed at the non-horsie public, where the characters talk about "blue-blooded thoroughbreds" because they know the public idea of the Thoroughbred are the million-dollar racehorses they see Derby Day on TV. This idea has carried over to people today who equate "high quality" with "purebred". Which is, of course, utter BS. But seeing that purebred dogs and cats sell for a lot more than any mutt, why wouldn't they think the same thing is true for horses?

Also, calling it the "English Thoroughbred" can cause problems, as many horses are listed as American, French, English, New Zealand, etc Thoroughbreds simply by where they were bred. So if you look down the pedigrees of horses at a competition, one might be listed as a New Zealand TB, another as an American TB. Eventer 03:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe this issue has been settled, in Eventer's favor. See new "word use" section. I just settled an edit war with someone else over this. SIgh... Montanabw^(talk) 07:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Families

More comment could be made concerning the Thoroughbred families, their numbers and Lowe, Bobinski etc. Cgoodwin 03:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a whole separate article, perhaps titled "Thoroughbred bloodlines" or something. Anything else will bog down this already long article. Maybe see what the folks at WikiProject Thoroughbred Racing think. But if you check the category links, you will find, quite literally HUNDREDS of articles on various individual racehorses. All I know is that whenever horses start to be named (other than now-dead ones that were foundation stock), before you know it, the list is absolutely endless and someone is always offended because their animal wasn't included. I will admit that TB's are a little different--for TBs, where the stud book was closed in the early 1800's (?), there is an argument to me made for a basic history piece--can't the whole breed can now be traced to what, something like 19 animals total? At least, that's my thinking. Montanabw^(talk) 19:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not proposing mention of all the foundation mares,but I think that mention of the basic developement of some these families should be included as these family numbers are included today in many sale catalogues. A basic explanation is all that should be required. Initially Bruce Lowe named and numbered about 45 English families that were the very foundation of this breed and then there are all of the Bobinski families, quite a lot in all! Time has proven that families are very important in the breeding of Tbs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgoodwin (talk • contribs) 06:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we could start a "sandbox" here to work up at least a summary paragraph. Or an article titled "Thoroughbred breeding." I don't disagree, but once you get past the Darley Arabian, the Godolphin Arabian and the Byerly Turk in a general overview article, most people just glaze over. However, a paragraph in this article with worldwide basics would work with a link to a more detailed article for those with an interest. POV will, of course, be a problem, but if we don't go past, say, 1900, we might get away with it! <grin> Take a look at the section on foundation bloodlines in American Quarter Horse to get an idea of the length and general style I am thinking of. Montanabw^(talk) 07:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Below I have included a rough outline of the various families. The important part is to indicate that Tbs are recorded by families and to advise what the family numbers are. Any and all help appreciated. Family Bloodlines and Thoroughbred Heritage have very good, well researched sites for more detailed info.

What has to happen here is citation. See WP:CITE. If TB bloodlines are like bloodlines anywhere else in the horse world, there are some potential controversies (just for example, I have heard that modern TBs all trace to only 26 familes today, I have heard yet another source say it was 17 or19. I don't care, I don't raise TBs, but that's an example). I would go post something over on Wikipedia:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing and see if anyone more knowledgable on bloodlines than myself will weigh in. I also dispute that TBs worldwide are the most numerous breed. What are the statistics, what are the numbers, or, as they put it on the playground, "who says?" (grin) (For one thing, can they top the American Quarter Horse, which is the 10,000 lb godzilla in terms of breed growth? I don't know the answer, but I need to see objective stats from someplace like the FAO or at least the Jockey Club itself) I'm not being mean here, I just know what is expected and this is one where I have neither the time nor the motivation to do the actual edit. But what I will do is put a hidden reflist tag beneath your draft so any footnotes you add will show up here. God luck! Montanabw^(talk) 03:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If I wasn't leaving for a long trip, I'd dig into those citations, I probably have at least some of the books that detail the whole Bobinski and Lowe system. It's as arcane as say.. Arabian strains that Raswan was pushing for so long. Some folks swear by the Lowe/Bobinski method of breeding, others swear it's nonsense. I don't actually own Lowe or Bobinski, copies are too pricey for my blood, and they never really impacted much on my main interest in TBs, which is how the TB impacted the QH, but I probably have SOME sources on the stuff, just no time to put it in, honestly. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the ommission. Here are some references: LOWE, Bruce: "Breeding Horses by the Figure System"; fascimile, 1977 Montgomery, E. S. The Thoroughbred New York: Arco Publishing, 1973

Thoroughbred Bloodlines: http://www.bloodlines.net/TB/Families/FamilyNumbers.htm Thoroughbred Heritage: http://www.tbheritage.com/HistoricDams/FamilyNumbers.html

There are many more if needed. The low numbered families are still producing a lot of winners yet, but this may be attributable to larger numbers in those families? These numbers are certainly very helpful in research though. I’m sure that there are people out there that sometimes wonder what these numbers represent and how pedigrees are arranged, judging from the errors seen. I have contributed to the Colonial Taproot Mares sections in the links above. Some of the above many families are now extinct and I would not bother to expand on the above.Cgoodwin (talk) 07:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to engage in a little "tough love" now C, (grin) and make YOU put specific stuff into footnotes in your text above! The ref tag I already added (not visible until you edit the page) should make them appear just beneath it. I can help tweak the formatting if it gets weird. For multiple refs to the same source, I recommend using the form <ref name="Name of source"> author, title of article, title of book or periodical, publishing info, etc...</ref> and then every time you use the same source later, you just have to put <ref name="Name of source"/> and so you don't have to constantly retype. See WP:CITE for more help. Have fun! Montanabw^(talk) 20:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Where have I gone wrong?? Sorry!Cgoodwin (talk) 10:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

My fault, I used the "nowiki" tag so what I was doing would show up in the text, you don't use it in the editing. I will fix. Montanabw^(talk) 18:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Families sandbox

Thoroughbred horses are traced through the distaff or female line, known as their family, to the beginning of the General Stud Book (GSB). This was done because the mares produce many less foals than the sires do.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  Thoroughbred Stud books around the world cite pedigrees in tail female style as: sire – 1st dam (ie mother) - dam sire – 2nd dam (ie maternal grand dam) – and her sire etc. Horses that come from “good’ families will usually command better prices than one with an inferior family.

In about 1895 an Australian, Bruce Lowe wrote a treatise titled Breeding Racehorses by the Figure System. This work formulated a system of family numbers from the GSB mares as explained by Lowe: “The figures are derived from a statistical compilation of the winners of the three great English classic races , Derby, Oaks and (St )Leger. The family with the largest number of wins is No. 1, the next No. 2 and so on up to No. 34, though the figures actually run up to 43 and include families whose descendants have not won a classic race".”

For example, Old Bald Peg (6) is one of the earliest taproot dams, foaled c. 1650. Most, if not all modern Tbs trace their ancestry to her, through their sire and/or dam.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

During the 1950s Captain Kaziemierz Bobinski and Count Zamoyski co-operated to produce the monumental work, Family Tables of Racehorses. This work expanded Bruce Lowe's numbering system of GSB families and included families from other nations:

• Families 1-74 trace directly to a mare in the General Stud Book
• Families A1-A37 descend from American Stud Book mares who cannot be traced to the GSB
• Families Ar1-Ar2 are Argentinian families
• Families B1-B26 trace directly to Prior's Half-Bred Studbook
• Families C1-C16 are described in the Australian Stud Book as approved Colonial Families
• Families C17-C33 descend from Australian and New Zealand mares who cannot be traced to the GSB
• Families P1-P2 are Polish families

Bobinski later updated his works and split Lowe's families into sub categories (family 1 taproot, Tregonwell's Natural Barb Mare”. was sub-divided into 1-a [whose taproot mare was Bonny Lass], 1-b, 2-a etc). These numbers often follow a horse’s name in sale catalogues and pedigrees, much like a numerical surname. Today these family numbers are very helpful for checking the accuracy of pedigrees.Cgoodwin (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have appended my citations as I don’t wish to muck up any more of your work. Please feel free to slash and burn as required. Thank you very much for your long suffering patience and help.

Thoroughbred horses are traced through the distaff or female line, known as their family, from the beginning of the General Stud Book. This was done because the mares produce many less foals than the sires do.(footnote 1) Thoroughbred Stud books around the world cite pedigrees in tail female style as: sire – 1st dam (ie mother) - dam sire – 2nd dam (ie maternal grand dam) – and her sire etc. Horses that come from “good’ families will usually command better prices than one with an inferior family.(footnote 2) The horses listed below may indicate an example of this.

Snaafi Dancer (6) [family #6], a bay colt purchased by Sheikh Mohammed for $US10,200,000 and did not race. Retired to stud in 1986, he was found to have a fertility problem and only produced 4 offspring, three named and one un-named foal.(footnote 3)

Tommy Smith bought Tulloch (24) [family #24] for 750 guineas in 1956 at the Trentham Yearling Sales in NZ. He was one of Australia's best racehorses having 53 starts for 36 wins, 12 seconds and 4 thirds during his racing career.(footnote 4)

In about 1895 an Australian, Bruce Lowe wrote: “Breeding Racehorses by the Figure System”. This work formulated a system of family numbers from the GSB mares as explained by Lowe: “The figures are derived from a statistical compilation of the winners of the three great English classic races , Derby, Oaks and (St )Leger. The family with the largest number of wins is No. 1, the next No. 2 and so on up to No. 34, though the figures actually run up to 43 and include families whose descendants have not won a classic race”. He goes on to write “My own impression is that even these three great progenitors (referring to the 3 foundation sires) owe their survival and fame mostly to the female lines they were mated with. The Figure system is based mainly upon identifying and tracing the origin of these female lines”. (footnote 5)

Old Bald Peg (6) is one of the earliest tap-root dams, having been foaled in c. 1635. Most, if not all modern Tbs trace their ancestry to her, through their dam and/or sire.(footnote 6) Many horses were linebred or inbred to her, which increased the chances of such an early mare appearing in pedigrees of Tbs and quite a few other horses, too. (footnote 7 and 8) During the 1950’s Captain Kaziemierz Bobinski and Count Zamoyski co-operated to produce the monumental work Family Tables of Racehorses (footnote 9), commonly known as the Bobinski Tables. This work expanded Bruce Lowe's numbering system and identified a total of 74 families tracing to mares in the GSB. There were mares in several countries whose pedigrees had been lost or whose descendants had been bred up from Arabians etc and were unacceptable at that time to the Stud Books concerned. The Family Table of Racehorses expanded research into these female families of racehorses not traceable to the GSB, including:

• Families A1-A37 descend from American Stud Book mares who cannot be traced to the GSB
• Families Ar1-Ar2 are Argentinian families
• Families B1-B26 trace directly to Prior's Half-Bred Studbook
• Families C1-C16 are described in the Australian Stud Book as approved Colonial Families
• Families C17-C33 descend from Australian and New Zealand mares who cannot be traced to the GSB
• Families P1-P2 are Polish families

Bobinski later updated his works and split Lowe's families into sub categories (family 1 taproot, Tregonwell's Natural Barb Mare was sub-divided into 1-a [whose taproot mare was Bonny Lass], 1-b, 2-a etc). These numbers often follow a horse’s name in sale catalogues and pedigrees, much like a numerical surname. Today these family numbers are very helpful for checking the accuracy of pedigrees and comparing the contributions made by mares and their families.

1 and 2 “Blood Will Tell” by Miles Napier; J A Allen, London p. 17-18

3 http://www.pedigreequery.com/snaafi+dancer

4 http://www.pedigreequery.com/tulloch

5 "Breeding Racehorses by the Figure System”, compiled by Bruce Lowe, Edited by William Allison; The Field and Queen, London, facsimile, 1977; p. 2

6 Look here for racing's roots: http://archive.thisisyork.co.uk/2003/10/13/258161.html

7 Inbreeding: http://www.highflyer.supanet.com/inbreeding.htm

8 http://www.wildhorseadvertising.com/

9 Bloodlines: http://www.bloodlines.net/TB/Notes/ReferenceBooks.htm

<<Links>> Family Numbers: http://www.reines-de-course.com/family_numbers.htm

Family Numbers: http://www.bloodlines.net/TB/Families/FamilyNumbers.htm

I can't come up with an on the spot citation for the numbers, and the Tb and QH do their tallying differently. In North America I have no doubt that the QH are well ahead. Scrap that line! Cgoodwin (talk) 05:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm enough of a doofus that I'm not sure what goes where. How about you put (footnote 1) or something equally obvious that ties the location to your list and then I can format it, you can double check to see if I put the right thing in the right spot. Montanabw^(talk) 22:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, sorry for the confusion! I have included the footnotes and hope that they now make sense. Cgoodwin (talk) 09:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It works for me. Now all I need is the time to actually do the work. Be patient, if you can. Montanabw^(talk) 16:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts of GA

I'm beginning to work on this article in order to ready it for a nomination to Good Article status. The article really needs some work on organization, references, general cleanup and some expansion. If you have suggestions, comments, or would like to help, please feel free to post here or BE BOLD! As for my plans - I am first going to work on the cleanup and organization, then look to see what needs expansion. If you see things that look halfway done...they probably are! I'm working on this as I have time, and I may have to stop in the middle of some edits. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. The origins section needs serious expansion. Probably could use a section on numbers of Thoroughbreds around the world. France, UK, South America, New Zealand, India, Australia, the US, ... other spots? Ealdgyth | Talk 19:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I like your changes to date, on these big articles, my own approach is pretty similar.

1. First, clean up what's there in terms of wordsmithing, wikilinking, footnoting, fixing obvious errors
2. Then, eliminate redundancies and see if headings and organization should be rearranged
3. After that, add in any new sections that may have been missing
4. Reduce all of the above by ruthless editing of excess verbiage
5. Then rewrite 50 quadzillion times! (grin)

If we can whip this one into shape, the next challenge is horse racing and several related articles that are a disorganized disaster! Although for WikiProject Equine, I think horse tack and equine conformation may rank higher on the priority list, given that horse racing has its own project, however inactive it appears to be at the moment. Montanabw^(talk) 03:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to whack this article with my patented GA-pre-review-needs-facts-tag-crusade ... some of these I should be able to find citations for, but I get to go tractor shopping later today (just what every girl wants to do near Valentine's day... almost as much fun as the year I got a pistol for V's day!) so I'll have to come back to these tonight or tomorrow.Ealdgyth | Talk 17:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do so! I've added a ton of citations, but I know there are sections that are still sketchy. The origins section especially need referencing and expansion, and the breed characteristics isn't so hot either. I'll be working on this article more over the weekend as well, so between us we should be able to make some fairly significant headway. Have fun tractor shopping...right now we're dealing with baby goats that decided to arrive 2 weeks early in the middle of the night in below zero temps...how fun! Dana boomer (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll take tractor shopping, ugh! I will attempt to get to the origins section. Also, we need to reference to something besides All-Breed Pedigree Database for pedigrees, because anyone can edit that database, it's not a safe site. I have a number of TB history books, so I'll cite the heights from those tonight or tomorrow. We can leave the All Breed in in addition, so someone can see it online, but it needs a non-wiki-type cite also (annoying as it is.) And on the card for tonight or tomorrow is the expansion of the origins section also, I have the books, I just gotta find the time.... Ealdgyth | Talk 17:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Be careful to fact tag stuff rather than blank it, (some good material got blanked simply for being uncited a while back...don't think it was you guys) some of it is my old edits, I probably can find sites for some of it. (Fixed the definition thing). Montanabw^(talk) 01:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There, I think I've got the major breeding countries covered with at least stub sections. Expansion from there should be relatively easy, I hope. I'm going to make a pass at citations and then call it a night. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I ran through and did a round of cleanup, a little rearranging and found some sources. (Cool article on the Y-Chromosome Darley Arabian thing, FYI). OK with me to just let it cook for a bit. There is something missing, not sure what, somehow it just doesn't tie together. I think it's a question of organization more than content, not sure. I asked one of the Australian editors to give it a peek. Dana can also look over what we did if her baby goats let her! I want a tractor SOOO bad, how expensive are relatively new, good used ones these days, anyway? Montanabw^(talk) 07:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

We're getting there. I'll try to take a peek at the hidden comments (after I wake up and get my caffeine.) I'm going to ditch the Marguerite Henry citation though, as soon as we find something better. I think that one might not fly at GA (laughs). As for tractors, we're looking at baby ones, just enough for a posthole digger and front loader. $4K new. Not sure used, it was raining too much to hit the used places yesterday. Ealdgyth | Talk 14:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think I'm done for a bit. Next? Ealdgyth | Talk 16:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Citations

Are all updated to use the citation template, so I don't have to try to remember whether the period goes after the author or before the publisher or whatever. I am PROBABLY done for a bit. I can only handle working on an article so long before i go insane. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL, agreed. Nice work on the citations. Dana boomer (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Push toward GA

Starting a new section for easier editing...

My thoughts are that what is needed next is:

• An expanded/improved lead section
• Expansions of the last three subsections of the History section. They appear far too short in comparison to the other sections.
• A cleanup of the breed lines section. It's well-referenced but rather hard to read/understand.

One concern (partly in response to Countercanter's remarks on Montana's talk page) is that we don't want too much information that should be in the horse racing articles here. A summary is good, but for the most part we should just point them to those articles as the "main" ones. This article is already fairly long, and having redundant information will make it start to be yawn-inspiring, IMHO.

I'm not sure how much work I'll be able to do on the article over the next couple of days. We're having a fairly severe ice storm over my part of the country right at the moment, and it's threatening to cut off power and basically shut everything down, so I'm not sure how much access I'll have to the internet (lovely dial-up away from work!). I'll get on as much as possible, but I'm not sure how much help I'll be in the last stages toward GA. The article is looking great though...much better than it did a week or so ago! Dana boomer (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm heading out of town Wed and will be gone until Monday night (Vegas, baby, Vegas!) so chances of much more work happening aren't going to be good. The history sections need some expansion, but they do need coverage, so we don't get accusations of US and/or UK bias in the article. TB Heritage is a great site, as is National Museum of Racing and [Bloodlines.net. This one is from Australia RIRDC site, not sure how much is on there that is useful. I left a pile of links on Montana's talk page also. I have a lot of stuff in books, the problem is finding it, as some of the books aren't indexed. Ealdgyth | Talk 21:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've done some work on the breed lines, trying to make it less eye-crossing and more readable for people who aren't breed experts. Please feel free to edit more...

NOTE: In the first quote it says Lowe developed 43 families, later, in the second to last paragraph, it says he developed 50. I don't have the sources, so could someone please fix this contradiction? Dana boomer (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There 43 families in his book. More families were traced later by others. Cgoodwin (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the error. Perhaps I should have mentioned that horses by the same sire are not termed as related unless there is a maternal connection. Thoughts?? Cgoodwin (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say yes, if you can keep it concise, clear and easy for the non-expert to understand. Dana boomer (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Half brothers and sisters are horses which have the same dam but a different sire(not applied to horses by the same sire). Cgoodwin (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Add it in and reference it (using the templates, please, there are examples for both web and books already in that section). We can tweak it later if necessary. Dana boomer (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

History Section

I'm not being able to find much online about the history of Thoroughbreds in Australia/New Zealand, Japan and South America. What would you all think about combining these sections into one and titling it something like "Thoroughbreds Around the World" or "Thoroughbreds in Other Locations"? On the other hand, if people have more info on these sections, I would love to see them expanded...I'm just not having much luck doing it myself!

I know that Ealdgyth is out of town and Montana's been busy with some rather large brush fires, but comments would be appreciated. Dana boomer (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

CGoodwin is good on Australian stuff, ask her. I think that Au/NZ will probably wind up staying in its own section once she is done adding material, but otherwise, combining the sections into an "around the world" section would work, at least until each nation is more than a single paragraph. I mean, there is Japan, South America, South Africa, Dubai...the list is truly endless, and articles on every nation in the world, well, look at the mess horse racing is in...!

As for other large brush fires, WHY ME GOD!!!???!!! It really IS called quality control, I just have one nerve left, ARRGH! (OK, trying to find an LOL here too!) I need a hug... Montanabw^(talk) 05:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I have recently started to research the history of racing in Australia with the intent of adding to the Thoroughbred racing in Australia article - it may take a while. You may find the following links useful in expanding the existing article content:

• Thoroughbred Horse Racing in Australia
• Thoroughbred Horse Racing and Breeding in South Africa

Congratulations Dana boomer on your work on this article. - Cuddy Wifter (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I expanded the TB in america section, it should be reasonably complete now. I'm going to work on the European section a bit shortly. Ealdgyth | Talk 18:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

GA push, revisited

I agree the flow could be better. I'm thinking some of it is the location of the first three sections, the ones on Word usage, breed characteristics and age. It might be worth sitting down and thinking of a standardized format for the breed articles, so that they all share the same framework and order. But in this particular case, I think that the word and age sections are too minor for major section, and need to be incorporated somewhere else, at the very least at the end of the article. I'm still not sure where the Breed Lines subsection fits best at. Honestly, it'd probably be best to put that information into their own article, and deal with Bobinski numbers, Lowe families, and dosage in that article. Call it "Thoroughbred Breeding theories" or something like that. In light of that .. I have The Theory and Science of Thoroughbred Genetics on pre-order, which might be nice to incorporate into this article eventually. Dana mentioned that she's concerned about a few sources, mind listing them so we can work on replacing them? Ealdgyth | Talk 18:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The specific questionable references are numbers 12, 62, 73 and 77. Also, there is a question about the differences between the two French studbooks in the TB's in Europe History section. Dana boomer (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Took care of 73 and 77. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Got the last two. The French Stud Book is beyond me. What's there accurately reflects what's in the source, but if we knock it out it won't hurt my feelings. We could just say that the French Stud Book was founded in whatever and leave off the Societe bit. I don't read French at all, so finding information is going to be difficult. Ealdgyth | Talk 21:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Could we perhaps combine the age section with the breed characteristics section, and then the terminology section at the bottom of the breed lines part with the word use section and call the whole thing "terminology"? This would get rid of some of the shorter sections... I agree that the complicated breed lines stuff should probably have its own article. Dana boomer (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Go ahead and do that while I work on finding other citations for 12 and 62. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, the new article has been created, and the sections rearranged. I'm going to quit editing for a while, so we don't mess each other up. I'll check in later tonight and see what's up. Feel free to rewrite the breed lines article/section, I basically did a copy, paste, and quick summary. Dana boomer (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm done for now, I think. I really don't get into Bobinski numbers and the Figure System and all that stuff... so I really can't help much on the article. It's important stuff, and very notable for Thoroughbred breeding, I just don't have much information on it. I should probably try to expand the General Stud Book and American Stud Book articles, huh? I figure we pester CounterCanter, Cuddy, Cora and Montana to look this over and then do the nitpicky copyediting before the GA nomination. Ealdgyth | Talk 21:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse breeds does have a rough template. However, if we look to the layout of our previous GAs, Appaloosa and Arabian horse, maybe that will give us something more solid, to the extent that the structure of those articles differs from the project outline. Both share the characteristics of being breeds with a LOT of historical stuff, and the Arabian article has a number of sections related to different nations. I like the idea of breaking out the breeding theories section, haven't read the new article yet,,, I actually think I am starting to get the system a little, but Cgoodwin is the one who created that section and seems to know it best. As for overall organizing, if you have a spare ream of paper, sometimes the thing to do is to just print out the article, spread it out on the floor, and look at the entire thing at once. Another useful tool is to just look at the outline that is automatically generated and see if the sections are arranged in a sensible way. I am sort of clearing out the remnants of my little brush fire in the tack articles, but I will TRY to give this a good look see over the next couple of days. Montanabw^(talk) 02:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

GA push, again...

GA pre-pre-review...

• In the lead, consider changing "English mares" to "native mares" - Done
• The lead is pretty choppy feeling with the prose. Lots of short sentences in the second paragraph that might be better off combined, or (my preference) expanded.
• Lead does feel skimpy. Right now the article is holding at about 51K characters, which WP:LEDE says means about three or four paragraphs. They should probably be a bit bigger.
• Terminology section ...Okay, explain to me again why we have the general statement about half-brothers and sisters in the TB article? I'm not sure it's really needed, honestly. - Moved to horse breeding article
• The statement that "...in modern usage, horse aficionados consider it a sign of ignorance to refer to any horse as a "thoroughbred" unless it is a pedigreed Thoroughbred recorded with a recognized breed registry." needs a citation. I THINK I might have one ... I just need to find it.
• HOrse racing subsection (Under Uses) the third paragraph fits oddly there. Might it not fit better somewhere else or being eliminated It's really more of a racing issue than a strict breed issue. - Moved to horse racing article

I don't claim to have caught every bit of awkward prose. I've stared at this article too much to be able to do that! Honestly, if we could find out more about foreign breeding statistics and stuff, we're getting close to FA on this. Or at least closer. I'm going to set up archiving on this page too, it's starting to get a bit long. Anyone object to MizaBot archiving it automatically, say after 30 days? Ealdgyth | Talk 00:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. I'm so tired after other wikiwars that I can't see an article straight right now; maybe tomorrow when I have access to a big desktop computer and a faster connection... Montanabw^(talk) 06:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No objections to MizaBot. I'll start working on your comments... Dana boomer (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I marked off above the ones that I've completed. I expanded the lead some, but it still needs more work. Some tweaking is still in order in the history summary I think, it feels off to me but I can't get it to read right. I don't know, maybe you'll have better luck! Dana boomer (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Some thoughts and suggestions: Possibly move the "Terminology" section (a minor section) to after "Uses" and before "Controversies". In the lead, either delete the sentence about terminology or move it to the end of the lead paragraph. In the second sentence of the lead remove "as it is known today". I question the "believe" that 500,000 Thoroughbreds exist today. Where did New Scientist get that number. The only figures I have been able to find are from The Jockey Club Factbook THOROUGHBRED RACING AND BREEDING WORLDWIDE which show 195,304 Brood mares worldwide and an annual foal crop of 118,462. These numbers would suggest that a Thoroughbred popluation of 500,000 is probably a little lite. Thanks to everyone for the great work on this article. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Finally getting around to replying to this... IMHO, the terminology section is good where it is, just to get that info across right off the bat (both in the lede and the actual section itself), so that people looking for a definition of "purebred" can find what they're looking for, as opposed to reading through the whole article and realizing that they're actually reading about a specific breed. I tweaked the section on the numbers to make it slightly clearer and add some more stats. Hopefully it's better now... Dana boomer (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

While I was out of town last week, I picked up a new book that hopefully will help with this article, and the history section. At least it finally clarified that pesky French Stud book issue. Now to find the time to get it into the article... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, added in the information. I suggest we add in the bits about the worldwide broodmare numbers in place of the 500,000. JC is likely to be a bit more accurate than the other source. Now... someone volunteer to copyedit this puppy? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice work on the history section. I've tweaked the population numbers in both the registration section and the intro, as I found a JC source that cited almost 1.3 million TBs in the US alone...definitely not 500k worldwide! Should be better now, but feel free to tweak. I did a bit of copyediting, and I'll probably take a couple more runs through today making minor changes. Should we nominate now, since the GA process is a bit backed up and it could take a while to get a review? Dana boomer (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's make the copyedit passes. Sometimes your article will attract attention from someone interested in the subject and get reviewed quicker. There is not requirement that reviewers go in order of nominations, so it is best to be mostly ready when you put it up. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm cheering for you , gang, but still in wiki-hell, so can't help here. Montanabw^(talk) 23:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana's doing great work dealing with my choppy prose! We're getting there. Think we could get User:Gwinva to do a pass through and copyedit? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Gwinva says she'll look it over after things calm down within the next two weeks. Otherwise, it's looking pretty good. I'll try to do a copyedit pass this weekend. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's me! I've been through and made a few minor changes, removing the odd wordiness and fixing a couple of grammar/punctuation points. I might pop back in a few days, as I usually miss heaps the first run through (too busy reading). Looks pretty good, though. Gwinva (talk) 10:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Stuff

I pulled out the last redlinks, they need articles, but I'm not going to get to them any time soon. No sense holding the redlink for them. We're looking good on size, 43K of readable prose. A bit higher than most FA's, but not by much. Readablity tests shows nothing horrid. Let Gwinva look it over again and we'll see what happens. Dana's done great work here! Now to work on Horse.... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If everyone else is OK, I say put it up! Go, go, go! Montanabw^(talk) 04:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm being polite and waiting for Gwinva to tell us she's done. (yes, I know, me polite, but I can be sometimes...) Ealdgyth - Talk 04:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you going for GA or FA here?? Montanabw^(talk) 04:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

GA first, I think. Committee prose can use all the help it can get, and if we get a good GA reviewer (Which will probably happen, certain folks like picking apart things I nominate, which is good for the article in the end) it will be as good as a PR. If that happens, GA then I'll pester a friend to do a copyedit and then FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As soon as Gwinva gives the go-ahead, I say put it up for GA! Your plan for the path to FA sounds good, Ealdgyth. Dana boomer (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! I did do a second sweep, just never mentioned it here. I think it's ready to list. (Nice of you to wait for me to join the party!) Gwinva (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Done! Put it up as a joint nom. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of April 18, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Mostly very well-written, but there are some nagging issues in the Terminology section. To the new reader, the section felt like it was biased, and strayed from simply stating the facts. It uses rather prescriptive, instructional-sounding language; phrases like "it should" are not really encyclopedic in nature (an encyclopedia describes, it does not advise). Blankly calling the non-breed usage of thoroughbred incorrect smacks of dictating what is correct (or not) in horse terminology. The alternative I see is to say that modern enthusiasts, breeders, owners or what-have-you think it's incorrect. The last sentence of the section is likewise inappropriate, and should be removed entirely. Other than that problematic section, the prose is well-written and a joy to read.

2. Factually accurate?: Meets and exceeds the GA criteria for in-line citation use. Great work! However, there are a few issues at hand: you use the ref syntax to further explain concepts and facts, rather provide citations. Ref numbers 14 and 7 stand out as being examples of inappropriate usage. Such statements do not verify anything, and thus shouldn't be a part of the References. Either include them in the text, or remove them. Last, you replicate some reference materials in entire several times as footnotes. It's not a pass/fail issue, but I would suggest creating a separate section to contain the full book reference, so you can just cite the author and page numbers in your footnote. It'll be much clearer verification that way.

3. Broad in coverage?: Certainly broad in coverage.

4. Neutral point of view?: This is also largely a readability issue, but WP:NPOV also touches upon it (without forbidding it outright). Generally speaking, maintaining segregated controversy section is a poor idea. As the controversies about the breed has to do with its health and breeding, I suggest merging these with appropriate sections. I'll let you decide where this might be, whether it's health, history or Registration, breeding, and population (which, btw, is a really long section title. can you think of a better term to include all those?).

5. Article stability? Obviously stable, no edit wars, etc.

6. Images?: All images have proper licensing and source info. I would suggest changing to a lead image that has better composition (the current one is too bright and is a bit blurry), though that's just a suggestion. Also, note that WP:MOS#Images discourages separating headers from text with left aligned images.

For readability, please place any comments or questions pertaining to the hold below rather than within the body of the review. Thank you!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. VanTucky 03:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If Dana doesn't get to these issues by Monday, I'll be home and able to take care of them Tuesday. None of them look that difficult to resolve, I don't think. Dana's done most of the non-history editing, so I'll defer to her on that, unless she can't deal with it. I'll get the extraneous footnotes out if I have time while I'm on the road, otherwise Tuesday. Sound good? Ealdgyth - Talk 05:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I dealt with the footnotes and the last sentence of the terminology section. Will drop a note on Dana's page about the others Ealdgyth - Talk 14:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I'm in no hurry for the rest. Regards, VanTucky 00:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a couple issues with VanTucky's analysis. Not that we can't make improvements in style, but I am not wanting to throw the baby out with the bathwater. First off, Thoroughbred, at least when applied to horses, IS a proper noun and DOES have to be capitalized. (God knows I've had to fix it enough times in other articles. ) I think it is an important point to make, even if we have to reword it somehow. On a related note, we can tone down the correct/incorrect language, but it is in fact just plain dead wrong in the horse world to call any purebred horse a "thoroughbred" except for Thoroughbreds. We can say it nicely, but it must be said. Somehow.

The second issue is that I really think it is appropriate to segregate off the controversies and identify them as such. Doing so avoids future edit wars, and these issues are in fact debatable. It is possible that some could be lumped into other sections, but they don't all fit that neatly. Third, please show me any guideline that says that a footnote must only contain a citation and cannot also be used to provide parenthetical data that is of minor importance to hardcore aficionados. I am thinking in particular the Byerley Turk comment that was removed. Some info is fairly trivial, but if not noted somewhere, somehow, it will be edited and commented upon later. Footnotes in books are sometimes used to provide such information, why not here?

I wish there was an ideal lead image, but this is better than what there was before, that's all I can say. If anyone has links to something better, please shoot us the link. I have to say this is the first time I have heard an image called "too" bright! LOL! So that's my two bits, but I shall defer to the more active editors for now. Montanabw^(talk) 03:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree on the terminology section, I know you love your definition/etimology sections, but it doesn't flow well with the article and I'd rather less emphasis was laid on it, myself. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise, I will worry about it later, when I get home. I don't have any books to help reference a new terminology section here with me, so it'll have to wait until I get home. The footnotes on the Byerley turk would be more important in the article on him, where we can go into more detail. same for the color's, and if folks want to edit it in here, we can just refer them to the fuller articles on the BT and the colors where the information fits better. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

We can move it or otherwise not make it too dominant if that helps the GA nom go through. (It can even go at the end, as does the one in mare (horse)). But yes, I do think they are useful, (I can't help it, I had an English minor) and truth is, when there are a lot of misunderstandings and misuses, they can even be a public service! LOL! As for the color ref, it's OK to toss it and I think the Byerlyy Turk article does address the Turkoman issue, so that's not a biggie, either. I guess my gripe was more on the general principle that a footnote can be for more than a citation, can it not? Montanabw^(talk) 06:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree that we need some sort of a terminology section, as no-one who is truly a horse person uses the term "thoroughbred" to describe a purebred of another breed, but people just learning about horses might, without knowing the difference. As I've argued before, if someone came to this article trying to find out what a purebred horse was, there should be something to tell them that this is not the right article. I will agree that moving it farther down the article might be best.

I'm about to toss the footnotes that aren't actually references. I agree with Montana on the general principle thing, but for the moment that's not what we're arguing.

I also think that we should keep the controversies section seperate, as these are ongoing issues that influence all aspects of the Thoroughbred world and have parts in their history, breed characteristics, the sports they are used in, and basically everything else about them as a breed.Dana boomer (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Allright, I've tossed the remaining non-reference footnotes. Feel free to change if I messed anything up! VanTucky, what are your thoughts on what there is remaining to do? Dana boomer (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're all hesitant to integrate a controversy section, then that's up to you. I don't think it's a pass/fail issue, though I do think it's NPOV. Highlighting controversy by putting it in a special section, rather than the in the natural flow of facts about history, breeding and health, is likely to draw more attention to it artificially and make the article unbalanced. The spirit of NPOV means that criticism and controversy isn't given any special treatment. But whatever you want to do is still GA, since it's written and cited well. As for terminology, it is the convention (especially for FA candidates in my experience) to have the terminology section come first. I would strongly recommend undoing the move. Thank you for the work on the style of the section, it's much better (though "horse world" is pretty ambiguous to the uninitiated, a more specific, less colloquial term would be better). Let me know what you want to do with the above-mentioned sections, and I'll pass the article. Thanks very much for your work, VanTucky 00:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've undone the move of the terminology section. My vote will still be to keep the controversies and terminology sections as is. Ealdgyth and Montana, your views? Dana boomer (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at it later tonight. We're going down to the Bellagio to eat/shop/gawk. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No moral issues involved, I'm OK with keeping both controversies and terminolgy sections, obviously. I'm happy with it as is. I just like to spat with VanTucky! (grin) Montanabw^(talk) 05:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

We probably should move the controversies, etc. into the main text, if we're going to go to FAC. FAC prefers that the sections not be separate, and we'll just run into this issue again at FAC. I added a backup print ref for the terminology section, just to keep thinks working (I really dislike googlebooks refs, as they aren't always accessable to all folks). What else needs to be dealt with besides the controversies? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that this is important, than by all means switch them over. I really have no idea where they would go in the rest of the article, or I'd do it myself. Also, do we want to switch the book references over as VanTucky suggested? Would we use the same cite book template we're using now? Let me know, and I can work on this. Dana boomer (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I see you guys are discussing some of the issues I brought up. I'll say again that I agree with Ealdgyth, he knows what he's talking about when it comes to the future FAC. Since you're still working on those (obviously you did the GA nom for a preliminary effort before your goal of FA), and otherwise it meets the criteria, I'll pass it soon. Thanks for all your hard work, it looks superb. VanTucky 20:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(tickles Van) I'm a she. Look up Ealdgyth sometime. The book thing you'd want it to look somewhat like Easy Jet, where you use a short ref in the notes and just the cite template in the references section. Let me look at the TB article in a bit and see if I see a good spot for the controversy stuff. I was so focused on the history stuff before I didn't really look at the rest of the article at the end of our editing stuff. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to start working on switching the book references over. I doubt I'll get them all done tonight, so things might be kind of messy for a little bit. I'll try not to totally screw everything up :) Dana boomer (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm done for the moment, if anyone else wants to have a crack at playing with the article. I've done a good chunk of the books, but not all of them. I'll try to finish up tomorrow if no one else gets to them first. Dana boomer (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Did a few more...Ealdgyth - Talk 02:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I got the books. We should probably move the magazine and newspaper articles over as well. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as the "Controversies" section goes, would we solve much of the problem by just naming it "Health Issues" or something similar? It is pretty much all about the health and breakdowns stuff, which isn't so much a "controversy" like, say, abortion is a controversy, it's more an ongoing debate over how bad the problem is, why it occurs and what to do about it. Montanabw^(talk) 22:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...this might be the solution. I think I like it... Ealdgyth? Dana boomer (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It works better than controversies, that's for sure. Let me look over the article again and double check on things. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think the controversial subjects belong here, but the 'Health Issues' title might be the way to go. Other possibilities: 'Racing risks' or 'Racing injuries'... I think that the selective breeding and excess loading theories are not really contradictory, but part of the same picture. These fit well as risk factors, although I think really as risks for different issues. Foot issues are bred in, but better bones are too. (I also seriously question the 5% number for underdeveloped hearts...) For example, the 'osteologically delicate' sentence is not well supported by the literature. Racehorse cannon bones are thicker than in any other breed. Strictly speaking, horse bones are overbuilt. While it is well established that overtraining leads to fatigue and accumulated microtrauma of all connective tissue structures (which includes bone), and rapid advancement of young horses doesn't allow for full bone (or tendon/ligament) development, it is also well known that careful training and adequate rest between races allows for very strong bones. No horse in the wild runs as fast as a racehorse. I think it is safe to say that racehorses have been bred to test the limits of nature in their abilities, and that they also test the limits of their own structures, as magnificent as they are. I will fool around in my sandbox with some possible restructuring and some other references, and see what everyone thinks. I'll try to have something to look at tomorrow morning so that we don't throw a wrench into all the great work that's been happening here. And, again, it's only my two cents. Nothing written in stone.--Getwood (talk) 01:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have played around with the 'Health Issues' section in my sandbox: Health issues sandbox. I left the controversy stuff, but tried to rephrase the headings a bit. It's not really that much different. It would be great if all involved could have a look at it and see if it works. Thanks, Getwood (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the rephrasing you've done. Less NPOV and more informative. I'd vote to include as written. Dana boomer (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I like it too, but I made a few small tweaks also. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I don't mean to break the flow of your work, but is this a good time for me to pass the article? I prefer to have a semi-stable version to pass (i.e. one that isn't waiting for the group to agree on). Thanks, VanTucky 17:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we'll be putting in a new Health issues section, which you can see Health issues sandbox here but otherwise it's pretty stable. Sorry to be wishywashy, but this is definitely a joint effort! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience VanTucky. The changes here aren't meant to be a major re-write, but an effort to address some of the issues that existed with a controversy section. Most of the changes I made were cosmetic, with a few minor modifications. For the most part, it's looking like all contributors are pretty much on the same page, with some non-controversial positive edits by Ealdgyth (which I have read and agree with). Montanabw has been the other main contributor. I vote that we see what she thinks and if Dana boomer likes the edits. My guess is that we're very close to a stable version that can be installed very soon.--Getwood (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with Getwood's sandbox edits. They are a definite improvement, but do not dramatically change what's there. I say stick them in and go for it! VT, the article is basically pretty stable and there are, as far as I can tell, no significant disagreements amongst the four editors working on it here, we're just one big happy family that is just fussily nitpicking our own work! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 18:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I've passed the article as GA class. Thanks very much for your hard work and your patience. Congratulations, and I look forward to seeing this at FAC. Best regards, VanTucky 02:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Survey

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

• Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?

• If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?

• Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?

At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Dank55, where do we reply? Montanabw^(talk) 04:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is good. Thanks. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Feedback: No, amount provided seems OK, particularly as "sparkling prose" is kind of a fuzzy concept. Write a lot outside wikipedia: Yes, but I try to keep my profession anonymous on wiki and thus details here would disclose it, but I do write a considerable amount of essentially technical, non-fiction (though considerably creativity is often required - grin) work requiring extensive citation to authority as part of my profession. Unrelated to my day job, I have also published a few articles on horse-related topics in assorted regional horse magazines and in one nationally-distributed periodical. Influences within wiki: Not really, though the Military History WikiProject members raked me over the coals pretty good when I started and helped make me what I am today.

What doesn't fit with my writing style: Sometimes the feedback on articles is a little bit too "term paper 101" in terms of mechanistic insistence on a footnote for every paragraph, (when some paragraphs may need one every sentence and at other times the same source may be used for an entire subsection). The concept that the lead needs to mechanically touch on each article section as opposed to being a catchy summary to draw in the reader is also a bit too "SAT essay" for my tastes. But those are mostly just whines.

Hope this helps. Montanabw^(talk) 22:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A note on notes

I know I am late to the party, but it seems that notes do have their place. While I agree that this place is not in the references section, there is a relatively simple way to separate the two. I guess the relevant questions here are a) how important are the notes for this article, and b) can a GA article have a notes section separate from a references section...

Here's a little example:

Thoroughbreds are fast. Thoroughbreds are pretty.^a Actively racing thoroughbreds have high density cannon bones.

Notes

^[a] Getwood thinks so

References

My point is not to throw a monkey wrench into the works, especially since this problem seems to already be resolved, and the article is approaching GA status... But, I thought it was at least worth bringing up. Thanks, Getwood (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the two notes that were here were tangential, and belonged more in the articles on the specific horse and on horse color, but thanks for the help with the notes thing. I will say that my recent FA used notes interchangeably, and an article I'm planning on taking to FAC shortly will also use them that way. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey cool! I didn't know you could do that! (Learn something every day) I suppose if the types of edits that generated the issue of needing tangential notes re-emerge at a later date, that would be a good way to handle it. Montanabw^(talk) 04:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I also was unaware you can do that. It’s indeed a good way to handle it.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

References

I've begun to switch over the references from magazines and newspapers to the new format. I've only done a few, because I'm not completely sure if I'm doing them right *grin*. Ealdgyth, could you check out refs 22-26 and see if this is what you were thinking of? I'm trying to copy what you did with the Easy Jet article, but I'm not totally sure I'm getting it :) Please let me know, and I'll finish up the rest of them... Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I'd stick with last name, article title and journal, which is enough to identify the source so you can find it in the bibliography. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think I got them all. It would be great if someone else could take a quick run through and make sure, though :) Dana boomer (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I double checked them, and they looked good. I did a bit of format changing to make the refs not over balance the article. I'll leave a note on VT's page saying I think we're done. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Out of town

I will be gone until Sunday evening, and unable to access the internet during that time. I have been a minor contributor to this page, and trust the judgement of the major editors Ealdgyth, Dana boomer and Montanabw. The edited version of the Health section is viewable at User:Getwood/Sandbox/Thoroughbred. At the top of the page, edits are viewable. At the bottom of the page is a clean version without strikeouts, etc. I will be happy with whatever the group comes up with (as long as the fragile bones thing stays gone... See Wolff's law for explanation of bone modeling in response to load). Thanks, and a great weekend to all. Getwood (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone want to add the rewrite in the sandbox to the article, or have a problem if I do so? Montanabw^(talk) 19:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've dropped the section into the article. Dana boomer (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Next step

Okay, the next step is probably a peer review. If no one objects, I'll go ahead and list it in the morning, it usually runs for two weeks or so. I'm going to be out of town until the 11th or so. I'll have internet intermittantly, just no library of books, so that'll limit some of my usefulness. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

First peer review is in, and I've done some of the tweaks suggested. The dash thing is easiest to do with a request to a person who has a script that will fix them. I'll do that when we are ready to go to FAC. There are still a few issues at the PR, you can find them by following the link above in the peer review request box where it says "request". Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Works for me, go for it. My only question is if we want to wait a few more days for the Eight Belles thing to quiet down. I've been reverting stuff on her placed in really odd spots (like the Western riding article. WTF??)

FYI, per a previous edit, I made yet another tweak to the "please don't call other breeds 'Thoroughbreds'" section, putting the better-phrased sentence sooner in the paragraph. There were sentences in two different places saying basically the same thing, so tossed one. But why oh why do people so get their unders in a bunch when you tell them something IS actually incorrect usage? Yeah, I know, it's my weak spot, but some days I feel like I am the only person left on planet earth who cares about the degradation of language related to horses (I am still cringing even time some newspaper says Eight Belles broke her "ankles" PASTERNS! PASTERNS YOU MORONS!!!) Sorry ... (choking incoherently) Just please, give me 24 hours without my running across yet another idiot who says "reign in." (xpmpth, gxrposdiurlp) (wiping spittle from computer screen...) Montanabw^(talk) 05:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've dropped in a new photo, which involves a less-quickly-moving (not very grammatical, but you get the point) horse that is moving into the article, as suggested. If there are any problems with this photo, or if anyone else has a better one, please feel free to revert or change... I've also rewritten the last paragraph of the intro so as to better reflect the rewritten health issues section. Dana boomer (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Works for me, though I did like the running horse better. This new one is OK too, though. Too bad there are no public domain images of Secretariat (horse)! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 23:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, technically, because Secy boy is dead, we could use a fair use image of him but it probably wouldn't fly at FAC because the article isn't about him. I think this one is probably okay. So. We did Peer Review, and it was helpful. Are we ready to think about FAC soon? I've just got done with looking at a huge pile of articles, some of which deal with TBs, so I think I'd like a week to digest them and maybe work them into the article. Some of them are vet type things dealing with race horse breakdowns, etc. One is titled "Advertising and pricing policies in the equine breeding industry or sex and the single stallion" which I'm not sure will have anything terribly interesting to add in, but I'm dying to get a ref into as many articles as possible just because the title is too cool. Back to FAC, I plan to do a joint nom, Dana, Montana, myself, and who else do we need to add in? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ask Cgoodwin definitely. That was who got us going on all the bloodline stuff. And maybe old editors like Cuddy Witter or Culnacreann, though they haven't been real active? Just ideas Montanabw^(talk) 04:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

FAC

It's up at FAC now. It usually takes a bit of time before the feeding frenzy starts. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

TB price stats

Did some fast research on TB prices, here are links and my summary. Not sure where or if this needs to go into the article, but for what it's worth:

• http://extension.umd.edu/publications/PDFs/FS665.pdf Interesting analysis by Maryland State Extension Service of factors that go into TB pricing, particularly the mid-level horses that sell int he 20-30K range.

• http://ww2.keeneland.com/sales/lists/sale/results.aspx?SaleId=200802 Assorted Keeneland sales results.

• http://ww2.keeneland.com/sales/lists/sale/results.aspx?SaleId=200802 Sample search of all yearlings who sold for more than $1,000,000 last fall.

Hope this is a start. I kind of wonder if the price thing has a good place to be worked in and if it would be a PITA to maintain, as data could get dated so fast? Montanabw^(talk) 21:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think just a flavour is needed, and a link to this useful site. It could go in Uses, or the racing sub-section, or on its own. Basically: Some Ts are very pricey, as much as XX at yearling stage (or whatever) bla bla, but most are not bla bla. Top stud fees can exceed XXX. Something like that. Johnbod (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good suggestion, thanks Johnbod. I'll let the prose smiths do their work, they write better than I do. Montana? Dana? Getwood? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"bla bla"? ;-) You mean you want me to actually do some WORK? LOL! More to the point, where in the article should we put this bit, as it probably will be just one sentence? Wisdom of the collective mind? Montanabw^(talk) 08:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd think usage, myself. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I threw some data and sourcing up in the Usage section. We need to get sales averages for the UK if possible? Still looking for data on stud fees. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

More is up, including some UK stuff. Stud fees are still lacking. Next up, mine out Blood-horse Ealdgyth - Talk 20:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

There, someone else can copyedit my (poor) prose. (grins) I think I covered most of the details, it's pretty dry reading! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

more injuries in the US

I heard that more injuries happen in the US because of the type of tracks the horses run on. i don't have a reliable source Elie (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!

I just came over to say support after all that and you'd already got your gong. Well done. Fainites ^barley 19:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Length and wgt

I was looking for information on avg length and wgt for adult thoroughbreds. I was wonder if anybody else thinks this info is interesting and/or important and should be included? (Sorry but I am still looking for accurate data so I can't be any help - but maybe the contrib's to the article know what/where to look.) Thanks

MajorDill (talk) 19:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone bothers to measure the length of horses, even chest to tail (for buying blankets) people have to get out a tape...and it's really rather impossible to measure neck to tail because of how much mobility is in a horse's neck... as for weight, we have thought about adding that, but the problem is finding a good enough quality source that had any kind of scientifically verifiable averages. We looked at the question when the article went up for FA status and couldn't find good enough stats. For your own information, I can say that many TB's will probably weigh in between 1,000 and 1,200 lbs, but that's a real rough average, and doesn't reflect more than the rough average weight for a well-conditioned horse of around 16 hands...a fat 17 hand retiree could easily be heavier! Montanabw^(talk) 06:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Size

I have, once again, corrected the conversion from hands high to centimeters since the numbers given were totally wrong. I hope that this time user:Montanabw will keep his hands off the changes. Or better still fix the converter since it seems like the same f* up conversion has been used for all horse breeds on Wikipedia... Allan Akbar (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Colours

The various colour terms reverted here [1] are, I'm pretty sure, known in America only. If they are restored this point should be made clear. Johnbod (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Buckskin does not occur in the thoroughbred, at all. Roan, as far as I know, does not either, although the US JC calls some horses roans (it's used for a gray horse on a chesntut base color, as I recall). The main reason I reverted was that the information doesn't occur in those sources. If someone has a reliable source for those white markings happening, it would need to be added in with its own source, not in a sentence that is already sourced. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

On one hand, I do agree that the US and UK registries have differences of opinion on some of these coat color issues. (The UK has issues with USA pedigrees on occasion in general) That said, the USA registry acknowledges the colors sourced. However, what is weird is that both buckskin AND palomino are created by the cream gene, so if palomino occurs, then buckskin also must, unless there are no bays in the breed! LOL! Also, "roan" Thoroughbreds are either mislabeled young grays or, if adults, actually sabino or rabicano, which is also true in the Arabian horse, from which the Thoroughbred originated. (No real roan Arabians, even though labeled as such by the registry, but lots of Sabinos and Rabicanos, I've seen some) Now the mystery here is how a few overos snuck into the TB gene pool, as the gene is there in US horses, I personally suspect a quarter horse in the woodpile (which is also where I bet the cream gene came from, IMHO -- these are Iberian horse genetics), but of course, no one is telling. I really don't buy the "it's a random mutation" theory. On the other hand, the truly white TBs are a REAL mystery--as I think some of them are in Europe and Japan so the "damn yankees" theory doesn't fit there... anyway, just my two bits on the general topic. In terms of the actual article, I'm with Ealdgyth. This article is FA and we want to keep it that way, so Footnote EVERYTHING! Montanabw^(talk) 22:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

American TBs have spread over the whole world, there are few spots that don't have some American bloodlines any more. And yes, there are QHs in some of the TB lines. I know that Peter McCue's registered TB offspring bred on for a while. Abe Frank is reputed to have had short horse lines. For that matter, Black Gold was definitely not "pure" TB. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No wonder the UK GSB has fits! Of course, I can't help but wonder if European lines occasionally have snuck in a warmblood or something. Human beings are human beings, and well, horses also do what comes naturally, sometimes on the sly. Who knows what goes on behind the barn or in the back pasture, eh? LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 23:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Oz ASB does not recognise buckskins, palominos or roans: http://www.studbook.org.au/DisplayPDF.aspx?ty=VET . White foals are regularly produced. I have seen some overo racehorses and I'm sure that there would not be any QH genetics involved. See also Appache Cat: http://apachecatdownunder.googlepages.com/apache'sphotogallery Cgoodwin (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Arabian blood could have thrown that high white in, my purebred Arabian IXL Noble Express daughter has a decent sized belly spot (Don't suggest trying to touch it though.. she's all park horse!) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I, too, did read that US roans are actually gray horses with a chestnut base color. I believe that Apache Cat has a relative that is even more boldly marked, with white extending right up his legs at least. Cgoodwin (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that Apache Cat is actually a sabino, which APHA lumps in with "overo," but is a totally different thing genetically. Unless he has been DNA tested? Frame overo carries lethal white syndrome and (APHA propaganda aside) if a horse is DNA tested to have frame, then they ARE carriers of LWS, which is why I sort of have conniption fits about the alleged "overos" in the USA TB lines (not that anyone consulted me, LOL!) -- which HAVE been tested for frame overo! For example, compare Apache Cat's markings to the off side of the face of this Arabian, as Arabians DO carry Sabino (but often get registered as "roan') but never carry frame overo. There is not yet a test for the type of Sabino carried in Arabs, clydesdales, etc., but there is a frame test and an SB-1 sabino test, which picks up the version seen in Mustangs, Tennessee walkers, etc.... Anyway, found a page of "overo" thoroughbreds in the USA, almost all sabino and one frame... [2] plus this site just has frames: [3] Kind of tough to tell some of them apart unless DNA tested. But personally, I am kind of appalled that anyone would deliberately add a known lethal to a breed that previously did not have it... Sabino has existed for centuries. Overo in TBs, maybe 20-30 years. OK, OK, I'm ranting. Will stop now (wiping foam and spittle...) Montanabw^(talk) 08:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The buckskin color genetically (and visually) does exist in the thoroughbred. I have bred two of them. However, the Jockey Club does not offer buckskin as a color option because they claim there is not enough them to establish a standard. So, they must be registered as a bay. I had rather terse discussion with the Registar about this. The JC is also rather funny about greys. They will tell you that there is no such thing as a "roan" colored thoroughbred. However, every grey thoroughbred get listed in a sales catalog as "grey or roan."--Gcal1971 (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the buckskin stuff? The roan information is at least mentioned on the JC website, so it's in the article. If we have a reliable source for buckskins, it can be added... Dana boomer (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thoroughreds are amazingly fast horses, they are capable of going up to 45 mph. They have long legs so they are also know for jumping but not as much as they are for racing. If you are looking for a jumper or a racer go straight to one of these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.194.43 (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Reference formatting

diff: Dana boomer reverted with the stated reason of "Reverting edits to sources that removed some and messed up formatting on others." I'd like to know which sources were removed and how you think that my changes to citation templates messed up the formatting? What is the benefit of separating the citations to abstracts and full articles? What's the benefit of having "Who's Your Momma II" use the wrong URL? What's the benefit of having three references repeat the citation to Hill et al. 2002 instead of listing it separately like I did?  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 15:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It is true, information was not removed, now that I look at it again. However, formatting was messed up. I've fixed the citation that was to both the full article and the abstract - they were both the same link, so we need to only have the link to the journal. However, the way that you fixed it was to add the full journal citation in-line. On featured articles, the citation style needs to stay consistent, and we don't have full journal citations in-line for any other articles. I also re-fixed the incorrect URL for the one article; thank you for pointing this out. The benefit of having three references repeat the Hill is that you are not sending the reader from the original referenced spot (in-line) to a second referenced spot (the initial journal article) to a third referenced spot (the Hill article). Instead, the last two should be combined so that readers have to do less working in finding the references. Also, having "Hill et al. 2002" is a different formatting style than all of the article's other shortened journal references. Dana boomer (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Chris, this article was worked on by at least five members of wikiproject Equine, pre-reviewed by several other people and ultimately passed FA review. We are glad to fix dead links and such, but the formatting was carefully reviewed and the form was agreed-upon. Montanabw^(talk) 06:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization

Is it 'Thoroughbred' or should it be 'thoroughbred'? Why the capital T? -- SGBailey (talk) 07:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a proper noun, the name of a breed, so it is properly capitalized. Just as you would capitalize "British" so you would "Throroughbred" when referring to the breed of horse. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It's common use is not as a proper noun. The dictionary article referenced in this article talks about the dispute between horse breeders, and "people who are not in the horse-breeding business". Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia for horse breeders. It is for the public.Mk5384 (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe this issue is thoroughly sourced and explained in the article itself. In fact, the section in question is quite thoroughly sourced because this was a controverial issue that required explanation. Like other situations where one meaning of a word may be a proper noun and another not, here this article is about a specific horse breed and not purebred animals in general. You need to re-read the article within its full context and understand that this is not a "dispute," it is the issue of a term of art. Montanabw^(talk) 02:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not comparable to British: that word is an adjective, but follows the particular rules for adjectives that pertain to nationalities. Nor it it a proper noun: a proper noun names a specific person or place. It is a name of a breed, and the treatment of these in regard to capitalisation is desparately inconsistent. Kevin McE (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The table

I found the table below to be quite garish and to interfere with the flow of the article. The data is interesting, a lot of work went into the creation of the table, and it well may be suitable for a separate article on the value of Thoroughbreds, so am parking it here rather than removing it. If consensus is to restore it, I will go along with the majority, but I feel it constitutes a WP:UNDUE problem when the Thoroughbred is far more than just an expensive racehorse. I also found that it visually interfered with the flow of the article as well. Nothing at all personal, I just don't think it fits with this general, overview article. Montanabw^(talk) 00:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm agnostic on it, quite honestly. I'm not sure we need the top 10, top 5 might be fine, but I honestly don't care either way. If it stays, it just needs to retain the formatted references (which are all to excellent quality sources, yay!) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of it. I agree that it is a nice bit of information, and some great sources, but I don't think it's needed in an overview article on the Thoroughbred. There is a value section in the article, and perhaps an extra sentence on the most expensive horse (Green Monkey) would be appropriate, but I agree that the table is undue weight on flat racers and interferes with the flow of the article. Another concern is that the article is already quite large, and the table adds a good bit of extra heft to the article. I agree that it would be better placed elsewhere, perhaps the Ownership and training sectioni of the Thoroughbred horse race article? Dana boomer (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I like adding a quick sentence with ref about the record price on The Green Monkey and I agree the sources are good, which is why I moved and parked rather than deleted, as I think this DOES need a home somewhere (else). Maybe Handicapper, who I think did most of the work, will have some thoughts about whether this fits in the TB horse racing article (speaking of an article that needs some cleanup) Montanabw^(talk) 01:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. There is also no indication as to whether these listed horses returned their purchase prices or not. It will be difficult though to keep this table in perspective as many horses, especially stallions are sold for higher amounts than those listed.Cgoodwin (talk) 03:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Cgoodwin. Are you unaware that the reason links exist is so that full information on the subject is available so as not to overload an article. In this case, the horse, a link to the bio is provided so that you can learn what income they earned in racing. However, in the worldwide history of Thoroughbred racing, outside of the limited number of auction records, only a miniscule number of breeders have ever published what they paid for a stallion and there is no list, anywhere. There is media speculation, such as the $64 million supposedly paid for Fusaichi Pegasus. And, there has NEVER been a published list of stud income for a horse from any breeder. Period. Hence, your remark is unfounded and meaningless and offers nothing to the conversation. Handicapper (talk) 11:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Handicapper, there is no need to call another editors contributions "meaningless". I actually happen to agree with Cgoodwin that it would be hard to keep the table in perspective with the higher prices paid in private treaties. I understand your point that these prices are generally not published, but it is still somewhat misleading to the reader, especially in a general overview article like this where we can't go into the specifics about the fog that surrounds private treaties on stud prices and income. Dana boomer (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Fact, when an editor makes meaningless statements, repeatedly, that, based on their record, is an attempt to disguise a personal attack, then I will state it clearly and without reservation. And, if you think the comment by Cgoodwin has any meaning of any kind please state it rather than critcize me. Quite frankly, this is the second recent incident of the same small cabal acting with reckless and unfounded statements on a subject they have demonstrated they know little or nothing about. And you too have added a meaningless comment. The Table is an undisputed FACT, supported by several specific references, that is precisely clear as to what the list is: Ten most expensive Thoroughbreds in history sold at auction. You can't compare non-existent information, Wiki deals in known facts and I inserted it because so many of the top publications reference them all the time. Handicapper (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record: policy and courtesy, especially to those who actually create value here, is to leave the non-offensive Wikipedia-compliant table in the article pending the results of a discussion. I don't care where it goes, so long as it is properly referenced for easy location as it is in fact essential information on the Project subject that is constantly referred to in Thoroughbred racing publications everywhere. Handicapper (talk) 11:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy probably would have dictated that a question about the need for the table be posted on the talk page before single-handedly adding almost 5000 bytes of info to a featured article. However, that's beside the point now. Handicapper, do you have a thought on where you would like the table to go as a second choice? Dana boomer (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Where in Wikipedia:Policy does it say that an editor should post their work on the Talk Page when they are posting in a proper Wiki format only factual info that is widely reported essential information fully supported by quality and precise references? Again, you don't deal with the reality of my statement/question, and do nothing but attack me. That is unacceptable conduct. Handicapper (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Please understand two things: 1) This is not another round in the Cgoowdin vs. Handicapper fight that I know has been going on across several TB project articles for some time now. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING PERSONAL going on here. This is strictly a quality control issue. 2) This is a FEATURED ARTICLE, one of the flagship articles of all WEPQ, and thus must meet Wikipedia's highest quality standards. For that reason, substantial new edits that have the potential to substantially change the article's look, tone and focus are held to closer scrutiny. It is a longstanding guideline on WP that when an edit is contested, the person seeking to ADD the new material to an article has the burden of proof of showing why it is justifiable. (WP:BURDEN) Thus, I was courteous to explain exactly what I did and to put the entire section, unchanged, over here on the talk page so that it could be easily restored if consensus was to restore it. Montanabw^(talk) 20:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Montanabw - you are gaming the system with words in an attempt to avoid the reality: "the person seeking to ADD the new material to an article has the burden of proof of showing why it is justifiable." First, provide the LINK and direct QUOTE for this "longstanding guideline". Second, the table is justifiable because the documented references to the major horse racing publications does exactly that -- and that is all that is needed in accordance with (WP:BURDEN). Period. If you think I'm wrong, then simply follow Wikipedia procedure. Past experience shows several debating here use the tactic of ignoring stated facts and obfuscate matters to avoid the issue in the knowledge that others rarely, if ever, go back and read all prior statements. Maybe it's time for members of this cabal to grow up and admit mistakes and move on. And, in case you are not aware of it, I always do exactly that. Handicapper (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No one has attacked Handicapper in any of the above. I do though think the title might be changed to the "highest priced" Thoroughbreds as a horse purchased for $3m but winning $5m would not be considered expensive by owners that can afford to pay these amounts.If the horse does not return his purchase price, that is a new story, LOL.Cgoodwin (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Handicapper, I just did add the quote and the link to the place where it occurs. Just because the table was referenced is not reason alone to include it. There are other factors. The table is nice for someplace, but not in this article where it is large, garish, and puts undue weight on a small sector of what essentially is trivia. Please just help us find a good home for it and lay off your personal attacks and accusations. Montanabw^(talk) 03:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ten most expensive Thoroughbreds in history sold at auction

Horse	Foaled	Sire	Dam	Breeder	Sold - US$	Buyer
1) The Green Monkey	2004	Forestry	Magical Masquerade	Padua Stables	2006 - $16,000,000	Susan Magnier, Derrick Smith & Michael Tabor
2) Seattle Dancer	1984	Nijinsky	My Charmer	W. L. Jones, W. S. Farish III, W. S. Kilroy	1985 - $13,100,000	Niarchos, J. Magnier, Sangster, O'Brien, Schwartz
3) Meydan City	2005	Kingmambo	Crown of Crimson	Jayeff B Stable	2006 - $11,700,000	Sheikh Mohammed
4) Snaafi Dancer	1982	Northern Dancer	My Bupers	Donald T. Johnson	1983 - $10,200,000	Aston Upthorpe Stud
5) Jalil	2004	Storm Cat	Tranquility Lake	Pamela & Martin Wygod	2005 - $9,700,000	Godolphin Racing
6) Plavius	2005	Danzig	Sharp Minister	Monticule Farms	2006 - $9,200,000	Godolphin Racing
7) Imperial Falcon	1983	Northern Dancer	Ballade	E. P. Taylor	1984 - $8,250,000	Robert Sangster
8) Mr. Sekiguchi	2003	Storm Cat	Welcome Surprise	William S. Farish III, William S. Kilroy	2004 - $8,000,000	Fusao Sekiguchi
9) Jareer	1983	Northern Dancer	Fabuleux Jane	Ralph C. Wilson, Jr.	1984 - $7,100,000	Darley Stud
10) Laa Etaab	1984	Nijinsky	Crimson Saint	Tom Gentry	1985 - $7,000,000	Gainsborough Stud

Addition/correction

My 2008 Thoroughbred Times Racing Almanac gives the above list (minus Green Monkey - why they don't have that I do not know, as the bloodhorse link is more than solid enough of a RS) with their subsequent race record, if that information is desired, it could be added. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason The Green Monkkey is not on the 2008 Thoroughbred Times Racing Almanac is that it is a list of only Yearlings sold at auction. That is why on the List I gave both the foaling date and the date of sale. Handicapper (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. Oops. However, now that I'm reading it correctly, there is another listing of broodmares, and it shows broodmares, and lists two that probably should be in this table Ashado (9 million in 2001) and Cash Run (7.1 million in 1997). Thanks for correcting my hurried reading. Did you want racing records though? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You are right. My title should specify colts. If consensus says to add mares that's fine with me. I left the mares out as I planned to do another similar but slightly different table for them as the highest auction prices are achieved almost always after a successful racing career (Keeneland November breeding stock sale) whereas stallions sold at auction are 99% before they race. Most top stallions are syndicated and almost never auctioned except in an estate dispersal. I'm no computer whiz, but I don't think there is enough space to add racing records to show properly for most 19-22 inch widescreen monitors. It would be nice to have it, but if not possible, I will be doing bios for all of them anyway that will have their race record. Handicapper (talk) 15:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I would think the main value would be for non-horse people, and including everyone in one table would be best, especially if it stays here in the main article. Perhaps a small table here with a whole article devoted to various tables broken down by age/sex/etc? As I said above, I'm really agnostic on the inclusion/exclusion here, but a good compromise might be a five member table with both colts and mares, and expand the tables in a larger article with more information there. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions but if we create a "five member table with both colts and mares" how would we "expand the tables in a larger article with more information there." One problem with adding the mares is that I wonder if it might make it confusing especially to non-horse people in that there are stallions, like these mares, who were sold at higher prices, just not at auction. If there was a separate full article then it could be explained that stallions and mares have been sold privately at prices reported and or believed to be higher than....etc Handicapper (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd put a {{main article}} tag at the beginning of the table section, personally. Sorta like on the Horse article, where lots of sub-articles are linked to the various sections. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Because the complaint here actually was: "I found the table below to be quite garish and to interfere with the flow of the article", then if a new article were to be created we could limit this table to a few columns such as horse name, age, and year of sale and price? Handicapper (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. - If you are so inclined, input here would also be appreciated. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing#New Category discussion

I haven't checked out the above link, but I think an entire separate article on the value of Thoroughbreds would actually be really interesting, worth writing, obviously would quickly get to be pretty substantial (comparing prices in various nations or historical trends, etc...) and we could easily link to it from here with a "main" link from the "value" subsection. Montanabw^(talk) 03:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I placed this information where it belonged in accordance with all Wikipedia policy and its WP:BURDEN. But, I certainly am pleased to compromise. So, now that Montanabw wants the abbreviated table inserted only and a separate article, and Ealdgyth a {{main article}} tag at the beginning of the table section linking to a new article, I'll leave it to you guys to organize things so long as it’s a non-garish new article with proper flow. However, if not done within a short period of time, I'll reinsert the table, adjusted or a separate one for females, until someone who wanted it this way, does. Thanx. I hope all are satisfied with their reasonable solution. Handicapper (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I am OK with a SENTENCE about the world record, and even that I'm grumpy about because it will have to be periodically updated and maintained. But that's my compromise. I specifically oppose having ANY table in this article at all...a table (of anything) looks ugly in this article and draws too much attention to a single section. (If someone could do a discreet little 200px wide mini-table that resembled an illustration or side navbox in size, I'd be less grumpy. ) Suggested title for the new article? I will just pop the above table into it for starters, as Handicapper does have a point that I really don't have much interest in sales records. I'll also do a "main" tag. Those who have more interest can take it from there. Montanabw^(talk) 06:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Montanabw, I'm not sure why, but you seem to continue to ignore reality and just do as you please while attempting to impose your will on others. This discussion only began after I placed this information in the Thoroughred article's existing Value section where it belonged in accordance with all Wikipedia policy and its WP:BURDEN and in accordance with the existing documentation in other sections of the article. It was your rather snide and unWiki-like remark that you "found the table below to be quite garish and to interfere with the flow of the article" but my gentle nature and desire to cooperate led to me making an accomodation for you. However, for you to then igore my statement concerning quality and assert that for the new compromise article you will "just pop the above table into it for starters" is unacceptable and I can assure you that I will take all the remedial steps available at Wikipedia to ensure it is not done. If you want this compromise, then I repeat that you will have to create an article in accordance with the same standards you have demanded of others here. Thanx, I look foward to your cooperation. Handicapper (talk) 16:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Handicapper, I'm not sure why you seem to have a problem with starting a new article with a simple summary of the valuation of Thoroughbreds and the current table. This is how most articles on WP are started, and it's exactly how the Thoroughbred breeding theories article was started when we decided that the information was too much to be contained in the main article. That's what has happened here, so it is most reasonable to start a new article, perhaps Thoroughbred valuation, with a brief summary and the table. Or would you prefer a different title? Articles do not start out at FA status, which is why it is unreasonable to expect a new article to be of the same quality as this one, but this one has already had a lot of work put into it and is of FA quality, and as such should be maintained at a very high level. I am more than willing to start the article, but would like more input on the title first. Also, I'm not sure how WP:BURDEN applies here, as all that policy states is that it is the burden of the editor who adds or restores material to provide verifiable sources. No one doubts that you have done that here - we simply contest the need for this much detail in a summary article that is already quite long. Dana boomer (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I created the article, using the suggested title Thoroughbred valuation. It contains little more than the table and an introductory sentence, as I really do not care to do any more than get the thing out of the way. Handicapper, I'm sorry consensus didn't go your way, but you now have your own article that you can expand any way you want it. You can move it rename it, edit it any way you'd like, I have little interest in bothering with it further. And Handicapper, lay off the personal attacks, they are uncalled-for. I couldn't care less what you write on the topic of valuation, as long as it's somewhere else. Montanabw^(talk) 21:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I've copied over the value section of this article into the new article (without removing anything from this article). It will need to be expanded, of course, to make it a better study of valuation, but it should make the article less of a candidate for deletion taggers in the meantime. I hope this works as a compromise - this article can have all sorts of tables added on different sections of Thoroughbreds and I doubt anyone here will complain that it's going into too much detail :) Dana boomer (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. At least as far as I'm concerned. Montanabw^(talk) 22:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Wanting to avoid overkill, but...

Just noting that I added some info on the low end of the TB world to the valuation section, noting Ferdinand being sold for slaughter (hey and he was a grandson of Northern Dancer). And I tossed all the trivia on Northern Dancer moved to valuation article), other than the record stud fee, which I thought was quite relevant and fit in with the other stud fee info. I think we want to avoid getting into too much trivia, particularly focused on one horse or one nation (else we lose FA status and this article will start to resemble horse racing.) If we want a good sob story on a cheap TB with a happier ending, here's onefrom today where an injured TB was sold for $50 to an illegal slaughter facility in Florida, but rescued. I don't really know how far we want to go into this whole thing, but figuring out what horses are worth is definitely a whole separate topic, and IMHO, this article just needs a general overview of the concept that "some Thoroughbreds can be very expensive." I don't know if there exist any stats on what a good, well-trained OTTB sold as a show hunter is worth, but it would be interesting. I just am concerned about going completely into statistics and horse racing trivia. Montanabw^(talk) 06:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The lead picture

Thoroughbred horse

....does not show the horse very well. If you are going to describe a thoroughbred (or any breeed for that matter) you need a leed pic that shows the characteristics to best advantage. This pic would be my first choice. Amandajm (talk) 06:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Except that the pic above does not have the correct licensing. Licensing issues are a major problem with FA articles, as many of the horse pictures on Commons are copyvios or do not have correct licensing and the authors have long-since disappeared. Otherwise, yes, you are correct, a lead pictures that shows the best characteristics of the breed would be great. Dana boomer (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

False dead link positive

Do note that the link [4] responds with a "HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found" header and was automatically marked as a {{Dead link}} because of this. This is an error on the website's part. The link was added into bot's exceptions list. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It didn't when I checked it yesterday. And it didn't today. Possibly an intemittent server problem. But as I sign this, it's a live link. Check the bot, it's NOT a dead link! OTOH, the other one flagged was a 404. Montanabw^(talk) 21:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page to the editor's message. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 01:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Future article expansion

Found very interesting articles on mtDNA in TB mares. Maybe here or in the related articles on breeding and bloodlines some of this material could perhaps be added. Montanabw^(talk) 05:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC) [5] and [6]

Racing mortality

This claim Racing has been proven to have a higher fatality rate than all other legal human and animal sports appeared in the lead until I have just removed it, and is in the blurb due to go up on Main Page tomorrow. There is no substantiation of the claim/accusation in the article, nor is it clear whose mortality is being described: equine, human, all animals? If no clarification and verification is forthcoming, it really should be removed from the Main Page material. Kevin McE (talk) 07:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree. The word "proven" is strong, and it needs a reliable source. Rivertorch (talk) 08:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh, I could have sworn that at one point we had a study referenced in the article that did prove this, but now I can't find it, even in the version promoted to FA. Montana, Ealdgyth? Am I imagining things or did something like this actually used to be in the article? Dana boomer (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought we had something about racing mortality in the body, but I don't know about the lead. I wasn't so involved in those sections, though, mainly in the history. Maybe Montana has it in the pile of articles I sent them? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

and yes, Kevin, I concur that we don't have time to see if that is properly sourced, it acutally sounds a bit dubious to me, so I have no issue with tossing it. Montanabw^(talk) 21:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, found it!! Knew I wasn't going crazy. You can see the sourced statement in the Health issues section of this version. It looks like it was sourced to a Chicago Sports Review article that then had its link go dead - I'm assuming we removed it because of this, although I don't really remember. However, I still can't find a good link for that article, so the factoid is going to have to stay out of the article until/if someone finds a new source. Dana boomer (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

TFA

Main page? Joys. I'm on the road ... heh! Lucky you two... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh crap, main page? =:-O Okey dokey... Montanabw^(talk) 21:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

...and who wrote the summary? The way they did it combines sentences to say "horse" too many times in the very first line. It can't be edited so who can fix this before it hits the main page? Montanabw^(talk) 21:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

To get the blurb changed you can post to WT:Main page, in the section entitled "Errors in the summary of today's or tomorrow's featured article" (it's the second one down, I think). Dana boomer (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Raul writes the blurbs, usually by condensing the article's lead section. The blurb's first line is the same as the current first line of the article; maybe I misunderstand. (ah, I see... line =/= sentence. ) Let me know how you want it to read (I would guess saying "[[Thoroughbred horse racing|racing]]" instead of "[[Thoroughbred horse racing|horse racing]]"?) and I can change it. Or if it looks like I've left, then Dana is right and you can say something at WP:ERRORS. (hint: It's more likely to get changed if you point out that you're one of the main authors...) --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Arabian?

What is the evidence that the foundation stallions were Arabs? One was not even called 'arab'. Suggest that this claim should not be perpetuated until and unless supported by proper references and evidence. It is widely suggested, including in wikipedia itself, that the Byerley and the Darley were in fact Akhal-Teke or Turkmenian horses. Iconographic evidence supports this theory. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing the critical link entirely to Arabian horse doesn't help, creating a sin of omission, and the varying origins are discussed in greater detail in the body of the article, at least for mares: perhaps you could propose better wording here and provide cites for the "widely disputed" assertion? Acroterion _(talk) 12:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, please note that this information is well-referenced in the body of the article, in the "History" section. The lead of the article does not need sources, as it is a summary of the body. Dana boomer (talk) 12:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... had the idea that unreferenced and unsupported assertions were to be removed, aggressively; is this a misprision? I'm perplexed as to why 'Arabian' has been reinserted in the absence of any reference that confirms that the three foundation stallions were in fact Arabs; this is one of those 'everybody knows that...' arte-facts, unsupported and patently contradicted by the iconographic and linguistic evidence. Please note that the Byerley Turk was called 'the Byerley Turk'. Agree that the varied origin of mares is well covered (excuse pun!). See the Turkoman article, or the Akhal-Teke article, or almost any one of the outside links given by it, for support of my 'widely disputed' assertion. Suggested wording: '... native mares were crossbred with imported Oriental stallions.' (or, if preferred, '... eastern stallions.', as in Hartley-Edwards, E. The Encyclopedia of the Horse, DK, London, 1994, p118). The properly referenced discussion of whether the three foundation sires were in fact of Akhal-Teke, Arabian, Turkoman or indeed some other origin belongs in the body of the article, where it is currently entirely lacking, and will need to be written by someone a very great deal more expert than myself. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This may be a topic for further research on a day when we aren't making 500 vandal reverts per second. However, some of your concerns are simply the result of people in those times defining animals by geographic origins more than bloodlines, and then using those geographic designations very loosely. The three oriental breeds (The Akhal -Teke considered a modern descendant of the now-extinct Turkoman horse, possibly the most directdescendant) you mention have very distinct phenotypes, known and recognized even in the 18th century. The Godolphin Arabian was sometimes called the Goldolphin "Barb" but only because he came from North Africa, but has, by all tools available given that we can't extract his DNA, been determined to be an Arabian (Among other things, Barbs have a noticeably different phenotype, clearly distinguishable from Arabs). The Darley Arabian is also confirmed as an Arabian. Likewise, though the Byerley "Turk" has the title "Turk," it too references geographic origin of the Turkish officer from whom he was captured, not his breed, and evidence from the time including phenotype suggests Arab origin. See, for example, [7] We won't have the time today to debate this in depth, but that's a quick summary that I hope clarifies matters for now. Montanabw^(talk) 17:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Please read this for clarification: http://www.lrgaf.org/articles/foundation-turks.htm Jeremy James did a lot of research on this topic. I would clearly change the text to 'Turkoman', but I will let you do this. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.181.130 (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The source is not reliable, and simply has a POV in the opposite direction (bashing of one breed in favor of another reduces credibility immensely, for one thing). Sources that are peer-reviewed journals of history or genetics would be interesting to see. There is little question that "breeds" as understood today were not defined in a similar fashion in the 17th and 18th centuries, and horses of both Arabian and Turkoman type were brought into Europe. Montanabw^(talk) 19:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The following is a verbatim quotation from Hendricks, Bonnie L. and Anthony A. Dent International Encyclopedia of Horse Breeds University of Oklahoma Press, 2007, page 7:

"Many authorities believe the Byerley Turk, a foundation sire of the Thoroughbred breed, was indeed a “Turk” and that the Godolphin Barb was a Barb and not an Arab horse as has often been stated. The Thoroughbred, although much larger, bears strong resemblance to the Turkmenian in general morphology. Many Turkmenian horses (referred to as Turks) were imported into Great Britain about the time of development of the English Thoroughbred. Additionally, many horses acquired in Syria were termed “Arab” in England because they had been obtained from Arab peoples, when in fact they descended from the Turkmenian breed, widely used in that area. While not firmly established at this time, it is anticipated that genetic blood-group testing now being conducted will eventually reveal to which breed the Thoroughbred is more closely related. Early testing of this kind has revealed little relationship between the Thoroughbred and Arab breeds."

While the statements made there are not referenced, and the the reliability of Bonnie Hendricks or indeed the entire University of Oklahoma Press may be and probably will be called into question, the above is in my view reasonable evidence that the opinion that the three foundation sires were Arabs is not universally shared, and thus can not be justified as a "Paris is the capital of France, everybody knows it" statement that does not require references. The assertion that the three sires were Arabs is apparently unreferenced within the body of the article, so I am again replacing the word "Arabian" with the word "Oriental", as I last did on 10 March 2011; "eastern", as in Edwards, Elwyn Hartley The encyclopedia of the horse London: Dorling Kindersley, 1994, page 118, would work just as well.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that now, the lead asserts things that are not discussed in the body of the article - I'm okay with changing the body (but please do not use Hendricks!) but it needs to note that the view has changed from the view in the past - this is what we mean by using reliable sources and teaching the controversy. Right now the "arabian" lines ARE referenced in the article ... the body states "The addition of Arabian bloodlines to the native English mares ultimately led to the creation of the General Stud Book (GSB) in 1791 and the practice of official registration of horses." The lead now states "All modern Thoroughbreds can trace their pedigrees to three stallions originally imported into England in the 17th century and 18th century, and to 74 foundation mares of English and Oriental (Arabian, Turkoman or Barb) blood." but no where do we state in the body that the mares were of English AND Oriental blood, nor what is "oriental blood". First we need to cover and CITE in the body this information, then it can go in the lead. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it needs more thought, for all that I've already given it a good deal. Second point first, the mares: the section Foundation mares starts off "The mares used as foundation breeding stock came from a variety of breeds, some of which, such as the Irish Hobby, had developed in northern Europe prior to the 13th century.[27] Other mares were of oriental breeding, including Barb, Turk and other bloodlines.[28]" Does that not cover it? I admit I am surprised not to see the Arab included among those; should it not in fact be there?

The Foundation stallions section starts with a list of the most famous oriental stallions that influenced the breed, and then goes straight on to say "The addition of Arabian bloodlines ... led to the creation of the General Stud Book." This seems to me to imply that not only the three sires but all the famous stallions of that time were Arabs. For all I know, they were, but I fear that might be a more difficult assertion to reference. I think that too should be changed to Oriental or eastern, if others agree? Fully agree about Hendricks, clearly an axe to grind there; personally, I'm more convinced by the absence of the assertion in an establishment figure like Edwards. I also can't help thinking that it is rash in the extreme to assume that those wealthy and highly educated gentlemen who spent and wagered fortunes on these animals did not know one horse from another. But that is just me. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The evidence for the Darley and Godolphin being Arab is pretty strong, the Byerley Turk less so. (I believe there is a new book out on the BT, not sure how well-researched it is, but may be our first stop if it can be obtained) Hendricks is definitely a very weak source, we use it when there isn't anything better. The problem with most of the online sites is everyone has an axe to grind, often with a lot of nationalistic bias. While I personally have no kick with changing "Arab" to "oriental", it DOES then cause some problems with sourcing, so I think we'd best keep the status quo for the moment. My thinking is to see what we can find for very high-quality sources that appear to be relatively neutral but well-researched and try to sort this out. What we are up against, as usual, is the problem that at the time in history, people defined horses by their geographical origins more than their pedigrees, hence the Goldolphin 'barb' was, apparently, clearly Arab in phenotype, even though apparently foaled in North Africa. But sourcing, as usual, is the answer. I've got Lady Wentworth's book, making a very strong case for Arab breeding, though I know she's not always right on everything. Ealdgyth has a lot of material on TB history, I think, and if anyone else can find refs to possible peer-reviewed sources, I CAN (albeit probably not this week) get into the university subscription databases to find the raw text. I actually have emails for everyone who's been on this except for CG, so I can email articles in pdf format & we can all look at anything out there in electronic form. Montanabw^(talk) 16:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I've got the BT biography and it's ... different. Reads a lot like a fictionalized biography - so I'd be hesitant to rely on it. I also have Milner's book on the God. Arabian and the Matchem line, and it's pretty decent and argues that the horse was Arabian without believing the great (but probably untrue) story about the GA hauling a water cart in Paris. Unfortunately, most of my focus on TBs is on their roots in America and their intersection with QH history - not so much on the English origins. I'll poke a bit more, but there really hasn't been much published recently in book form on the foundation era. And, just because someone reliable like Edwards doesn't state that they were Arabians, in the absence of him stating that they weren't, we can't argue from his silence. I'm betting there is some work out there in journal form. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The Byerley Turk by Jeremy James? Came out 8–10 years ago? I think it's supposed to be fictional. Agree about not arguing from silence, it's no proof of anything; but it is something that should cause us to doubt certainty. There's really a lot of silence on the subject, too, in apparently relatively reputable places such as this. Anyone who wants to go totally insane over this should read this page and dozens more like it by the same guy, all of which prove that every single stallion was in fact not the one you thought he was (the Byerley was the Lister, The Darley was Curwen's Bay Barb, etc. (or was it the other way round?)).
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Eee, just read the link above, left by 87.198.181.130; that's by the same Jeremy James. The quotes he gives from published works can be cited without even having to track down the books, though it would be good to do so eventually. I'm for removing the second 'Arabian' from the stallions right away, and putting one in for the mares (if I'm right that it should be there?). His bibliography is relevant too, I think.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

As a QH bloodline researcher, let me tell you there are always always always folks with new theories about old horses being not the horse they were represented to be. There's a reasonably infamous book (self) published in the 1960s that claims King P-234 was not bred as represented by the AQHA but was instead half/quarter Standardbred (I haven't read the thing in a while, I forget the exact reasoning, etc). Then there are always the persistent rumors that Doc Bar was really the son of an Arabian stallion, not by Lightning Bar as the AQHA reports. Anything on the web that hasn't made it into a reputable publisher or researchers works, should be taken with a very large grain of salt. This isn't to say I'm not fine with saying "oriental" we just need good reputable sources for this information also. Unfortunately, I don't have them on my shelves at the moment. I need to get to the U of I soon, and I'll see what I can scare up. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm reminded here of the theories about Shakespeare not really being Shakespeare! LOL! I say we just gather our sources and see what shakes out. The lede is not quite spot on with the article body text, but maybe I shall defer to Ealdgyth to tweak that because she's the one who I THINK has the actual source material in book form (?) As for research, anyone other than me remember the edit war over at Arabian horse that resulted in the words "are probably fictional" as opposed to "are fictional" applied to the Al Khamsa? (long sigh...) Absent a time machine, I guess we just see what's all out there. Montanabw^(talk) 21:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Following the latest edit by User:Montanabw on 11 April 2011 (which I didn't notice yesterday), this article again presents the non-neutral view that the three foundation sires were all Arabs. I have therefore put a POV tag on the article, and marked as 'dubious' the two occurrences of the word 'Arabian' that promote this non-neutral view. The second of these is apparently an outright error, as it appears to assert that all the 200-plus oriental stallions that contributed to the Thoroughbred were Arabs. My reasoning:

• This article is very visible, and it is important that it be accurate
• Many sources state that the three sires were all Arabs
• Many sources state that the three sires were 'eastern' or 'Oriental'
• Some sources question whether the three sires were all Arabs
• Some sources state that some or all of the the three were not Arabs
• These sources are of varying reliability, and the third and fourth categories arguably represent a minority view
• Minority views have a place in Wikipedia, as in any reasonable discussion; the minority is not a negligible 'flat Earth'-type one
• Until and unless this article can reference a source that discusses the conflicting opinions in the existing literature and brings conclusive new evidence to support one view or the other, there is no justification for stating that the three sires either were or were not all Arabs
• The point is not whether the horses were Arabs, but whether this article is justified in making that assertion
• This really shouldn't be so hard; it would be easy to put in a sentence that says 'some sources say A, some say B'.
  Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I've gone to Willett and pulled out something that should work for now until we find more definitive research (if it exists). It would be appreciated if this was not disturbed without the use of OTHER sources. Remember... we're here to edit from the sources, not to argue from our own thoughts. Gather/read/research THEN edit, not edit first and find the sources to match whatever we added. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, I think the best place to argue over the exact origins of the three foundation sires (as well as the specifics of all the other contributing stallions) is in their own articles. Better to paint with a broad brush here and get into the specifics at the stallion articles. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Other mares were of oriental breeding, including Barb, Turk and other bloodlines

I wanted to insert 'Arabian' in this sentence, so looked at the reference, 28. That page does not make the statement in the sentence, nor does it include the word 'Turk'; it is an interesting discussion of erroneous mare registrations discovered by haplotype divergence. Some error here, perhaps?
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

May have lost a footnote along the line. I fixed this with the above work, I think, (and hope) as I tried to add a cite to Willett to cover that information. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm OK with the present version. The individual horse articles, particularly for the big three, need some work anyway. Easily could teach the controversies on each. Montanabw^(talk) 20:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Note this which probably needs incorporation. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

LOL! A fancy way of saying, "we bred everything to these stallions, and what could run fast, we kept! Montanabw^(talk) 22:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Handicapping

The article includes this sentence: "It was then that handicapping, a system of adding weight to attempt to equalize a horse's chances of winning as well as improved training procedures, began to be used." Does anyone have any idea what it is supposed to mean? I know I don't. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I do. But it is a bit opaque. Perhaps "It was also at this time that new training procedures as well as handicapping races by adding or subtracting weights on the horse based on a horse's past racing performance in order to try to equalize a race's results."? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry but I'm lost! Are we suggesting that people started training horses to run just as fast as other horses and no faster? I thought the idea of training was more or less the opposite... Anyway, if they are two different concepts, it might be better to divide them into two separate sentences (along the lines of "Handicapping, ..., was introduced at about this time. New training methods were also adopted.") If there were new training methods, shouldn't we perhaps say what they were, and give a reference or two? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's more that the two different things happened about the same time - there were improved training methods AND handicapping of races was introduced. I'm open to suggestions on better wording, of course. Wall isn't very specific on what the training methods were, so perhaps just dropping that part would be best? After all, the various trianing methods of race horses have changed greatly over the whole period of racing - in the end the introduction of handicapping is much more significant than a change in training. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Whatever you think best. I don't see that there's likely to be any logical nexus between the two things, so the fact that they are reported as happening at about the same time is not in itself crucial. And I agree that training methods are in pretty much constant evolution. Hasn't anyone written a history of training? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

So just to be sure, you'd be okay with "It was then that handicapping, a system of adding weight to attempt to equalize a horse's chances of winning, began to be used."? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Horse names: Why are they insane?

I was looking across Wikipedia to see if there was an article on horse names, but all I found was a stub on Ethiopian kings. I would appreciate if someone could add a section to this or another appropriate article. There must be some theories about why horse names are so absurd, and I am curious to know about the "evolution" and history of horse names. Where horses a hundred years ago named "Fruit O'Rooney", "Mystical Diva", "Lots Of Pride" etc.? Dr bab (talk) 09:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

To answer your basic question, there are two main reasons underlying the names of horses. 1) Most breed registries insist each horse have a unique name, and the obvious ones like "Star", "Blaze" and "Speedy" get snapped up quick. (smile) so people get creative. 2) A common practice is to put clues to a horse's pedigree into its name by combining elements of the sire's name, the dam's name, or both. Hence, Seabiscuit was sired by Hard Tack, for example. Other times, people like to name horses after themselves, or their ranch, or something significant in their life. And really, aren't dog names even more absurd in this department? ("Tillymuffer's Mister Fancypants"? I mean, really?) Montanabw^(talk) 00:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Aha! That makes a lot of sense. You have solved a mystery for me, thanks a million. I think this point is something that more people than myself are wondering about, and it should thus be added to one of the horse-related articles (and sourced). As I know little about horses (apart from now being able to explain the creative names), I leave it to the equestrian inclined to decide where it belongs and do the actual adding. Thanks again Montanabw! Dr bab (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably could make a new article, the problem is passing WP:CITE and WP:V on the naming conventions, as this sort of thing is so commonly known, but anecdotal, that I don't think it's written down anywhere. (And an oddity of WPEQ is when we do articles with info "everyone knows" but no footnotes, inevitably someone starts screaming "WP:OR" at us. Sigh) If anyone else here could point to some sources, we maybe could whip up something. Montanabw^(talk) 19:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)