# Talk:American Saddlebred

i think the american saddlebred horse is the most beautiful horse of all and i need some help because i am doing a short projesct on the American Saddlebred orse can u help
chelsea —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boyzluvmemoor (talk • contribs).

Please DO NOT CREATE GALLARIES in wikipedia articles, they are discouraged (and also grow exponentially).  However, for the purpose of easy access to images that may be used to improve various articles I am placing the ones here that were put into the article that aren't already being used there. Montanabw(talk) 19:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

the american saddle horse is also recognized by his speed,moves,high stepping steps,jumps,hunter and also alert
According to wikipedia Ulysses S. Grant´s Horse Cincinatee he was a 17 hand Thourobred.
Ryttar, 8 Dec. 2008

Do not confuse Saddlebreds with Thoroughbreds.  If you want to add content to "uses" please provide a verifiable source.  Montanabw(talk) 21:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The question on the importance of this article is twofold: 1)  If the article is still start class, does that take away from the significance of the topic?  (i.e. do we punish the topic because the article needs work?)  and 2)  If a breed is pretty significant in one particular nation, but of relatively little worldwide influence, were do we put these? "Influence" is not only on other breeds, but also cultural, sociological, etc... Fjords and Finnhorses would be in this area also ... is a very significant horse in a little nation of less importance than a moderately significant horse in a big nation? Is population of the breed a factor?  I guess I'm not going to the mat for the importance of this particular breed, just thinking about what goes into the assessment.  Montanabw(talk) 23:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

My humble views. 1) No. No. If Horse was a weedy stub, it woud still be the uttermost important article to the project. I'd be tempted to say a great majority of Top and High class articles would be recognisable as such merely by the article name. We might have an issue here however, that this Saddlebred breed as a topic might actually command a Mid ranking, but he article, and this far, the talk page, fails to deliver the reasons for such a high ranking. I would have no problems assessing this Mid if the article presented the breed's influence in USA better. Currently what I see is "gaited horse, has been a popular choice for showing off for a century or two, was ridden by a general and appears in this random bunch of media works". (;>) Additionally (not to be taken as an argument against Mid assesment), assessing Saddlebred a Mid importance article might necessitate the reconsideration of other horse breeds with major but mainly national weight. Sheer head numbers are IMHO not very significant when discussing viable populations. Relative population sizes then again would be moreso. 2) Um, first let me say that the Fjord Horse is not by far the only horse breed in Norway (offhand, I count two others we have articles about), and in the absence of reliable sources I wouldn't say it's been the most influential and important in Norway. Second, a discussion like this point 2 should take place in the WWPEQ HQ. How we wish to rank breeds in importance is a matter of the entire project. Project consensus would be a major bonus and I bet Dana, Richard and Pesky will have a say in this as well as a bunch of good points. HOWEVER. Talks can be moved, and I've started already. I'll list my points about horse breeds (and types). I would like to have it noted that these points should be considered together; thus, if an article solidly scores high at one point but solidly low in others, it's most likely Mid importance at most, or Low if Bottom should get employed.
1) Widespreadedness - how large its native population is, how many established breed associations it has, how many countries have a viable population, how completely it dominates an international equestrian sport (or a similar activity), and how major that sport is. Examples:

Upper phase: Thoroughbred (Horse racing. Also major in eventing. Has more than viable populations in any country the sport is done, offhand I can name at least UK, USA, NewZ, Australia, Japan, and probably also India, China), Arabian horse (extremely popular internationally; also a major name in higher level endurance and comp. trail riding), Warmblood (as in the type; dominates in dressage and showjumping, major name in eventing; covers at least a dozen national types/breeds breeded on notable scale) pony (dominates kiddy riding pretty brutally don't you think; even the strictest definition covers a number of widespread British breeds)
Middle phase: A number of well-known, wide-spread pony breeds such as Shetland (classic; I'd be surprised to find an European country without a population), NF, Connemara, apparently Haflinger, maybe Icelandic (I know Germany is bananas about these and Finland + Sweden also have a lot of them but cannot speak for other countries), SB (harness racing), miniature horse (as in the type; seems to have a lot of populations; begins to get nearer the bottom of this phase...); any other breed that has either a lot of populations worldwide or has a major population somewhere (in numbers; sorry Tiny Island, but no one cares even if your 3 Sparklees make up 75% of your horse population)
Lower phase: Falabella (it's asked after a lot but many confuse the breed with the category of miniature horses), any breed that has only one small, viable population (Lyngs/Nordlandshest, any Chinese or Japanese breed I cannot spell/pronounce :P, a load of European draught (and pony) breeds), any extinct breed, Finnhorse (dominates coldblood racing, but not completely (Järvsöfaks), and the sport is only done in Nordic countries really, guinea pig showing is more widespread than that).
Bottom phase: Tiny Island Sparkleez, Your Backyard Project. Any breed with a population so low that breeding needs to conserve at the expense of breeding for quality.
2) Historical influence in equestrian world - how long has it existed? How long is the recorded (not speculated) history of the breed in its current form? How many breeds it has significantly influenced, how do those rank in WPEQ importance, and how widely it influenced them; and if we were doing this list when it was extanct, how major would it be in the previous point (#1)?

Upper phase: Arabian (Where wasn't it bred or at least crossbred in 18th and 19th century? Name a modern sport pony or warmblood brees, Arabian influenced it. Then there's Furioso, Gidran, Nonius, Kisber, Mezöhegyes just to name Arabian-influenced Hungarian breeds. Then there are the breeds that are practically mostly Arabians with other breed influence as garnish. Point taken here, I'm sure. This breed's been in vogue about as long as Europe has realised it existed.) TB (again, very influential in other breeds and a common contemporary choice for creating first generation mix sport horses).
Middle phase: Norfolk Roadster? Friesian is an old breed and, if I'm not mistaken, has been quite influential in a number of breeds. Hard to give examples without inspecting articles and/or sources.
Lower phase: Lyngs/Norlandshest, Finnhorse (studbook is a little more than 100 years old and current form has existed for maybe 200-300 years at most; influenced a number of minor breeds most of the world has never heard of)
Random note: who wants to start List of horse breeds influenced by Arabian Horse?
Not I --grin-- (and you know they are "my" breed), I survived the complete and utter hissy fit that the Andalusian people threw when I dared to mention that their precious animals probably had Arabian influence.  (They don't even like to admit to the DNA evidence of Barb influence)  Unless we can document every single one by peer-reviewed DNA studies, it's an edit war waiting to happen!  =:-O
3) Relevance to non-equestrian world, both contemporary and historical

Note: this is a criterion the project will have to decide about. IMHO this should be taken into account. I see the articles of this project as the books of a library. Every time a Wikipedia reader/browser comes to a WPEQ article, that's a library visitor asking for that particular article-book from the librarian. The librarian, a sensible being, has his helpers (us) organise the books so that the ones that get asked about often are in the nearer shelves (high), and the ones that collect dust are located in the far ones (low) or even in the cellar (bottom). The absolute top books he keeps under his desk (top). Now, the librarian doesn't care if the customer asking for a book is an equine-minded person or not. He only cares about how often and how far he needs to walk to fetch a certain book. I.e. how often a book is asked. It should also be noted that many of the customers are not knowlegeable about horses, so many if not most of them will come back, return a Top or High shelf book, and say "gee, this was interesting, but I didn't quite get a few things... would you happen to have books on [topics]?" That is, articles crucial for understanding more specific articles should be of higher priority. In this light, I would say that non-equestrian relevance is also a viable criterion, if not the most important one (seeing that most readers aren't horse experts), to keep in mind when assessing article importance.
Upper phase: Draught/heavy working horse (as per type; main source of power for about a century in Europe); Donkey and Mule as widespread working equines. Zebras (as in taxonomy) as an extremely well known type of equine (imagine the "A is for" books - basically any given Anglophone child learns what a zebra is when they learn what letter Z is) and a major name in relevant African biospheres. Brumby as a national pest.
Middle phase:  Icelandic and Finn(ish )horse have been more or less the only horses (so the articles practically double as Equine history of Iceland/Finland) in their respective countries; Arabian has been such, I suppose, in certain parts of the Arabian world and apparently holds major cultural value in those areas to this day. Mongolian horse has been the core of an entire, victorious people.
Lower phase: Sorry, Tiny Island. Sparkleez might have been 75% of your horse population and 50% of your entire livestock since the 13th century, but your horse population is 4 and the number of people they have kept alive has never exceeded 5.
4) How well known it is in the grass roots of the equestrian world; how "legendary" or "infamous" it is; how many pony girls dream of owning one; how likely it is to appear in a stable yard argument in a phrase such as "Yeah, but [breed] are even prettier/nicer/cooler/awesomer!" or "No one wants a [breed], they're boring/dumb/sucky/so last season"? And in how many countries that conversation could be had without anyone going "[breedname], what's that? Never heard!"? How many of that breed has Bob Langrish photographed, and how many jigsaw puzzles of that breed populate attics worldwide? How likely it is to appear in a random horse breed book? A random "all about horses" book? A random "My First Pony Book"? A random "my dream stable" PC game?

Upper phase: TB, Arabian, Andalusian, Friesian, Appaloosa, Shire, Clydesdale, Haflinger, WB, Miniature horse, Mustang, Shetland (classic again), that-often-but-not-always-spotted/"coloured"-featherlegged-cobbish-breed-from-Ireland-associated-with-tinkers/gypsies/vanners
Middle phase: Saddlebred, Quarter, Fjord (...maybe?), SB, Brumby (maybe?), miniature horse, Akhal Teke, Icelandic (?), Paint, Palomino (as in the "breed"), Lipizzaner, and I daresay Welsh, NF, Connemara as well
Lower phase: Colorado Ranger, Lyngs/Nordlandshest, Vladimir Heavy Draught just to name a few
Bottom phase: Your Backyard Project (unless you're Queen of England) (no, really!)
 *steams* --Pitke (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

 Where to begin?  WikiProjects usually just do high, mid and low.  No need to get too refined there (put it all in "low" and then see what's worth moving up?) Yeah, if you want to move this whole thread over to WPEQ for everyone to discuss, I'm good with that.  (Just leave it here with a note, maybe we can do a strikeout after the move to stop the discussion here and get people to go there).  Your point is well-taken that the this (the Saddlebred) article is a good example of the dilemma of deciding where to draw the line.   Low or Mid?  You have some good ideas on what we should be thinking about. Overall significance of various breeds?  What's high?  TBs, Arabs, easy. After that it gets real muddy. Andalusians, maybe, but who can make the argument that they are MORE significant than the Lipizzan, as both have similar ancestry and antiquity;  Friesians?  Significant?  They aren't as old as their fans want them to be, so nah, but maybe similar to Lipizzans.  Vanners?  Oh god no, little girls love them, but do we want My Little Pony ranked "high?"  =:-O  The big drafts? Maybe, but why not the Belgian horse, which is far more numerous and influential (at least over here)?  You see the dilemma. Google hits would place the American Quarter Horse as #1, probably, I swear every American interested in horses gets issued one at least once in their life!  (Even my family owned one, once, when I was a kid.)  Yet they have influenced very few new breeds and have only existed officially since 1945.  Mid due to numbers and influence, though.  After all, the FEI just pretty much was forced to create international sport out of something that was localized to the US west (reining) and just for them until about 15 years ago.  
All of which is to say, point well taken and very interesting discussion.  Should go to WPEQ.  I've got kind of a busy week coming up, but feel free to move this over there!  Montanabw(talk) 15:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I temporary hid the harness horse image because over on commons, the uploader, Princess Mérida, has been banned and blocked as a sockpuppet, and that editor uploaded TONS of watermarked horse images from Flickr that are all indicated as by "Author:Heather Moreton."  This particular one has had the watermark removed, but I think unless we get an OTRS OK from Heather Moreton, my concern is that the images will be challenged later.  (They're great images, but all watermarked -- or once watermarked -- to this one photographer).  I like the idea of having a harness horse image, though.  Just happen to be aware that there could be a problem (same banned editor uploaded a ton of photos identified as "Morabs" and "ponies" even though clearly labeled as other breeds... sigh)  Montanabw(talk) 18:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

So far, the Heather Moreton photos that I've checked have been properly licensed for transfer to Commons. Which means we can use them, regardless of who actually did the transfer. However, just to be safe, I have dropped a note to the user (admin?) who appears to be doing a good chunk of the cleanup work for this puppet on Commons. We'll see what he has to say. I have noticed some of their mis-tagged photos, and already moved a couple of them. However, Ms. Moreton appears to have tagged the images correctly on Flickr, it is just a matter of the user transferring them to Commons and putting them under the wrong categories. So, in many cases, the mistake is easily corrected by checking the Flickr pages for the original images. Dana boomer (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
The sockmaster  of the account that uploaded was RafikiSykes, which rings a bell as a problem user.  Also the mislabeling drove me nuts. If all is well, I have no problem using the image, though I wish we had a full-body shot.  Oh well.  Montanabw(talk) 22:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 Do you think this is a better harness image, if we can fix the Moreton situation?  Montanabw(talk) 20:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The user I asked on Commons said the Moreton images are fine, and that it's just the Princess Merida account that's blocked, the main account isn't. And that image is fine - I think the one I had in there is a bit prettier, but this one does show the whole horse better. I'll add it in. Dana boomer (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

For future reference, do you think this will ever pass muster as a RS?  It's thorough and seems pretty accurate, but is also  self-published Thoughts?  Montanabw(talk) 18:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Would probably be OK for GAN - the author seems to have also written/reported on movies for a few magazines and TV shows. It is self-published, though, which makes it iffy. So, probably OK, but it would be better to find something else, especially if we head to FAC (which we definitely could at some point with this article). Dana boomer (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, is there anything else major, or are we good to go for a GA run? Dana boomer (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy.  Give it a shot!  Montanabw(talk) 23:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Added a three-gaited horse and swapped a muddy photo for a better one of a five-gaited horse.  What think you of this new image to swap yet again for the harness horse?  Kind of artsy with the blur, prettier horse, but the cart not shown.  Your call!  ;)  .  Your call.  Montanabw(talk) 21:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm. This one is artsier. However, since what we're trying to illustrate is the fact that they're used for driving, I think an image that shows the cart is better... Dana boomer (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, just tossed it into the pile.  No worries!  Montanabw(talk) 22:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The article asserts that several horses of "the Golden Age of Hollywood" were played by American Saddlebred horses, among them the star horses in the films My Friend Flicka and National Velvet.  I do not think this holds up to inspection.
The claim cites one article in The Equine Chronicle Online, but the statement in that article is itself not supported by a quotation or reference to other evidence.  This would not normally be significant (the website seems credible), except for the fact that the National Velvet claim is clearly refuted by several highly authoritative sources that are specifically dedicated to the discussing identity of the film horse.
National Velvet is identified as a thoroughbred named "King Charles" and a grandson of Man O' War by The Times of London, The Classic Film Union, IMDb, Turner Classic Movies, and a whole host of fan sites.
The question of Flicka is more difficult to trace.  Turner Classic Media, which owns the rights to the 1943 (ie "the Golden Age of Hollywood" era) My Friend Flicka, and the American Film Institute list the horse that played her as "Country Delight, a horse". Different sites make contradictory claims about that horse's breeding: one asserts that the human star, Roddy McDowell, described the horse as being an Arabian. Others do say that it was a Saddlebred. None of them (as far as I can see) provide citations to original interviews or sources.
The article also makes an unsourced claim that Mr Ed was an American Saddlebred.  However, IMDb states that Mr Ed was a Saddlebred-Arabian cross named Bamboo Harvester, the Wikipedia article on Mr. Ed describes the horse as being of "American Saddlebred, Arabian and grade ancestry", which is supported by the Allbreed Database.
This being the case, think it is only right to delete the reference to National Velvet, add a reference-needed tag to Flicka, and clarify that Mr Ed was a cross-bred Saddlebred.
WarlanderHorse (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll fix Mr. Ed, as you are correct he was half-Saddlebred. However, we have sourced ALL of these claims (some cites cover two or more animals, and I believe the Saddlebred registry's records verify the identity of several horses, (though I don't feel like ponying up the $10 to check their database) the source cited references an exhibit at the Kentucky Horse Park's International Museum of the Horse, which tends to be reliable about sourcing its claims.  Fan sites, blogs and IMDb are all considered unreliable sources, but I can look over the others.  In some cases, multiple horses were used in certain films, and some more of these animals may have been crossbreds, though Allbreed is also a dubious source because anyone can edit it, the note on King Charles indicates that he was not a registered Thoroughbred, I would have to verify, but I believe that TB bloodlines were still permitted in the Saddlebred studbook for quite a while, so not impossible that a registered Saddlebred could also be a grandson of a TB.  Some people are also shocked to realize that the old Saddlebreds could jump.  Montanabw(talk) 20:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
(ec with Montana) Warlander, I'm agreeing with Montana here. You're inserting unreliable sources, such as Find-a-Grave and IMDB, while discounting sources such as The Chronicle of the Horse. Some movie fan's Tripod page, and user-sourced sites such as AllBreedPedigree are also considered unreliable. Some of your reliable sources don't hold up as well. Take, for example, the list of sources for King Charles (the horse in National Velvet). I can't see the first one, but I'm going to AGF. The second is a fan blog. The third is IMDB, not a RS. The fourth doesn't say he was a Thoroughbred, it says he was the grandson of Man o' War. There was quite a bit of TB blood crossed into Saddlebreds before the stud book closed (do we have an exact date on this? Likely around WWII), so it's quite possible he was a MoW grandson and a Saddlebred. The fifth is a fan site. So, we have three unreliable sources, one that doesn't support the information and one that I can't see. Dana boomer (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
And I found another source, claiming he was a "thoroughbred" but also stating that the Man o' War thing was a myth.  Also keep in mind that amongst the general public, they use "Thoroughbred" to mean purebred.  I cannot find squat on the actual pedigree of King Charles, though I suppose the AHSA would be able to verify this if one of us wanted to pony up the $10.  But then, as it's a paywall site, would we then have RS sourcing issues?  Montanabw(talk) 01:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Dana:  Would you consider this a reliable source:  http://www.horseshowcentral.com/flex/saddlebred_stallions/157/1    Montanabw(talk) 01:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

No. No editorial policy that I can see, and some of the info is user submitted (although what is and isn't is not marked, as far as I can tell). The source (TV Acres) for Mr. Ed isn't top-quality either - it's one man's pet project, SPS with no claim of expertise. I would suggest either this HorseChannel article or this The Guardian article (the latter says he was Saddlebred/Arabian/grade, which would match with the pedigree at Bamboo Harvester). Dana boomer (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
That works.  Montanabw(talk) 17:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. I know I'm being picky, but this is definitely an article we could take to FAC, and it's easier to find good sources now then in the middle of a FAC review! Dana boomer (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:American Saddlebred/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 06:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I propose to take on this review and will study the article in detail in the next couple of days. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


### First reading
In general the article is well laid out and well-written. Because I am from the UK, I tend to think usages that are not acceptable in British English are wrong. However, if you feel some of the points that I don't like are OK in the United States, you should disregard what I say. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

"Descending from riding-type horses bred at the time of American Revolution, ..." "Descended" and "the American Revolution"?
"American Saddlebreds stand 15 to 17 hands (60 to 68 inches, 152 to 173 cm) high[1] averaging 15 to 16 hands (60 to 64 inches, 152 to 163 cm) [2] and weigh between 1,000 to 1,200 pounds (450 to 540 kg)." - I would put a comma after the first set of measurements, and I think you need "and" rather than "to" in the last set which is a "between" range.
"The Saddlebred has origins in the Galloway and Hobby horses of the British Isles, animals sometimes called palfreys, and who had ambling gaits that were brought to the United States by early settlers." - The "and" after palfreys should be omitted and I would use "which" rather than "who", which I reserve for humans.
"Its existence was first documented in 1776 letter when an American diplomat wrote the Continental Congress ..." - "a 1776 letter" and "to the Continental Congress"?
"... a descendent of the Thoroughbred Messenger. Messenger is also considered ..." - It is undesirable to finish a sentence and start the next with the same word.
I'm puzzled why the fourth paragraph of the 19th Century section starts talking about "Morgan studbooks".
We're trying to demonstrate that while there were private studbooks earlier, the Saddlebred studbook was the first public association. I've rewritten this to try to explain it better. Dana boomer (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
"... was instrumental in forming the organization." - Which organization?
"Saddlebred horse shows standards continued to evolve ..." - Apostrophe needed.
"The industry slowed during World War II," - What industry?
"... the first, and only, Saddlebred to appear on the cover of Sports Illustrated." - Needs a citation.
This was cited at the end of the next sentence, but I've added a duplicate ref here. Dana boomer (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
"Also in 1917, the American Horse Shows Association, now the United States Equestrian Federation, formed, which began ..." - "was formed and began".
"... the hair at the top of their tails, the dock trimmed short." - Punctuation.
"Some Saddlebreds have also been suitable for fox hunting, cutting and roping." - The present tense would be better and a better wikilink for "cutting" is needed.
"Because they are so closely affiliated with their traditional show ring competition, elsewhere they sometimes are mistaken for warmbloods or Thoroughbred crosses." - Could be better phrased.
"Owners and exhibitors of the breed have included numerous other celebrities, such as Clark Gable ..." - Could be better phrased.
I will consider the lead later. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! I think I have addressed everything above. I replied to a couple; the rest I just took care of in the article. Please let me know if there is anything I missed or need to address further. Dana boomer (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Good! I think the lead needs to be enlarged in order for it to fully summarize the rest of the article. It needs to have more on the history and characteristics of the breed with perhaps less emphasis on the health problems. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I've expanded the lead with more information on the history, uses and characteristics. I didn't remove any of the information on health problems, because there was just one sentence about them, but the expansion of the rest of the information has caused the health info to take up proportionately less space. Dana boomer (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


### GA Criteria
1a The article is well written
1b The article conforms with the MOS guidelines and the Lead section has recently been improved.
2a&b The article is well referenced and has inline citations for all contentious statements.
2c There is no original research as far as I can see.
3a&b The coverage is broad enough and the article does not include irrelevant material.
4 The article is neutral.
5 The article has been expanded and improved by the nominator and Montanabw since late January and there has not been any significant edit warring.
6 The images are mostly appropriately licensed with one being in the public domain, having been created over one hundred years ago.
7 The images are relevant to the topic and have suitable captions.
Overall assessment - Pass.
Thank you very much for the review! Dana boomer (talk) 12:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Do we need any of these?

I think there's also a couple pictures on Commons of the conformation part of a stake class, with the saddles stripped from the horses. There are quite a few, probably 50, ASB pics on there that are not within the breed category, although I tried to fix that with a few of them.
White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The categories are often messed up; I enable the "cat-a-lot" feature on Commons and when I run into a batch like that, I fix them -- the problem is that you can do mass imports from Flickr if the licensing is right, but the proper categories often don't port with the import.  As for the pics, I think the middle one is good, the others, meh... Montanabw(talk) 05:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on American Saddlebred. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100629150912/http://www.asha.net/Breed-History-500-1700 to http://www.asha.net/Breed-History-500-1700
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120913030104/http://www.morganhorse.com/registry/registry_history/ to http://www.morganhorse.com/registry/registry_history/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071008092258/http://www.asha.net/asha/news.php?f=ashaindividualawardwinner to http://www.asha.net/asha/news.php?f=ashaindividualawardwinner
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The 'History' section needs to be extensively re-written to attribute the creation of the Saddlebred, formerly the 'American Saddle Horse' until 1980, to John B. Castleman, the founder and president of the American Saddle Horse Association (now the American Saddlebred Horse Association), who stated the following in his autobiography Active Service (1917): "In early boyhood, I had already begun to take an intelligent interest in the breeding and development of a horse which, in after life, became one of my public interests and personal pleasures, and co-operating with others finally accomplished a result that is now known throughout the world as the 'American Saddle Horse', an achievement thus referred to by the singularly gifted William R. Goodwin, editor of the Breeders' Gazette, in an article concerning the writer: 'As the foremost advocate of the most beautiful creation of the breeder's art—The American Saddle Horse. For nearly a quarter of a century, as president, he has guided the destinies of the American Saddle Horse Breeders' Association, inviting and compelling attention to the matchless beauty, finish and service of the saddle horse as developed under the auspices of that association, and he has lived to see the complete triumph of the type in America.'" Quote is located on page 53 on the free-to-read and digitized Internet Archive copy of the book, courtesy of Cornell University: https://ia801301.us.archive.org/17/items/cu31924032780649/cu31924032780649.pdf
I will start on re-writing the 'History' section to reflect this source, but other editors' help would be much appreciated! Obversa (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

This is WP:PRIMARY and undue weight.  It's also a rather self-serving work. That kind of flowery language is not encyclopedic and absent independent sources, this alone doesn't cut it.  Montanabw(talk) 05:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Please explain what you mean. The Talk section was up for quite a while before I made any edits. Obversa (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Can you explain further why you reverted this article to a 2018 version... and without also fixing all the errors that are now displaying in the references section? That seems pretty drastic to me.    ▶ I am Grorp ◀  04:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to fix those cite errors, as they obviously were fine when originally done.  But I'll try to tackle them.  But I was looking for the last "clean" version prior to all the cruft that upended the article and could cost it GA status. If I don't have it squared away by tomorrow, I won't kick if you do some cleanup. Montanabw(talk) 05:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand. Seems you have fixed the refs.    ▶ I am Grorp ◀  17:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)