Talk:Gypsy horse

message: I'm sure this is deliberate, isn't it? I swear I am beginning to hate Wikipedia, which is blatantly political in ALL areas, and am sorry I ever helped with this article. You need to include the Gypsy Horse Association in this--you've removed it for some reason--me I would guess. It is more viable than some of the registries you have included. 
I am not sure why I, who brought this article from a stub to something that could at least be publishable, was treated with such hostility. I can only think its a fear of being called 'racist' for not acknowledging Ireland's contribution to the breed. If Ireland was instrumental in the development of the breed, I'm glad it is included. Why the hostility to me, personally, I do not understand. I certainly don't know everything (and actually very little about the origins of the breed). I'm glad that's been included if, in fact, it is true. This having left GHA out of the article, though, is reprehensible and a nice thank you for the hours I spent writing the original article. 
You know, if my input to it is so terribly unwelcome, I want you to remove the photos of my horses that I contributed. The main photo is Bria--I took the photo and she was mine at the time. The photo of feather is from Harley, my Drum stallion. Please remove that and replace it with an Irish horse's feather. The photo of the foal's hock set was, again, one I took and was of a foal I proudly bred. 
I do not understand why my contributions to this article have been met with such hostility and frankly I wish I'd never heard of Wikipedia. I avoid using it because of its highly politicized content, as is here apparently, although I'm not sure exactly why my content was treated with such hostility. Even your math articles are political--how do you manage that?
Anyway, ADD the GYPSY HORSE ASSOCIATION to this article. If you don't, I'll come in and do it myself. I suspect I will have to anyway. Such gratitude for my work on this article. Shame on you. Shame on you all. 
*****
I have thought about this, and belay what I said above. A good number of the registries you have listed are simply jokes and some are effectively defunct. I think it would lower the Gypsy Horse Association--a vibrant, rapidly growing registry--to be listed among them. Just forget adding it. You'd be including it among virtual jokes. 
I would still like my photos replaced though. Since your emphasis is the 'Irish Cob,' I think you should get some nice Irish Cob photos to replace my horrid Gypsy Horse ones. In fact, how about renaming the article? It was "Gypsy Vanner" when I started on it. Someone in Wikipedia got it changed to "Gypsy Horse". How about making it "Irish Cob" since your emphasis is clearly on the supposed Irish origins of the breed? Seems only fair, doesn't it? 
Two more items I'd like to add. I wish I had not seen this tonight--I have been seething all night about it.
 
1. You are hypocrites. 
When I wrote the article that this is a bastardized version of, I was held to a very strict standard. What I included had to be verifiable from a respected, PUBLISHED source. I see no such documentation for the Irish origins of the breed. I am not disputing that--in fact I could share some stories of Irish stallions brought to England and used by the breeders there. These are hearsay, however, and so I could not include them. Yet you've readily included the Irish origin of the breed--without documentation. You've violated the principles that Wikipedia CLAIMS to abide by.
I am unsure of your reasons for violating your principles in accepting the Irish origins of the Gypsy Horse, although I can certainly speculate. However, this makes you hypocrites, doesn't it? 
2. You are highly politicized. 
I have slowly learned that. Everything from Jeffrey Epstein's death to higher mathematics you politicize. The Gypsy Horse Association was included in the article when I left it. Someone deliberately erased it at some point, while listing 'registries' that are virtual jokes. There was no reason; unlike some of the 'registries' you have listed, GHA is a rapidly growing registry in the U.S. Yet you chose to delete it. Why? I can only assume it was hostility to me. I'm still not sure of the source of this hostility--someone came in and complained that the article I had written didn't acknowledge the Irish origins of the breed? I obeyed Wikipedia rules and only included what I could verify from published sources. I could certainly have shared stories of famous stallion's Irish origins--but those weren't published. They were hearsay. And yet hostility was directed at me, as if I were being 'racist' for not including the Irish origins of the horse? Was that it? And then GHA, with which I'm associated, was erased from the article. 
This incident proves beyond a shadow of a doubt how highly, highly politicized Wikipedia is. Believe me, I'll be sharing this with my Gypsy friends.
This time I am done. You simply aren't worth more spending time on. You are despicable.   
Best wishes,
Mary Graybeal
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.33.212.79 (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Reply:  We are all equally important as Wikipedia editors, and consensus is the rule of the day.  I think that the article needs work, and we can sandbox some edits to improve it. I'm collapsing and closing this discussion for now, and if you watch your talkpage, you'll see what I suggest. Montanabw(talk) 21:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: First Question:
Why was the Drum Horse removed? To completely describe some of the registries, some mention of Drum Horses should be included. GHA now accepts partbreds for registration as Gypsy Partbreds and certain breedings (I believe 25% Gypsy + Friesian/Shire/Clyde) as Drum Horses. This should be added to make this correct. Of course, if you're trying to marginalize GHA, you won't care about this. 
Second Question:
Why was the section on the background of the word "vanner" removed? What was the rationale?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFGMary (talk • contribs) 18:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Reply:  We are all equally important as Wikipedia editors, and consensus is the rule of the day.  I think that the article needs work, and we can sandbox some edits to improve it. I'm collapsing and closing this discussion for now, and if you watch your talkpage, you'll see what I suggest. Montanabw(talk) 21:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: More questions

message: I amn't an expert, which is why I don't want to edit the section based of this alone. But this references the Romani people quite extensively, however the Irish Travellers (which is what the "g" slur references), are a distinct cultural group, unrelated to the Romani people. I checked a few of the sources and they don't seem to back up the history in this section
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:bb6:147f:3858:c9be:aaa8:61f4:40b3 (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  January 2021