Talk:Riderless horse

message: is this a custom in the U.S. only, or is the exclusive focus on American riderless horses simply an artifact of systemic bias? —Charles P._(Mirv) 07:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it a custom that was revived in the 20th century, or does it have a continuous history? 213.122.8.152 (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: is it true that the horse can never be rode by a person again? Atrades (talk) 09:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that horses used in such ceremonies are pressed into service for the event in question, but then generally ridden again, though there may be certain circumstances, such as a horse owned by the deceased, where the animal may be retired from general use.  I don't know if there are special traditions for riderless horses used for particularly special events or not... and, sadly, I am not one of the people with the time (nor sufficient motivation) to to this particular bit of research, though it is an interesting question.  Montanabw(talk) 04:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: The last edit, i.e., deletion of two items, as "toned down hyperbole," removed important and interesting material —e.g.,  1) reason for Hamilton to be extended that honor, and 2) details of riderless horse funeral that should have been left in the entry.  In fact, the entry is deficient in not containing a complete account of that type of funeral. And If the quotation was too long, that is a different thing that should be explained as such in the edit summary! If in need of correcting something, the poor grammar in this Talk Page, would be quite appropriate!  For example, "is it true that the horse can never be rode by a person again?", the lack of titles in the first two items, etc.LeBassRobespierre (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need to go into details about every famous person's funeral that ever had a riderless horse escort.  And raving about how famous Hamilton was (as opposed to Lincoln, Kennedy, etc.) is rather WP:UNDUE.  This is an article about the horses, not state funerals in general.  Montanabw(talk) 07:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

text: This article is internally inconsistent. If the honor of a boots-backwards horse goes only to officers equivalent to the Army's Colonels and above, and to the Secretaries of the Services (when existing), Secretary of War (when existing), Secretary of Defense (when existing) and President of the United States, then Alexander Hamilton didn't get the boots-backwards horse by being an ex-Secretary of the Treasury. That's Wikipedia's own text contradicting its own text. If Hamilton DID get a boots-backwards horse, it seems likely that the only way he could have qualified for it is by being Major General in the Quasi-War. I could not find where Hamilton ranked higher than Lt. Colonel in the Revolution, and that wouldn't qualify under Wikipedia's own statement of the rule. Alternatively, your text stating the honor to be reserved for Colonels and above in the military command could be wrong. SOMETHING is wrong: either Hamilton couldn't have gotten the boots-backwards horse, OR he got this honor without meeting the conditions of the rule, or your statement of the rule is wrong and an ex-Secretary of the Treasury gets this honor, or the correct explanation of this honor to Hamilton is NOT his cabinet-rank as you state but his military-rank in the Quasi-War as you omit. SOMETHING needs correcting, I just don't know what. But please, just beat me down as you always do when (a) I find two statements that contradict each other but (b) don't have a source that asserts that one or both halves of the conjoined contradiction are wrong. You just can't impeach Wikipedia for being internally inconsistent and get away with it.2604:2000:C6AA:B400:91C:8837:FFB4:48F9 (talk) 07:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexander Hamilton

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Riderless horse. 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/20100626081049/http://www.whitehousehistory.org/whha_publications/publications_documents/whitehousehistory_19.pdf to http://www.whitehousehistory.org/whha_publications/publications_documents/whitehousehistory_19.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The redirect Loose horse has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  TartarTorte 18:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Loose horse]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]