Talk:Arabian horse/Archive 2

message: One area that is sure to generate editing wars is to go too far down the "purity" road when discussing Arabian breeding.  There is a lot of myth, romanticism, legend, argument and emotion that crops up about this issue.
So, for the sake of Wikipedia, let's just not go too far down that road. How "pure" of blood the Arabian really is happens to be a very hot, controversial topic in some circles within the Arabian breed itself.
Emotions run high:  By the strictest standard, some people argue that only something like 2 or 3 percent of modern Arabians meet the technical definition of "Asil" as propounded by the Bedouin.  On the other hand, many major Arabian registries in the USA and abroad argue with equal vehemence that EVERY SINGLE registered Arabian can be traced to "pure" blood from the desert. 
There are compelling arguments to be made for both sides.
What I think can come to as close to a neutral consensus view on this is as follows:  a)  There probably was an "Oriental" prototype that evolved in the middle east, adapted to a hot, dry climate, and existed prior to human domestication.  b)  The Arabian as a breed developed in relative genetic isolation, with "survival of the fittest" management, and from at least the 14th century we have strong evidence that purity of pedigree was protected with religious fervor by many of the Bedouin c)  Therefore, in scientific terms, the genetic prepotency of the breed is extremely strong. d) Because the genetic prepotency of the breed is so strong, even if there might be some non-asil blood in modern pedigrees, the hereditary influence is scientifically and statistically insignificant.  And d) getting into arguments over whose lines are "pure" and "unpure" is a quick way to make a lot of people very angry.  
So if we must discuss "purity," let's take it out of the realm of myth, hash it out here, and not edit the article unless a consensus arises. The last thing that needs to occur here is a flame war between Egyptian, Polish and Crabbet breeders.  Please!
The World Arabian Horse Association (WAHO) has a good discussion of this issue for those who want to delve deeply into it.  The organizations who are the most concerned with the "purity" of bloodlines include Al-Khamsa and the Pyramid Society.  The more "inclusive" positions are discussed by the Arabian Horse Association, and with a slightly different tack, WAHO.  All have web sites.  Decide for yourself. Montanabw 19:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Purity" issue--handle with care, please? 

message: ...does not apply to all Arabians; just a small, relatively rare subtype. Mythology is not as important as history so should stay lower on the page. DrL 19:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See below.  The "Al-Khamsa" myth isn't even the same as "Al-Khamsa" designation in modern pedigrees, as I understand it.  I see you created a red link on the words "Al-Khamsa," I think doing up an article on the topic is a VERY good idea, especially as this main article is already huge.Montanabw 19:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *It's a blue link. It was when I started the article on Al Khamsa that I noticed the inaccuracies here. I have several sources that I plan on adding to that article later today when I have a moment :)  DrL 19:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Proposed compromise--we keep mythology up on the page, but use most of your wording, in particular the phrase "Bedouin" bloodlines? Montanabw 19:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good thing it's labeled "mythology" because that's what it is! DrL 19:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but the link you supplied only confirms the point that "Al Khamsa" is a designation of a subset of Arabian horses, not the entire breed. In that way your edit is misleading. I will give you time to research it and correct your edit and will look to do the same. DrL 20:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: See the expanded "Controversies" section.  I hope I properly explained the position of Al Khamsa there and we can stop mucking around with the mythology section (see "Myth" discussion below).  We have to keep these short, and luckily you now have a page where you can expand on the definition if need be. But if the paragraph states Al-Khamsa's position incorrectly, go ahead and fix--but PLEASE keep it short--no longer than the others, anyway!  I made sure to put in a link to your Al Khamsa article too.Montanabw 18:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Al Khamsa

message: I have temporarily removed the following sentence from the mythology section in order for there to be further discussion here.
"Pure descendents of these bloodlines are referred to as Al Khamsa. 
It does not appear that anyone really believes these five horses actually existed.  They are a creation myth or story.  Of course, the same could be said for many human creation myths too, up to and including Adam and Eve.
Therefore, regardless of the status of Al-Khamsa horses today, the tale is a myth and we probably shouldn't be saying ANY horses descended from these fictional horses any more than that they descended from Ishmael's mythical steed Kuhaylah.
Further discussion invited.  Montanabw 17:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The myth is likely limited to the tale of Mohammed and the mares rushing to the water. That there were "choice strains" (the five plus a couple of others) that groups have strived to preserve is easily verifiable from breeding records. It's my understanding that the myth of Al Khamsa refers only to these strains. This is consistently reported in all sources. To generalize it to all Arabians changes a specific meaning of Al Khamsa. This is actually not accurate. I see that you want to use it as a "just so" story for the whole breed, but I would suggest a third opinion. DrL 23:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myth versus fact 

message: The Arabian horse article has been vandalized repeatedly in recent days, mostly by an unregistgered user who is upset about material in the article attributing Arabian ancestry to the Andalusian horse.   Then, when this language is in there, many Arabian defenders jump in and add less-than-helpful pro-Arabian comments.  Both violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy and it all needs to slow down and be debated HERE, not in the article itself.  It has now been reverted twice. I have softened some mention of the Andalusian, added some citations to the article, and added yet another bit to the eternal "controversies" section to attempt to quiet this dispute.
May I ask that pro-Arabian folks not make inflammatory statements or even emotional "I love Arabians" statements.  Please remember NPOV.  Revert vandalism and be fair.
As for the Iberian horse fans, please do not run down Arabians.  Arabian people are not vandalizing your articles, please extend the same courtesy to us.  From checking out many Andalusian web sites, it is clear that some aficianados of that breed dispute the presence of any "Arabian" blood in their animals.  Conversely, Arabian aficionados claim that the pure, documentable Bedouin Arabian exists in every light breed of horse.  
However, this is not an issue that needs to be fought about.  No one anywhere wrote down pedigrees to any great degree -- at least, none that can be traced from then to the modern day -- until about the 13th century at the earliest.  So, prior to the High Middle Ages and Renaissance, we really can only await DNA research to know the details.  The rest is at best educated theories based on historical research, skeleton studies, and occasionally legend and myth.
The bottom line is that oriental horses of the desert, whether called "Arabian" or not, obviously spread about the world at different times in history.  There is room to debate how much "oriental" or "Arabian" blood came to the Andalusian breed only via an ancient influx by proto-Arabians to the Barb or in part from Bedouin Arabians in the 8th century, but the only real debate is a question of when and how much and within how many generations, a question that only sequencing of the horse genome can answer for good. Aside from that, we have history, archaelology and palentology.
Mitochondrial DNA studies indicate that modern Barb and Iberian horses have intermixed at some time in history, especially via mares.  So DNA alone can't detail which came first, but obviously they crossed.  Similar comparison studies have apparently not been done on Barbs and Arabians.
However, it is pretty clear that most light horse breeds of Europe were created from more than one original proto-horse source, whether through natural breeding or with human guidance after domestication, and quite likely, both.  
Oriental proto-horses, the ancestors of Arabians, were light and agile, developed for a desert climate, not adapted for a colder, European climate.  Tarpans are the proto-horses drawn on the caves of Southern Europe, animals that were shorter-legged and less agile than the Oriental horse.  The "forest horse," adapted for a cold, damp climate, existed in northern Europe and was the ancestor of the modern draft horse.  The Andalusian itself in type and conformation clearly shows that all three types contributed to its development.  Only question is when.  Here is the most likely path:
1)  In the Ice Age, there may have been a land bridge across Gibralter that would have allowed desert-adapted oriental horses and Tarpan-type horses of southern Europe to interbreed in a climate within the adaptation range of both.  This may have been the first time oriental and European horses crossed.
2)  While Iberian horses are spoken of by ancient Roman writers, remember that ancient Europe had seen invasions from North Africa via Carthage.  If Hannibal brought over Elephants, certainly not native to Europe, he obviously brought trained war horses as well.  Inevitably, these horses crossbred with local animals, making a second, this time human-induced, influx of oriental horses to Europe.  Whether the horses of the Carthaginains could actually be called "Arabian" is doubtful, but they would have been desert-adapted, oriental-type horses.
3)  Finally, Muslim invaders took their horses with them as Islam spread from Arabian to North Africa and then to Spain.  The Moors stayed in southern Spain for several centuries.  Inevitably, war mares had to be replaced and would have crossbred with local animals all along the way.  Stallions were not used in warfare by the Bedouin, but would have been brought into conquered areas to "improve" local stock.  Thus, Arabian blood would have crossed with that of the north African horses, from the Hegira onward, influencing the modern Barb, and there is clear evidence from mitochondrial DNA that Barbs and Andalusians share some ancestry.  The historical record suggests that some Moors took Spanish horses back with them to North Africa as well, and the modern Barb shows characteristics of both Arabian and Iberian horses.  
So, if you want to discuss this issue further, please do it here and don't vandalize the article itself.  Montanabw 04:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iberian Horses vs Arabian horses:  Can we not fight, please?  Discuss here, instead 

message: I want to submit the following statement, but it claims there are "blacklist words" there.
The oldest and purest of all horse breeds, the Arab is considered by many people to be the most beautiful equine animal in the world. With its refined head and dished profile, expressive eyes, high spirits and unique, floating action, it is undoubtedly on of the most exquiste of creatures. Although it has certainly been bred with great care for many centuries, its exact origins are unclear. Depictions of horses in ancient art suggest that horses of Arab type lived in the Arabian peninsula as long ago as 2,000 - 3,000BC. Like the desert tribes with whom they have lived for so long, Arabian horses became superbly well adapted to life in a harsh environment, having extreme powers of endurance, tremendous soundness and ability to thrive on the most meagre of rations.
More than any horse, it is the Arab which has influenced the development of equine breeds throughout the world. This Arabian influence was initiated in the seventh and early eighth AD when the folowers of Islam spread across North Africa and into Spain. The horses they took with them were greatly superior to the native stock of other lands and so began a process of upgrading, through the introduction of Arabian blood, that was to go on for many centuries and, indeed, still goes on today.
Pure-bred Arabian horses are now bred throughtout the world. As well as appearing in the show ring, they are particulary suited to the sport of endurance riding. In recent times, too, there has been a resurgence of interest in Arab racing.
:Basically, that's because the material is not NPOV--too much flowery language, etc.  I had to cut out a bunch of that stuff when I did the major rewrite and cleanup of the article last March.  Every time stuff like this goes in, someone else comes by and inserts things like "Arabs are too high-strung, yada, yada, yada..." the usual stuff that all Arabian owners endure... We might think Arabs are the greatest horses in the world, but at the end of the day, everyone else thinks their favorite breed is the best too, and hence wikipedia's insistence on NPOV does make sense in that light.  I just finished cleaning up after a major P*****g match with some Andalusian people, who take exception to claims their horses have Arabian blood, claiming their horses are the pure descendants of horses native to the region, unchanged since time immemorial.  Only way to end that fight was to toss everything about Andalusians down to the controversies section and remove claims from the body of the article <sigh>.Montanabw 22:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  adding 

message: This article's GA Status is being Reviewed for possible delisting. Please see this section for details.
--Ling.Nut 03:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article's GA Status is being [[WP:GA/R|Reviewed]] 

message: Trying not to write a book about sabino Arabians.  The point is that there are semantic differences of opinions between researchers and the SAHR on what is a "maximum" sabino.  (Everyone but the Arabian people call a maximum sabino an almost white or pure white horse, some argue all white horses are just maximum sabinos)  Also the SB1 gene is probably NOT the one that causes sabino in Arabians, it's a dominant, and two copies produce white horses, yet there are essentially no true white Arabians and the very few sabino-white arabians (somewhere between two and eleven, apparently) are far fewer than would appear with a dominantecially when sabinos were thrown out of the registry until the dawn of DNA testing, esp.  Montanabw 22:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sabino 

message: When I was going through this article I noticed it didn't have a section about the current bloodlines within Arabians. Within the Arabian industry today, there are several main areas that leading studs brought over to America have started (Polish, Egyptian, Crabbet, Russian are the main ones). I don't know enough about every one of these to write a section on it but each of these has a few of its own leading studs as well as general disposition and physical characteristics; this could also be in the 'controversy' section depending on how much people do or do not believe disposition breeding, but, coming from the Arabian horse industry myself, generally there are certain dispositions recognized within these bloodlines- although there is a section about Russian and Polish breeding in the history section, I think more should be included in the article regarding the fact that these are still considered in breeding today especially for disposition and conformation. 
One more thing, right now this article does not include anything about Half-Arabians, who are included in shows and also have certain disposition factors depending on the other 'half' of their breeding (I say 'half' because Half-Arabs are any horses who have 1/2 or more Purebred Arab in them, so it could be 1/4 saddlebred and 3/4 arab, but this is still considered a half arab in the show world). I don't know if that might be a future addition or a completely different page, although I don't think it has enough history to have an entire page.
69.229.211.208 00:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different Areas of Arabian Breeding 

message: Donny asked for my input, and my view is that there's no particular reason to add this anecdote to this article. Exploding Boy 05:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Horse sex death

message: Check your sources. There's been substantial documented evidence as to the most likely migratory patterns of the ancient ancestors to both iberian and arabian horses. Its already been proven. There is no further debate.
Seperately, there is no formal documented DNA evidence that proves without a shadow of a doubt that Arabian horses is the foundation to EVERY known light horse breed. European light breeds can, however, thank the Iberian horse's foundation and contribution to their development and refinement, as per DNA evidence. That many breeders utilized Arabian blood to resolve mutated genertics brought about by their own faulty and careless inbred and linebred approach - and continue to do so to this day - is true.
The article lacks objectivity and thorough research. It is a biased and slanted propaganda for a breed of which less than 5% actually hold true to its foundation, body type and temperment standards. There are many statements in this article that are NOT verifiable. I question the objectivity, the obvious slant, and the research that went into the creation of this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.178.109 (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the article passed Good Article status, which means outside editors felt that it was sourced and verifiable. Personally, I am more than willing to look at new sources, but I need to be able to see them and evaluate them myself. Making claims that the article contains unverifiable statements without actually stating what claims you find unobjective isn't very helpful as far as including information you might find more objective. Keep in mind, I'm not the people who mainly wrote this article, so you'll probably hear from others also. It's a joint effort on wikipedia, of course. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iberian Horses - VS. Arabian Horses  

message: Why is it necessary to detail genetic diseases in other breeds?  The article is supposed to be about Arabians, and that detail on other breeds makes it a tougher read.  Can't we just mention that other breeds share these issues? -- But|seriously|folks  06:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hear what you are saying in terms of simplifying the article.  The problem is "horse politics."  Arabians are an extremely controversial breed, and one accusation is that they have been genetically weakened from excessive inbreeding, with detractors pointing to the existence of genetic lethals as proof.  Thus, noting that completely different genetic lethals exist in certain other breeds does two things:  Disarms the detractors who want to "slam" the breed, and also keeps hardcore Arabian aficionados from blanking the entire genetic disease section because they want to pretend the problem doesn't exist.  I'll look at the text and see if it can be tightened up some, though.  I am sympathetic to anything that un-bloats the article overall, it's just figuring out how to do it.  (sigh) Montanabw(talk) 07:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you looked for a source that says something along the lines of "Arabians are no more susceptible to genetic disease than several other breeds", or words to that effect?  I think that would be a better way to address it, if such a source exists. -- But|seriously|folks  07:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there IS a source, but the only one I know of is an article I co-authored for a national magazine, actually, but what's the rule on original research?  A no-no, correct? Montanabw(talk) 18:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken, however, I will see what can be done. Montanabw(talk) 01:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Genetic diseases

message: I've reverted a paragraph that was unsourced, and it turns out it was a copyvio from this site. Keep an eye out for it reappearing. Ealdgyth | Talk 01:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh, why this article that gets the romanticized crapola?  I will say that this and the Friesian horse articles are two where vandal patrol for peacock words is the biggest overall problem.  To that extent, I'd say you and I are well-suited to be the people to remove Peacock edits HERE! <grin> You want fun--or not--read archive one of this talk page, there was SOOO much garbage in here once, this article was once SUCH a mess! Its cleanup was my first GA, and thanks so much for helping to keep it that way! Montanabw(talk) 01:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest reversion

message: I can supply a nice image of Hector if needed??Cgoodwin (talk) 05:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is a little image-heavy, but yes, the Australian section has no images, so one there would be good, at least as long as it is free and legal.  By the way, if you can source that the Australian Jockey Club does list a bunch of Arabians as foundation Animals down there, note a "citation needed" tag is on that section. (just put the cite in parentheses if you have one, I'll make the formatting work) Montanabw(talk) 18:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will add that bit.  As for the image of Hector, or any other early Arab, the image itself may be public domain if it's in a work that has an expired copyright. I also can make an image work under a fair use rationale if it's all there is; see what I did with Skowronek as an example. Montanabw(talk) 19:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: See what I added.  Tweak as needed. Montanabw(talk) 16:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aussie Ayrabs

message: What are the external links doing in the infobox?  Is this typical of horse-related articles?Corvus coronoides talk 00:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I ask because I'm currently reviewing the article for GA Sweeps.  I understand that it is hard to change the template, but usually in info boxes external links aren't used to fill in the fields.  If this happens in every horse article, then I'll understand, but it seems strange to me. Corvus coronoides talk 22:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm.  Yes, that infobox format is used everywhere that it appears in any of the horse breed articles (see American Paint Horse, that was the prototype, I think) and I wasn't in on its creation, I've just been using it since. However, I also seem to be the only person who is doing anything actively with wikiproject horse breeds, at the moment, so if you can help me figure out a better way to do this, I'm all ears...I think the goal was to source a set of official standards, and the template came off of whatever they did for the dog breeds.  If you could be so kind as to take a glance over at the project page and see if there is a way to point myself or anyone else who cares in the right direction, I'm willing to add it to the to do list. Montanabw(talk) 06:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, and explain "GA Sweeps?" Montanabw(talk) 06:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See here for some details on the Sweeps.  I would suggest changing that link in the infobox into something other than "Stds" but it's your choice.  As I'm not part of the horse wikiproject, I think it's really up to you.  I'll get back to you with a more detailed review after I get back from vacation. Corvus coronoides talk 22:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: I think that the merge should happen because the other one is a shorter version of this, with some bits in it that could be put here. Any thoughts? Dreamafter ⇔ 17:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I simply blanked and redirected the article, there is no such thing as a "Syrian Arabian," there are Purebred Arabians in Syria.  There was just a spat between the World Arabian Horse Organization and the Syrian Government over the recognition of their studbook, an issue that has now been resolved, if you will note at the bottom of the "controversies" section of this article.  Thank you for drawing this to my attention. It's fixed now.  Montanabw(talk) 01:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Since all remaining  tags have been addressed, I have passed the article.Corvus coronoides talk 01:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps Pass

message: Is it just me, or does this article contain way too much fluff and unneeded information? I believe it needs to be cut down to a manageable length.  --Redwolf75 (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just you (LOL - grinning and ducking)!  The article has been granted Good Article status by independent editors of wikipedia, and though there were critiques, none were about length.  Not to say that there isn't always room to improve an article, but this is simply one of many long articles.   One person's "fluff" is another person's critical information.  If any individual sections seem a bit "fluffy," feel free to offer any specific comments and we can take a look at them and explain why they are significant (or, if you are right and they are fluff, we may edit accordingly).  Montanabw(talk) 04:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length 

message: I'm thinking I'm going to have to go over the sourcing with the proverbial "FAC" eye here, and try to sort out what will pass muster at FAC and what won't. The problem with me working on this article is that folks will insist that the article be reliably sourced, since I go through every FAC and make them do their sources to meet WP:V and WP:RS. Or course, if I wasn't working on the article, I'd be the one making ya'll meet WP:V and WP:RS, so there really isn't any escaping. What I'll do is go through it (hopefully tomorrow) and note all the questionable sources on this talk page. THen we can see about replacing them (which will be fun). Anyway, I'm done for the night, I think. Got rounds to do in the morning, gotta check every horse on the property! (79 at last count, ugh!)  Ealdgyth - Talk 02:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hoist by your own petard, eh?  (grin).  I think you LIKE checking on 79 horses, by the way!  LOL! I'll try to get some of the GBE page numbers in later.  Montanabw(talk) 04:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Possible pics. These are older ones I've culled out. Hopefully things will calm down some next week so we can get more shots. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's my question:  Which images should we replace, what images may be missing, etc.?  I realize that the lead image should ideally be facing the other direction, but other than that, is there really a problem with it? (Standstill halter shot may be preferable, but do you have one...?) Montanabw(talk) 03:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  LOL.. I picked trotting ones because the current one is trotting. Let me check, but I'm pretty sure I have an outside stand up shot. (Nope, don't) I have head shots too. Standing halter shots are easy to deal with, Monday we take the bay halter mare out and shoot her next to some greenery. Want handler in the shot or not? I can guarantee you that they WILL ding on the photo going out of the article. It's in the MOS, mores the pity, so we need to have the image going into the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the only gripe will be the horse going in the wrong direction, and I know they don't want you to flip photos, lordy that is just dumb.  Sigh.  Either a good trotting shot with a LOT of nice impulsion or a good standup clearly showing breed standard would be good.  The standup probably easier to get.  We also could use an outstanding head shot of a nice, typy horse somewhere in the characteristics section, we don't have a good head shot.  Montanabw(talk) 16:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Heh, I didn't say I agreed with the issue (I don't, actually) but rather than get involved in minute MOS discussions, I'd rather .. oh...write articles! I'll see what we can do this week. (I'm pooped after clipping a baby and doing pasture trims yesterday). Ealdgyth - Talk 16:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If that chestnut at the end of the top row didn't have a wry tail carriage, I'd say that one would work.  Or if the one of the bay on the bottom just had the better angle and lighting of the one of the chestnut.  Montanabw(talk) 22:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

text:  We're going to take the bay mare out tomorrow and oil her up and put one of the fancy new style "desert" halters on her and stand her up pretty. That'll give us a good nice shot. (And no making fun of the chestnut, I think we're breeding to him next year, he's pretty spiffy!) Keep in mind these are my culls, the ones that the clients didn't want. (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 22:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

text: (whimpering with delight) YUMMY!  Montanabw(talk) 21:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pics

message: Hm. We can go two ways. We can quote both the older study and the newer study, or we can leave the percentages out all together. I just found the info and threw it in (grins) Since we have the guy at the TB FAC wanting values of the horses, I figure any data could be asked for! It's up to ya'll, really. Otherwise, things are looking pretty good on the article front. I figure Montana will tweak my writing to death (as it deserves). Still a few sources that need to be replaced, and then a pretty thorough copy edit. (Montana, you're really good at that, btw!) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I say toss the SCID stats entirely, but if someone at FA wants them later, we can keep them handy and maybe note the 8-25% range if we need to (three studies, actually, if you count VetGen).  I'll be adding in Upton page numbers sometime soon.  I have the book out and am carrying it with me as a constant reminder to get on it!  I'll also add Wentworth after I add Upton.  (Wentworth is too heavy to carry around!) Montanabw(talk) 22:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That works. If you don't get it out, I will later tonight. We're going into "town" for some shopping. (I feel like such the ranch hand saying that...) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: SCID figures

message: The templates are probably the cause of this, but note footnote 6, which is the USEF rule book, used at least three times-- the first two times, cites a and b, correctly go to rule 102 the breed standard), but if you look at the footnote that is at c, it actually cites rule 112 (even though all three go to the same pef file on the web, it's a LOOOONG file so the rule breakdowns are helpful).  I made this a different cite, but the templates are being too helpful and citing all three to 102 anyway.  Any ideas how to fix that glitch?  Montanabw(talk) 22:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me look at it real quick. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you link me the urls that lead direct to rule 102 and rule 112? When I click on the link it takes me to the first page of the rule book, not to either rule. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's part of the problem, it's all one big file.  Montanabw(talk) 22:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tech glitch 

message: Looking at Thoroughbred, the only thing I see missing is something about the numbers of Arabians worldwide, the "Registration, breeding and population" section, which should probably go into the "Modern breeding" section. I'll try to do a copy-edit pass later today, and maybe find data on numbers, if possible. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A long time back someone wanted stats on how the US has the most Arabians, followed by Australia, etc...I couldn't find a good list at the time so had to cut a few statements, so boy, if you can find data, that would be cool!  Thanks!  Montanabw(talk) 04:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things we might need... 

message: Hi Dana, Just an FYI that I tossed the myth of black-horses-bad-luck stuff because there used to be a nearly identical bit in there that we tossed earlier as verbiage.  There ARE better sources for Black being rare (I think GBE actually crunched the percentages based on registration records, but I couldn't find it in "War Horse to Show Horse" so it has to be somewhere else...), the main thing is just that Bay is very dominant in Arabians (something like 60% of all Arabians are bay) and the Agouti gene causing bay is, of course, dominant over black, so it stands to reason this would be the situation.
The other problem is that most alleged "Bedouin beliefs" are either romantic fabrications, total hooey, or at best the views of one particular tribe or another.  For example, some alleged myths say that Black horses were special and treasured by Allah, not the opposite!  LOL!  We also have myths about chestnuts (hot-tempered), Bay (stamina), Grays, etc... the only consistent myth is the "bloody-shoulder" thing about flea-bitten gray mares being extra special, though I've seen multiple variations on that story too. (Some tales, the Bedouin warrior dies, others he lives, sometimes the mare carries him to camp, other times she stands vigil over his dead body, etc...).  I've even seen a variation on the Al Khamsa mares that puts them in the time of Christ instead of Muhammad...anyway, the upshot was that the alleged Bedouin mythos on Black got tossed out of the article a while back...and I think I was the party who both inserted and then removed it! :-D   Montanabw(talk) 19:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me to toss the information.  Now that you mention it, I think I do remember that we used to have something like it in the article that we tossed.  If at some point we can find reliably-sourced percentages, let's add them to the article, but for now what we have should be good. Dana boomer (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okies.  And your source is better, wasn't sure if it contained the rareness info or just the myth.  But if it says black is rare, for whatever reason, it will do.  I wonder if we just crunched numbers from datasource would that constitute original research?  Montanabw(talk) 20:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Errr...what do you mean by "datasource"?  Can you link it? Dana boomer (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Datasource and yes, it would be OR. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The other problem is using datasource is subscription only.  I forgot about that. Oh well.  I just wish I could dig where in the recesses of my brain is the source for the data.  Pretty sure it was GBE, but could have been something like and article in AHW from 20 years ago...  :-P   Montanabw(talk) 02:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color myths 

message: Light riding horses such as Arabians, Morgans, or Quarter Horses usually range in height from 14 to 16 hands (56 to 64 in/140 to 160 cm) and can weigh from 850 to 1,200 pounds (390 to 540 kg). 
But there is nothing wrong whith that, it does not make the horse less valuable.
Arabians are great horses.
Bluee Mountain (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bluee, the Arabian breed registry standard as propounded by both the AHA and the USEF is "14.1 to 15.1 hands, with an occasional individual over or under.  That is the most credible source on the issue and what is used in the article.  And that IS actually what Arabians are. (Sure, there are a lot of "15.2" Arabs advertised, but put a stick to them and they are 14.3!! LOL!!!)  And I do personally agree with you, height doesn't matter.  In some cases, a smaller horse is actually going to be more sound than one bred for size without considering soundness.  So please just leave the size section alone.  Montanabw(talk) 00:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Hi Bluee, I am not clear what your concern is.  This article has passed two GA reviews by neutral reviewers, the article is heavily footnoted, and while there is always a place for improvement, adding unnecessary adjectives to an article as long as this one is not a good idea.  "Small and light" is as relative as saying "big and heavy" to describe draft horses, both are unnecessary verbiage and it is more neutral and encyclopedic to simply provide the size and weight standard for the breed without further commentary.  The 14.1 to 15.1 classification is the breed registry standard, and the classification as "horses," regardless as size, is also true of Morgans, Quarter Horses, Icelandics, and a number of other breeds.  (Similarly, "Polo ponies" can be 16-hand Thoroughbreds!)  As you say, people can figure out what this means for themselves. Montanabw(talk) 21:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Aside from the fact that your source doesn't go to an article, and thus fails WP:V, we need to keep NPOV and thus avoid a relative value judgment (most ponies are much smaller and lighter than Arabians), it will start an edit war with every owner of an Arabian that stands over 15.1 hh, who will promptly start screaming, "my horses ARE NOT small and light!"  Just the same result as if we said "Warmbloods are big and heavy horses."  The warmblood people would start screaming about how light in the bridle and agile their warmbloods are.  Relative terms do contain inherent value judgments within them and this creates edit wars.  But if other editors of this article want to weigh in, probably best the two of us just call it a draw for now. Montanabw(talk) 23:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As one of the other main editors of the article, I agree with Montana.  "Small and light" is a value judgment, and a comparison that does not always hold true.  We had trouble when we took the Haflinger (horse) article to GA status because we said that the Haflinger was a small horse - the reviewer wanted to know in comparison to what.  Also, the source that you cite goes to a free online encyclopedia.  It is generally considered bad form to cite information to other encyclopedias, and since we are working (albeit slowly) to get this article to FA, all new references that are put in need to be of the highest quality. Dana boomer (talk) 12:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

text: The template has to be fixed.  We aren't going to go through 500 articles to manually convert them.  I don't know how to do complex syntax and fix the templates, and I do not appreciate the personal nature of your attack. (by the way, note No personal attacks I DID leave a message on the convert template talk page, they are sort of blowing me off, so if you want to go over there and talk to them, be my guest.  I DO agree that this needs to be fixed.  Montanabw(talk) 00:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size 

message: I've removed the information on this grouping because one of the sources has gone dead and the other is somewhat iffy. Also, I can't think of the last time I saw someone seriously discuss this sort of grouping (even the iffy source says that the BL/BS stuff was discontinued in the 1970s). We might want to discuss CMK/Korona/Pyramid here though. Those organizations are going strong. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two different things going on here.  The context was more of a "what is a 'real' Arabian thing."  Al Khamsa and all.  I've actually been deliberately trying to avoid CMK/Korona/Pyramid, other than the most broad statements about bloodline groups because that's mostly commercial garbage -- and once we start mentioning them (especially CMK which is sort of one man's show, he's copyrighted the term and has his own club, IMHO)   then we also have to add Spanish, Asil Society (Europe), the Saudi stuff, Davenport preservation breeding, probably the Sabino breeders will want to jump in and I swear to god it will never end.  That said, I'm open to further discussion about what should or should not be included.  Montanabw(talk) 23:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I'm not set on adding the others, but the Blue Star/Blue List stuff is pretty much dead on the vine any more (no organization or anything like that) so we're probably better of speaking of Asil and Al Khamsa and leaving all the others as "Besides these big groups, there are many other groups devoted to specific bloodlines...". My understanding is that Asil is close to the AK for Europe, which makes it big enough to mention without being too specific. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense.  Yeah, tossing is fine with me then.  We are basically looking at the definition of an "Arabian," in this section, from broadest to most restrictive.  The Asil/AK definitions would be the most restrictive ones currently, then.  Yes, Asil is the AK for Europe, more or less. Go for it.   The bloodline group stuff is sort of scattered elsewhere in the article, and deliberately so.  (for one thing, the USA-bias of getting into the definitions would be a nightmare all by itself)   Montanabw(talk) 03:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blue List/Blue Star.... 

message: What do you think of this photo to add:  :File:VientoDeWashoe-2006USSportHorseNatChHunterHack (887391113).jpg.  I can fault it (overbent, on the forehand, tail braid too stiffetc.) but award photos are often not the epitome of how well the horse actually did in the class.  I'm also concerned that in spite of the license, it may actually be copyrighted by the photographer.  But, we were looking for "show" images.  Thoughts?  Montanabw(talk) 05:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's Don Stine wbsite here who took the picture, by the copyright mark. Somehow that doesn't match up with the person claiming ownership, does it? I'll drop this one onto an image guru's lap. In fact, if you check, Flickr has deleted the photo, so I wouldn't support using it. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me.  Probably the uploader to Flickr didn't understand the licensing.  It happens.  Montanabw(talk) 04:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Not mine. I think it was a drive by, honestly. Dana? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Dana has appies! LOL!  I vote for the drive-by.  Wonder if it will pop up in Google books.  Of course, it's also a little outdated, because the web source I used predated the admission of the Syria stud book into WAHO (I think that occurred in 2007?), so apparently they solved the stubborn old tribesmen problem....or not. By the way, I added page # for Archer, which, by the way is incredibly excellent for a number of things, including the Blunt bloodlines that went back to Egypt...our so-called "Straight Egyptians."  LOL! Montanabw(talk) 02:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stuff 

message: I put that stuff about the bay and buckskins in there because there has been many mix-ups in the past. Especially with Thee Infidel. I have 5 Arabians and am on lots of forums and people ask about that a lot. im kinda new to wikipedia so I wasnt sure how to put recourses, but im pretty good with computers, hehe, so when i figure that out ill be glad to put one in there. i just know that it would clear a lot of stuff up with Arab newbies to have that in there. Sure bays and buckskins are very different, but not to horse newbies and I thought this was to teach people about the breed in an easy to understand way, not just a way to show off to other experts who already know all that stuff. well, since im new i know i dont count, but just thought Id put in my two cents. btw - ARABS ROCK!!! Dreamer 01:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a reliable source that says that bay and buckskins are confused, it would be better placed in the articles on those colors, as it would not be a specific Arabian breed issue. Frankly, you're going to need a pretty good source for that, though. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I reread what I wrote, and I realized that i definitely could have worded it better, im sorry for that. as soon as i figure out the resources I'll post one on here. Dreamer 01:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, had an edit conflict with Ealdgyth. Here's my version: Thank you for your comments. Everyone's opinions are important here, so please don't feel that you "don't count". The main issue with this article is that it's already bloated beyond Wikipedia's size guidelines, and so we need to cut down on information generic to all horses, instead of just this breed. Another concern is that registries don't recognize buckskin as existing in purebred Arabians (which we imply in the article, although do not directly state, because it would take up a lot of room to list all of the colors that don't exist in Arabs), and so having a section on how buckskin and bay are different isn't really on topic here since no Arab is actually buckskin. Another concern is that "most people think"- and "some people confuse"-type comments are really hard to source to reliable sources, and since this article is very slowly being moved in the direction of featured article status, only reliable sources should be added to the article. Just look at all of the tags already on the article questioning sources that are going to need to be removed before we nominate the article for FA candidacy! I hope this explanation helps somewhat. Just because newbies sometimes get confused doesn't mean we need to incorporate the information into an already bloated article, especially when we can't find reliable sources for that information - that's the general idea of it! Dana boomer (talk) 01:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia in fact strongly encourages high quality citation to reliable sources, especially for "good article" -rank, so we do have to provide a lot of footnotes.   If you read the article a bit further, you will see that the color section talks about colors that do not exist in Arabians with a link to the appropriate color articles for those who want to learn more about color.  As for the rest, Thee Infidel is a classic bright  "blood bay" and is just as bay as bay can be!  Anyone who is confused about his color must be new to horses, not just Arabians, and simply not know their coat colors at all!  Arabians NEVER carry the cream dilution, thus a buckskin purebred Arabian is a genetic impossibility.  The lightest bays are still distinctly red, not gold.  I do admit that when body-clipped, some blood bays have that two-toned hair shaft and may momentarily look sort of a weird tan for a couple days after a close shave, but I can't find a photo of Thee Infidel on his website or in a google image search that looks that way.   Bless you Taylor, but I hope you are setting people straight over on all your forums.  You my also want to read cream gene here.  As for wikipedia, we do welcome your comments, but this particular article has two editors who have considerable personal expertise with Arabian horses as well as a number of other horse editors with strong equestrian backgrounds who also contribute and help keep us on the right track.  If you want an easy reader article, go to Simple Wikipedia, where they have a version for people with limited English reading skills. Montanabw(talk) 04:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  random stuff