Talk:Dølehest

message: Incredibly tedious though it is to have to do so, I am listing here the points in the article that I tagged as cn or dubious earlier, plus a couple of minor edits, with some brief reasons, in the hope that the article may in the end be slightly improved as a result. Of course it would have been much clearer and much less work to just leave the tags in place. I can only work from about three pages at once, so some of these points may already have been addressed in subsequent edits.
* There are two subtypes of the breed, the Dole Gudbrandsdal and the Dole Trotter . Edwards has them separate, the Dølehest association site does no apparently mention a trotter type; the OSU site has them as one breed, as does Bongianni
:* I have changed this with multiple references to make it clear that some sources view them as subtypes of the same breed, while others see them as different breeds. While Edwards has a separate page header for the Dole Trotter, he also says they "[were] the lighter type of Dole Gudbrandsdal", making it ambiguous whether he actually thinks they are separate breeds. Dana boomer (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: * Added more sources. Unless you can find me a reliable source saying the aren't interbred, this should be kept, since multiple reliable sources say they are interbred. Dana boomer (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

text: * Added a new paragraph from the Trotter Association on the evolution of the Gudbrandsdal/Trotter studbook. It says nothing about either 1939 or 1941, so have removed this information altogether. Dana boomer (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

text: * Changed to "Dole Gudbrandsdal" rather than "both types". Referenced in uses section. Dana boomer (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

text: * "would have developed" does not equal "may derive". Basically, multiple sources say the Dole developed from the Friesian and multiple sources say the Fell/Dales derive from the Friesian and multiple sources say the Dole resembles the Fell/Dales (an extra citation added on the last point). Not sure what the problem is with this, unless you have other reliable sources that say they don't derive from the same stock. Dana boomer (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

text: * OSU provides it's sources, they're at the bottom of the page. The majority of the sources we use don't have footnotes, and they're not required per the reliable source policy, or even the high quality reliable source criteria required by FAC, which we're not aiming for. Many sources make subjective judgments, that doesn't make them bad. Do you have a source that contradicts this statement? Dana boomer (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

text: * Please only use reliable sources to "contradict" statements. We can't use that as a source, so it really doesn't matter. Another source provided anyway - multiple reliable sources say that they are commonly interbred, and I have yet to see a source that says there is no interbreeding. Do you have such a source? Dana boomer (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

text: * Tweaked this and added a bit more. Dana boomer (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

text: * Multiple RS's say that he was possible a Norfolk Trotter, so need to include this possibility. Added more refs. Dana boomer (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

text: * Re the last two points, more refs have been added to these paragraphs. However, we do not need to have refs after every sentence - two or three refs at the end of a paragraph is fine. What the UN says has no bearing on the matter. Dana boomer (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

text: References should be placed near the statement yes, but need not be immediately after. If several sentences alternate between two refs, the two refs can be placed together after the end of the alternating sentences. More later. Dana boomer (talk) 00:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd trust the United Nations on that one.Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Agreed; plus, the UN has nothing to do with WP's policies and guidelines. Also, my apologies for my lack of work on the article over the past couple of days - yesterday and today have been the first nice weather days after over two weeks of rainy, snowy, cruddy weather (in APRIL!!!), so we've been trying to get caught up on spring chores. Plus an old horse at our barn having to be put down with massive heart failure yesterday... So, basically, I've barely been around, and for that I apologize. Tomorrow is supposed to go back to being cruddy again, so will probably have some time then to focus on this. Dana boomer (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Replies above. Because the two types are so closely tied together, there is no way to fully pull the two apart. The best we can do, I think, is to make it clear that there are at least two types, and in some peoples' minds, two different breeds. Because of this, and because of the intertwined early history of the breed, all of the information on the Dole Trotter is never going to be able to be pulled out of this article - it is a large part of the history of the Dole Gubrandsdal, and the dispute over whether it is a breed or a type means that at least some information belongs in this article, as well as the Coldblood Trotter article. Dana boomer (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to hear about the horse, Dana.  Looks to me like you've explained this well.  Count your weather blessings, we too now have sun, but we had three inches of snow on Saturday (yep, last day of April).  Been a weird year. Montanabw(talk) 18:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where the tags were