Talk:Morgan horse

message: Why don't we consider including the picture of the UVM statue on this page? (http://www.uvm.edu/morgan/?Page=statue.html)  
It is not a living horse belonging to any individual breeder, and it was created from several revisions by the Morgan Club Board as specifically being the best representation of what JM looked like.  And there are probably public domain photos available, too. T-bonham 08:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We just changed it from a foundation type because the show people were whining about that one and constantly removing it.  It's a no-win here.  We can't use the UVM photo because it's not copyright-free and suitable for use in Wikipedia.  If people would quit whining about the photos that are there and go out and take some GOOD QUALITY photos of both types that are uploaded to Commons with proper licensing so we could use them in the article, I would be the first person to applaud this!  If you check out the Morgan photos in Commons, you will note there aren't a lot of good ones, and most of them are in this article.  Montanabw(talk) 21:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I would say the yearling is stocky, but it has true foundation Morgan type. "Coarse and untypy" is quite a slam on a fairly attractive young horse.   It is not a modern "Saddlebred" type show Morgan, that is true.  But how about people go out and take some better photos or find legal, copyright-free images on Flickr and upload them to Commons?  We do the best with what we have.  Also,  we get people complaining that the refined animals are nothing but saddlebred wannabees-- worst yet, when we put in a photo of a more refined animal that someone did upload, we got slapped--hard-- because the animal in question was actually a part-Saddlebred that had been banned from the Morgan registry.  (Apparently, ironically, after being named a champion Morgan.  There appears to be some serious dysfunction in the Morgan show world.  But then, that's true of a bunch of other breeds, so not really a surprise)  So really, help solve the problem, we're quite tired of the whining about this issue.  Montanabw(talk) 06:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Image/Pictures

message: Found this in a 1888 newspaper, might be interesting in the article. Ealdgyth | Talk 19:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The  article states the breed standard as an average range, it's not a statement that many do not grow taller.  Montanabw(talk) 00:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: History pic

message: It's actually pretty debatable that Morgans were used as a specific breed for the cavalry remount system during the Indian Wars. Remounts were purchased by regimental boards from any number of horse dealers (the actual remount system didn't come into play until after the 1890s), and preference was typically given to the Thoroughbred when any sort of selection by breed was possible. I've also never seen any good documentation that proves Comanche was any sort of Morgan cross-breed. There are figures available through the records of the remount service that documents the number of Morgans used, and they were very small when compared to Thoroughbreds (which were the majority). There was some experimentation with Arabians and some German warmbloods, but for the most part discussions during the early 1900s appear to have regarded Morgans as more suited for field artillery work than cavalry.Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There are very detailed records for the remount service, and those would be helpful for the actual remount program when it comes to determining the percentage of Morgans that entered into government service. Again, I don't think you can say that they were in major use on the Frontier (the only historical differentiation I'm aware of was between "American" and "California" horses; the latter being more of a mustang cross), and the Comanche comment needs to be sourced. The stuff I've seen indicates that he was a mustang captured in the Oklahoma panhandle region. The Pony Express also didn't exist in the post-Civil War era. I know one cavalry regiment (the First Vermont) was exclusively mounted on Morgans, but on the whole I'm not sure if the available evidence supports some of the statements in the first paragraph of the "breed development" section. Just sayin'.Intothatdarkness (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the article needs work overall, if you can find anything citable, that will be handy.  This article is on our "gotta improve to GA one of these days because it's a significant breed" list, but also the "oh, man THIS one is going to be a lot of work" list.  LOL!  I also know that breed registry sites in general are notorious for exaggerated claims (I can think of five or six right off the bat who claim Bucephalus as one of their own).  I'd say at this point, finding the actual source material is most valuable.  Part of the problem with all breed claims is that a lot of historical horses were not "registered" in the way we think of it today, pedigrees were tracked by word of mouth.  Crossbreds in particular would be hard to track...Comanche, for example, could be part-Morgan, a lot of farmers and ranchers would kick their stallions loose in the Mustang herds to "improve" the stock for the particular uses in the area...everything from Thoroughbreds to Draft horses was put in the mix, very few Mustang herds today are still genetically tracable to the original Spanish colonial stock.  Montanabw(talk) 23:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is citeable information out there on the Remount Service and its selection of studs for the breeding program. I don't have it on-hand, but it shouldn't be that hard to get to. I'm familiar with the "herd improvement" you're talking about with mustangs, but at the time Comanche was captured (late 1860s if memory serves) that wasn't a common practice (especially in the Indian Territory). I'll do some digging and see if I can come up with good citeable stuff for the article.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything you can find would be welcome.  Somewhere I have a copy of "Comanche of the Seventh" which is not a scholarly work, but may have some clues.  Or at least be citable, it's also a bit popularized.  I have to say that there is a lot of romance and nonsense surrounding Comanche, particularly that he was a "wild Mustang", there was even a really cheeseball Disney movie made about him where he was a wild stallion (not a gelding), loved by an Indian boy (except how would Comanche meet a Sioux Indian boy in Oklahoma?), who was the ONLY human survivor on both sides (um, no, the Indians did quite well, actually), and the pair miraculously reunited on the battlefield at the end... you get the drift.. (going off to retch now, too much saccharine...!)  Montanabw(talk) 18:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Follow up: I did a very cursory search and did find  this, which is not an ideal source, but at least it's a source for now on the Morgan/Mustang thing.  I added it to the stuff already in Comanche (horse).  Nothing on an Oklahoma birthplace, but maybe there is something out there.  From the photos, he clearly has some good breeding in there somewhere, he could be part Morgan. He could also be something else, even some TB breeding isn't impossible, though his level of endurance had to come from somewhere other than TB lines, bless 'em.  Montanabw(talk) 19:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morgans and the Army? 

message: Want to note some newer images on commons that may be suitable here, though with the recent concern raised that non-Morgans are being posted as Morgans, want to see if any objections exist for the following: :File:Morgan1.jpg(<-really like this one),  :File:Morgan2.jpg, :File:MorganBlaze.jpg(<-that one looks like a professional shot), :File:BayMorganHead1.jpg, :File:Morgan parked out.jpg(<- is this horse too long and poorly conformed to use? Also possibly a part-Saddlebred?)  Montanabw(talk) 04:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: *I'd like to bring it to the notice of editors on this page that a new contributor from ip address 98.135.8.81 has apparently complained about one of the images that was used in this article as being a copyright violation. As of the current version, the image - which has been nominated for a speedy deleted as a suspected copy vio - is not included in the article. I'd request contributing editors to not include the image in question till the time the CSD is processed. The image has perchance been copied directly from here Thanks   Wifione    ....... Leave a message 14:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I already took care of this yesterday.  I also was the person who put on the speedy delete tag.  I can't verify for certain that the horse in question is the controversial half-Saddlebred, but I inquired at user 98's talk page if they can find another instance of its use. I do, however, agree that its composition and quality strongly suggests its a professional image, and the same image on Flickr has already been deleted, so I suspect that we do have a copyvio.  I also left a message above for those who care to review the other images at Commons to see if any more raise these concerns.  As for the rest, we would be glad to discuss any other concerns about the accuracy and sourcing of this article, however, I DO want to caution user 98 (and anyone else) not to delete footnoted, sourced material without discussion.   Montanabw(talk) 01:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Suspected copyright violation

message: Since the Pony Express ended during the Civil War, it certainly isn't likely that Morgans were used by them in the post-CW period. I'm taking that out.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, and aside from the historical inaccuracy, there were Morgan crosses all over the west, but no one breed, most of the Pony Express horses were some sort of grade or Mustang tough-as-crap little things that could be pretty much run to death.  Montanabw(talk) 17:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I also tweaked the cavalry section to say "may" as opposed to "were used." Without a good citation I'm very hesitant to say that they were used as remounts. Obviously the possibility is there, especially for the crosses you mentioned, but it's not a certainty in most cases. Officers' mounts would be an exception, as many purchased their own.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it.  This whole article needs a lot of work to ever get to GA, the first step is separating the promotional material and myths from the actual verifiable stuff. Anything you do helps.  (Breed registries are frustrating.  The can be top authorities on one thing and absolute unsourced PR machines on other things).  Montanabw(talk) 03:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pony Express 

message: Do you think these will pass WP:RS?  They are good for the bloodlines and history.
# http://sportmorgan.com/Morgan%20breed%20and%20families.html
# http://www.brunkmuseum.com/history.htm
Thoughts?  Montanabw(talk) 01:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: First one probably not, second one maybe. Of the refs added in earlier, the Silver Dapple Morgan Project (ref #9), Morgan Colors (ref #10), and Pets Place (#4) are all not so great. The first two especially, since the information as I had it in there was all referenced to high-quality journals/universities, which were replaced/supplemented by these, which would never pass FAC and would be quite iffy at GAN. Dana boomer (talk) 02:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't mean to screw up the good sources, in the c/e, they got split up, mea culpa.  I agree on Pets place, I'd like to find better sources for the stuff that only that is linked to (I looked at their Arabian page, which completely sucks).  Problem is, I'm gun shy from so many edit wars, some days I just don't know which end is up.  Perfect source, but not comprehensive; comprehensive but imperfect sourcing.  I'd like to see a comprehensive article, the problem is finding the best sources.  (I knew where to look for appies, not so knowledgable on where the bodies are buried for Morgans) The sporthorse site was quite good for expanding on the bloodline group stuff.  I'd sure like to use the info, somehow.  The registry site (like all breed registries, actually)  is so CYA about things for fear of offending anyone, it's good to get the straight scoop from somewhere! What do you think? I'm open to ideas. Montanabw(talk) 22:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Note, I tossed one pet place item, probably not needed, though entertaining (if we find RS on horse pulling competition, we can re-add).  The other time it's cited is for the proposition that Morgans are intelligent, curious and have a good disposition; all of which are true (After having two in my lesson horse string back in the day, I think of them as the Jack Russell Terriers of the horse world - opposable thumbs and they'd take over the planet.  Another owned by an acquaintance of mine gives goats a run for their money for pulling assorted pranks).  If we can get a better source on that, I'm game.  But disposition claims from breed registries are always a little dubious, I mean, who will claim their horses DON'T have a good disposition, eh?  Montanabw(talk) 22:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, finally having gotten back around to this... I've replaced the Pet Place and Morgan Colors refs. I left the Silver Dapple ref because, on taking another look, the website is written by a woman who has been published in a couple of other magazines. This should make it good to go, at least for GA status. At this point, I think the article is broad, if not necessarily comprehensive, so are you OK with me tossing it up for GAN? In the meantime, while waiting for a review, we can ping Ealdgyth again to try to get more in-depth stuff/better sources on the Morgan influence on Quarter Horses, plus there are a couple of other more minor breeds that they influenced. By the time all of that information goes in there, it may be enough to split out into another section, although I'm leery of having a bunch of one-paragraph sections all stacked on top of each other... Dana boomer (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think it will pass GA as is, you have more GAs than I, so go for it.  Refs replaced seem to verify the data, so good finds all around. Petplace had to go, I know, but I wish we could find a source that notes that they are sort of the pranksters of the horse world with a huge sense of humor (for a horse).  Oh well.  In terms of comprehensive, what do you think we need to focus on expanding?  I always enjoy doing the history bit, and would like to see what Intothatdarkness can find on army remount stuff. I think there's a fair bit of Civil War history material we could examine, but we will have to be careful to verify horses that actually can be "proven" to be Morgans, versus the far greater number claimed to be part-Morgan or something (Morgan Horse Assn probably will not be reliable on that point, though may point us to horses to look at...).  Influence on Saddlebreds and Standardbreds will be where we should also look for solid source material.  Montanabw(talk) 21:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've hit pretty much all I can with the Remount stuff without some archives time. The one detailed list I consulted and noted here showed the majority of the studs were Thoroughbreds, and every bit of documentation I've seen continues that trend. The Civil War is likewise problematic, since any initial horse issue done by states would have been pretty rapidly replaced by the quartermaster's remounts (which you would have great difficulty verifying by breed in any meaningful sense). Same thing with the Frontier Army. Literature from that period never really goes beyond the "American" and "California" horse distinction, with the California being smaller (likely some sort of mustang cross). Americans were also referred to as Kentucky or Tennessee horses. Intothatdarkness 21:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: I have added a clarification tag to "clean-cut head" because I do not understand what this means.  In several places, this article uses words or phrases that are too technical for the average reader and do not attempt to explain these or direct the reader to an article where they are explained. There is no point in removing a clarification tag saying "that is what it says in the breed standards" because the standards simply use the same inaccessible language.  In this case, the phrase "clean-cut head" is not mentioned in the breed standards and is possibly OR. Would editors knowleadgeable in "horse speak" please edit this article and use language that us more accessible.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We also must avoid WP:SYNTH and WP:COPYVIO. Would just saying "refined" or "expressive" work better?  If not, I'm open to a way to succinctly state this in our own words without too-closely paraphrasing.  Here's what the source says in detail about the head of the Morgan horse: here:" The Morgan is easily recognized by his ... distinctive head with expressive eyes." (p. 4)  "The head should be expressive with a broad forehead; large, prominent eyes; straight or slightly dished short face; firm, fine lips; large nostrils; and well-rounded jowls. The ears should be short and shapely, set rather wide apart, and carried alertly. Mares may have a slightly longer ear." (pp.5,8). "HEAD: The typical Morgan head is one of the most distinguishing characteristics of the breed. Any of the below mentioned faults seriously detracts from it and should be penalized accordingly. 1. Course [sic] or plain head 2. Long and coarse ears  3. Lop ears 4.4. Ears set too far forward 5. Pig eyes 6. Parrot mouth 7. Coarse muzzle 8. Narrow, long head 9. Roman nose, 10.Small nostrils 11.Broken wind–respiratory distress 12.Stallions lacking masculinity 13. Mares lacking femininity" (p. 12) .  Obviously, we can't put ALL of that in here, not even a tenth of it, we must summarize.  Montanabw(talk) 21:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

text: Now, another alternative would be to create an entry for "breedy" or "clean-cut" or "refined" or something in the Glossary of equestrian terms.  We also need to do a lot more work on the currently weak equine conformation article.  Montanabw(talk) 21:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

text: I also do ask that you take a quick look at technical language.  I'm all for wikilinking terms and such to aid understanding, but there comes a point where people just have to learn the lingo.  I've been doing Good Article reviews of [{The Boat Race]] articles and the rowing terminology, combined with British English, threw me several times.  But I'm getting there, and I'm not asking the lead editor to say things like "the right-hand (starboard) side of the boat." Montanabw(talk) 21:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: WOW!  I think we might have got there!  You mentioned the Glossary of equestrian terms...I did not know this existed!  I would be quite happy to see links to this page for terms like "expressive head", "clean-cut head", etc.  I appreciate some terms are not explained yet (ongoing project), but at least editors like myself can improve horse-related articles by linking to this.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We also have a LOT of work to do on equine conformation, which would be even more appropriate.  One editor did a nice spin-off, Limbs of the horse. But yeah, we're working on it.  Montanabw(talk) 05:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification tag 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Morgan 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/20120913030104/http://www.morganhorse.com/registry/registry_history/ to http://www.morganhorse.com/registry/registry_history/
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) 09:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Morgan 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/20100926054242/http://www.morganhorse.com/home/faqs/ to http://www.morganhorse.com/home/faqs/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070805010908/http://www.bulldancers.com/morganpony/ to http://www.bulldancers.com/morganpony/
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) 17:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: Morab is a non-notable crossbreed    ▶ I am Grorp ◀  02:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Morab]] into [[Morgan horse]]