Talk:Stirrup

message: Article was written using BC/AD and therefore should stay so.
This edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stirrup&type=revision&diff=707319357&oldid=707252860 undoes unsourced User:Yprpyqp additions while simultaneously pushing BC/BCE style. This is no good. Alliumnsk (talk) 10:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I could not care less, I am just fed up with the constant edit-warring over the issue.  I'd be delighted if someone could help find more sources for the actual content.  Montanabw(talk) 05:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  BC/BCE style pushing 

message: Anonymous User:69.211.136.97 has removed "apparently" from the statement "The stirrup was apparently invented in northern China in the first few centuries AD,". If this User, or any of us, has a note to add on this rather definite-sounding change, it would improve the entrey. --Wetman 23:09, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Chinese origin

message: Based on the description of the Roman saddle tree, it is certainly not a necessary prerequisite for the development of stirrups and seems to be attributing more credit than is warranted here, not to mention the fact that the invention of the stirrup in its modern form in China, with the paired set in an inverted U shape, does not share any known ancestry from the Roman saddle tree.  I'm modifying the text to reflect this. Meatwaggon (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted your edit.  If you'd like to tag the Roman section with a "fact" tag, you may certainly do so, but a hard saddle tree was an absolute prerequisite for the development of the true stirrup (as opposed to a mere mounting or stability aid, such as the toe loop) because otherwise the weight of the rider's feet in the stirrups (particularly at speed, you use the stirrups to get up off the back of the horse to allow it to move more freely) can cause back injuries to the horse.  There is certainly room to argue that the Chinese model may have given rise to the stirrup first, and I can tweak the text a bit, but bad wikiquette to just blank sections.  Montanabw(talk) 03:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is extremely poor argumentation.  The very fact that there were (and are) treeless saddles with stirrups speaks against a "necessary" prerequisite.  While it is certainly true that saddles with trees allow stirrups to be used to maximum benefit and that stirrups without trees can cause discomfort or injury to the horse, this by no means makes trees a logical, technical, or physical necessity for stirrups to be present.  Not to mention the fact that your reference to support this fact is another wiki article on saddles, in which the only mention of treeless stirrups is itself an unsupported statement.  Your statement here is patently false even on initial examination (on mere logical grounds alone), which is why I changed it.  I am again changing the text to remove the incorrect "necessary prerequisite" statement.  And I don't know what you're talking about wrt "blanking" sections.  My edits are recorded so it is clear what was changed.  Meatwaggon (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So ask for a source tag and give me a week or so to find a source (there are sources).  Fair enough that you moved but did not blank the Roman material, I looked back at your edit and see that you did move it down the page.  OK there.  However, you do not appear to be challenging this from the point of view of either a rider or a historian, as far as I can tell, so if you are the expert, I would be delighted to see your sources.  If not, then just use the  tag on stuff you don't agree with and those of us who DO have the background and know what we are talking about will do further research on the claim.  The link between a solid tree saddle and the stirrup in the modern world is documented, the Roman versus Chinese question will take some research, given that the stirrup did come out of Asia, a look at what they did with their saddles to support a stirrup is needed (they had to solidify the tree somehow, you'd have a horse with spinal injuries otherwise).  The Romans did show up with the first solid tree saddle in the west, not sure where they got it, however.  Will do some looking, but it will take some time.  Please WP:AGF and just fact tag the stuff you question rather than remove it unless you can actually provide a source.  Montanabw(talk) 05:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it looks like you already found some of your sources.  I'll wait for the rest of your research.  Thx for the clarifications.  Meatwaggon (talk) 09:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Roman "Prerequisite"?

message: What is the original source of information about Sarmatian stirrups ? Article refer to website as the source of information, and on that website information is not attributed.Serg3d2 (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sarmatian and stirrups

message: Mounted warriors long precede stirrups. I wonder whether a early specific example of a Scandinavian stirrup could be produced. Museum or a book illustration? --Wetman 23:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here you are . It's the second image from the top, and the caption says "mounted warrior grave with stirrups from Västmanland". The page is presented by the Swedish national historic museum, so the info is probably reliable. I'd love to include the images in Vendel Age article (which is a translation from the Historic museum's site), but I don't know about the copyright.--Wiglaf 11:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Wiglaf, since I don't know anything about the Wendel period, would you simply edit it into a statement in the article  with the same footnote link?  --Wetman 16:56, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope this is what you asked me to do. I have added some info on literary sources that I think are very interesting in connection to the stirrup. If you think some info is superfluous, don't hesitate to remove some.--Wiglaf 18:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The only stirrup from the Vendel finds that I know of is from Vendel III, which is dated to the Eighth Century, not the Sixth.  Unless someone has evidence of an earlier Scandinavian stirrup, this section needs to be amended.  All the other evidence indicates that stirrups entered Europe in the Seventh Century with the Avars, so the idea that it popped up earlier in Sixth Century Scandinavia makes little sense.Thiudareiks (talk) 03:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can point us to a source, this is worth looking into. I think you may be correct, but we need too see the source material.  Montanabw(talk) 05:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Stirrups in Scandinavian grave goods

message: "...must be made of the strongest leather, and is therefore also suitable for use as a punitive strap." Oi! I suppose this seems perfectly "NPOV" to all you lot. I wonder how a Wikipedia article on rolling-pin will read... --Wetman 10:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that one sneaked through! - DavidWBrooks 17:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: "They are frequently employed in cartoons as an instrument for inflicting cranial injury." Upon the stair 23:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spankie-spankie

message: This article has been a mishmash of redundant edits, passive voice, bad writing and screaming inaccuracies for a long time.  A recent set of edits that blanked what minor contributions I had made prompted me to perform a long overdue cleanup.  I may still have a typo or two, the prose may still fall short of brilliant and engaging, but at least now the piece is a little more in line with basic principles of classic horsemanship, is more accurate, and has a fairly thoroughly sourced history section. Montanabw 06:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I was just watching a program on the history channel (Modern Marvels:  "Barbarian Battle Tech") and the narrator mentioned that the stirrup was invented in India circa 500 B.C.  I thought this should be mentioned in the article and noted for its historical reference..
Thanks
::That was a toe loop, it's mentioned in the article, somewhere, already.  Montanabw 22:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stirrup invented in India.... 

message: As a professional trainer, rider, FEI and USEF Judge, Course Designer and Steward, please understand that my comments regarding the primary reason that stirrups catch a rider's foot comes from years of active involvement in the sport from a broad background.  I have witnessed these events on many occassions and my comments come from real life experience over more than 35 years. I am also an expert witness in equine related litigation and refer to this phenomena under oath in courts of law.
The primary reason a rider gets hung up in an accident is due to the stirrup's tendency to return to a position flat against the horse's sides.  When this happens the opening of the stirrup quickly gets smaller as the stirrup turns back and this narrowing of the opening has the strong potential to catch the falling rider's foot whereby the rider's own body weight aids in lodging them in this 'closing door' effect.  Incidents of stirrup that are too small and too large are secondary to the turning back consideration.  The improper sizing of stirrups that result in causing accidents is not a design flaw.  It is a mistake in making the initial purchase of the product or the ignorance of the user in riding with an improperly fit stirrup.  The flaw is in the human usage and not the design of the basic stirrup.
My invention which has a name and can fairly be called by its name (MDC Intelligent Stirrups(R) greatly reduces this non ergonomic tendency.
I would like to point out that by your editing of the name of the invention to the term "Intelligent Stirrup", it could be construed that you are using a name that is convered under patent law in that MDC Intelligent Stirrup(R) is a copyrighted name and any like or similar usage of that term would lead another to consider if it were legally referring to the protected name MDC Intelligent Stirrup(R).  It is for that reason that I believe referring to the patented protected name of this emanation of a new form of stirrup is justified and in proper usage.
I look forward to you comments.
Mdcohen 07:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary reason stirrups catch a rider's foot. 

message: Where EXACTLY do you find stirrups on Indus seals? Have you seen the originals in the British Museum? I have, and I can't make out unicorns or horses among all the bovine anatomy. Archaeologists tell us that such animals are water buffaloes and Gaurs.
My contention would be that the stirrup was "introduced" into Indus culture by Hindu fanatics who want to prove that there were horses in Harappa, which would make it possible to show to all and sundry that the Indus vally culture was an "Arian" civilization and Sanskrit the oldest language of the world.
Reference: Witzel, Michael; Farmer, Steve (2000): Horseplay in Harappa. The Indus Valley Decipherment Hoax. Frontline 2000, October 13, 4–14. http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1720/17200040.htm, last accessed 19/02/2009.
G. Berkemer  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.20.154.64 (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: thumb|500px|Stirrups? I don't see stirrups in these seals. These animals look like horned animals, bovids or unicorns. And I would not say that the thing hanging in mid-body is a stirrup, specially since it does not hang from a saddle. It could be a penis though. --Error (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indus Culture  

message: The sections covering “History” to the “Great Stirrup Controversy” have a number of issues regarding its content, style, and use of proper attributions, which is unfortunate because this article seems to have some interesting insights into the history of the stirrup.      
The history section of this article contains several explicit claims about the importance of the stirrup in the history of warfare, but there are no sources attributed to them, and the section under “The Great Stirrup Controversy” also suffers from the same problem. 
Some of the information in these sections also seem incomplete, and should probably be expanded upon. The article briefly mentions the significance of “solid saddle trees” in the development of the stirrup, but does not go into this any further. There is also mention of modern “thermography studies” on horses and saddle type, and without further elaboration, it seems kind of irrelevant. Additionally, the source that is attributed to said studies does not appear to be authoritative.
The sections I’ve mentioned could also be written to higher standards, and overall, there is just a lack of attention to detail within the writing. There are instances where sentences that seem to be missing words, and there are also poorly structured sentences that sound awkward. 
I compared this article’s history section to an article about stirrups in The Columbia Encyclopedia, and the two sources are somewhat consistent with each other. One difference I found between the two articles is that the Wikipedia entry states that the earliest evidence of a stirrup like device was found in India around 500 BC, while the encyclopedia entry states that there is some evidence of stirrups having been used in Assyria around 850 BC.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by HIST406-10cpaik (talk • contribs) 01:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to do some research and add citations, or even do some wordsmithing.  This article is one of 3000 in wikiproject equine and we get a little backlogged, so help would be appreciated.  I happen to be one of the people who added a lot of the content and did some of the expansion several years ago before wikipedia put as much focus on footnoting as it does now.  Since then, we've missed some "drive-by" edits that need work, that's for sure.   I have added sourced material, I've tried to footnote the newer stuff.  So while your comments are well-taken, we also welcome constructive contributions. As for comparing to other encyclopedias, I can assure you that they are often less than accurate (the Assyrian info is just plain wrong) ...the stirrup material is also reviewed in a shortened form in the better-sources article horses in warfare, where you may find some source material that could be added here as well -- the rest of us at WPEQ just haven't had the time, frankly! Montanabw(talk) 04:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Critique  

message: "The use of paired stirrups is credited to the Chinese Jin Dynasty and came to Europe during the Middle Ages."
"The earliest manifestation of the stirrup was a toe loop that held the big toe and was used in India, possibly as early as 500 BC." 71.212.230.89 (talk) 05:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The stirrup the Jin Dynasty allegedly created is given no further mention in the article. 71.212.249.162 (talk) 04:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point?  Montanabw(talk) 03:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an unsourced, unverifiable statement. 71.212.249.162 (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Lead statements are not sourced if repeated with a source within the body of the article.  Montanabw(talk) 01:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent Sentences 

message: Per WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CITE, please do not remove source material.  If there is a problem with a source, tag it with an appropriate tag, indicating if the problem is a dead link, doubt about the veracity of the information itself, or if the problem is just that the source isn't ideal. Some of the work on this article dates back to 2006, when WP's sourcing criteria were not as strong as today.  There is a place to improve the sources, but to wholesale and unilaterally throw out sources that at the time inserted had some indicia of reliability is not the way a collaborative process works.  It is also important not to simply pile these sources in an external links section where they are separated from the content they referenced.  Montanabw(talk) 17:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: The caption for the image is incorrect.  There are neither stirrups nor "unicorn-like animals" depicted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.137.153.234 (talk) 07:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  IndusValleySeals 

message: "r. As a tool allowing expanded use of horses in warfare, the stirrup is often called the third revolutionary step in equipment, after the chariot and the saddle. " -  If it is "often" called that, it shouldn't be too hard to find a source. Kdammers (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The article overall could benefit from additional sourcing, but to pun a bit, we lack enough horses to pull all the wagons at WPEQ.  If you'd like to do a bit of digging and help find some good sources, that would be very helpful!  Montanabw(talk) 17:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source needed 

message: The comments on the Carolingean practice, which of course bear on the controversy, are anachronous in the section - it might be you prefer to sub-section them, or juggle the sequence of the paragraph. I also note there's a statue of Charlemagne or Charles the Bald in Metz Cathedral clearly showing the rider not using stirrups.
Another distinctive feature of Nordic practice is the use of long stirrup leathers, which allied with the smaller size of horse suggest the rider's feet may have been very close to the ground - which can help in turning at speed. OR.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.51.204 (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor anachronism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Stirrup. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20081203175410/http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_madeinchina/2005-07/21/content_70825.htm to http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_madeinchina/2005-07/21/content_70825.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081203175410/http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_madeinchina/2005-07/21/content_70825.htm to http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_madeinchina/2005-07/21/content_70825.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Are there any pictures, reliefs, statues,... of byzantine cavalry of this age showing stirrups? I have not found any. Only pictures without stirrups.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1205:5045:1BC0:9585:7013:76B7:92AF (talk) 10:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "... with the Byzantine army having (stirrups) in use by the year 600" 

message: computersmiths.com is apparantly a private website and anything but a reliable source to WP standards. If noting better will be found, this "information" should be removed until reliable sources are available.--Chianti (talk) 10:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The content is, essentially, accurate, but  this is probably a better source.  Always helps to go do a little digging oneself as opposed to just complaining. Montanabw(talk) 21:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

text: And here's a few more, for later work on the article.  Montanabw(talk) 21:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "invented in China" - source???