Talk:Horse/Archive 2

message: The segment at the end of horse behavior describing the lovely adjectives that "flow freely from the mouths of those who have the privilege...etc etc"  made me cringe to read it. I understand that you guys love your horses, but this isn't NPOV. This isn't even common sense. I would like to see a scientifically reproducible experiment that proves the "honesty" of horses. If you can't show me that, why is it in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia article?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.70.143.237 (talk) 
:Please sign your posting.
:You are right. That passage needed to be deleted, and much of the rest of the section had to be rewritten. I'll try to make my way back through the whole article soon. It is important that we avoid point of view writing, and also that we avoid assertions that are not properly grounded. P0M 16:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are still problems.  Some of the instructions about the care and feeding of horses should be moved to a manual at Wikibooks. The section about saddling and mounting, which I had to rewrite, could be merged with tack.--Joe 20:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Problems

message: I'm missing some basic biological information on horses, such as what is the gestatation period of a horse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schnolle (talk • contribs) 
15:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biological information 

message: I came to this wikipedia page looking for what I thought would be basic information, and with such length I thought i'd find it but however the answer to the question I have is absent from the article. What is the average lifetime of a horse? Could this be added to the article? It seems rather basic, but is missing. Dwayne Kirkwood 01:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Information 

message: The Horse article is now over the recommended length.  Should the "horse sports" section be moved to Equestrianism?  Comments, please.  --John Nagle 06:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oeps, I came from a different angle to this page, and started to move stuff to other pages because of its incredable length. Please udo if undesired. KimvdLinde 04:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move horse sports to [[Equestrianism]]? 

message: I have been editing the page once to include one link.  The site is extremely relevant for horse discussion and a chat source.  I hope this certainly wasn't considered vandalism?? The Horse Diseases site is an adsense farm website :(  The link keeps being removed for no aparent reason by anonymous people.JasonA 4:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:EL#Links_to_normally_avoid before inserting forum links. And I had a look at the forum, and I disagree that it is a very important forum. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How is that? The forum is one of the best ones out there certainly not the largest as its still new, however if the forum was read and seen, you would find the content within it is outstanding.  Any information in clean organized format is important anywhere on the net at this point. No one mentioned it was the best and be all end all, but I do feel it can have a small spot here in this category, do you disagree?   JasonA 20:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I had a look at it and I disagree that this one is worth an exception to the rule that we generally do not link to fora from wikipedia. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please let me know what you're basing your criteria off of? I respect your decision but would also be interested in what can be changed or updated to reflect the proper requirements if any? JasonA 20:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:EL#Links_to_normally_avoid: 12 Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard.. Seems clear enough for me.  -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah it is very clear thats why i'm confused with your responses. I understood and read the Links to normally avoid earlier.  It's not a blog, its not a social networking (Myspace) site and yes it is a forum.  It does say "Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself or if the website is of a particularly high standard."  I guess "this" is the part that confuses me. The website is closely related to the subject and all of the articles and content within are too.  So at this point i'm narrowing it down to you just do not like the site or believe it personally isn't of high standards?  This site is supported by award winning trainers and AQHA/UQHRA, MHC and many more sites nationally.  What exactly is your opinion of high standard? JasonA 20:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The exception is not for when the subject of the article and the subject of the website are closely related, it applies when the subject of the article is the website itself.  As for high standards, it would have to be absolutely exceptional-- wikipedia is not an advertising billboard, and just because it's a popular forum doesn't make it encyclopedic. siafu 20:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: such as when the article is about, or closely related to, does mean that the article at wikipedia is actually about the forum itself, or sufficiently close to that. That does not mean that a website about horses is close enough, as the article about horses is not about a forum itself. And as for exceptional fora, how do you distinguish between the many many good fora around google search? The way to go is to show that this one is exceptional good, by providing links from good content related websites that make comparisons of fora or something like that and come to the conclusion it is exceptional good. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much for giving me a clear answer. I am now aware of what was being looked at a little better.  The previous discussions were a bit vague so I appreciate you taking the time to clear it up.  In the future, a better more suited article regarding the subject / article will be submitted and hopefully accepted.  I do agree because its a popular forum it absolutely has no relevance to make it encyclopedic, however the content within well organized and moderated forums is also very valuable to the very same users searching for it.  We're not trying to advertise or spam anything, the site had been there for a few months but recently went away, we were merely wanting to follow the rules which are now clearly pointed out to us.  Best Regards JasonA 20:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As for creating an article about the forum, be sure you make absolutely clear that this forum is exceptional, and warrants a article at wikipedia, because if not, I am pretty sure it will not survive long. For that, read Wikipedia:Notability (web) for guidelines on this. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for your kind response and help.  I actually meant I was going to align a few things and write some articles that are related and relevant to what is already in the :Horse page on Wikipedia.   We have exceptional articles and can over the course of time draft up a few things that would help visitors of this wiki page :Horse.   I notice there are the horse diseases and breeds links, We were thinking of drafting original content and articles to put together on the site for the inclusion into the :Horse article on Wikipedia.  It will be relevant and specific to this article itself and not by the website in general.  We will not re do what is already here as there is plenty of further information this page could have.  As an owner of a few horses it would be good to get these things into the publics eye. Is this okay? and can I submit something periodically to someone before i edit this page and perhaps see it get deleted? A semi-approval process perhaps? Thank you all for your time resolving this matter for us. JasonA 20:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding new content pages is always good, and the best way to contribute to wikipedia. If you are not sure if those pages are good, start with developing them at for example User:Jason/dev and ask someone (me or anybody with experience) to have a look, and when it is good, we move it to the main space. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links to fora

message: This was recently added to the Horse article from "207.200.116.7": 
Personally I love horses ever since i was a little girl. My mom was also into horses to so i guess it sort of runs in the family. My other two sisters are not into horses as much as i am but, they do not hate horses. I mean who could? I have not riden a horse in over two years. I miss riding them it was so much fun. One of my life goal is to ride bare back on the beach. Well that is all i have time to tell you right now. Bye!! P.S. do not erase this please. Write your own little column in if you want but do not erase mine it is important to me!!!
A note to Courtney: While we can't leave that in the main Horse article, if you create your own account on Wikipedia (which is free) you will get a free user page, and you can put it there.  Take care, and I hope you do get to ride on the beach.  I have.   --John Nagle 06:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Courtney's Talk about horses 

message: Can someone take a good side shot picture of a camino (the horse, not the car or browser), and then upload it here? Thanks! ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer a shot from the head up as it would be used in an icon. (^_^) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find any "camino" breed  on lists of horse breeds. "Camino" means "road."  P0M 13:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't either, but I've heard some horses referred to as "camino" so I was asking if anyone had a pic of one. I'm aware of the Spanish meaning. (^_^) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you may have heard somebody confuse "camino" with "palamino".  P0M 07:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Camino pic request

message: I've just spent a couple of hours doing what I can to tighten up the writing and add sections and subsections where I felt they were needed (basic biology, economics).  I hope others can add to them, so essential info is covered.  I think a lot of the current article is not essential, and could be usefully hived off to form other articles, with pointers to them from this main one.  I am thinking of all the colours, and the breeds.  For some reason, I am BOLDER to add what I see as lacking (particularly in structure), but am reluctant to remove much.  Can anyone better acquainted than I with the history of this article BE BOLD and cut out some of the waffle?  Thanks. BrainyBabe 20:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article still too long

message: *isn't 20 cm like a foot?  Could you vertically put like a foot-long hotdog showing the height of that 20 cm little critter?  Mmmmm, hot-dog.  (Or, per the cosumption question at the top of this talk page: mmmm, horse-dog). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.189.233 (talk) 
*20 cm = 7.874 inches. Anthony Appleyard 18:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a Gatorade bottle, as that is slightly more standardized than a hot dog. Thoughts? Miguel Cervantes 21:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wow, 20 cm is tiny -- can you put a common object next to the scale? 

message: It seems that we are duplicating a whole sports section, and that this page is getting way to long. There is a page about Equestrianism, so could we please leave it there? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sports section 

message: I gave this article a minor edit several weeks ago, placing according to most evolutionist scientists at the beginning of the evolutionist claims.  Someone deleted it since then, and I would like to know their reasons.  The "facts" they give are not proven, and many evolutionist scientists do disagree with much of the material.  I'm not saying we should delete the section, or even put in a Creationist viewpoint.  But I do know that it is not right to delete a fact.  Even if it were true (which I don't believe it is, but that doesn't matter), the claim that most evolutionists believe it to be so is still the truth.  It is not an unnecessary addition, as without it, it claims that that is the solid truth.  I would think that anyone who deleted that statement would be vandalizing. --72.66.5.235 15:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please provide the sources that show that many evolutionist scientists do disagree with much of the material. That would be very helpfull. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do that, and be right back.  Still, even if my source is incorrect, the sentance is true.  Many if not most people disbelieve the statement.  Someone said that creationist views do not belong here.  I'm not disputing that, even if I disagree.  What I am saying is that it is wrong to state it as fact.  If you believe everything the scientists tell you throughout the years, the "facts" change as new information or theories come in to replace the old "facts".  But I am not going to get into that.  The point is that giving only one viewpoint, even if it is that of the majority of scientists, is against a neutral viewpoint.  Even were the "facts" proven my statement would still be true because not everyone agrees with it.  I'll try and find that reference, and give it here.  May take a while, though. . . --72.66.5.235 22:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seriously misrepresent the WP:NPOV policy. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: From Evolutionism: The term evolutionist is still used more widely and can refer to proponents of the theory of evolution through natural selection which has superseded the earlier biological theories, but particularly in the U.S.A. this term is used by opponents of the theory to bolster their claim that evolution theory is a belief, or ideology (compared with other ideological "isms"), rather than a science, and so this usage is often avoided by the scientific community..   OhNoitsJamieTalk 20:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I thought about registering a while back, but back then I was correcting spelling mistakes and undoing vandalism.  I might as well pretty soon.  Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that this article is presenting the evolutionist view as a fact.  I understand that this is not a religious article.  I personally believe that science is more in favor of Creationism than Evolutionism.  We don't need to list all the other views because, of course, if Evolutionism isn't true than the only other option is a creator.  But this is making such statements as "All equids are part of the family Equidae, which dates back approximately 54 million years to the Eocene period. At one time there were twelve families of odd-toed ungulates, though today only three survive; tapirs and rhinoceroses are the closest living relatives of the modern horse".  I don't mean to "beat the issue to death", if I understand you correctly.  Still, I would say that it needs a rewrite or something like it to change it more to say "this is the view of most evolutionist scientists".  By the way, I couldn't find my sources so I won't be able to back up that some evolutionist scientists differ in opinion.  I did find, however in the article on Eohippus that some scientists disagree with the view that the horse evolved from it. --72.66.25.86 14:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Evolutionist Claims

message: On the topic of NPOV, the sentence in "Horses for Leisure:"
"Some countries are more adept than others at producing quality horses and using them for leisure and sport, for example Britain, Germany, Australia, Denmark and Spain." 
This basically seems to say that only Western European countries and Australia can produce quality horses, which of course ignores the fact that most of the "quality" horses listed have varying degrees of Arabian blood. Can this be reworded somehow? I don't want to go in and just start hacking at someone else's work, but this does need to be more neutral. --Raulpascal 20:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be worthwhile to look at the question of "quality horses" from a historical standpoint. The horses of China, for instance, were typically small, really what we might regard as ponies,  but there were also larger horses imported from Ferghanah, Bactria. The Chinese market was very hot for these horses. As a result of the "horse drain," export of these horses was forbidden for a time. Then China went to war and in 102 A.D. China won and took away 100+ of their best horses for breeding and 3000 ordinary horses.  The Horse in Art, p. 32.  Bactria (northern Afghanistan today) is not that far from Arabia, so one wonders what the genetic conribution of the early Arabians may have been to the genetics of the horses exported to China.  P0M 07:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horses for Leisure 

message: There is a new user category: Wikipedians who love horses with one subcategory (Barefoot horse owners), this one with a new template Template:User barefoot horse for barefooters. Take a look, add the template to yourself, add new subcategories and new templates... --Alex brollo 13:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two new users categoires 

message: This article seems to be getting extensive vandalism. On average of a new vandalism every 2 days. Sometimes more frequently. No doubt due to the fact 'horse' is quite an arbitrarily accessible article. I notice most if not all of the vandalism thats occuring is being done by unregistered users. Would anyone else support changing this page to registered users edit only? WikipedianProlific(Talk) 15:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, please!!! In fact, we have been begging admins to do this for months.  It was briefly semi-protected, but then someone took it off.  I don't know why a simple protection cannot be placed here.  Yes, yes, yes!!!  Montanabw 16:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we start a campaign to get this page permanently into semi-protection status?  I have gone to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection a couple of times and have been turned down.  It was once semi-protected for a week in December, and then it was removed.  TPTB of wikipedia don't seem to "get" that most of our vandalism is new IPs who think it's fun to comment on horse anatomy and removing protection after a week is useless!  ARRGGHH! If everyone who reverts vandalism would put in a request for protection, maybe we'd get an admin to take up our cause.  Anyone want to help? Montanabw 01:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constant Vandalism 

message: could anyone tell me the difference between the way a horse stands and the way a cow stands.my daughter has had this question for homework and i have not got a clue
82.39.179.23 19:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After I get over homework questions that are asked in such an irritating fashion (what does "stand" mean, anyway??), the biggest obvious difference is that horses have one-toed hooves and cows are "cloven hooved," meaning that they have two-toed hooves.  Hope that was what they were after.  Montanabw 01:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Normal people wouldn't be ignored about that, but on to the question. Horses stand with their legs unlocked and ready for easy movement. They occasionaly lock them when slepping or when kneeling down. Cows practicaly always have their legs locked. The even lock them after each step. That is why horses can gallop and sprint, and cows never really acheive much more than a lopsided canter. (that and they don't weigh as much.)Solon Olrek 23:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pardon to butt in, but may I ask what kind of vandalism this article has been receiving? I have not seen it vandalized and yet it's protected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uzaiyaro (talk • contribs) 12:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  horses stance. 

message: Horses are the nicest animals. Has anybody heard of Criollo horses? Those are my favourite kind, and i would love to have more information about them ex. what their main colors are, what they do best etc. thnx! Jackie Kusch 16:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  horses 

message: The section on wild species states both that there are multiple species of truly wild horses, and only one species. Can someone clear up the confusion on that one? 24.14.10.54 21:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Used to be multiple, now only one.  Will take a look at it and see what can be done. Montanabw 03:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion Over Wild Species 

message: Can I just say there is so much information that you have missed out on. What about all the different breeds? I mean did you know that the Shetland pony for one isn't a pony? Although it's height is of a pony, it's general structure is of a horse. Also it is not the smallest breed. That is the fallabella. Fallabella can be anything from 8/9 inches to about a meter in height. There are special shows that are held for them to be run in-hand.
Do you know the exact height limitations of a pony to a horse? A pony is anything up to 14.2 hh(hands high). Whereas a horse is anything from 14.2hh plus.
Do you know any breeds aswell? I had a few horses myself since I was 2 years old. I've Welsh Cobs(Section A and D), a fallabella, a thoroughbred and a Shetland.
My competiton horse was a 14.2hh Weslsh Cob Mare (Section D) called Katie. Her show name was Black Velvet. She was an extremely good hunting horse and always did well in the ridden working hunters. But she was best at show jumping and cross-country. Not to metion in-hand but she never did like to be controlled!
:There are dozens of articles on horses, use the wikilinks.  There is an article on Falabella horses, there are articles on almost every breed in the world.  See List of horse breeds.  This article on horses does have a section differentiating horses from ponies, at least it did if someone didn't vandalize it.  Please sign your posts.  Montanabw 20:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any other info thts missing 

message: Hi, Does anyone know how much it costs to take care of a horse for a year?--Fonkety ponk 18:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In what country and whereabouts? What kind of horse? Take care of how well? Are you thinking about livery, or running costs for an owner with their own land? Notinasnaid 18:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cost 

message: Under the topic "wild horses" it says that there is only one species of wild horse left today. This is NOT true. There are Camargue ponies as well as Soraya and Brumby!!!! (the brumby is nearly extinct but still there.) Also something should be written about the dozens of half-wild horses, like iceland ponies, shetland ponies and dartmoor ponies, which are completely wild in summer but get shelter in winter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.248.0.18 (talk • contribs).
Sorraias, Brumbies, Mustanges, Camargue Ponies, Chincoteague Ponies, et. al, are NOT true "wild" horses.  They are feral horses, descended from domesticated horses that escaped to the wild.  The only true wild horses that lived into modern times were the Tarpan and Przewalski's horse.  The true Tarpan is now extinct, so the Przewalski is the only truly wild horse--one that has never been successfully domesticated-- left. Read the whole article and follow the wiki links for more information. Montanabw 20:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wild horses 

message: so I was in a debate with so folks about the differents in age of a horse amd a human. my question is are they the same age as humans. like dog years are there horse yours compared to people 
 (the horse man)
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.68.248.138 (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kind of.  One formula says a "horse year" compared to a people year is 3-1/2 to 1 (similarly, "dog years" are 7 to 1).  However, both "dog years" and "horse years" have other formulas, that I don't have time to look up here, that sort of "front load" the aging process to reflect that physical maturity happens quicker--i.e. a one year old dog is considered full-grown, not the equivalent of a 7 year old child in physical maturity, similarly, a yearling horse is at about the physical maturity equivalent of a 12 year old child, not a 3-1/2 year old...hope that makes sense.  Once you are dealing with middle-aged animals, the formula starts to look more accurate:  a 20 year old horse is pretty comparable to a 70 year old person--some more healthy and spry that others, depending on lifestyle and genetics...Hope this helps. Montanabw 19:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the Guiness book of world records is a horse age 51.  (don't we have that in the main article somewhere?)  Breed of horse (not "race", that's incorrect terminology) is a factor, as is the way the horse is cared for throughout its life.  And, sad to say, the whim of the owner...Modern horses cared for with decent nutrition are generally ridable into their early to mid 20's if they have been properly cared for and do not suffer serious injuries.  Ponies and small horses like Arabians or Morgans often live longer.  Mules live a long time, also.  These days, many horses can live to be 30 if they are taken care of.  Draft horses and horses who are worked very hard or are poorly cared for will not live as long, often "used up" by age 15 or 16. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 20:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  horse age  

message: There is an error in the Specialized Vocabulary section, at the end where it discusses height.
Currently, it says:
By convention, 15.2 hh means 15 hands, 1.57 m in height.
It should say:
By convention, 15.2 hh means 15 hands and 2 inches (Imperial), or 1.57 m in height.
I plan to correct this in a few days when I am no longer considered a "newly registered user".
T-bonham 09:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out, I can go fix it if someone else hasn't already.  Notice you have made some small edits in other articles too... it is much appreciated when newcomers edit with care instead of diving in a little too wildly!  Montanabw 03:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error on height