Talk:Horse/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Outdated Scientific Name Used

I would like to request that the scientific name for the Plains zebra listed in the article in the section referring to other equids be updated to that of E. quagga, as per conventions of nomenclature (oldest known scientific name taking priority). (Drakenwolf (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC))

We've been checking the taxonomy stuff with User:KimvdLinde, who is our resident expert. If she doesn't weigh in here in a day or two, we can ping her for her views. The taxonomy material is quite a hot potato around wikipedia, hence handled with care. If Kim's OK with it, probably no kick from the rest of us. Montanabw^(talk) 06:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Anatomy, parts or something else

I think it's worth a quick discussion of the recent edit and revert relating the the external morphology of the horse. The edit [1] was to change the caption from 'parts' of the horse to 'anatomy' of the horse, and this was reverted by MontanaBW, who stated that 'parts' is correct.

Now, to me, 'parts' doesn't sit well, and it sounds like a childish explanation. I've had a quick look at the reference books i've got to hand here, and 'parts' doesn't appear, 'anatomy' appears quite a lot, but the most common appears to be 'points' of the horse when referring to the external visible aspects.

For example, both citations below use 'points' of the horse:

• Goody, John (2000). Horse Anatomy (2nd edition ed.). J A Allen. ISBN 0.85131.769.3. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
• Pavord, Tony; Pavord, Marcy (2007). Complete Equine Veterinary Manual. David & Charles. ISBN 0.7153.1883.7. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)

I would suggest therefore that 'points of the horse' would be the correct terminology in this instance. Any thoughts? OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 16:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

"Points" works for me. Probably what I meant, anyway. Thanks for an elegant solution. If anyone cares deeply, we can discuss further, but I'm OK if you make the tweak. Montanabw^(talk) 17:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I've made the change, and have also changed the picture, illustrating the points with a real horse rather than the slightly unrealistic etching version. As noted in earlier discussion, the points on this can be cited to the two sources above. I've also uploaded the original without labels just in case, and that's at [[File:Sybari_standing.jpg]]. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 20:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice! If you can source what book(s) the info came from, (I think if sourced with a full citation at the image's page, that's where it's needed) that would be cool! We have wanted to do a properly sourced (i.e. footnoted) diagram for quite some time and no one (I think I once volunteered, so my bad) has gotten around to it. That said, you DO have a few of the pointers a little off from the actual point, (flank, shoulder, elbow -- looks like image shifted and put things a bit too far forward in several places) so may want to tweak that. I'd personally add point of the hip and point of buttock too, but that's just me ... (wink) Montanabw^(talk) 06:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you could be right on a couple of them, they were early ones, so might have moved the image in error, but also this is an amalgam of where they're placed on the sources. The hardest thing is to pick out which points to annotate, without making it too crowded. I used a combination of three main sources with good illustrations, and they all picked out different features, so I tried to focus on the ones which aren't in human anatomy, or which aren't necessarily in an obvious place compared to human anatomy - didn't see much point in 'neck' for instance, and i suppose i'd put hip in to that pot, but i'll revisit later and check those points. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 06:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the footnotes, Our goal is to get this article to FA, so we need exhaustive sources. Point of hip is relevant as it's not obvious. Remember that darn WP:OR thing (sigh). Montanabw^(talk) 07:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, updated, and double checked the points, plus added point of hip. My reference sources don't mark point of buttock, so no OR! OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 18:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Works for me. Montanabw^(talk) 19:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I just changed it to "anatomy" because "parts" sounded silly. "Points" is fine with me! Thanks, Vladmirfish (talk) 02:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Meryah16, 22 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} This page is entirely from an evolutionist point of view. I think that the quote 'The horse has over the past 45 to 55 million years from a small multi-toed creature into the large, animal of today' should be removed or changed to 'God created the horse, along with all the other animals, something over six thousand years ago.' My citation for this change comes from 'The Evolution Handbook' (Vance Ferrell; third printing, December 2005; pg 743-751). --Meryah16 (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC) Meryah16 (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -Atmoz (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Meryah, The Evolution Handbook is a self-published source, and as such cannot be considered reliable in this instance. We are trying to get this article up to featured article status, and so the sourcing needs to be of the highest caliber. All of the information in the article is source to reliable, third-party sources, and the particular quote you are objecting to can be sourced to tens, if not hundreds, of sources. Dana boomer (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

let me add this: LOL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.45.110 (talk) 05:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

4

"The horse has evolved over the past 45 to 55 million years from a small multi-toed creature into the large, single-toed animal of today."

mentioning the Hyracotherium (as well as later in the article). as wiki link would be useful here and more specific and would only take 2 words more

Nirame (talk) 22:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Not in the lead, we have basically about a sentence per main section for the lead. In the evolution section, we could discuss how many of the predecessors to the modern horse we could include, but if you go over to the evolution article, you will see that it gets pretty extensive pretty fast. Again, making the article even longer and bulkier is a worry. Add hyracotherium, then why not mesohippus? And why not the stilt-legged horse? Or... Montanabw^(talk) 04:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

well if the text cannot be increased try a small multi-toed creature or similar?that way this text is no longer but it can still be quickly seen which creature is refered toNirame (talk) 09:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Always room to wikilink more existing terms, I'm OK with that. Montanabw^(talk) 17:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

What?

"People of all ages with physical and mental disabilities obtain beneficial results from association with horses."

This needs a citation. This is stated as a sweeping generic fact, and cannot possibly be true, and if some horse nut wants to claim this then they need to back it up. For some moronic reason this article is locked so this cannot be hit with a "needs citation" tag at the very least, but what would be smart, is a correction. People do not uniformly respond to stimulae, this statement is the equivalent to saying "people like interacting with dogs." Some people like interacting with dogs, some people will show beneficial results from association with horses. Not all will. Completely stupid to have this article locked like it's a politician. Fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.45.110 (talk) 05:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

That is why the clarity here needs working on. The wording often presents opinion as if absolute fact.Nirame (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

make it "can often obtain" or just "can obtain" ? and cite a link to riding for the disabled or something?Nirame (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Find us a source! When we have source material, it's easier to reword to be in line with the verifiable data. I agree the section needs some work. But the tough part is getting GOOD sources that meet WP:V standard, which is tougher on an FA. NARHA and EAGALA will be the most reliable sites on the topic, probably. We'd sure appreciate if you can help us out a little, Ealdgyth is on vacation, Dana is working up other articles for GA and FA along with this one, and my day job is putting a serious crimp in my wikipedia time at the moment (damn that real life thing...) so all hands who can be part of the solution are most welcomed! And sourcing is the grunt work of article writing, thus everyone needs to share the pain! (grin) Montanabw^(talk) 16:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that the sentence in question is a summary of the next two paragraphs or so, and as such, doesn't really need to be referenced. Also, I'm not really sure why there is a problem with this wording - we don't say that all people with disabilities obtain benefits from being around horses, simply that people of all ages do. I'm not sure why we need to weasel wording of "can". Basically, we give a summary (people with disabilities obtain benefits from horses), then go on to the specifics (therapeutic riding, paralympics, etc). Dana boomer (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

3

"Horses are frequently seen in television and films. They are used both as main characters, in films such as Seabiscuit, and Dreamer, and as visual elements that assure the accuracy of historical stories.[181]..."

black beauty and the huge amount of media created using that character /story is a very glaring omission.

Nirame (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

We probably should cut any particular references to named films altogether, IMHO. Once we name one, the list grows and grows...  ;-P Montanabw^(talk) 04:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I think some illustrative examples are useful, but you need to stick to one, two, or maximum three in order to avoid list creep - they are supposed to be illustrative, not exhaustive. Personally, i've never heard of Dreamer, and BB might be a more well known choice. On a side note, it might be worth looking at a daughter article for Horses in film and television, as in the Horses in art article. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 05:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

yeah you dont really need more but using black beauty would cover a far larger larger amount and range of media and the as black beauty films go back decades it better shows the enduring popularity of the horse in filmsNirame (talk) 09:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the reference also mentions Black Beauty, so would everyone be OK with just changing the sentence to read "...in film such as Seabiscuit and Black Beauty..."? Dana boomer (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I propose (and edited) having no film names at all. Black Beauty is better known as a novel, so it's a poor example. If everyone is OK with my edit, great, otherwise, just revert. Montanabw^(talk) 06:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

2

"The drug Premarin is a mixture of estrogens extracted from the urine of pregnant mares (pregnant mares' urine), and was previously a widely used drug for hormone replacement therapy.[195]"

a little additional text should at least note the great ethicial concerns surrounding premarin. the horse meat part earlier mentions it being taboo so something similar should be mentioned hereNirame (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how far down this rabbit hole we want to go; this article was criticized at GA for already being too long, so we tend to provide brief summaries. The premarin foals-becoming-horsemeat issue (and any other concerns) probably belongs in the premarin article. We also don't want edit wars over things in the main article that are better discussed at the specific article. But I'm open to debate. Montanabw^(talk) 04:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with Montana - this is the point of daughter articles. People who are interested in that can go to the article about it specifically. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 05:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

oh im not meaning explain the whole thing just one word to indicate concern used as a wiki link to the further stuff on the ethics.Nirame (talk) 10:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Because we can't just say there have been ethical issues with this product and leave it at that - it's one sided, and would get us in trouble for POV. If we say there are ethical concerns about it we would need to give both sides of the story and then it would get long and be too much weight on a minor point. Therefore, the whole discussion is better left to the sub-articles. Same with horse meat - it's only taboo in some parts of the world (Europe and elsewhere still eats tons of horse meat), so mentioning one side of the story would be POV. Better to just leave the whole mess (in both cases) to the daughter articles. Dana boomer (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

If in both cases ethics are left to their sub articles it would seem fair to me. it just seemed a little unbalanced when the taboo is mentioned earlier in the section but nothing ethics related about premarin.Nirame (talk) 10:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

(undent) Ah, I see. I was misunderstanding and thinking that you wanted to add more on the taboo horse meat thing. Currently the article reads "Horse meat has been used as food for humans and carnivorous animals throughout the ages. It is eaten in many parts of the world, though consumption is taboo in some cultures.[197] Horsemeat has been an export industry in the United States and other countries,[197] though legislation has periodically been introduced in the United States Congress which would end export from the United States.", which, upon re-reading, does seem to me to focus too much on the United States and the controversial nature of horse meat, especially given the fact that this is a global animal with many uses. I think that the second sentence could probably be eliminated altogether, and the first could be shortened. Thoughts? Dana boomer (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we can't entirely duck the controversy. Maybe try this: "Horse meat has been used as food for humans and carnivorous animals throughout the ages. It is eaten in many parts of the world, though consumption is taboo in some cultures,[197] and a subject of political controversy in others. [cite] (maybe [198])." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs)

Allright, I've changed this to your suggestion, Montana. I think this helps take the weight off of the US. As for premarin, I don't think that the controversy/taboo here is anywhere near as big as for horse meat (AFAIK, it was mainly used only in N. America and was not a huge industry, although a lot of people made a living at it). Dana boomer (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Works for me, and yeah, I think the stuff on Premarin is fine as is. To go into it will hit the horsemeat issue again (PMU foals) and another UNDUE problem that's US-Centric, so I say we just refer off to the Premarin article. Montanabw^(talk) 15:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

theres a good amount of campaiging against it still ongoing http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/Premarin-A-Prescription-for-Cruelty/Premarin--A-Prescription-for-Cruelty.aspx and quite a bit of campaigning overlapping as it is another controversial Pfizer product Nirame (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

http://www.all-creatures.org/articles/video-premarin.html its still fairly sixable industry and various groups have issue with itNirame (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Not the point, PETA also wants to ban horseback riding. Montanabw^(talk) 15:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That is why i added more than just theirs to show it extends well beyond groups with abolitionist approach. Groups that arent anti all animal usage still have a problem with this. The peta one does have quite a few sources for futher use ref.Nirame (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

http://www.premarin.org/ there are plenty more than just peta if you have issues with themNirame (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point; the point is that we are going to give ONE SENTENCE to the issue here, the rest belongs in the premarin article. There are many controversies over horses, PMU foals, racehorse injuries, steeplechasing, rodeo, charreada, horse slaughter, show ring abuse, etc... this article is already huge and can at best be only a summary of the various aspects. I'm not even sure what your issue is here, if you have an actual edit to propose, then propose some specific language. Montanabw^(talk) 22:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Horse/Comments

Content of Talk:Horse/Comments, which I'm deleting:

Needs more reference citations. John Carter 16:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

—WWoods (talk) 05:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Fine with me, it's not something we use regularly (obviously!). Thanks for notifying us. Dana boomer (talk) 11:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ww, looks like the problem was fixed, too! Montanabw^(talk) 18:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Please change this if at all possible ?

"The horse (Equus ferus caballus)[2][3] is a hooved (ungulate) mammal, a subspecies of the family Equidae" it isnt a subspecies of the taxonomic family it is a subspecies of the wild horse species. this is highly innacurate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirame (talk • contribs)

I've changed it to "a subspecies in the family Equidae" which is fine, and correct. It might also help if you used sources for any changes you want to make - we had an editor who specializes in taxonomy and other biological things inspect the article and she signed off on most of the taxonomic details. This is also a GA, so adding unsourced information is frowned on. Please also learn how to sign your talk page posts, please. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

also

"Although most horses today are domesticated, there are still endangered populations of the Przewalski's Horse, the only remaining true wild horse, as well as more common populations of feral horses which live in the wild but are descended from domesticated ancestors."

this does not make it clear Przewalski's is a seperate subspecies and reads in a rather misleading way. I note what is said about the GA so nominated it for reassment given how many issues jump out at me. Nirame (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

can you add the a b type citations then so they can go to the same reference the first sentance has refernces in it so the rest may as well. The first paragrapgh is the most likely part to be widely read and should show its refernces as well.Nirame (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

also in your first edit taxonomic family would be more correct. plus if it is refernced as a subspecies the fact would be incomplete if if does not then say what it is a subspecies of. Nirame (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The first bit has a reference because that information is NOT referenced later in the article (namely, the specific taxonomic name. No, the first sentence does NOT require references just because "it's the most likely part to be widely read and should show its references as well". You nominated for GA reassessment three whole minutes after your first post on the talk page. Somehow that strikes me as not really trying to engage with other editors here. I've now reworked it to state "The horse (Equus ferus caballus)[2][3] is a hooved (ungulate) mammal in the taxonomic family Equidae." which is perfectly correct. If they want to know what the subspecies is - it's right there in the infobox. Does this work better for you? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Nirame is generally correct with the changes. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I was just trying to get to a happy medium where everyone wasn't playing revert war games... Note I also clarified the Prez horse thing, does that work for folks? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

thank you kim but i doubt it will make any differnce as i am not one of the clique.Nirame (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't revert your changes to the taxonomy - I was fine with it. I only stepped in and started trying to find a compromise when it was obvious someone else had an issue with the changes. I'm trying to work with you and you were indeed correct that some things were probably confusing/unclear/incorrect. Talk of cliques doesn't improve the article - are the changes I made in regards to the Prez Horse issue you raised better or do you still have concerns?Ealdgyth - Talk 23:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Its in the right direction with what now included perhaps phrasing precision just needs a little workNirame (talk) 01:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Changed living to extant for the subspecies in first line as more correct for contrasting with the exinct ones. shall go through the rest.Nirame (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

This user, Nirame, has been asked by me, repeatedly, to take the work he/she is doing to WPEQ for input and consensus. This user is making changes without footnotes and changing categories to fit a pattern that appears to be only in his/her own mind. I am not stating the articles and categories are perfect, but this user has been making dozens, if not hundreds of category edits, some of which are going against previous consensus and generally causing confusion, particularly because this user doesn't seem to understand much about horses. I have no complaint about improvements, but I don't want the taxonomy stuff screwed up after all the work Kim has had put into it. The request for reassessment is made in bad faith. Montanabw^(talk) 00:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The reassment or even the discussian around it will provide useful analysis of the article and help us see any more areas for improvement. we are already moving in the right direction in our discussion and this is distracting from the issues we are dealing with here. your quotes expert did not disagree with my changes here btwNirame (talk) 01:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You don't get it, what you are doing with that review request is screwing up the process on an article being prepped for featured article status. Your "change this" header is also quite rude and inappropriate. You also don't request a GA review seconds after you get reverted. I understand that you have only been on wikipedia about a month, but I note on your talk page that you seem to be getting all sorts of tags and disputes going, so you might want to look at your own behavior a bit here. The proper venue for feedback is to request peer review, which we would be doing already. I was the one who asked Kim to step in and review this. After what you are doing on Forest horse, which is NOT a subspecies, and your refusal to discuss the changes you are making in the horse categories, you have no credibility with me. Here, I sought the view of our resident expert taxonomist, who really has the credentials to know what she's talking about and who has my utmost respect. You don't have to listen to me, but I strongly suggest you listen to the other editors here, as there is collectively a lot of expertise that you'd do well to learn from. Montanabw^(talk) 03:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh my I didnt mean anything at all by the section title so sorry, changed that. i t just meant i wanted tochange parts and this was what part(s) were concerned. Articles can always be improved and as you are wanting to up its status anyway this will hopefully help weed out weaker points. i note the good article status goes back to 2008 so a review isnt inapropriate after that length time anyway. the good article stuff says> Well-written: (a) the prose is clear and concise, < and that was what needed work here and we are still trying to fix.

Also please seeWP:AOBF and lets look at things on a case by case basis and if there are differences integrate with refs them or put them on the immediately corresponding talk page with refs. Nirame (talk) 09:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Nirame (talk) 09:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Apology accepted. As for the rest, just raise your issues or concerns here for discussion, and be specific. What's legitimate will be dealt with in good faith. Montanabw^(talk) 21:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

putting them into differnt bits below for ease of working and my own reference. will add more as i go along and decide how best to word my concerns.Nirame (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Not to muddy the waters any further -- and maybe this isn't the place for this? -- but I for one am having issues with the whole "subspecies" thing. Please, somebody, go back and check that ICZN ruling cited in footnote 3. What it actually says is that the species name Equus caballus is restricted to domesticated forms, while Equus ferus is the correct species designation for truly wild horses. Thus, Equus caballus is a full and valid species, as is Equus ferus. The former cannot be a subspecies of the latter, as this would negate the whole intent of the ICZN's ruling. Nor is this just my own view: please see the following papers: Gentry, A., J. Clutton-Brock, and C. P. Groves, 1996, Proposed conservation of usage of 15 mammal specific names based on wild species which are antedated by or contemporary with those based on domestic animals (Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53:28–33); Azzaroli, A, 1998, The genus Equus in North America: the Pleistocene species (Palaeontographia Italica 85:1–60); Gentry, A., J. Clutton-Brock, and C. P. Groves, 2004, The naming of wild animal species and their domestic derivatives (Journal of Archaeological Science 31:645–651); Scott, E., Stafford, T.W. Jr., Graham, R.W. and Martin, L.D., 2010, Morphology and metrics, isotopes and dates: determining the validity of Equus laurentius Hay, 1913 (Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 30:6, 1840 — 1847). I would therefore respectfully suggest amending the 1st sentence to something like "The horse (Equus caballus for domestic forms, Equus ferus for wild animals)[2][3] is a hooved (ungulate) mammal belonging to the family Equidae ... " and then revising the rest of the page to reflect this usage. CaptainFossil (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

No Captain, it's an issue that has already been beat to death. Per the recommendation and sourcing of our resident expert in taxonomy, User:KimvdLinde, and the consensus of WikiProject Equine, we are using what is the most recent (more recent than your 1996 source) standard, which is to use all three terms. Thus this is consistent with what those who specialize in taxonomy are presently using. If they change it again in another 10 years, or whenever, we will, of course, revisit it then. I thought it weird at first too, but I understand the reasoning and believe it is correct. Montanabw^(talk) 19:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your prompt response. I understand your situation, and will endeavor to refrain from reopening old wounds.  :) But I will also respectfully note that one of the papers I cited for you, the 2004 Gentry et al. ref, was written by the very authors who petitioned the ICZN to advance their new ruling on the validity of Equus ferus. In that 2004 paper, these authors explain their reasoning and then seek to effectively complete their taxonomic circle, as it were, by asking for another ruling that validates Equus caballus as a legitimate species for the domestic horse. Although the ICZN has not yet acted on this (and may not; they sometimes don't), such a solution is in fact the only way that both of these species can be retained; otherwise, Equus caballus *has* to have priority, and E. ferus would *have* to be a junior synonym of caballus ... or a subspecies, as presented in the 2nd footnote (which interestingly is in total opposition to the taxonomy presented in the 1st sentence on this page). I apologize profusely if I come across as a jerk on this, especially since it seems that you've reached a group consensus and the debate has been resolved to your satisfaction. But as I continue to publish my own (admittedly meager) studies on horse taxonomy, I will unfortunately be forced to respectfully disagree with the taxonomic interpretations being presented on this page. CaptainFossil (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

1

"Przewalski's Horse is the only remaining true wild horse, as the more common populations of "wild horses"" a word or two to explain the term is Colloquial Nirame (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

That's why we put it in quotations, that grammatically implies that it's a colloquialism. If you have a way to reprhase it, though, feel free to suggest it here. Montanabw^(talk) 04:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Having watched this dicussion about domestic v wild horse with interest, I actually have a different and slightly more WP:BOLD view, but rather than make the change straight away, I think we should discuss it here.

So, the upshot is that this article is about caballus, but to me, this isn't as clear as it should be in the lead as the bit that talks about Przewalski's have a tone of voice that suggest that the article is about all varieties of ferus, which is in fact at wild horse -"most horses today are domesticated and are member of the subspecies caballus..." is clearly something more for the parent species in my mind.

My proposed replacement text would be something along the lines of: "The horses in the subspecies caballus are largely domesticated, although some formerly domesticated populations live in the wild as feral horses. These feral populations are not true wild horses, as this term is used to describe horses in the parent species Equus ferus, and the only true remaining wild horse is the endangered Przewalski's Horse."

In a slight extension to that, to avoid the possibility of doubt, I would consider changing the lead horse to domestic horse.

Any thoughts? OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 05:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, there IS also an Equidae article and an Equus (genus) article. I'd keep the lead really simple because it's already pretty long, but maybe there is a place for your phrasing. However, I STRONGLY oppose getting into that doggone "domestic horse" naming dispute again... this crops up over and over again across all the domestic animal articles, causes edit fights every time and I really do think that differentiating horses based on a few hundred Pzrewalskis is an "undue weight" problem. And I'm not touching the taxonomy stuff without Kim's guidance. Apparently among those who care, this stuff is touchy. I also don't want the article to be boring. I also hope to see Dana and Ealdgyth weigh in on this, and Ealdgyth is, I think, on a road trip

Owains proposed text has far more clarity something more along those lines is what i would like to see put in.At the moment the phrasing is far too impreciseNirame (talk) 10:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

So is the problem in the lead only with these sentences? "The horse (Equus ferus caballus)[2][3] is one of two extant subspecies of equus ferus, or the wild horse. It is a single-hooved (ungulate) mammal belonging to the taxonomic family Equidae..." and "Most horses today are domesticated and are members of the subspecies caballus, though there are still endangered populations of the Przewalski's Horse, a separate subspecies, in the wild. Przewalski's Horse is the only remaining true wild horse, as the more common populations of "wild horses" are feral horses which live in the wild but are descended from domesticated ancestors..." If so, I guess my thinking is for us all to re-read the more comprehensive sections on the topics (Taxonomy and evolution header), drag Kim back over here to be sure we don't screw the pooch in our phrasing, and see if we can come up with a better, but equally accurate (or more accurate) way of saying the same thing. Montanabw^(talk) 17:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Happy not to get in to the 'domestic' argument, just seemed logical having not argued over it before, but not got a particularly strong opinion. Is everyone happy if I change the lead wording along the lines of the above whilst we await further input? OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 18:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

How about you propose your revision here-- in context of which sentence goes where (not sure what you mean by "along the lines of the above" --grin) and we can tweak on it until everyone is happy. Then pop it into the article. Once we start messing with the lead, it's like a set of dominos, one tips and they all crash. Better to sort that out here. Montanabw^(talk) 23:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I did put it above, but my proposed wording (slightly altered here) would be:

"The horses in the subspecies caballus are largely domesticated, although some formerly domesticated populations live in the wild as feral horses. These feral populations are not true wild horses, as this term is used to describe horses in the parent species Equus ferus, the only remaining example of which is the endangered Przewalski's Horse."

This avoids the repetiton of Prz horse in a single paragraph, and to my mind simplifies the copy. Any opinions? OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 11:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The domesticated horse is not largely domesticated, it is fully domesticated. In fact, key of the description is that it is domesticated. And so there are a few more issues. Here is a more accurate version:

"The horses in the subspecies caballus are domesticated, although some domesticated populations live in the wild as feral horses. These feral populations are not true wild horses, as this term is used to describe horses that have not been domesticated, such as the endangered Przewalski's Horse."

-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Kim, you nailed what was bugging me but I couldn't explain properly -- what's happening (also in some category changes that are driving me nuts) is that people are confusing equus ferus as somehow meaning all horses are "wild" horses. I think. Anyway, it's one of the things I get but can't explain, so thanks, and if you can shoot us a citation to add just in case this gets challenged (or point to one already there that does the trick), I for one have no objections if you pop that into the lead where the trouble wording is. Montanabw^(talk) 23:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Follow up: I popped in a variant of what Kim said, everyone check and if there is a problem with what I added, rephrase or revert and we can discuss further. Montanabw^(talk) 00:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Factual error concerning this article.

Sorraia is not from Spain. Sorraias were found in Portugal. Portugal and Spain are diferent countrys. There is an wikipédia page (in Portuguese) about the sorraia horse whith more information about the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.84.233 (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You are quite correct. This has now been corrected in the article. Dana boomer (talk) 14:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible Euthanasia in Horses or Extensive care is required if the leg breaks

I heard that Horses actually get put-down when they break a leg and some require extensive care. I think that its something that should be mentioned in this article. Its something interesting for readers to read about what the owners would expect when owning a horse.Blueknightex (talk) 13:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not a leading cause of death like horse colic or laminitis. It is a popular literary topic, of course, and horses like Barbaro put it in the news. However, I am concerned about putting undue weight on a relatively uncommon problem. However, if you think there is an appropriate place to discuss it, we are open to suggestions as to where. Montanabw^(talk) 20:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Also not sure whether it deserves a place in the article here. A broken leg is not de jure indication for euthanasia and I know several horses who ahve survived broken legs. It is more common in horse sport, as the horse is never likely to reach competitive fitness again following such an injury, but that doesn't really warrant a mention on the main horse page. It might be worth a mention in a daughter page, but i don't think there is an equestrian medicine one? Doesn't really fit in horse care. Maybe an article to create around equine medicine? OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 09:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

We have a Lameness (equine) article that needs a lot of work. See also Category:Horse health Montanabw^(talk) 00:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Transportation

I'm surprised that in the section "Interaction With Humans" there's not a subsection dedicated to transportation. Historically, this was probably one of the most important functions of horses prior to the development of the automobile, the latter only having been around for little more than a hundred years. TempDog123 (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably one of those situations where there is way too much information, the entire history of the horse. You raise a point that this could be a good topic for one or more spinoff articles, though. We do of course have separate articles on riding (equestrianism) and driving and all the variants thereof (probably dozens if not hundreds of articles, actually). Curious as to possible approach for an overview article though. Montanabw^(talk) 23:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 20 November 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Under the behavior section, it is stated the dominant animal is usually a mare. In actuality the dominant animal in charge of the entire group in terms of both mating and protection is a dominant stallion under normal circumstances. There may be a "dominant lead mare", however she is still subordinate to the dominant stallion, although she may be involved with leading the group in some movement and feeding activities. http://www.sportpolo.com/polo_pony/herd_instinct.htm is an example of a reference for this, although there are dozens.

This is also one reason horses are gelded, in part to control aggression, due to the stallion's natural desire to be dominant and more aggressive behavior. 71.100.220.147 (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The best I can do for now is, to tag that as 'dubious' - which I have, and I invite further discussion below, thanks  Chzz  ►  09:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The given source is hardly a reliable source - especially as compared to the cited textbook that is used for the information currently in the article. I'd need to see reliable scholarly sources - not websites that don't cite their sources - before changing sourced information. I've also reverted the addition of the dubious tag - if there are new studies showing that stallions are the dominant animals - lets see them, but they need to be reliable sources equal to what's already in the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It is also a myth that stallions are "dominant" in the sense of directing the herd, and the source provided reflects an outdated understanding. They may indeed be aggressive, but it is the lead mare who finds food and water, eats first, drinks first, and will not hesitate to kick the stallion right in the slats if he gets out of hand. Montanabw^(talk) 02:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Care of Horses

I feel that the section on caring for horses could have been in more depth. There are many factors when it comes to caring for a horse such as feeding, grooming, and exercise. Horses require their hooves to be clipped and filed atleast once a month and that requires hiring a farier for which can cost 100 dollars each visit per horse. Also, the feed is very expensive becuase the require grain and sometimes sweet feed. Horses also need a lot of hay to eat and sleep on. I believe the law requires horse owners to provide one arce per horse in order for them to be able to run around. Many people chose to buy horses with the intentions of riding them and that is where a big chunk of money comes into play becuase a good saddle alone can run from 600 to 2,000 dollars. I am not trying to take the joy out of owning a horse but a lot of times people buy horses and do not realize the expenses and up keep of one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SheenaWeena (talk • contribs) 17:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, if you look at the section, you will see the link to the main article Horse care where this is covered in more depth. Hope that helps. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 18:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

And we also have horse management, equine nutrition, horse grooming, equestrianism, saddle, bridle and many, many more, all wikilinked from this main article. Montanabw^(talk) 02:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It is said that ponies are smarter then horses. Scientists studied and found it was true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.214.190 (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the study or a reliable reference describing the study? Dana boomer (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

a few additions

under sports, add equestrian vaulting (has its own article) under uses: horse milk is a popular traditional drink in Mongolia; used to help cancer patients regain strength after chemotherapy; and used in cosmetics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.123.93.166 (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions

I wanted to comment on the PR, but is closed. So commenting here about "Interaction with humans", which needs improvements.

• Some things missed out.
  • "culture": Flying horses are seen in various mythologies: Buraq, Pegasus, Uchchaihshravas
  • "culture": Horse-driven chariots of the Sun and the Moon deities
  • "Warfare": The ancient war-machines - horse chariots
• WP:UNDUE to Chinese zodiac.

Other:

• References: consistent reference style
  • Ensminger Horses and Horsemanship pp. 309–310 v/s Sellnow, Happy Trails, p. 46
  • Fear 2006, p. 75: Harv for only 1 reference.

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Good comment on the culture section needing work. Not that I'm, looking forward to it, but yeah...good point. Montanabw^(talk) 21:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the harv formatting for the one reference that used it, and I think I have now standardized the book references to use no commas, since that seemed to be the prevailing style. I may have missed a couple, though, so please feel free to double-check my work. My laptop is almost out of battery, so I'll take a look at the culture and warfare stuff later tonight. Dana boomer (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, so, here are my thoughts on the culture section - second paragraph:

Original - Horses are frequently seen in television and films. They are sometimes featured as a major character in films about particular animals, but also used as visual elements that assure the accuracy of historical stories.[185] Both live horses and iconic images of horses are used in advertising to promote a variety of products.[186] The horse frequently appears in coats of arms in heraldry. The horse can be represented as standing, walking (passant), trotting, running (courant), rearing (rampant or forcine) or springing (salient). The horse may be saddled and bridled, harnessed, or without any apparel whatsoever.[187] The horse also appears in the 12-year cycle of animals in the Chinese zodiac related to the Chinese calendar. According to Chinese folklore, each animal is associated with certain personality traits, and those born in the year of the horse are intelligent, independent, and free-spirited.[188]

New - Horses are frequently seen in television and films. They are sometimes featured as a major character in films about particular animals, but also used as visual elements that assure the accuracy of historical stories.[185] Both live horses and iconic images of horses are used in advertising to promote a variety of products.[186] They frequently appears in coats of arms in heraldry, in a variety of poses and tackequipment.[187] The mythologies of variousmany cultures, including Hindi, Greek and Arabic, Greco-Roman, Hindu, Islamic, and Norse include references to both normal horses and those with wings or additional limbs, and multiple myths also call upon the horse to draw the chariots of the Moon and Sun.(new ref) The horse appears in the 12-year cycle of animals in the Chinese zodiac related to the Chinese calendar.[188]

This reduces the amount of space spent on both heraldry and the Chinese zodiac, while adding references to horses in mythology. I haven't dug up a specific source yet, but have one book that is specifically about horses in mythology and several others that mention them in a general sense, so it shouldn't be too hard. Let me know if the above change works for everyone and I can dump it in - probably tomorrow after work. Dana boomer (talk) 03:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I like it. I made some minor tweaks, shown with strikeout and underline above, but yeah, that's the way to go. Montanabw^(talk) 19:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, done. Dana boomer (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks much better. Maybe Horse worship and Horse sacrifice can be added in a sentence. Also, chariots in "Warfare". --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

extinct in America

This article claims that there is research "still in its infancy" that the horse did not become extinct in North America http://northernhorse.com/wildhorses/index.php/the-final-count/ Does anyone have any information about it? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no real research backing these claims, it's just ammo in the fight in the free-roaming "wild" horse political world, over whether the horse is an indigenous or introduced species. It creates a red herring, as while all horses here now are feral descendants of previously-domesticated animals, the land itself DID once support an ancient horse subspecies. So those who want to eliminate free-roaming horses as an introduced species or "vermin" have a weak case (particularly if Ice Age human were a contributing factor to the extinction, which is possible, though hotly debated), but on the other side, to stretch science to claim the horse never became extinct in North America is a silly argument too. At present there is NO actual evidence against extinction that can be scientifically verified. Keeping "wild" (feral) horse herds needs to stand on other claims, not this one. Montanabw^(talk) 19:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that people should know that wild horses can be very scary for children. most importantly when you are camping. ----— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zipzap11500 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 8 May 2012‎

Numbers of horses

The section "interaction with humans" and the section "work" have conflicting numbers of horses - fewer than 9 million in Africa in one and more than 35 million in the other, 65 million globally in one, more than a 100 million in the other. I don't know how to resolve the conflicts between the two sources, but I think the first is more reliable as a guess. Mulp (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that, we'll check it out. Montanabw^(talk) 22:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Follow up: It appears that one set of numbers are the FAO estimates of total numbers, while the numbers under "work" are only for working equines, not all equines. Hope that clarifies matters. Let us know if you see other errors. Montanabw^(talk) 22:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but the problem is that the number of working equines is higher than the number of total equines...don't think that's possible. I had never noticed that before... Dana boomer (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the total stats are for horses only, while the working equines includes mules and donkeys. Needs at least some clarification, anyway. Montanabw^(talk) 18:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Locked article

Why in the world is the article locked? It's just about Horses! And why does Montanabwl answer every question? Does montanabwl own this page? When will it be unlocked?--74.240.225.38 (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Articles are locked when people persistently vandalise them, and this was the case for the Horse article. This lock is indefinite due to the ongoing nature of the vandalism. However, you can still make your contribution in two ways - either post your ideas on the talk page here, and one of the experienced editors will help you out, or you can register for a wikipedia account, and once you've made a few helpful edits you'll be able to edit almost any article. (and nobody 'owns' articles, its just some people are keener to answer than others... ;-) ) OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 07:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems I am usually first to the page when questions appear, nothing more. Almost all the "major" animal articles are protected in this way, cat, dog, etc. Montanabw^(talk) 23:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Meat eating

Horses eating meat? Horses as predators? Interesting article here about it. http://horsetalk.co.nz/2012/04/17/horses-as-meat-eating-killers/#.UAsuWGt5lP4 the article has a book as its base. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.149.160 (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Some horses can become seriously vicious. Horses have been fed animal protein by humans, we fed ground-up cow parts to cows. Nothing new there. Montanabw^(talk) 00:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Would be interesting to have something to that effect in the article.91.125.134.29 (talk) 04:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This is an overview article - not a collection of random bits of information, however. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hardly random. It's fascinating information that most people are unaware of. 87.112.52.148 (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's put it this way, how much space do they waste at dog over the fact that they eat grass and puke on the living room carpet? These articles are about the animal, not quirky trivia involving a few situtations. Montanabw^(talk) 01:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

a "professional" [sic] farrier

Whoever is writing this article -- which is 'locked' at present -- needs to change numerous little things, but at this time I will point out that s/he needs to learn the difference between what a profession is, and what a trade is.

A ferrier is not and never will be a 'professional': a ferrier is a skilled trade. People today commonly use the term "professional" in many loose and incorrect ways, without knowing the proper meaning: but such errors of usage are not encyclopaedic and should not be placed in Wikipedia. Pardon me for being a teacher and explaining: but think for a moment about the people that work at McDonald's restaurants who are not professionals --they are unskilled workers-- now consider auto workers, many of whom are highly skilled tradesmen --- they are not called professionals. No matter that they are highly skilled at their jobs. What are the professions? Look up any university syllabus: for example, accountants, physicians, architects, classical musicians, lawyers, etc ... You may say it is a small point to bring this up, but I am suggesting something that improves the article and helps it to be in keeping with the encyclopaedic demands of Wikipedia. It is not a small thing to suggest this improvement. In good faith, I thank you.

69.166.30.109 (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with the base point, although, at least in the OED, professional has more than one meaning. One being relating to a profession, and a second being "engaged in an activity as a paid occupation rather than as an amateur", and a third being "appropriate to a professional person; competent or skilful". I would suggest that in the sentence you are referring to, it is being used in the second sense of being in a paid capacity, and I am struggling to think of a suitable alternative which maintains the meaning of the sentence.

In addition, to stretch that slightly further, a profession is given as "an occupation that involves training and a formal qualification", which does apply to farriers, at least in most countries. In that respect, in countries like the UK, it is a licenced profession, open only to those with appropriate qualification and experience, and the skills of which are illegal to perform unless you hold registered status, and the title being protected such that it is a criminal offence to call yourself a farrier without current registration. In that way it is similar to most of the 'recognised' professions you indicate. QED. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 10:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Horse genetics?

I came here to see how many chromosomes a horse got and if their genome is much different from the human in terms of structure and stuff (obviously there is gonna be quite a few genes humans don't got and vice versa). Could someone please add more info on that area? --TiagoTiago (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hm. Sounds like good basic info to add: Fellow editors, can we find a place to pop in that factoid? Perhaps with a note that the horse genome has been sequenced? This is a GA-class article, so we'd probably be wise to sandbox our language and sources here at talk first, eh? Montanabw^(talk) 00:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Measurement and SI units

I am aware that it is conventional in the English-speaking horse world to measure the height of horses in 'hands', however, it is Wikipedia policy to use SI units (m). This article in several places uses the units of hands (although corrections are helpfully given). I have not edited these because I do not wish to create unnecessary work if I am incorrect, but is this an accepted exception to the use of SI units?__DrChrissy (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. We have specifically created a template to allow all references to hands be converted to both SI and Imperial units. And we had a knock-down, drag out edit war from hell about it a year or so ago, whereupon I believe the matter was solidly settled in our favor (both US and UK horse people in agreement). Thank you so much for the courtesy of asking about this and I do beg you, Please just do not even go there! (I think the discussion was either at talk of WikiProject Equine or at a breeds article, can't recall now...) Montanabw^(talk) 18:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You are incorrect that there is a policy to use SI units - it is a guideline and it isn't so cut and dried. See WP:UNIT. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my careless use of English. Montanabw, thanks for your explanation and I will leave the article well alone. I have been editing several articles recently which gave imperial units before SI units (or a mixture of priority) and when I looked at the horse page, it was even further from the guidelines. As I said, I do not wish to create any work for anyone, but the units do rather give the impression the article is written for horse people rather than lay-persons. Just a thought.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Fight or flight

Hi ‎Montanabw, Regarding your reversion of my deletion about the comment on the strength of fight-or-flight "instinct". If this "instinct" is "strong" in the horse, how has this been measured and compared with other animals? In which animals is it weak? The fight-or-flight response is generally considered a combination of physiological and behavioural responses, but the text expansion does not refer to this. Futhermore, the expansion in the text refers to the fight-or-flight "response", not instinct. It also then describes how horses sometimes do not flee which is rather counter to the statement that it is a "strong" response. I suggest that the sentence in the opening paragraph reads "Horses' anatomy enables them to make use of speed to escape predators and they have a well-developed sense of balance and flight response"__DrChrissy (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Read the source material; the "fight or flight" behavior-whatever you want to call it- is strongly inborn and while horses also have curiousity and other behaviors, but the horse is a prey animal and it is a fundamental part of their makeup. Horses can be trained to be less fearful and to "spook in place" (so to speak) but it is a desensitization process. You are welcome to suggest more good source material, but this is something absolutely critical to anyone wanting to understand and work with horses and core to safety of humans handling them. Montanabw^(talk) 20:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I think we have been looking at this from different perspectives. I am thinking of the untrained animal. A horse living wild would learn whether it needs to increase the intensity of its response through e.g. observational learning, or decrease the intensity of its response due to e.g. habituation. It was the word "strongly" linked with instinct that I disagreed with. Having said this, I have just checked the article and see that you have accepted the word response instead. Thank you - I am perfectly happy with this. Good to interact amicably with you again.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I realized that tossing unneeded adjectives and working on correct phrasing was not a huge issue and that the section needed additional sourcing as well, so you were of help to point out a legitimate weakness. As for the rest, given that there is only one truly "wild horse" subspecies, we are actually talking about "wild" meaning feral or semi-feral conditions; rather like the feral dog or feral cat. While it IS true that environment will influence the degree of intensity that any inborn behavioral tendency may have, nonetheless, any horse's first gut instinct when startled is to run away - or at least to jump about 15 feet sideways when the plastic grocery bag blows up against the fence while you are riding (plastic bags eat horses, didn't you know?) :-P . They can learn that they don't need to run off at every little thing (except for the aforementioned plastic grocery bag), and their instinct to run off is countered by a natural instinctive curiosity as well, so yeah, some horses learn to put up with A LOT, it takes time, training and a lot of confidence in humans! Montanabw^(talk) 18:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I live near a place called Exmoor which has populations of Exmoor ponies. I was thinking these were wild but after reading your comment I checked and sure enough, they are categorised as semi-feral, so thanks for the tip-off. Cute little guys!__DrChrissy (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

There used to be a cartoonist named Thelwell who did the most hilarious series of cartoons about the British pony breeds -- all fuzzy and treacherous! Montanabw^(talk) 22:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I just looked at his web-site [2] and I recognise the style. His name does not appear in Horse or Horses in art. Perhaps it should? I would make the edit myself but I always get told off when I dare enter the horsey world  ;-) __DrChrissy (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we have Norman Thelwell, which needs help. This Horse article is probably not the place for art discissions, but the art article -- well, I avoid discussing what art is! The problem is getting past copyright issues with his cartoons, the various pony breed articles would be enriched by them!  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 20:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

After horses stopped being used in combat

"The popularity of equestrian sports through the centuries has resulted in the preservation of skills that would otherwise have disappeared after horses stopped being used in combat."

This is too simplistic. While fox hunting was seen as imparting useful skills for officers (between the world wars the Army Staff College at Camberley, Surrey kept 200 hunters for use by the officers there at a time when the British armed forces were on very small appeasement budgets -- leading Bomber Harris to quip that the army commanders would only be happy with the tank if it could learn to eat hay and defecate like a horse), fox hunting was seen as a stand alone pastime for which horse balance etc (for which a limited amount of dressage and showjumping skills were useful as a mean to an end) were least as important and probably more so than similar skills for war. Here is a quote from the first book I found with a Google book search that mentions fox hunting and the Peninsular War, but I am sure there are many more such quotes as this is well known stuff:

Classical dressage ... in the United Kingdom ... was regarded even as long ago as the seventeenth century, as for foreign "continental" overformalized (like French and German ideas about gardening), and unsuited to the three basic uses of horses, which were, in English eyes, foxhunting, horse racing and the cavalry charge [(The Swedish model not the 17th century French way of trotting up, firing pistols and retreating)].

So great was the English belief in foxhunting as the true test of horsemanship that Wellington encouraged all his officers to foxhunt in Spain during the Peninsular War, and even had foxes brought over from England, since they were in short supply there.

— Michael Korda (Horse People, 2009, p. 140, ISBN 0061746959)

The most famous fox hunts on the Peninsular took place behind the Lines of Torres Vedras during the stalemate of the winter of 1810/11.[3][4]

So from a British point of view it is just not true that "The popularity of equestrian sports through the centuries has resulted in the preservation of skills that would otherwise have disappeared after horses stopped being used in combat", and while the sentence is cited the sentence need qualifying to indicate that this is a view of the author (Sandra L. Olsen) because it is not a widely held view in Britain. -- PBS (talk) 09:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

This article is an overview and as such is somewhat generalized, a British view such as this is undue weight for this particular article. We have a lot more detail on horses in warfare in other articles, and your comment may be particularly useful as an addition at Fox hunting. Montanabw^(talk) 17:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Images

Hi, Some of the sections in the horse article have no pictures, so i'm not sure if I understand what the rationale is for having no illustrations. Take, for example, the sections on pony and hooves. It's not like there was already a picture and then I added a redundant 2nd picture. There was and now is no pictures in many sections. What is your rationale for not having, to take an example, the hoof picture? Is there an unwritten rule that a GA should have only x number of pictures? The usual rule of thumb I have seen is people saying not more than one picture or media file per section, but in this case there are multiple un-illustrated sections. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I just put the hoof image back. I'm not sure what the grounds for excluding it are. It is encyclopedic, informative, directly illustrates the topic at hand (hooves). I know it will be removed. But I want to know what the policy rationale is. Just because this is a GA, it doesn't mean it can't be touched by outside editors (i.e., people not known on the article space). OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The hoof image is unsourced. Compare to File:Points_of_a_horse.jpg where the diagram IS sourced to a specific work. That's the sort of thing we need. But there is no "rule" that every section has to have a picture, the pony example you gave was one where we already had a photo with both a full sized horse and a mini, where the extra photo of a pony was not needed, it bled into the next section on some computers, and particularly where we have a link to the pony article that provides people with more detail about ponies. Montanabw^(talk) 17:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

As an "outside editor" with an interest in animal articles in general, I have looked at the images in this article and I do not believe it is overpopulated. The hoof image is clear and informative and should remain in the article. The "horse world" is full of its own terms and for me (not being a particularly horsey person) the hoof image had several terms I was unaware of but are self-explanatory from the image. The only image I would take issue with is the one of a horse's eye. This is dull and uninformative. A more striking image yet remaining informative would be of the gustatory sense in the horse, e.g. when used during the flehmen response, (e.g. image included in this edit) Incidentally, there is no mention of the flehmen response in the article at all - an omission that needs looking at.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

See horse behavior and horse breeding, where we go into a lot of that sort of thing. A general overview article is really challenging because you correctly note that we have to exclude some things; and usually everyone's sacred cow gets gored (I feel for PBS's comment above on history because I'm the history geek here; I'm also the genetics geek, but thank god for wikilinks to the articles that allow people like me to geek out to my heart's content... LOL) Montanabw^(talk) 17:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Images used in GA status articles must have good free use or fair use licenses. Just because something is on Commons does not ensure that. Every image needs to be checked for that before being added. And we've been working (slowly, very slowly) towards FA status for this article - so not only does every image need good licensing, it must be perfect with reliable sourcing for any information in it also. Thus, any images added need to be reliably sourced if they are a diagram, and have perfect licensing. Just adding images doesn't always help an article. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Flehmen response in a horse

.Wow - I really did not realise that something on Commons might not be suitable. Thanks for the heads up on that. I agree that simply adding an image does not necessarily improve an article. I deal mainly with animal behaviour articles and do photography as a hobby. I therefore take a great deal of time in selecting photos for addition to articles - the image I suggested here to illustrate flehmen was the first I encountered on Commons - I was not suggesting this actual image should be used. Flehmen response contains the image in this edit. Please understand I am not suggesting a flemen image must be included. I simply feel the horse's eye image is really dull and made a suggestion if replacement was thought suitable, by including use of a sense people generally know little about__DrChrissy (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want a real education, try running any article you care about through the GA or FA gauntlet. It's pretty rough, especially for a long, complex article like this one. It was a nightmare (pun intended) just getting this one to GA (long story, we had a WP:CHEESE problem there) and those of us who were on the team are probably still a bit twitchy from the experience. We are very open to article improvements (which may include addressing the images again, but eeek!!) but with careful thought. Montanabw^(talk) 17:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Horses have a horizontal pupil which enables them to more easily detect predators on the horizon

Well I had been thinking of submitting Pain in invertebrates for GA, but sounds like it is more effort than it's worth! An interesting fact about the horse's eye is that it has a horizontal pupil (although this is not mentioned on the Equine vision page). This adaptation enables horses to see predators on the horizon more easily. The current image of a horse's eye does not show this pupil shape clearly (so editing the caption is probably not an option) but the top image of the image in this edit does. I really feel that the current photo with much reflection (you can even see a human reflected off the cornea!) and a caption "A horse's eye" can be improved upon.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to add stuff to the equine vision page, and maybe we could think about swapping images here and or adding one to the vision article. The Pain in invertebrates article might do well with a WP:Peer Review, I think it's close to GA but may need a little work before you nominate it. Montanabw^(talk) 19:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Evolution of Equus

I think rather than mentioning other equids in a "Other modern equids" subsection, zebras and asses should be mentioned in context of horse evolution, (when did their lineages split from the horse lineage?). Just a suggestion. LittleJerry (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The detail is in Evolution of the horse, and they debate that a fair bit over there, here we just have a summary and a link to the main article. And this article is about horse, not zebras anyway. Montanabw^(talk) 17:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

African wild ass

Why doesn't the Equus mention the African wild ass? I added a link to the article but Montanabw reverted stating "African wild ass is only one of many in asinus." The African wild ass is actually THE species while the donkey and others are merely subspecies of it. Also Mb, when I added in the wild ass to the list mentioning the donkey as the subspecies you stated "Not how it's sourced". The closest one ([140]) only confirms Equus hemionus. LittleJerry (talk) 04:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Equus africanus asinus is the donkey, larger members of which are called asses; both domesticated. The African wild ass is Equus africanus, a different subspecies; even that article indicates there is a taxonomic dispute and I cannot tell from the article if there is an independent Equus africanus independent of all the subspecies (Nubian wild ass, etc...) . The source cited here is Pallas; if you want to present different sourcing, we can discuss further, and maybe link the wild ass separately from the domesticated animals - but the point is that the donkey is not the African wild ass, which appears to be a never-domesticated animal. (In horses, the ancestral e. ferus is extinct with e. ferus caballus and e. przewalskii the only living descendants.) I guess this can be solved with a new source beyond what we have in there now. Montanabw^(talk) 01:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

This states that the African wild ass is the ancestor of the donkey. This states that the donkey and ass are sometimes called separate species for "convenience". This doesn't seem to be usual as the horse is sometimes called Equus caballus, the cat Felis catus and the dog Canis familiaris. I don't understand what you mean when you say the African wild ass is Equus africanus and therefore a subspecies. Equus africanus is a Binomial nomenclature, hence a species name. The donkey is Equus africanus asinus a Trinomial nomenclature and thus a subspecies of the African wild ass. LittleJerry (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

More to the point, what difference does it make in an article on horses? Why should we link one specific subspecies of ass here in an article on some other equid?? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Factual accuracy. The African wild ass is the species. This is relevant to a section that discusses equids in general. LittleJerry (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

DO NOT alter someone else's edits. If you think I made an error, say so in your own message. As for the rest, the point is that the donkey and the ass are the same animal, equus africanus asinus; there is no actual Equus africanus: there are four subspecies, one extinct, one of which is the donkey/ass, the other two extant ones being the Somali and the Nubian wild asses. From the article' "Different authors consider the African wild ass and the domesticated donkey one or two species; either view is technically legitimate, though the former is phylogenetically more accurate." Montanabw^(talk) 18:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't alter any edits. By the same token the mountain zebra doesn't exist, only the Cape mountain zebra and Hartmann's mountain zebra. Why do you have a problem linking to the African wild ass? It would cover the donkey, Somali and Nubian wild asses. The article currently links to the domestic donkey article which excludes the other two. LittleJerry (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes you did, you changed MY edit here. Basically, your initial edit linked ass to the African wild ass, which it technically isn't. Now the concern is that we list the whole taxonomic tree at [{Equus (genus)]] and I see no reason to go into much detail here; this is just the article about horses. I'm kind of pissed that you changed my edit here and I'll let the other editors weigh in on this because I need to just cool off a bit and think it over. Montanabw^(talk) 22:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that was an accident. But yes, the "ass or donkey" technically is the African wild ass. All I'm suggesting is that ass and donkey should link to the species Equus africanus not the subspecies Equus africanus asinus. Its that simple. LittleJerry (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that defines the dispute. Given that we are at a bit of an impasse, I'll wait until the other regulars editors weigh in. Montanabw^(talk) 18:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any sources - and the source in the article is doing some weird error to me. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Improving sourcing there would probably be a good idea anyway... Maybe I can get Kim out of retirement to lend a hand here. Montanabw^(talk) 17:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Mongolian horses

I would like to propose the following addition: "Mongolian horses were a key factor during the 13th century conquest of the Mongol Empire." See here - Warfare section. At its height, the Mongol Empire was the largest land empire in history and horse still plays a central role in the life, and culture of Mongols. There is no other nation in the world that so much depends on horses. Tobby72 (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight though - it's just not relevant enough in the section. This is an overview article - we need to keep things general. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Why not write an article Mongolian horses and put a link to it in this article.___00:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry - just realised that page already exists!__DrChrissy (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Uninformative image

The section on Temperament contains an image of 9 horses. The caption states which groups these breeds belong to, but does not identify which horse is which. So, at the moment, it is simply an uninformative but pretty image. Even the text naming the breeds is too small to read. Could someone who knows what temperament these breeds are supposed to have, please edit the image and caption. I suggest the image is edited to number the horses 1 to 9 and the caption re-written to identify these.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure we need to bloat the caption that much, and the concept is that they are representative examples anyway. Not necessarily saying no, but wondering if it's all that helpful when the text explains all. Montanabw^(talk) 01:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The text might explain it all, but to a non-horse person such as me, it is difficult (impossible) to relate the text to the image. I'm not expecting anything too wordy. I imagine the examples are in some order (perhaps as rows or columns) so the caption could read "Illustration of hotbloods (1-3), warmbloods (4-6) and coldblood (7-9) breeds".__DrChrissy (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

They're not that simple, they are all mixed up, the Arab is #1, the Thoroughbred is horse #11. I tweaked the caption to indicate what kinds of horses are each (slim, medium-sized and draft) Maybe that helps some?? I think the only solution is to work on the image page, which needs more English translations. I'll pop by and see what I can do there. Pop by and see what you think. Montanabw^(talk) 19:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. I had not even realised the central image is 3 different breeds! The original file on wikicommons has got the breeds listed. I have played around with adding larger and clearer numbers to the image, but they detract from the aesthetic quality. Your caption explains they are assorted, so might be best left now.

respiration/circulation

I think respiration and circulation need their own subsections for this article to be comprehensive enough for FA. There are some unique features that should be discussed like the Guttural pouch and the circular heart shape. LittleJerry (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Horses have many unique features, some in their digestive system (no gall bladder), some in their skeletal system (sleep standing up), and so on -- your overall comment is well-taken, but this article also has to be VERY generalized due to the huge amount of material that is covered compared to most other animal species articles (the sporting uses alone are also huge) We have created many spinoff articles, Equine anatomy, Circulatory system of the horse, Respiratory system of the horse among them. Maybe peek at those and come back with additional thoughts? It will be a while before we take this to FAC, though I know Ealdgyth and Dana are both interested in the wikicup points it would generate! (grin) Montanabw^(talk) 06:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

For circulation you can mention the heart shape, heart rate and the frog. Respiration can mention how the lungs are stretched and pushed against like a piston when running, the fact they can only breathe through the nose, and the guttural pouch. These are unique features that I believe belong in this article. Of course you shouldn't discuss things that many other mammals have. LittleJerry (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

What's weird about the heart rate? And I'm sincerely curious why the heart shape matters (only looks kind of round to me, but I'm not a specialist in anatomy of animals, so...) Actually, what might help here is if you can find us a good source (or sources) for what you are saying is unique. If we do take this to FAC, to add what you suggest (which is an intriguing idea), we need very good source material that literally says "the horse is the only animal that has X..." We've already gotten shit just for saying that the horse has the largest eyes of any land mammal, I dread trying to explain to a totally ignorant FAC reviewer about something unique unless we can back it up from veterinary references or something. Can you help? Montanabw^(talk) 00:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that caution is needed her when stating what is unique to horses. Reading the section on the piston-like mechanism of the horse lungs reminded me of a dissection I did in Australia on a kangaroo and being taught many years ago that roos have a similar breathing pattern related to locomotion. Sure enough, this is mentioned in Kangaroo#adaptations, (but I think the description is the wrong-way round!) although there is no source for this.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay. How about adding in information on the frog in the hoof subsection and the guttural pouch maybe in movements (it appears to be a cooing device when the animal moves)? LittleJerry (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's a good place to start for the guttural pouch. Its a blog but there is a bibliography of journal articles. The "false nostrils are particularly interesting. LittleJerry (talk) 03:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

My question is simpler: What does the reader seeking an overview of the horse need to know in this article, as opposed to the spinoffs? (Chrissy, note the spinoffs above, we have a bunch of them). I know when we take this to FAC someone will inevitably raise the length of the article (with the catch-22 that if we cut too much, then it isn't comprehensive), so I want to be very careful about what we summarize and what we spin off. i.e., other than being weird and kind of cool, why does the lay reader care about the gutteral pouch? (i.e. connect it to practical things, like being a race horse... how??) We must include the bit about horses able to sleep standing up, even though it's trivia, as we've had multiple requests for this over the years, but to delve into anatomy, like the absence of a gall bladder, I'm neither support or oppose, mostly just asking what we "need" to have in this article. Montanabw^(talk) 18:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I am in two minds here. I can totally understand this must be a general article. However, for some reason, I really enjoy reading about unusual characteristics of animals, for example, I did not know that the frog was involved in circulation and I find this fascinating! I am sure there are other readers out there that feel the same. However, this sort of information must all have HIGHLY reliable sources. By this, I would suggest international peer-reviewed scientific articles. I would even steer clear of reporters' accounts of papers because there is a tendency for reporters to write "the largest eye of any land mammal" when the scientist wrote "one of the largest eyes of any land mammal". I wonder how many characteristics in animals can be truly described as unique. Whilst writing this, I am watching a programme on unusual interspecies "friendships"; these include polar bears with dogs, pumas with dogs, domestic cats and chicks, and many others. Many of these I would think are unique. They are interesting and undeniably true, but does this mean the relationship should be reported on the Dog or Cat pages?__DrChrissy (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I have just looked at Polar bear and Dog (I probably should have done this before posting the above!). It is interesting that the unusual behaviour (probably unique instance) of polar bears playing with dogs IS reported on the Polar bear article but NOT the Dog article. There are several accounts of dogs having these unusual inter-specific relations but I imagine only one for the polar bear.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Dogs play with anyone who plays with them; not necessarily true of Polar Bears! Have seen many horses and dogs who play together. Montanabw^(talk) 21:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Just looked at Gallbladder and this states "Several species of mammals (including horses, deer, rats, and various laminis) and several species of birds lack a gallbladder altogether, as do lampreys." I guess it is a matter of opinion whether an unusual or uncommon characteristic is included. For me, if it is included, I would like to see the consequences of the present/missing characteristic.

Indeed. I think that reader interest is usually generated by "here's how this animal is different from people" stuff. For me, the things that have safety or management implications are important (visual blind spots, why horses are so prone to colic and laminitis, etc.) The gall bladder issue has implications in the amount of fat a horse can consume in a given period of time (and in what form) and that because they have no gall bladder to store bile, they are basically emitting bile constantly, hence do not do well if their stomach is allowed to be completely empty - ulcers can result. But we discuss that at equine nutrition, not sure if we need it here or not. The thing about the frog is probably unique, the stuff about the gutteral pouch is interesting, also another weird factoid is that horses cannot vomit. Maybe you and LittleJerry can work up a list of cool stuff you think is worthy of integrating into this article as opposed to the spinoffs, why it matters beyond mere trivia, and maybe we can tweak the relevant sections a bit. Montanabw^(talk) 03:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Rats also can not vomit!__DrChrissy (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I have experience in bringing articles on large animals to FA, like giraffe, elephant and pinniped (crocodilian is coming up) In these, I've tried to include things like senses, internal systems, etc. When it comes to natural marvels like these, people are gonna want to know how they sleep, move, etc. Horse in particular are known for being athletic so circulation and respiration are important to discuss. Unique features like the frog and guttural pouch certainly belong in the article and not mere "spin-offs". LittleJerry (talk) 17:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Good to know, LittleJerry. I know that WPEQ would benefit from your joining of the team (I think that getting horse to FA is on the A-list for the 2014 wikicup for both Ealdgyth and Dana. Between you and the three of us, we've all run a lot of articles through FAC, but your background in working on other large animal topics will be invaluable. Should we start an FAC sandbox to work on these areas so that we don't disturb the currently stable (pun?) version of the GA article, then pop in new material as it is ready? Also, Dana and Ealdgyth, are we going to be jumping the gun on FAC for the wikicup if we start movement now? Montanabw^(talk) 20:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Using sandbox would be good. I don't have much material on horses, but I've read the spinoffs and watched this. As someone whose done big animals, I'm just making suggestions on how to improve the article further and make it more comprehensive. LittleJerry (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

and for that reason your input is valuable; we in horse land sometimes forget how the outside world views things. (LOL) Montanabw^(talk) 03:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)