Talk:Welsh Pony and Cob/Archive 1

Julius Caesar

From the article "It is believed that Julius Caesar founded a stud for the ponies on the shores of Lake Bala."

It may be believed, but JC only spent a short time in South East England, Wales did not see a Roman until the Roman conquest of Britain and that invasion started in AD 43 decades after JC visits in 54 and 55 BC. So it is very unlikely he founded a stud farm on the shores of Lake Bala. Before reinstating please provide a reliable source (WP:PROVEIT) --PBS (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you are probably right and I have no problem with removing that sentence, but for now just tagged it as dubious in case someone can find a source. As for the rest, rather than tagging all the paragraphs, I just put in the big header that sources could be improved. Which is true, but also less messy. Most of the modern info in there is fairly correct as far as I know with my somewhat superficial knowledge of welsh ponies, just not footnoted. Montanabw^(talk) 22:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Horse breeds of the World

This ref is used extensively in this article. Unfortunately, while some of the material appears plausible, other things are surely very doubtful, or unknowable. None of it whatsoever is referenced. For example:

• "There is evidence to support the belief that it pulled chariots in vast sport arenas"? What evidence? When? What sports arenas?
• "Henry Tudor came to the throne of England only with the efforts of the Welsh Militia mounted on their swift and hardy Welsh Cobs". How do we know this? Did he not have other armies? Did the militia really ride only what we'd call Welsh Cobs? How could we know that?
• "It is likely that the "Arab-like" appearance has been in place since the Roman occupation". Who says? How do we know? Why would it not have been diluted long since by other native ponies over the dozens of generations?
• "Arabian type horses accompanied the Romans from the African campaigns and were abandoned in the United Kingdom when the Romans withdrew in 410 AD." Who says? How do we know they had that type of horse, and that they brought them here, let alone that they left them behind? If they did, were the numbers enough to make any difference? Why did they not affect other native types as much, in areas with many more Romans?

I can't see that this ref is much use at all: it's a tertiary source, without its own refs, full of what amounts to speculation, so is surely not a reliable source for any of its info. I think we can really only include material from this site if we can find and ref the original sources. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This ref is from the International Museum of the Horse, and has been considered a reliable reference in several FAs and GAs, including Suffolk Punch and Thoroughbred (both FAs) and Haflinger (horse) and Icelandic horse (both GAs). It is not required that websites provide their sources, as long as their publishers are considered reliable, which the IMH is. I have found no sources that contradict the above statements, and indeed, only sources that corroborate this. If you have sources that contradict this information, please provide it, but at this point, this article is considered a reliable reference by other members of the Equine WP, as well as the multiple GA and FA reviewers who have reviewed articles that included this reference. Dana boomer (talk) 02:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The International Museum of the Horse at Kentucky Horse Park is probably the best horse-oriented museum there is, certainly in the USA. Their material may not be 100% perfect, but it will meet WP criteria until or unless someone has something of even higher quality. That said, a lot of their material does sometimes come from breed-specific sources, so may not be without bias. Like I say, open to better material when available. That said, some of the new edit is not without fault...note my tweaks there. Dana, this was one of my "old" (i.e. before meeting you and E and getting better about footnoting) cleanups, and some of the old material was sourcable, I shall try to tune up... Montanabw^(talk) 03:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

One note: The people who distinguish between Welsh cobs and welsh ponies care deeply about the distinction. I don't think it wise to use a cob as the lead image, IMHO (Though Richard may disagree 'cause I think he owns one! LOL! and noogies at Richard!) Montanabw^(talk) 03:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

If this source is widely accepted, then I'm a tiny bit happier with it – but the examples I gave above are a very good indication that on this subject at least it's far from brilliant – they look like fairly blatant breed-folklore to me!

Yes, sources with good editorial standards do not always have to give their own sources. However, in this case the info is so specific, the sources so very vague, and some of the "facts" so obviously questionable that I think including anything from this particular page without its original sources is very dodgy indeed. If we tried to write the same material here it would be full of fact and weasel-word tags before the bytes were dry. We should not be proliferating poor material, however worthy the source.

Yes, I do have a Section D – her rather wide bottom features in the picture in Swingletree (nice drive yesterday out to the same bit of the Forest in the new trap...). Personally I'm not fussed about the distinction between cobs (Sect D) specifically and Welsh ponies (Sects A, B, C). I'd make much more of a distinction between the Araby ponies of Sects A & B and the more native-pony types of C and D – which if it were me I'd call "ponies of pony type". Don't think it matters which is the lead image though – both types really have equal significance (whatever I might think about the mongrel origin of some...). Richard New Forest (talk) 09:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The main reason I had the picture in there that I did was that the horse faced into the article. As I have said below, this is an article that I would like to take to GA and possibly further, and so this will be an important consideration. I understand the distinction between Ponies and Cobs, and don't care which is in the lead photo, but by the time it gets to GA whichever it is needs to be facing into the article. Dana boomer (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Rant alert: That "horse must be facing into the photo" rule is the dumbest rule in wiki (actually, "dumbest" is the mildest work I could think of, grrr) -- for FA, well, arguably you want perfect images. But to tell editors they need to take an atypical image and throw it in just because the horse faces left is mind-bogglingly elevating form over substance. I know, you're just the messenger. Just my rant. Maybe we can just flip the photo, or find an even better one. That little white pony is a bit chubby and cresty, but he's kind of a cutie-patootie. And more what people think of when they think "Welsh pony." Maybe we can swap him with the pony in harness. The cobs are lovely, but you don't see them nearly as much (at least, not in the states), hence, they are less "typical." I don't know how the section registry numbers break down in the US and the UK, and Au, etc. Might be interesting to find. Thoughts?? Montanabw^(talk) 04:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Article improvement

OK, I went through and pretty much tweaked almost everything a bit. I restored much of the previous material (much was sourced, and a LOT of it was mine, the rest was older stuff I did a big rewrite on about two or three years ago) I also tried to keep a lot of what Dana added. (Please forgive me if I separated sources from their content) I reworded some material, rearranged a bunch of stuff. (Drives me nuts when registries admit their breed registry is 100 years old but then claim their pure breed saved the world 500 years ago...I swear to god all of them do it, too!) I feel it was necessary to keep the sections separate -- they really aren't virtually identical animals other than size and those who care about the distinctions care so much that when I started on wiki, there were four separate "breed" articles on each section. (That said, I'm sure there is a political faction wanting to say they are all the same...)

About all I tossed completely was either material that read like a digression or material that I felt was either duplicative or unnecessary. Richard is right that some of the historical claims are really iffy. What I couldn't salvage by weaseling the language, I tagged as "dubious" the ones that I think need verification from another source. I also tossed some stuff completely when it seemed totally off the wall. (grays are RARE?? Not in the pacific northwest they aren't...) To that note, I will note that the Okie State (OSU) site is personally my "better than nothing" site for sourcing because I have noticed that where it doesn't just quote registry material verbatim it seems to have more questionable material than a university source should contain. IMH is also guilty of reprinting registry propaganda in their breeds of the world section, though usually their historical material is better sourced.

So, basically, what I am questioning is the stuff naming specific foundation animals. I re-added it back in even though I have no clue as to a source. It was added by some other editor and I don't recall who. I don't know if it can be sourced, but on the other hand, mention of major foundation animals, especially ones that died 100 years ago, is done in other articles and may be useful (Richard? Input??). I also have no idea what to do with the cutesy pony trivia. Someone cared enough to add it once, so I put it back in, hiding at the bottom. We can decide to incorporate or toss as needed.

Anyway, onward. Sorry that I jumped in on this one and made so many changes, but it was one I did a lot of work on once and so I care. Feel free to tweak and discuss further! :-) Montanabw^(talk) 05:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes. The issue with all of the unsourced material is that this is an article that I would like to take to GA later this fall (when I get back to Michigan, so it'll probably be mid-October or later), so it's going to have to be sourced or tossed. I haven't included my book sources yet, as I don't have them with me, so they might be able to cover some of the information. If you can source more of it too, that would be great. What I was trying to do with the article was to only have information in it that I could source, and then add to it as I found new sources. Dana boomer (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to do my part to get "my" tidbits sourced for you. Richard: Any possibility that you have books and resources in your library that can be of help here? And if I foot-drag and things are tossed, it's my own error of omission! LOL! Dana, at the rate GA reviews are going, you'll be lucky to have your other two reviewed by October :-P As far as the books go, I find that our efforts at Appaloosa and Arabian are what I personally like to see for the major breeds, i.e. multiple expert sources that go beyond the (often flat-out wrong) "breeds of the world" overview books. For the smaller and more obscure breeds, the collections are about all there is, outside of the registries, so as far as they go, i'm grateful they are there for us! But here, the sources are weak -- for example, saying that there isn't much difference between the sections are so clearly wonky -- those little harness-bred Section A's in the American show ring are so far from the Welsh Cobs that a non-horse person would wonder why they're in the same registry... Montanabw^(talk) 04:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Section D's in the UK and height limit

There is no upper height limit for Welsh Section Ds in the UK, see the following link for the WPCS breed description: Section D breed description

In general very large section Ds are frowned upon as they can loose a lot of their pony type but are not actually wrong.

• WPCS is the Welsh Pony and Cob Society of Great Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.177.18 (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Fixed it. Montanabw^(talk) 02:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.177.18 (talk) 08:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Re-Title?

Ideally, this article should be entitled Welsh Pony and Cob, as the "Welsh Pony" name is really reserved over here for the Welsh Section B. Section A = Welsh Mountain pony, Section B = Welsh Pony, Section C = Welsh Pony of Cob Type, and Section D = Welsh Cob. And the biggest of the Section D's are definitely not 'ponies' by anyone's measure, lol! (ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 06:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC))

Yes, the formal name according to the breedsocs is "Welsh Pony and Cob". In WP we use the most widely used name – and this is not necessarily what the breedsocs use. However, in this case I think that general usage for the breed as a whole is probably the same: the general public might use "Welsh Pony" or "Welsh Mountain Pony" more commonly, but when they do, they don't quite mean what this article covers, and when they do mean that, they'd probably use the breedsocs' phrase. So overall, I agree. Richard New Forest (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm OK with it as long as the whole thing stays as one article. Years ago, there were four articles on the four sections, and 90% of the material was identical (history, basic characteristics, etc.) that's the only thing I'd not want to see happen. Over here the USEF rules refer to "Welsh Pony and Cob Division" for breed classes (and have some good source material on characteristics if we want to cite to a non-breed-registry source), so it is consistent across US and UK uses. Maybe give this another 24 hours to see if anyone else cares, and if not, then I'd say there's consensus. And TPC, if we are good to go, how about you try to figure out how to use the "move" command? Montanabw^(talk) 00:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a bash at that one later today. What about a "Welsh Cob" as a redirect, too? - I had trouble finding 'Welsh Cob' when I tried looking for it (ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 07:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC))

Looks like you did it! Welsh cob! Montanabw^(talk) 03:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

That weren't me (unless I have amnesia)! But the move was me :o) I think I cleaned up OK (ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 06:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC))

I guess it's an internal redirect. Maybe I did it a long time ago...I definitely have wiki-amnesia sometimes! Montanabw^(talk) 05:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Draught?

"a "draft horse" references a type, not a job (Morgans were farm horses, too, but in no way a draft/draught horse". Hmmm, not so, I'm afraid; draught comes from draw, which means pull, as in draught beer. I don't have OED access at the moment, so will have to make do with lesser sources:

• Chambers 20th Cent. draught-animal, -horse, -ox: one used for drawing heavy loads

• Webster's Collegiate draft (adj): used for drawing loads (~ animals)

• Oxford American Dictionaries draft adjective ( Brit. draught): 2 denoting an animal used for pulling heavy loads : draft oxen.

• Wiktionary draft horse: 1. a horse used for muscular work, other then carrying a rider and/or load, such as pulling a cart, plow or log

Draught-ponies were used in their thousands or tens of thousands in 19th century Britain, particularly in mining. I think there's an article about it at Pit pony. Yep, it's there. Needs a good edit too. Not just coal mines, but lead, tin, you name it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this analysis, but where is the rest of this discussion...? Richard New Forest (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't make it clear; it's in the edit history (edit summaries, hidden text). And yes, wouldn't it be clearer if everyone posted their comments on edits here, in the Discussion? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

JLAN, you are being a pain in the butt across all these articles. Do you have any actual interest in collaboration, do you simply enjoy acting like you are superior to everyone and have fun putting people down? This is NOT helping!!! We are not going to revisit the entire etymology of common terms across 2000 WPEQ articles. Montanabw^(talk) 07:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

On the last point: Why not? If the articles have largely been written by one person with bizarre preconceptions about the meanings of everyday words, then 'revisiting the etymology' would seem to be a priority. Is the purpose here to improve the wiki, or to defend the existing articles, however weak, and stifle all growth? I've already fixed Pony, where the first meaning given was not the everyday one; Draft horse needs attention too, for the reasons given above. And yes, I'll try to point out others I come across

On the question: My interest is in improving the articles, many of which direly need attention; some collaboration would be good. But if someone is spouting what is patently sheer blithering mindless nonsense then yes, I usually tend to say so, even if that does not directly help to improve the project

On your personal remarks: I've told you before that I don't particularly enjoy them, but have met rudeness before and survived. Perhaps you would care to re-examine your attitude to other users in general, to new users in particular, and give some thought to the question of why this particular project has so few contributors, and then consider whether there might be some connection?
(inserted above comment by Pitke for clarity, following edit conflict) Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what? Draught horse is a coldblood horse is a heavy, strong horse developed for used for draught work. There's only one problem to this: what should we be calling those individuals or breeds that are frequently used for farmwork, forestry, heavy pulling etc. that however are not draught breeds, and relevant equine sports. Such as the *dun dun dun* Finnhorse and Norwegian Fjord Horse! Pitke (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll apologize for my snark yesterday if you will please acknowledge that you are coming across to me in a very similar fashion, to that end, I have proposed a truce over on your talk page. Beyond that, I suggest that please DO examine how comments like "bizarre preconceptions about the meanings of everyday words" come across to others. Dozens of people, if not hundreds, have contributed to these articles over the years, and much of what is here reflects a consensus carefully crafted with various opinions. Montanabw^(talk) 00:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

JLAN, please chill! The horsey world has traditionally very often had slightly different interpretations of 'standard' words, and in a horsey article it's important to use the words as they'd be used in the relevant horsey environment. There is no need to get really nitpicky about thins, and certainly no need to use confrontational language like "patently sheer blithering mindless nonsense". Pesky (talk) 11:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)