![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Maybe that's the answer--to put the anecdotal history of the breed in its own "mythology" section under history. I've been busy modifying GHA's website to incorporate this anecdotal history. When it's uploaded perhaps that can be the source for this. No one will ever know the truth. It irks me to have to exclude this perhaps important information concerning the breed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFGMary ( talk • contribs) 06:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
SFGMary ( talk) 23:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
There are some videos that might be helpful. I think the Henry Connors interview will certainly be ok, although unfortunately it's almost worthless as for as being informative. It's almost not understandable.
Here is an interview with Henry Connors at a fair a few years back. The Connors breeding preceded The Coal Horse in the pedigrees, if you look at the family tree.
http://www.silverfeathergypsies.com/THE%20GYPSY%20HORSE/pedigree.html
"Old Henry" was named for Henry Connors. And "Henry Connors' White Horse" aka "The Palace Horse". The story is that some of the Connors horses were brought from Ireland to England. Robert Watson obtained some of them although he's not the one who brought them to England. Here is as much of the history as seems to be known:
http://www.silverfeathergypsies.com/HORSES/Declan/Declan.html
Here is the interview. Sadly it's very hard to understand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h721_4h0-iM
Then there is this video, done at an open house a couple of years ago. Now Tom Price is in the business of selling horses, although he does it for the love of the breed. He is probably the largest breeder and IMO the most reputable in the world. If I were to buy another horse, I'd go to him. This is an excellent video on Gypsy Horse conformation. I would very much like to cite it. Can we? He's not actively selling in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqfXO_aRdbs
There are other videos of notable stallions, none of Road Sweeper or Coal Horse unfortunately. I'm not sure they'd be notable enough to include at this point. IMO the most noteworthy sires in recent history are Lion King and Gypsy King. SFGMary ( talk) 19:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. When you say, "migrate", what does that mean? Could just referencing it from the registry site work? The youtube video of Henry Connors is where we've been getting the breed history in the pre-Coal Horse pedigree. I didn't think about that video. Probably the only record we'll ever have of that unless someone takes it and puts it down somewhere.
SFGMary ( talk) 20:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Henry Connors appears to be presenting the pre-Coal Horse pedigree in that little video. I catch some of the names--Ballymartin, Sham. I've actually contacted a transcriber in Ireland to see if they could sort it out some.
I am going to put some of this commonly accepted history of the breed on my registry's website. It's frustrating not to be able to use it in the article. It could be hogwash but it's interesting hogwash and we'll never know any, until they invent a time machine that is.
Can you think of anything else to address in the article? I'm going to include the history once i have it up on the site and work in these videos. We're talking about a more formal video, with diagrams and stuff, but not there yet.
Thanks for all your help. I'm very pleased with the article. Not something I'm embarrassed for new people to read. Not GVHS propaganda or any other kind of propaganda.
SFGMary ( talk) 01:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
From my talk page:
I have adjusted the time before archive to ~ six months (the comment below the bot command explains how it is calculated so anyone can change it to whatever they think is best). The algorithm the bot uses is only for whole section at a time so long discussions will not be accidentally split unless they are placed under different ==level 2== section headers. If the last comment in a section is five months old and someone adds a new one, the section will not be archived until another ~ six months goes by.
A word of warning, I think the bot looks at the time stamp on the lowest comment in a section so if that comment is added without a signature the section will never be archived (see "{{subst: unsigned2}} for a template to fix that problem -- NB subst: must be used if the bot is to see the signature). Conversely a new comment placed between old comments is ignored by the bot when calculating if it should archive the section.
The length parameter is not the length on the talk page but the maximum length of an archive page before the bot starts a new archive page.
If you need more help -- or anything else tweaked -- then please leave a message on my talk page. -- PBS ( talk) 08:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I presume that nothing prevents us from manually archiving something if we do note the unsigned parameter problem? Montanabw (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
The Independent newspaper ran an article on Appleby Horse Fair this year which include a number of phonographs of Gypsy horses:
-- PBS ( talk) 14:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC) Interesting. Are those suitable in to reference in the article? I'm pretty new to Wikipedia and so don't know. Yes, they are continuing to breed down. Now the desirable height is around 10 hands. They horses aren't really used except when they go to Appleby in the traditional way.
There's been a bit of a dustup. An American wants to speed up the shrinking process and crossbreed Gypsies and Shetland ponies. The idea is to get the size down and then reintroduce Gypsy blood. Breeding up is the term i believe. The breeders overseas are not happy with her idea. SFGMary ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
A section on politics eh? I could fill a whole article with that. There's been so much acrimony in the breed that I'm not sure that's wise. We've been lucky no one has stumbled on this yet. The Vanner people would probably be incensed at the use of the terms cob and horse used to describe the breed here. The UK breeders would probably see this as too American-o-centric and might not like any mention of "vanner" at all. Let's not poke a rattlesnake if we can help it. FYI i do not think the Shetland idea will work; GHA and maybe some other registries would register these in its crossbreed section, but the "breeding up" idea to bring size down won't fly. The results will be crosses, not considered true Gypsies, whatever that is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFGMary ( talk • contribs) 20:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
That's good. I haven't said a word about working on this within the Gypsy Horse community. I know there'd be blowback. I am, alas, out of favor in the Vanner crowd. I was one of the two electees to GVHS board of directors. The established group, of which Thompson was a part, feared they'd lose control of the organization (whatever that means) and held the infamous New Years Eve meeting to drum out another board member on false charges of malfeasance. To prevent us from taking our seats on the board was the aim. Appointing someone else to take this member's place, the ruling clique then came up with these "pledges" that the newly elected board members were to sign. I had a Drum stallion at the time, and my pledge forbad me from promoting, showing, or even acknowledging that i owned him. The nominal excuse was that Drums, by their existence, sent a "confusing message" as to what a Vanner was. Oh and I had used a website called americangypsyhorses.com to advertise horses for sale--that was cited too. GVHS violated its own bylaws with the excuse it used to drum out that board member in that New Years Eve meeting; i think there was a lawsuit there too, but it was settled quietly. Some others and myself then founded Gypsy Horse Association, the only registry, in my opinion, not formed to benefit certain members at the expense of others. Anyway, that's another reason this writeup would be controversial--it would be felt to not give enough credit to Thompson for renaming the breed. SFGMary ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
If i enter a question here will it get seen? SFGMary ( talk) 03:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you'll see this--I'll try to contact directly if you don't.
Two new registries have websites. I'm not sure they are incorporated as nonprofits in the U.K. to be honest. Both can apparently issue passports. The most controversial claim for both is a searchable database of DNA markers. Such a database is only as useful as the number of horses included. Also, identifying that two horses have, say, 10 markers out of 17 in common tells us what, exactly? There are is also some controversy involving GHA-registered horses markers. Apparently at least one of these registries has gone onto GHA's site and copied off the DNA markers of GHA-registered horses published there. I don't know--I am extremely skeptical about the value of such an undertaking as a searchable DNA database. Should I even report it? I have tried to describe it evenhandedly, so that its limitations are visible.
I am also be able to embellish a bit about these two registries. There are a couple of other services offered. Anyway, see what you think. SFGMary ( talk) 15:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your all's input. The issue with the GHA DNA markers is that the use of these databases is apparently charged for. I am somewhat skeptical frankly and was when TGCA came online. The intent may be to make money rather than further the acceptance of the breed. I believe I will hold off adding these to the article until they have proven themselves. And no the GH world is still too fragmented for a single globally accepted publication unfortunately. Many reputable overseas breeders are apparently supporting GCR but who knows? Thanks again for the input.
SFGMary (
talk)
02:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Is this worth noting? There's been 3 so far, and 2 Drums SFGMary ( talk) 18:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
FYI--I joined GCR. Many of the well established reputable overseas breeders are apparently supporting it. I'll see what's there. SFGMary ( talk) 04:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh these are individual horses--Gypsy King, Kuchi, Taskin.the Drums are Galway Warrior and Mariah's Boon. The horses really haven't done anything to be accorded this honor. Kuchi was the 1st "Gypsy Vanner" (i.e., GVHS-registered horse) born in America. GK and Taskin are notable sires and good examples of the breed. Galway Warrior belonged to the Queen and was bought by Black Forest Shires and brought to America to serve as a breeding stallion.
SFGMary (
talk)
13:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Who the Hell has messed up the references on the page? If you don't know how to do it, don't do it. SFGMary ( talk) 18:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to overreact--I worked so hard on this and then it looks like a bull in a china shop went through and got everything messed up. SFGMary ( talk) 19:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I've just looked at his article for the first time in a while. We seem to have a fine mess. I don't want to lay too heavily into something that a lot of work has gone into, but a few things really need to be said. First, a lot of edits seem to have been made by a WP:COI editor, who I believe should, right from the start, have been invited to read our conflict of interest policy and then request edits here, on this page, in the normal way. Second, this horse is, in Irish popular memory as in popular film by Walt Disney, inextricably linked not with the Roma but with the Pavees, the Irish Travellers, the people we used to call "tinkers" until tinker and gypsy became terms of opprobrium (OK, I recognise that a lot of people, from – until recently – the British government on down, can't tell the difference, but the travellers are not Roma; and OK, I recognise that that statement should be, but is not, supported by reliable sources). Third, what's all this "Romanichal" stuff? We (now) call them Roma or Romani people; as I understand it (which isn't far), Romanichal is a sub-group of that people. And last, why is so much of this page about the United States? This is a historic horse breed from the British Isles; how could (for example) the affiliation of some breed associations with the United States Equestrian Federation or the United States Dressage Federation possibly be relevant in the lead? I think this really needs some input from editors with more extensive knowledge of the cultural background. I'll add some Wikiprojects to this page as a first step. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 23:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi JLAN, This is SFGMary and I guess I'm the conflict-of-interest person to whom you're referring. I would dearly love to have material related to the horse's history in the British Isles but I have not been able to find any that Wikipedia would recognize. I've actually sneaked a bit of anecdotal information in that is unsupported except through anecdote just to preserve it. The Hart book appears to be the only source from the UK that documents the horse's history. I know and have talked with a good many of the current breeders and have a good bit of info I can't use, simply because it is anecdotal. If you have some other sources, I'd love to hear about them. The breeders did not document what they did, preserved it only in oral tradition. If my health were better and if it would be welcomed, I'd love to research and write a book on the horse's history in the UK. As an American though, I'm not sure my efforts would be welcome. SFGMary ( talk) 22:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I had thought I was helping but apparently not. You can revert this back to before I started working on it since I've made such a mess of it. I also made some changes to another page on a Romany stallion whose name I can't bring to mind at the moment. I won't touch either page again. SFGMary ( talk) 02:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Please don't blame Montana--whatever is wrong is my fault. It would have been better if I had never addressed it. I'm sure you will improve it as it should be.
I assume I still have permission to post here. About your changes: 1. The mare in the photo is genetically a tobiano. I had her tested--no agouti (i.e., bay) or cream. Granted she could have something exotic like champagne I guess--I did not test everything. She is not a bay, smokey black, or chestnut, however. She just fades in the sun. 2. You should remove the part about Roadsweeper being brought to England and what follows. There's no external source for that either in print or on the web, as far as I know, except my site. I wanted that info preserved somewhere. 3. a citation is not needed for the leopard pattern; if you looked at the source, it is from Hart, which follows. I won't look at this any further.
Now, since I apparently cannot make a positive contribution, I'd like to cancel my Wikipedia login. I won't be making any further contributions, either financially or contentwise. I'm sorry I've been such a detriment. I do not go where I am not wanted. SFGMary ( talk) 23:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
SFGMary (
talk)
15:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
JLAN, WP:COI is clear that people need to disclose their interest, but they are not prohibited from editing (paid editors who do not disclose their involvement are, howevr)and somewhere along the way here, Mary did; I've been aware that she is active with these horses all along and spent my time mostly watching and offering help. I probably should have posted the appropriate template here at talk, but a COI editor CAN edit, it's just that their edits are subject to more scrutiny. I think that there was a lot of good material added here, and as the folks in th UK clearly didn't care enough about these horses to standardize their registry until they saw the Americans making money at it, really you DO have to give a nod to the Americans who put a lot of time and energy into making these horses popular. So let's try to seek a compromise that is accurate and educates the reader and is fair to everyone. Montanabw (talk) 02:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, folks, I'm diving in here and boldly comparing edits in a sincere attempt to use the best of each editor's contributions. So, with that in mind, please, both of you, do the following:
OK, I'm done. my changes from SFGMary's last "clean" edit are here. I undid the switch of the "characteristics" and "history" sections then compared everything paragraph by paragraph. I basically tried very hard to use JLAN's phrasing and UK English throughout, save where it wasn't making sense to me. I generally kept JLAN's work to put UK material primary, save for the title, where I mixed and matched. Montanabw (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
As for the political issues, The bottom line is that we probably need to work on a balance of both UK and US phrasing and terms; I'm willing to help sort that out, somehow. As for the Irish Cob question, I don't think Richard is active on WP much any more, but I'm Facebook friends with him and can ping him. (I also know someone of "Romanichal" background who lives in the UK, she might informally shed light on the Roma/Romani/Romanichal question, I liked that brochure, by the way, good link.) I'm not closed to the idea of a move to Irish Cob, but want to have a pretty settled thought process on that—and give me some credit for putting the UK stuff first in the lead, but bottom line is that it was the Americans who realized these horses needed to have registration standardized and a "standardized breed" created, while the Brits were too close to the situation to pick up on that... at first... now they are on board, because they can export their stuff for 10,000 a pop to the USA... $$$$, ££££, €€€€ .... ;-) Montanabw (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
One of the obstacles to improvement of this page is the confused reference system (no criticism of how it came about, but it is a hybrid of several ways of doing this). Would anyone object if I changed the referencing system to list-defined, which gets the reference text out of the body of the article and puts it in its own section at the foot, so that we have one easy and consistent system? I'll probably do so in a day or two if no-one voices an objection. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 10:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
An article, How to evaluate feather in the Gypsy Horse, by Christine Bartko, is currently used as a reference in the page. Was this article ever published in a WP:reliable source? If so, the citation should be to that source; if not, the reference should be removed. Obviously, we can't use what commercial breeders' sites say as references here. NB: the author's surname is the same as that of the site owner. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 20:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Please remove my article Mary Graybeal, GHA affiliate news. It adds nothing and if Christine Bartko's article is not good enough, mine certainly is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.172.189 ( talk) 01:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Fine I'll do it myself. Please don't reverse . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.172.189 ( talk) 08:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Apparently you have not noticed-- Lake Ridge is a commercial operation as is WR Ranch. There is still a reference or two to Black Forest Shires. These should be removed also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.172.189 ( talk) 08:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
At least 3 of the photographs are Anerican owned horses and at least one is Anerican bred. Should be removed. I'm sure an Irish cob photo would be more appropriate for the main photo? JustaCorpse ( talk) 10:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I would really prefer that photos of horses I have owned and bred not be included in this article. Since so much of value has not been considered good enough to be included, I do not see that these should be either. Please replace the photo of feathering (from an American Drum Horse) and the main photo. I have removed the hockset photo, which was associated with a discussion based on Black Forest Shires & Gypsy Horses. I am sure you can find a nice Irish cob photo to replace it. Mary Graybeal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.172.189 ( talk) 11:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I think I've managed to "purify" the article. I would recommend Hockensmith be removed since he is American and is the section on names really needed? I wouldn't think the discussion of the derivation of "vanner" is really needed?
Since I wrote most of this monstrosity, it's only right I eviserate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.172.189 ( talk) 16:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
If Christine Bartko is not good enough for wikipedia, then neither am i or anything i have produced. i am extremely sorry i ever tried to do anything with this and apparently so are you all.
Olddemdike ( talk) 03:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Gypsy horse. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
"Drum Horse" photo....... That photo of a supposed "Drum Horse" of the Household Cavalry is actually of a pure-bred Shire Horse.... Contrary to the rubbish written in the article, piebald and skewbald bloodlines never died out in the shire breed. "Drum Horse" as a concept appears to be an American fake construction. The Household Cavalry always used Shires — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olddemdike ( talk • contribs) 03:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I reverted the most recent 3 edits for the following reasons: they didn't provide sufficient sources, went against the sources that are here, and were focused on the Pacific Northwest (when this is obviously a British horse and the article is supposed to be worldwide). This is just for the record as rollback refuses to give me an edit summary. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I realise the name thing has been hashed out multiple times, and I have no intention of bringing that mess up again, no matter how I feel about it (the article isn't about me...). However, listing "Coloured Cob" as a synonym for "Irish Cob" is a serious misunderstanding. In Europe, "Coloured" refers to broken-coloured horses (Tobiano, Overo etc., Skewbald, whatever). If this is based on trends on Google etc., it's simply due to the fact that coloured cobs are frequently searched for as they are very popular - the use of the term "Coloured Cob" never refers to a breed, only to a cob which is coloured! In Ireland, some of the most popular cob studs are dun, palomino, chestnut, black etc. (dilute and solid colours), so it's incorrect to generalise the breed based on one of the permissible colours.
On a side note, the French version of this article is a FA, and has a lot of really interested and very well cited information that could be migrated over. Wasechun tashunka ( talk) 20:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Wasechun tashunka, agreed on all points. I think "solid" is intended to mean "unbroken"; Harvey apparently pre-dates the political correctness that made us change the names we use for travelling people.
It's very clear that when these horses were taken to the USA, they needed a back-story to help with marketing, and the more romantic the better. You have to raise your hat to those people – they made a world breed out of what was just the piebald horse that pulled the tinker's van (and they probably made a lot of money too). But none of that romanticised fantasy has any place here, and the sooner this is trimmed down to what is supported by sound reliable sources, the better. A bit more:
There seems to be agreement here to move the page (right, White Arabian Filly?), so I'll probably do that in a day or two. But ping Montanabw, who has also taken an interest in this in the past, in case she has comment. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 22:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Late to this party, but in short, if someone wants to create Irish cob, I kind of suspect it would be a content fork, but I'm fine with seeing how it develops. The Gypsy Vanner/Gypsy horse is now well-established as such in the USA, Australia and elsewhere with a clear breed standard and though it may be descended from the coloured cob and not all members of the breed may have pinto coloring, it's a "real thing" (and in the USA, a rather expensive one too). So, as always, find the reliable sources and cite to them. Montanabw (talk) 04:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
so sorry you all found my discussion of the name "interminable". I authored most of this and I heartily regret it. Have not been able to look at the article since I was last here. Wish I had not. SFGMary ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
This article was sitting there dead in the water till I took it on. I spent hours and hours on it. I've only gotten grief for it. Now what I wrote is "hogwash" and "interminable". JustLetters & Whatever apparently considered my contribution ... not a contribution. If anyone ever asks my opinion about contributing to Wikipedia, I will strongly advise them NOT to do it. I thought I was actually making a contribution. Helping. Apparently the editors here do not want help from subject matter experts. Why don't you just damned well delete the whole thing, which is apparently trash, and start over? SFGMary ( talk) 16:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
OK, in response to the wall of text above, first off:
Hope this restarts the discussion in a more productive manner. Montanabw (talk) 10:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Acknowledgement of the Gypsy Cob is a recent phenomenon. In 1993, there was neither registry nor studbook; oral traditions of the Travellers were used to know the genealogy of the horses. Additionally, international equestrian organisations and researchers such as University of Oklahoma rarely recognised these horses as "real breeds" because of potential variations in type. However, in 2008, these horses were definitely defined as a "breed".
According to the Encyclopedia of the University of Oklahoma, published 1995, the Irish piebald was sold for very high prices. The EU forced a "normalization" faced with the popularity of these horses and large numbers of exports from the British Isles. The first step was the formation of a genetic and genealogical database. In 1998, the first Irish Cob studbook in Ireland was officially established... Ireland and England dispute the origin of the breed... The Irish Cob and Gypsy Cob are very similar going by standard and history, but since the end of the 20th century, slight distinctions have existed between the studbooks.
The first registered Gypsy Vanner was exported to the US from the British Isles in November 1996. The Swedish association was founded in 1998. In the US, the GCDHA was founded in 2002, and in the same year were the first 4 registrations to the French Irish Cob association, followed by studbooks in Australia and NZ. A stud-book is re-opened in Ireland in 2008, but some Irish horse breeds established in France associated themselves with the English Gypsy Cob Society. This opening allowed the association "France Irish Cob" to commence the process of establishment of the breed (in France). Both the English and Irish studbooks are recognized by the French equestrian institute...
OK, my take:
In short, my take is that I have no concerns about globalizing one way or the other. If this article is too US-centric, it's probably because of a lack of sourcing materials. If you can find more sources, particularly for the unsourced claims you've made Wasechun tashunka, great, let's see them and discuss them. Montanabw (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Since my contributions were "hogwash" and whatever other term you used, please find some other photos besides the ones I contributed to use. These are the 1st, 3rd, and 4th. I am sure these are hogwash also. Reference #62 should also be removed. SFGMary ( talk) 02:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
So I'm thought to have a conflict of interest eh? I began work on this article when it had simply been sitting for ages with nothing being done on it. Believe me, I am not making money on my horses and I'm pretty well retired now anyway. Not much of a conflict of interest. I hold a PhD (as well as 2 master's degrees), and not in squishy areas but in statistics, operations, research, English literature. I am well able to do research and to write in a dispassionate way. I have no interest in being some bigwig on Wikipedia. In return for what I thought was a contribution, I was insulted, my writing called hogwash and something else I've forgotten. Just-a-whatever, you have in particular been extremely rude. As I say, I won't make the mistake of making any sort of contribution to Wikipedia again, and I wouldn't advise anyone else to either. 71.88.11.208 ( talk) 21:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
And, frankly, I don't know what is so terribly wrong with the article. I am a sound researcher. I included everything that I know of that has been published. I know a great deal of other history that is anecdotal, and I actually sneaked that in even though it was unverified. If my skimming of the verbiage above is correct, the contribution of Irish breeders to the horse is the bone of contention. It most certainly existed--look at the names of the horses in the pedigrees! However, where is this published that Wikipedia can cite it? I would love to cite it. I have talked with Irish breeders who contend that the credit for the horse should go to Irish breeders and that the Romany in other parts of Great Britain simply obtained their horses from Irish breeders. A group of these breeders is extremely, dare I say, militant (?) about their contribution to the breed being unrecognized. I suspect there is a good deal of truth in this, but how do we prove it? The only source I know of is an extremely poorly recorded interview with Henry Connors, of which only a few words are discernible. However, I stand by this article because, to my knowledge, there is nothing else PUBLISHED that can be cited here to add to any of this. 71.88.11.208 ( talk) 21:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Maybe that's the answer--to put the anecdotal history of the breed in its own "mythology" section under history. I've been busy modifying GHA's website to incorporate this anecdotal history. When it's uploaded perhaps that can be the source for this. No one will ever know the truth. It irks me to have to exclude this perhaps important information concerning the breed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFGMary ( talk • contribs) 06:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
SFGMary ( talk) 23:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
There are some videos that might be helpful. I think the Henry Connors interview will certainly be ok, although unfortunately it's almost worthless as for as being informative. It's almost not understandable.
Here is an interview with Henry Connors at a fair a few years back. The Connors breeding preceded The Coal Horse in the pedigrees, if you look at the family tree.
http://www.silverfeathergypsies.com/THE%20GYPSY%20HORSE/pedigree.html
"Old Henry" was named for Henry Connors. And "Henry Connors' White Horse" aka "The Palace Horse". The story is that some of the Connors horses were brought from Ireland to England. Robert Watson obtained some of them although he's not the one who brought them to England. Here is as much of the history as seems to be known:
http://www.silverfeathergypsies.com/HORSES/Declan/Declan.html
Here is the interview. Sadly it's very hard to understand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h721_4h0-iM
Then there is this video, done at an open house a couple of years ago. Now Tom Price is in the business of selling horses, although he does it for the love of the breed. He is probably the largest breeder and IMO the most reputable in the world. If I were to buy another horse, I'd go to him. This is an excellent video on Gypsy Horse conformation. I would very much like to cite it. Can we? He's not actively selling in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqfXO_aRdbs
There are other videos of notable stallions, none of Road Sweeper or Coal Horse unfortunately. I'm not sure they'd be notable enough to include at this point. IMO the most noteworthy sires in recent history are Lion King and Gypsy King. SFGMary ( talk) 19:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. When you say, "migrate", what does that mean? Could just referencing it from the registry site work? The youtube video of Henry Connors is where we've been getting the breed history in the pre-Coal Horse pedigree. I didn't think about that video. Probably the only record we'll ever have of that unless someone takes it and puts it down somewhere.
SFGMary ( talk) 20:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Henry Connors appears to be presenting the pre-Coal Horse pedigree in that little video. I catch some of the names--Ballymartin, Sham. I've actually contacted a transcriber in Ireland to see if they could sort it out some.
I am going to put some of this commonly accepted history of the breed on my registry's website. It's frustrating not to be able to use it in the article. It could be hogwash but it's interesting hogwash and we'll never know any, until they invent a time machine that is.
Can you think of anything else to address in the article? I'm going to include the history once i have it up on the site and work in these videos. We're talking about a more formal video, with diagrams and stuff, but not there yet.
Thanks for all your help. I'm very pleased with the article. Not something I'm embarrassed for new people to read. Not GVHS propaganda or any other kind of propaganda.
SFGMary ( talk) 01:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
From my talk page:
I have adjusted the time before archive to ~ six months (the comment below the bot command explains how it is calculated so anyone can change it to whatever they think is best). The algorithm the bot uses is only for whole section at a time so long discussions will not be accidentally split unless they are placed under different ==level 2== section headers. If the last comment in a section is five months old and someone adds a new one, the section will not be archived until another ~ six months goes by.
A word of warning, I think the bot looks at the time stamp on the lowest comment in a section so if that comment is added without a signature the section will never be archived (see "{{subst: unsigned2}} for a template to fix that problem -- NB subst: must be used if the bot is to see the signature). Conversely a new comment placed between old comments is ignored by the bot when calculating if it should archive the section.
The length parameter is not the length on the talk page but the maximum length of an archive page before the bot starts a new archive page.
If you need more help -- or anything else tweaked -- then please leave a message on my talk page. -- PBS ( talk) 08:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I presume that nothing prevents us from manually archiving something if we do note the unsigned parameter problem? Montanabw (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
The Independent newspaper ran an article on Appleby Horse Fair this year which include a number of phonographs of Gypsy horses:
-- PBS ( talk) 14:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC) Interesting. Are those suitable in to reference in the article? I'm pretty new to Wikipedia and so don't know. Yes, they are continuing to breed down. Now the desirable height is around 10 hands. They horses aren't really used except when they go to Appleby in the traditional way.
There's been a bit of a dustup. An American wants to speed up the shrinking process and crossbreed Gypsies and Shetland ponies. The idea is to get the size down and then reintroduce Gypsy blood. Breeding up is the term i believe. The breeders overseas are not happy with her idea. SFGMary ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
A section on politics eh? I could fill a whole article with that. There's been so much acrimony in the breed that I'm not sure that's wise. We've been lucky no one has stumbled on this yet. The Vanner people would probably be incensed at the use of the terms cob and horse used to describe the breed here. The UK breeders would probably see this as too American-o-centric and might not like any mention of "vanner" at all. Let's not poke a rattlesnake if we can help it. FYI i do not think the Shetland idea will work; GHA and maybe some other registries would register these in its crossbreed section, but the "breeding up" idea to bring size down won't fly. The results will be crosses, not considered true Gypsies, whatever that is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFGMary ( talk • contribs) 20:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
That's good. I haven't said a word about working on this within the Gypsy Horse community. I know there'd be blowback. I am, alas, out of favor in the Vanner crowd. I was one of the two electees to GVHS board of directors. The established group, of which Thompson was a part, feared they'd lose control of the organization (whatever that means) and held the infamous New Years Eve meeting to drum out another board member on false charges of malfeasance. To prevent us from taking our seats on the board was the aim. Appointing someone else to take this member's place, the ruling clique then came up with these "pledges" that the newly elected board members were to sign. I had a Drum stallion at the time, and my pledge forbad me from promoting, showing, or even acknowledging that i owned him. The nominal excuse was that Drums, by their existence, sent a "confusing message" as to what a Vanner was. Oh and I had used a website called americangypsyhorses.com to advertise horses for sale--that was cited too. GVHS violated its own bylaws with the excuse it used to drum out that board member in that New Years Eve meeting; i think there was a lawsuit there too, but it was settled quietly. Some others and myself then founded Gypsy Horse Association, the only registry, in my opinion, not formed to benefit certain members at the expense of others. Anyway, that's another reason this writeup would be controversial--it would be felt to not give enough credit to Thompson for renaming the breed. SFGMary ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
If i enter a question here will it get seen? SFGMary ( talk) 03:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you'll see this--I'll try to contact directly if you don't.
Two new registries have websites. I'm not sure they are incorporated as nonprofits in the U.K. to be honest. Both can apparently issue passports. The most controversial claim for both is a searchable database of DNA markers. Such a database is only as useful as the number of horses included. Also, identifying that two horses have, say, 10 markers out of 17 in common tells us what, exactly? There are is also some controversy involving GHA-registered horses markers. Apparently at least one of these registries has gone onto GHA's site and copied off the DNA markers of GHA-registered horses published there. I don't know--I am extremely skeptical about the value of such an undertaking as a searchable DNA database. Should I even report it? I have tried to describe it evenhandedly, so that its limitations are visible.
I am also be able to embellish a bit about these two registries. There are a couple of other services offered. Anyway, see what you think. SFGMary ( talk) 15:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your all's input. The issue with the GHA DNA markers is that the use of these databases is apparently charged for. I am somewhat skeptical frankly and was when TGCA came online. The intent may be to make money rather than further the acceptance of the breed. I believe I will hold off adding these to the article until they have proven themselves. And no the GH world is still too fragmented for a single globally accepted publication unfortunately. Many reputable overseas breeders are apparently supporting GCR but who knows? Thanks again for the input.
SFGMary (
talk)
02:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Is this worth noting? There's been 3 so far, and 2 Drums SFGMary ( talk) 18:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
FYI--I joined GCR. Many of the well established reputable overseas breeders are apparently supporting it. I'll see what's there. SFGMary ( talk) 04:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh these are individual horses--Gypsy King, Kuchi, Taskin.the Drums are Galway Warrior and Mariah's Boon. The horses really haven't done anything to be accorded this honor. Kuchi was the 1st "Gypsy Vanner" (i.e., GVHS-registered horse) born in America. GK and Taskin are notable sires and good examples of the breed. Galway Warrior belonged to the Queen and was bought by Black Forest Shires and brought to America to serve as a breeding stallion.
SFGMary (
talk)
13:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Who the Hell has messed up the references on the page? If you don't know how to do it, don't do it. SFGMary ( talk) 18:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to overreact--I worked so hard on this and then it looks like a bull in a china shop went through and got everything messed up. SFGMary ( talk) 19:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I've just looked at his article for the first time in a while. We seem to have a fine mess. I don't want to lay too heavily into something that a lot of work has gone into, but a few things really need to be said. First, a lot of edits seem to have been made by a WP:COI editor, who I believe should, right from the start, have been invited to read our conflict of interest policy and then request edits here, on this page, in the normal way. Second, this horse is, in Irish popular memory as in popular film by Walt Disney, inextricably linked not with the Roma but with the Pavees, the Irish Travellers, the people we used to call "tinkers" until tinker and gypsy became terms of opprobrium (OK, I recognise that a lot of people, from – until recently – the British government on down, can't tell the difference, but the travellers are not Roma; and OK, I recognise that that statement should be, but is not, supported by reliable sources). Third, what's all this "Romanichal" stuff? We (now) call them Roma or Romani people; as I understand it (which isn't far), Romanichal is a sub-group of that people. And last, why is so much of this page about the United States? This is a historic horse breed from the British Isles; how could (for example) the affiliation of some breed associations with the United States Equestrian Federation or the United States Dressage Federation possibly be relevant in the lead? I think this really needs some input from editors with more extensive knowledge of the cultural background. I'll add some Wikiprojects to this page as a first step. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 23:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi JLAN, This is SFGMary and I guess I'm the conflict-of-interest person to whom you're referring. I would dearly love to have material related to the horse's history in the British Isles but I have not been able to find any that Wikipedia would recognize. I've actually sneaked a bit of anecdotal information in that is unsupported except through anecdote just to preserve it. The Hart book appears to be the only source from the UK that documents the horse's history. I know and have talked with a good many of the current breeders and have a good bit of info I can't use, simply because it is anecdotal. If you have some other sources, I'd love to hear about them. The breeders did not document what they did, preserved it only in oral tradition. If my health were better and if it would be welcomed, I'd love to research and write a book on the horse's history in the UK. As an American though, I'm not sure my efforts would be welcome. SFGMary ( talk) 22:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I had thought I was helping but apparently not. You can revert this back to before I started working on it since I've made such a mess of it. I also made some changes to another page on a Romany stallion whose name I can't bring to mind at the moment. I won't touch either page again. SFGMary ( talk) 02:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Please don't blame Montana--whatever is wrong is my fault. It would have been better if I had never addressed it. I'm sure you will improve it as it should be.
I assume I still have permission to post here. About your changes: 1. The mare in the photo is genetically a tobiano. I had her tested--no agouti (i.e., bay) or cream. Granted she could have something exotic like champagne I guess--I did not test everything. She is not a bay, smokey black, or chestnut, however. She just fades in the sun. 2. You should remove the part about Roadsweeper being brought to England and what follows. There's no external source for that either in print or on the web, as far as I know, except my site. I wanted that info preserved somewhere. 3. a citation is not needed for the leopard pattern; if you looked at the source, it is from Hart, which follows. I won't look at this any further.
Now, since I apparently cannot make a positive contribution, I'd like to cancel my Wikipedia login. I won't be making any further contributions, either financially or contentwise. I'm sorry I've been such a detriment. I do not go where I am not wanted. SFGMary ( talk) 23:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
SFGMary (
talk)
15:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
JLAN, WP:COI is clear that people need to disclose their interest, but they are not prohibited from editing (paid editors who do not disclose their involvement are, howevr)and somewhere along the way here, Mary did; I've been aware that she is active with these horses all along and spent my time mostly watching and offering help. I probably should have posted the appropriate template here at talk, but a COI editor CAN edit, it's just that their edits are subject to more scrutiny. I think that there was a lot of good material added here, and as the folks in th UK clearly didn't care enough about these horses to standardize their registry until they saw the Americans making money at it, really you DO have to give a nod to the Americans who put a lot of time and energy into making these horses popular. So let's try to seek a compromise that is accurate and educates the reader and is fair to everyone. Montanabw (talk) 02:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, folks, I'm diving in here and boldly comparing edits in a sincere attempt to use the best of each editor's contributions. So, with that in mind, please, both of you, do the following:
OK, I'm done. my changes from SFGMary's last "clean" edit are here. I undid the switch of the "characteristics" and "history" sections then compared everything paragraph by paragraph. I basically tried very hard to use JLAN's phrasing and UK English throughout, save where it wasn't making sense to me. I generally kept JLAN's work to put UK material primary, save for the title, where I mixed and matched. Montanabw (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
As for the political issues, The bottom line is that we probably need to work on a balance of both UK and US phrasing and terms; I'm willing to help sort that out, somehow. As for the Irish Cob question, I don't think Richard is active on WP much any more, but I'm Facebook friends with him and can ping him. (I also know someone of "Romanichal" background who lives in the UK, she might informally shed light on the Roma/Romani/Romanichal question, I liked that brochure, by the way, good link.) I'm not closed to the idea of a move to Irish Cob, but want to have a pretty settled thought process on that—and give me some credit for putting the UK stuff first in the lead, but bottom line is that it was the Americans who realized these horses needed to have registration standardized and a "standardized breed" created, while the Brits were too close to the situation to pick up on that... at first... now they are on board, because they can export their stuff for 10,000 a pop to the USA... $$$$, ££££, €€€€ .... ;-) Montanabw (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
One of the obstacles to improvement of this page is the confused reference system (no criticism of how it came about, but it is a hybrid of several ways of doing this). Would anyone object if I changed the referencing system to list-defined, which gets the reference text out of the body of the article and puts it in its own section at the foot, so that we have one easy and consistent system? I'll probably do so in a day or two if no-one voices an objection. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 10:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
An article, How to evaluate feather in the Gypsy Horse, by Christine Bartko, is currently used as a reference in the page. Was this article ever published in a WP:reliable source? If so, the citation should be to that source; if not, the reference should be removed. Obviously, we can't use what commercial breeders' sites say as references here. NB: the author's surname is the same as that of the site owner. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 20:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Please remove my article Mary Graybeal, GHA affiliate news. It adds nothing and if Christine Bartko's article is not good enough, mine certainly is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.172.189 ( talk) 01:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Fine I'll do it myself. Please don't reverse . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.172.189 ( talk) 08:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Apparently you have not noticed-- Lake Ridge is a commercial operation as is WR Ranch. There is still a reference or two to Black Forest Shires. These should be removed also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.172.189 ( talk) 08:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
At least 3 of the photographs are Anerican owned horses and at least one is Anerican bred. Should be removed. I'm sure an Irish cob photo would be more appropriate for the main photo? JustaCorpse ( talk) 10:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I would really prefer that photos of horses I have owned and bred not be included in this article. Since so much of value has not been considered good enough to be included, I do not see that these should be either. Please replace the photo of feathering (from an American Drum Horse) and the main photo. I have removed the hockset photo, which was associated with a discussion based on Black Forest Shires & Gypsy Horses. I am sure you can find a nice Irish cob photo to replace it. Mary Graybeal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.172.189 ( talk) 11:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I think I've managed to "purify" the article. I would recommend Hockensmith be removed since he is American and is the section on names really needed? I wouldn't think the discussion of the derivation of "vanner" is really needed?
Since I wrote most of this monstrosity, it's only right I eviserate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.172.189 ( talk) 16:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
If Christine Bartko is not good enough for wikipedia, then neither am i or anything i have produced. i am extremely sorry i ever tried to do anything with this and apparently so are you all.
Olddemdike ( talk) 03:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Gypsy horse. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
"Drum Horse" photo....... That photo of a supposed "Drum Horse" of the Household Cavalry is actually of a pure-bred Shire Horse.... Contrary to the rubbish written in the article, piebald and skewbald bloodlines never died out in the shire breed. "Drum Horse" as a concept appears to be an American fake construction. The Household Cavalry always used Shires — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olddemdike ( talk • contribs) 03:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I reverted the most recent 3 edits for the following reasons: they didn't provide sufficient sources, went against the sources that are here, and were focused on the Pacific Northwest (when this is obviously a British horse and the article is supposed to be worldwide). This is just for the record as rollback refuses to give me an edit summary. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I realise the name thing has been hashed out multiple times, and I have no intention of bringing that mess up again, no matter how I feel about it (the article isn't about me...). However, listing "Coloured Cob" as a synonym for "Irish Cob" is a serious misunderstanding. In Europe, "Coloured" refers to broken-coloured horses (Tobiano, Overo etc., Skewbald, whatever). If this is based on trends on Google etc., it's simply due to the fact that coloured cobs are frequently searched for as they are very popular - the use of the term "Coloured Cob" never refers to a breed, only to a cob which is coloured! In Ireland, some of the most popular cob studs are dun, palomino, chestnut, black etc. (dilute and solid colours), so it's incorrect to generalise the breed based on one of the permissible colours.
On a side note, the French version of this article is a FA, and has a lot of really interested and very well cited information that could be migrated over. Wasechun tashunka ( talk) 20:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Wasechun tashunka, agreed on all points. I think "solid" is intended to mean "unbroken"; Harvey apparently pre-dates the political correctness that made us change the names we use for travelling people.
It's very clear that when these horses were taken to the USA, they needed a back-story to help with marketing, and the more romantic the better. You have to raise your hat to those people – they made a world breed out of what was just the piebald horse that pulled the tinker's van (and they probably made a lot of money too). But none of that romanticised fantasy has any place here, and the sooner this is trimmed down to what is supported by sound reliable sources, the better. A bit more:
There seems to be agreement here to move the page (right, White Arabian Filly?), so I'll probably do that in a day or two. But ping Montanabw, who has also taken an interest in this in the past, in case she has comment. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 22:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Late to this party, but in short, if someone wants to create Irish cob, I kind of suspect it would be a content fork, but I'm fine with seeing how it develops. The Gypsy Vanner/Gypsy horse is now well-established as such in the USA, Australia and elsewhere with a clear breed standard and though it may be descended from the coloured cob and not all members of the breed may have pinto coloring, it's a "real thing" (and in the USA, a rather expensive one too). So, as always, find the reliable sources and cite to them. Montanabw (talk) 04:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
so sorry you all found my discussion of the name "interminable". I authored most of this and I heartily regret it. Have not been able to look at the article since I was last here. Wish I had not. SFGMary ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
This article was sitting there dead in the water till I took it on. I spent hours and hours on it. I've only gotten grief for it. Now what I wrote is "hogwash" and "interminable". JustLetters & Whatever apparently considered my contribution ... not a contribution. If anyone ever asks my opinion about contributing to Wikipedia, I will strongly advise them NOT to do it. I thought I was actually making a contribution. Helping. Apparently the editors here do not want help from subject matter experts. Why don't you just damned well delete the whole thing, which is apparently trash, and start over? SFGMary ( talk) 16:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
OK, in response to the wall of text above, first off:
Hope this restarts the discussion in a more productive manner. Montanabw (talk) 10:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Acknowledgement of the Gypsy Cob is a recent phenomenon. In 1993, there was neither registry nor studbook; oral traditions of the Travellers were used to know the genealogy of the horses. Additionally, international equestrian organisations and researchers such as University of Oklahoma rarely recognised these horses as "real breeds" because of potential variations in type. However, in 2008, these horses were definitely defined as a "breed".
According to the Encyclopedia of the University of Oklahoma, published 1995, the Irish piebald was sold for very high prices. The EU forced a "normalization" faced with the popularity of these horses and large numbers of exports from the British Isles. The first step was the formation of a genetic and genealogical database. In 1998, the first Irish Cob studbook in Ireland was officially established... Ireland and England dispute the origin of the breed... The Irish Cob and Gypsy Cob are very similar going by standard and history, but since the end of the 20th century, slight distinctions have existed between the studbooks.
The first registered Gypsy Vanner was exported to the US from the British Isles in November 1996. The Swedish association was founded in 1998. In the US, the GCDHA was founded in 2002, and in the same year were the first 4 registrations to the French Irish Cob association, followed by studbooks in Australia and NZ. A stud-book is re-opened in Ireland in 2008, but some Irish horse breeds established in France associated themselves with the English Gypsy Cob Society. This opening allowed the association "France Irish Cob" to commence the process of establishment of the breed (in France). Both the English and Irish studbooks are recognized by the French equestrian institute...
OK, my take:
In short, my take is that I have no concerns about globalizing one way or the other. If this article is too US-centric, it's probably because of a lack of sourcing materials. If you can find more sources, particularly for the unsourced claims you've made Wasechun tashunka, great, let's see them and discuss them. Montanabw (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Since my contributions were "hogwash" and whatever other term you used, please find some other photos besides the ones I contributed to use. These are the 1st, 3rd, and 4th. I am sure these are hogwash also. Reference #62 should also be removed. SFGMary ( talk) 02:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
So I'm thought to have a conflict of interest eh? I began work on this article when it had simply been sitting for ages with nothing being done on it. Believe me, I am not making money on my horses and I'm pretty well retired now anyway. Not much of a conflict of interest. I hold a PhD (as well as 2 master's degrees), and not in squishy areas but in statistics, operations, research, English literature. I am well able to do research and to write in a dispassionate way. I have no interest in being some bigwig on Wikipedia. In return for what I thought was a contribution, I was insulted, my writing called hogwash and something else I've forgotten. Just-a-whatever, you have in particular been extremely rude. As I say, I won't make the mistake of making any sort of contribution to Wikipedia again, and I wouldn't advise anyone else to either. 71.88.11.208 ( talk) 21:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
And, frankly, I don't know what is so terribly wrong with the article. I am a sound researcher. I included everything that I know of that has been published. I know a great deal of other history that is anecdotal, and I actually sneaked that in even though it was unverified. If my skimming of the verbiage above is correct, the contribution of Irish breeders to the horse is the bone of contention. It most certainly existed--look at the names of the horses in the pedigrees! However, where is this published that Wikipedia can cite it? I would love to cite it. I have talked with Irish breeders who contend that the credit for the horse should go to Irish breeders and that the Romany in other parts of Great Britain simply obtained their horses from Irish breeders. A group of these breeders is extremely, dare I say, militant (?) about their contribution to the breed being unrecognized. I suspect there is a good deal of truth in this, but how do we prove it? The only source I know of is an extremely poorly recorded interview with Henry Connors, of which only a few words are discernible. However, I stand by this article because, to my knowledge, there is nothing else PUBLISHED that can be cited here to add to any of this. 71.88.11.208 ( talk) 21:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)