![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
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))
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:
{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help); Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help){{
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)
{{ 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)
"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)
"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)
"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)
"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 here Nirame ( talk) 21:36, 8 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)
Content of Talk:Horse/Comments, which I'm deleting:
—WWoods ( talk) 05:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
"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)
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)
Also please see WP: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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I wanted to comment on the PR, but is closed. So commenting here about "Interaction with humans", which needs improvements.
Other:
-- Redtigerxyz Talk 04:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
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 ofvariousmany cultures, includingHindi, 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 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)
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
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)
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)
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)
Would be interesting to have something to that effect in the article. 91.125.134.29 ( talk) 04:48, 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)
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 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)
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)
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)
"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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
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))
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:
{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help); Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help){{
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)
{{ 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)
"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)
"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)
"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)
"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 here Nirame ( talk) 21:36, 8 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)
Content of Talk:Horse/Comments, which I'm deleting:
—WWoods ( talk) 05:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
"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)
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)
Also please see WP: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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I wanted to comment on the PR, but is closed. So commenting here about "Interaction with humans", which needs improvements.
Other:
-- Redtigerxyz Talk 04:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
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 ofvariousmany cultures, includingHindi, 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 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)
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
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)
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)
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)
Would be interesting to have something to that effect in the article. 91.125.134.29 ( talk) 04:48, 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)
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 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)
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)
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)
"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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)