Talk:Horse: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Horse article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 90 days

	Horse has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 5, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed September 20, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed September 30, 2008 Good article nominee Listed January 22, 2009 Peer review Reviewed June 14, 2011 Good article reassessment Kept March 29, 2012 Peer review Reviewed Current status: Good article

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Equine GA‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.EquineWikipedia:WikiProject EquineTemplate:WikiProject Equineequine articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Mammals GA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Agriculture GA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

Template:Vital article Template:Findnotice

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

The article Persistence hunting mentions that horses and humans are the only animals known to use sweating effectively for thermo-regulation and boost endurance through that. I think this article could use a section which explains this aspect. --74.78.235.87 (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Can you help us find some source material to verify that? Montanabw^(talk) 22:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just looked at Gallbladder and this states "Several species of mammals (including horses, deer, rats, and various laminis^[1]) and several species of birds lack a gallbladder altogether, as do lampreys.^[2]" I guess it is a matter of opinion whether an unusual or uncommon characteristic is included. For me, if it is included, I would like to see the consequences of the present/missing characteristic.

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

Could someone please edit the lead to make it clear which are the 2 extant subspecies of wild horse. The opening sentence mentions one subspecies, but it is not until later in the paragraph that Przewalski's horse is mentioned. It is not absolutely clear that these are the two extant subspecies. The article Wild horse is similarly confusing as it seems determined to discuss extinct subspecies in conjunction with extant subspecies.__DrChrissy (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is ONE extant subspecies of "wild" - as in never domesticated - horse. The domesticated horse is now called equus ferus caballus instead of equus caballus due to some decision in taxonimy land that I don't fully understand, but that taxonomists care about a great deal. There is a user to is an expert on taxonomy we rely upon for all of this and I am reluctant to change this material without consulting her. Montanabw^(talk) 19:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. To be clearer, the opening paragraph could read -

"The horse (Equus ferus caballus)[2][3] is one of two extant subspecies of Equus ferus, the other being Equus ferus przewalskii. It is an odd-toed ungulate mammal belonging to the taxonomic family Equidae. 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. Humans began to domesticate horses around 4000 BC, and their domestication is believed to have been widespread by 3000 BC. Horses in the subspecies caballus are domesticated, although some domesticated populations live in the wild as feral horses. These feral populations are not true wild horses, as this term is used to describe horses that have never been domesticated, such as the endangered Przewalski's horse, the only remaining true wild horse. There is an extensive, specialized vocabulary used to describe equine-related concepts, covering everything from anatomy to life stages, size, colors, markings, breeds, locomotion, and behavior." __DrChrissy (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added underlining to show what you want to add. I think that would be OK, but let's have it sit a day or two to see if anyone else has an opinion. Anyone else out there with thoughts or comments? We may remake the lede later if we bring the article to FAC, but that's not going to happen until there is a wikicup at stake, so for now, I don't see a problem. Montanabw^(talk) 04:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the change clearer. If this change is correct, it (or something similar) does need to be made as the article lead at the moment is confusing to the lay reader. Happy to sit and listen to other comments__DrChrissy (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Domestication of horses may actually have begun in Arabia 9000 years ago. An artifact currently being circulated at museums in the United States by Saudi Arabia -- a one-third life size stone head and fore body -- clearly shows evidence of a bit and reins. The object was archaeologically dated to 7000 BC.