Jump to content

Talk:Gypsy horse/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Gipsy association

While I am sure that the Gipsy association is true, I am not sure that it is necessarily the origin of the breed. An area of England I knew well is Worcestershire and piebald and skewbald horses of this type are commonly seen in fields and paddocks of the north of the county. The can also be view on the approaches to many large towns in Britain where there is land that the purchasers hopes one day to be able to build upon and in the meantime it is rented out as scrub pasture.

There is another side to this, which probably needs mentioning somewhere, because "Gypsy Vanner horse" were bread for pulling loads and are cold blooded, in Britain there is an aversion/prejudice for piebald and skewbald colouring in horses used or riding/hunting because it is perceived that the mix of hot blood and cold blood is too far to the cold blood side. There is probably no genetic justification to this, but in Britain piebald and skewbald riding horses will sell at a discount over say a bay or chestnut of similar conformation. This means that the skewbald and piebald colouring of these horses, easily identifies "Gypsy Vanner horses" in Britain as the colouring is discouraged in other breads and crosses.

It also means that if you want to purchase a cob sized horse cheaply, because you just want to ride it and don't care about the prejudiced associated the colour, then this type of horse is a good buy particularly as the can live in a field all year round with little need for extra fodder. Consequently many poorer families in rural areas and those on the fringes of towns buy these horses as riding horses. Because of the cold blood they are also often found in those types of establishments who cater for horse riding novices. I came across one such establishment in South East London a few years back who market themselves as an alternative venue for teenage birthday parties, instead of go-carting and paint-balling. Their customers don't know or care about aversion/prejudice for piebald and skewbald horse, and could not be expected to sit on anything other than a placid mount.

It is easily conceivable that small draft horse of this type were commonly bread all over the British Isles to draw wagons smaller than those drawn by breads such as Shire horse (eg milk floats). In which case this is not really a breed of horse which originates with Gipsies but has become associated with them as their other uses has dwindled. As to the colour it may well be that the working classes of Britain during the 19th century--those who would have driven such horse--liked bling colouring in their horses, or perhaps there has been an aversion to these colours outside the Gipsy communities for many generations ...

I suspect that much of this would be very hard to find reliable sources for because as the old saying goes "you don't know what you have 'till its gone", but it should be food for thought for some of the earlier arguments on this talk page.

-- PBS (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, basically this article is such a mess that it's hard to know where to start. Basically, someone in the USA discovered that these horses sell for big bucks here because we are obsessed with Krazy Kolored horses, plus we are all too fat and think we need to ride a draft cross, then once you add the feather (horse) to the legs, with a nice bath to make them all white and fluffy, the Yanks are totally sold. (Present company excluded, though I too could drop a few pounds) The dislike of color patterns in the UK and the link to social class is interesting and dates back quite a ways; see a side note on Appaloosa; colored horses were the rage several centuries ago, and when the fad died, they shipped them across the pond and dumped them in the USA in massive numbers. Last time we took a run at this, we couldn't even figure out if we were dealing with t UK "Coloured Cob" or an "Irish Cob" or WTF. I keep begging for good source material, it's damn hard to get for this article. Any wisdom much appreciated. Montanabw(talk) 19:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Time for some more discussion? Re-work both points of view into the article. Both are correct.

The name Gypsy Vanner was coined by the couple who first imported them into North America and was chosen from 2 names by the Romani Gypsy who sold it to them (I can provide a source for this). They were bought in Wales and brought to Florida. There is also several registries for the horse in North America and in the UK that I know of and likely some that I haven't found yet, all for the same or nearly the same horse. I have also been able to find at least one example of a horse being registered in more than one registry (stud book) at the same time. I am sure there are more. As for development and history, these horses have been traded at horse fairs in the UK and Ireland for years between Romani Gypsies and Irish Travellers. This in my opinion deserves mention. Both groups are responsible for the breed type as it is today.

The Gypsy Vanner Horse Society registry was created in 1996 (verified) and the Irish Cob Website was created in 1998 but I have not been able to verify when the Irish Cob stud book was created. Perhaps the first breed standard and registry that was started could be considered for the official title of the article. I also think that much of the wording should be changed to reflect that this is an article about a group of very similar horses from the same general area and foundations. There may be slight variations in breed standard between the different societies managing these horses in different locations.Dig4facts (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Provide the sources, then. This article needs improvement, but to do it, we need solid source material. I'm all for improving the article, but we have to pass WP:RS and WP:V. If you have the URLs, go ahead and list them here on the talk page and we can look over the material. Open to figuring out how to keep the wording PC and inoffensive, "Irish Traveller" has a real negative connotation in the US with a very specific group of people who are not necessarily descendants from the Irish Romani-sort of folks. Montanabw(talk) 04:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The story of the name Gypsy Vanner is included in this article written by Denis Thompson, who's wife Cindy, 'found' the name. http://www.vanners.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/tributefredwalker0001.pdf

The date of the Gypsy Vanner Horse Society registry and some of it's history. http://vanners.org/about-the-breed/history/

Some of the history of how the Gypsy Vanner came to be brought to North America. http://www.gypsygold.com/thediscovery.html

Here is a horse that is triple registered with the Gypsy Vanner Horse Society (GVHS), the Gypsy Cob and Drum Horse Association (GCDHA) and the Gypsy Horse Association (GHA). http://www.sonviewgypsyranch.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8&Itemid=4

The home page of the Irish Cob Society indicates that it was established in 1998 which makes the Gypsy Vanner Horse Society the first registry and breed standard of these horses that I have found a reference to. It also is the first horse breed standard to have sub breeds to differentiate the 3 sizes of horses. The Cart Horse, The Standard and the Grand Vanner.

Here is a description of that break down of the breed as well as some other interesting points from Denis Thompson's website. +http://www.gypsygold.com/frequentlyaskedquestions.html#How_big_are_Vanners

Here is another article from Europe describing the difference between an Irish Cob and a Gypsy Cob. http://www.irishcobsociety.com/ics_web_pages_pdf/TRADITIONAL%20COBS.pdf

And also an article on what the author views as a Tinker Horse. http://www.irishcobsociety.com/ics_web_pages_pdf/What%20is%20a%20Tinker.pdf

The best reference I have attributing the the horse to both the Irish Travellers (I have no clue what to call this group if this is not PC) and the Romani Gypsy's of the UK is in a quote on a calendar published by the GVHS. I don't know how to quote this reference.

There is a lot of information and some of it can be contradictory and as was pointed out a racial slur in some parts of the world can be a PC name in others. I have no experience with how to best sort through that part of the muddied waters. Also my point of view is from North America. I have tried to include the European side of the story as much as I could find out.Dig4facts (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Good stuff, I don't have the time to look it all over at the moment (editing issues at other articles a distraction), but will nibble away, as might some of the other editors. Maybe, if you want, you can tackle adding a few small pieces with references, such as the irish cob society stuff and I can look over what you do and fix any errors in formatting, etc.. There will be a problem with some of the sites above passing the WP:NOADS criteria if they are too tightly linked to someone's commercial operation -- see also WP:RS -- tough to find things like peer-reviewed literature on horse breeds, but breed registries are good sources, magazine articles are good (if accurate), general-interest books are good (when accurate), and sometimes people's own sites can be OK if third party sources verify them as some sort of major expert in the field. I too am in North America, so we're even on that one. Montanabw(talk) 06:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have personally sat for several hours with Denis Thompson of Gypsy Gold and Bill Ricci of WR Ranch and been told the entire story and history of the Gypsy Vanner in it's current form from their perspective. The problem is I don't know how to reference any of that research to help straighten this mess of an article out. I would like to propose the person who named the breed, built the first recognized breeding program, wrote the first breed standard and founded the GVHS to be a bit of an expert in the field of the Gypsy Vanner. I would also like to defend that as he is no longer serving as an officer or board member of the GVHS and is simply a breeder that he should pass the test of significant financial interest as some of the other quoted websites are also breeders. If we are going to write an article about the Gypsy Vanner then lets write one using the abundant information from Gypsy Gold (Denis Thompson) and GVHS sites. The GVHS registry will become a closed registry that will be separate from all other registries and require verifiable DNA lineage for a horse to be included in the registry as of 2014. ref. http://vanners.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Registration-Document-03_21_2011.pdf With this happening, the Irish Cob, Coloured Cob, Gypsy horse etc. will no longer be the same as a Gypsy Vanner. Would it be simpler and possibly more accurate to split the articles into a generic article and then specific articles covering the mature registries of similar horses separately or including a section in the main article dedicated to the different breed standards? Also the terminology in the main article is a little confusing. The name is Gypsy Vanner Horse but through out the article the breed is referred to as a gypsy cob. I wonder if this article is trying to generalize horse breeds that are starting to diverge. Dig4facts (talk) 04:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, all this sounds to me like politics. Horse breed registry politics are, I swear, worse than government politics! What I'd like to see are neutral, third-party sources on this material to support it. Who, besides himself, says Mr. Thompson is an expert? For example, an you find any profiles or magazine articles on him? As for the split, my thinking is that this, by whatever title, IS the "generic" article, and though it is pretty weak at present, it makes no sense to make a bunch of Content forks until we have at least a rough summary of each done up properly here. I'd LOVE to see someone with the enthusiasm for the breed to work on getting the article improved, but we just have to improve it properly. For example, we don't want some disaster like Tiger horse, but then we sometimes run into legitimate need for different articles such as happened at Balearic horse. Montanabw(talk) 22:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Advice Needed

I'm going to attempt to work on this article. I hope it is ok--I have already made some significant changes. It hadn't been worked on since 2010, and so I figured this would be ok. If not, please let me know. I have some subject matter knowledge.

It was suggested I throw some sources out and see how they'd stack up for use.

The first is Edward Hart's The Coloured Horse and Pony, published in London in 1993. Hart has written several books on draft horses, ponies, and cobs. This book includes a chapter on the Gypsy Horse ("The gypsy horse type of coloured pony"). It's significant in that it's the first official acknowledgement of the breed that I know of. Another important source is the website of Black Forest Shires & Gypsy Horses. The original is archived in the web archive. Here is a page on "feather": http://web.archive.org/web/20080429085237/http://www.gypsyhorses.com/feather.htm One on conformation: http://web.archive.org/web/20080429040825/http://www.gypsyhorses.com/faqs.htm

Black Forest Shires & Gypsy Horses went out of business due to divorce. The modern incarnations of these pages are located at Colorado River Gypsy Horses (http://www.gypsyhorses.com/info/info.htm). A large proportion of the Gypsy Horses brought to the U.S. came in through Black Forest Shires. Jeff Bartko, the owner of Colorado River Gypsy Horses and author of the material on both sites, I consider to be an expert.

Another source of information regarding the history of the Gypsy Horse in the U.S. is Dennis Thompson, the American "discoverer" of the breed. He, too, is an important part of its history in the U.S. The relevant page of his website is http://gypsygold.com/thediscovery.html. Thompson was instrumental in founding the Gypsy Vanner Horse Society; its website has a few tidbits of information: http://vanners.org/.

If anyone more knowledgeable than I am could let me know if these sources are going to pass muster, I'd appreciate it.

As far as reliable sources go per WP:RS and WP:V (be sure to read these), and my experience with other articles, here's my assessment:

  • Does Google books have a copy of Hart online? He's probably reliable, but we need a full citation and from Worldcat, I can't tell if he's self-published, which is a big no-no? Can you verify "Allen" as an independent publisher? Montanabw(talk) 21:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • http://vanners.org and other "mainstream" registry sites will pass WP:RS for breed standard and characteristics, they will be semi-reliable for breed history except if they softsoap controversies (most registry sites tend to, all breeds...), have too much "our horse is perfect and can do ANYTHING" stuff, or are just plain historically inaccurate (One site for another breed claimed they were the pure descendants from the horses painted on the caves of Lascaux, for example, which is not only unverifiable, but complete hogwash) So this site can be references quite freely, but to the specific PAGE within the site where the info isMontanabw(talk) 21:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • http://gypsygold.com/thediscovery.html will present problems because it is a for-profit commercial site promoting the people's business. This site COULD become RS if we can show, through outside third party, respected sources, that these people ARE really a big deal. For example, I recently had to dig up publications and past articles to show that this person was a highly respected scholar of the Arabian horse. The site might work until we try to get this article to WP:GA quality, but at GAN it will be flagged as problematic. But if, for example, a breed encyclopedia says, "these people are THE big names" -- that would help, so would articles in the big mainstream magazines, etc... Montanabw(talk) 21:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • http://www.gypsyhorses.com/info/info.htm has the same problems, only more so. Clearly a commercial site. Same solution. Montanabw(talk) 21:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • http://web.archive.org/web/20080429040825/http://www.gypsyhorses.com/faqs.htm and its companion page from the same site. Same problem, for-profit breeder site, no way to independently verify their information, the info might be VERY sound, but it's a site with no third-party verification. Montanabw(talk) 21:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Dos and Don'ts

Be careful not to overdo the promotion of current breeders and owners. Even naming living horses has to be done carefully so as not to sound like advertising. Also, be careful when using material from other sources not to word things too closely to the source; we are trying to be very careful on wikipedia not to copy and paste, but also not to paraphrase too closely. WP:COPYVIO is a big push on wiki these days. Montanabw(talk) 23:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, we remove excess claims of breed versatility from articles. My favorite example was the barrel racing Percheron. Sure, they try it, but that doesn't mean they are any good at it. Likewise, I laughed until my nose ran at the notion of the kid in War Horse (film) putting a part-Thoroughbred to a plow! Montanabw(talk) 23:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Finally, read WP:EL. usually in the horse breed articles, we link to major national breed organizations, sometimes just the ones in English-speaking nations, though sometimes we include other countries. Sometimes, if there are a lot of them, a spinoff article gets created such as [{World Arabian Horse Association]] where a list can be inserted without bloating the article. We usually don't link to regional or state groups (lest every horse article about American breeds have at least 50 external links!) nor to organizations like FEI, USEF, USDF, etc., particularly when they are linked to articles within the article text. Montanabw(talk) 23:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hart

Apparently the publisher Allen did a series of five or six books on horses and this is one of that series. I'll try to see if the publisher still exists. Hart has done several books on British draft horses.

I think he will be OK, particularly so long as he is not the primary source used, but is used with a bunch of others, as appears to be where we are getting now. Montanabw(talk) 22:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Photo

IMO a good conformation photo of a Gypsy is needed. I have a shot of one of my mares that i took. I still own the mare. The shot is high resolution. I would like to replace the second photo, one that can be accessed in a larger size, with it. The photos shown are very nice but they do not show the conformation of the horse clearly.

Upload your images at commons... http://commons.wikimedia.org as long as you use the standard license (GDFL and CC 3.0 or whatever the default is this week) you will keep ownership of the photo, but will be releasing it for free use by anyone else. I do this on a regular basis. See hackamore for example, i wound up taking most of the images in that article myself, between my own junk in the tack room and trips to a few tack stores. Click on the images and then to their link at Commons to see what I did, luckily they have an upload wizard now that works real well. Montanabw(talk) 22:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources likely to pass muster at GA

Starting to make a list of links in this talk page of sources not already in the article that should pass muster with the "wikigods" if we nominate this article later for WP:GA, and which contain material that probably could be incorporated into the article, somehow. We can strike them once added. Montanabw(talk) 00:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

And how about this?

--Parked these above links here for now, rather than as an EL, cleaning up EL list. Commercial sites, may be OK for internal citations, but will throw up red flags on EL list. Montanabw(talk) 23:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I will continue work on the breed standard. Should the material (Fred Walker and the discovery) be included? If so, under history?

Also, a disclosure. I'm pretty involved in the Gypsy Horse world. I've been doing quite a bit of research with various people overseas about the history of the breed and I'm probably going to write something up to be included on the GHA website. We have a tentative pedigree for the Coal Horse and Lion King, one of the notable contemporary sires of the breed. No one will ever know for sure if it is even remotely correct, but it is the best we are ever likely to get. I don't know about the ethics about using something I've written and published elsewhere in this? Also, one of the articles I've already cited is one I wrote. As I say, I'm as much of a subject matter expert as you're likely to find in the U.S. on the breed. There is controversy though. Hardcore Vanner people will assert that only the GVHS-registered horses are the true breed and everything else is not. If one of them approached this article, there would be nothing else but GVHS; the rest would simply not exist. SFGMary (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I've had Arabian horses for 40 years, I hear you about horse politics! See cerebellar abiotrophy, which I had a completely personal reason for starting! (grin) The way to handle your own stuff starts with WP:COI, which discourages, but does not forbid it. My view is that it will survive if you have someone else (me or User:Pitke, who is also working on this article) independently review it and be sure it objectively meets the criteria as a reliable source. You can, for example, email me or one of the other WPEQ members to check it out -- use the "email this user" link on the person's talk page to send an off-wiki message if you don't want to say which article it is in a public forum. (There is one article I coauthored on the cerebellar abiotrophy page, for example. I may have added it, but I asked another user to peek at it). Montanabw(talk) 22:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
On a different note, BTW, it may be worth discussing why there are four GV registries in the USA and any related controversies. See what we had to do with Andalusian horse where there is or was an actual lawsuit in the EU over which registry is the "official" one, and the USA registries are having similar spats... they make the US Congress look like it's a bunch of people singing Kumbayah! LOL!Montanabw(talk) 22:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Black Forest Shires

Has actually gone out of business. I don't suppose it would help to use the archived site of this defunct business? The same information is available on Jeff Bartko's new site. This new business is more of a hobby for him than anything.

We could use either if we can establish via outside, neutral third party sources (like the registry, perhaps, or news, or articles in horse magazines, etc...) that Bartko is a highly respected individual within the breed community. I sometimes put this stuff into a footnote or talk page note in case it gets challenged five years from now (I've been on-wiki since 2006, this happens!) Montanabw(talk) 22:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Bartko was mentioned in the Hockensmith book of photographs and actually went on the 60-mile journey to Appleby in a horse-drawn wagon he purchased. Don't know if this could contribute to verifying his stature in the breed? As with all else there are factions in the breed who denigrate him as there are factions who denigrate Thompson. SFGMary (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFGMary (talk • contribs) 14:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't worry too much over the people spatting and disagreeing with each other, that's everywhere (Morgans, Appies, Arabians...) I think horse people in general are a little nuts in that department (said, being a horse person myself). The trick is WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NPOV, so long as we are fair to everyone and if there is a good bit of info in a commercial site that can be at least partially backed up by a registry site, that is what we need. The reason the commercial sites get into trouble is because there is no outside verification, so if we can "double cite" stuff that might get tossed otherwise, that helps. What I know from working on other articles is that WP has a fair number of editors out there who apply "teh rulz" as black and white (pun intended here!) with no common sense whatsoever (such as the rules discouraging for-profit sites as sources or self-published books as sources) So, I am anticipating how to address those issues later should they arise. Montanabw(talk) 22:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Four Registries

I included a section but commented on the evolution of the four. The problem is i don't have sources to cite for the information. The "Cob" registries were founded after GVHS supposedly because the name "Vanner" was so disliked and felt to not be true to the British breeders. I should include some discussion of Vanner, its dictionary definition included. The "Cob" people said the Gypsy breeders considered "Vanner" to be a deadly insult. I asked a Gypsy breeder if this was so. He replied, not really, that the term had been used to refer to the horse just once removed from the Shire when the breed was being started. These partbred Shires were used to pull the largest and heaviest of the wagons, the Reading wagons. Ironically Thompson selected a name which actually referred to what Americans are now calling a Drum Horse!

Anyway, i might be able to finesse this issue based just on the names of the registries Cob vs. Vanner, Cob and Vanner vs. Gypsy Horse). Would this work? I don't believe there are any sources which state why each registry was formed. SFGMary (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SFGMary (talk • contribs) 15:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that working on the definitions would be an EXCELLENT way to handle this. It's useful too: "what is a vanner?" "what is a cob?" (Of course, remember we also have Cob (horse). We can probably sneak in some introductory or conclusory statement to the effect that the different registries formed based on different approaches to the ideal breed standard or some other such phrase. WP:SYNTH will be the policy that the "black and white" people will throw at us, but one sentence, especially if we can back it by showing something like the variations in breed standard between the registries. My nightmare is something like the silly split of Friesian cross (also called the Friesian Sport Horse-- two words) and the Friesian Sporthorse that was basically just two differences of opinion over what crossbreds to register! But those who cared, cared a lot and I lacked the energy to knock their heads together and tell them to play nice. Montanabw(talk) 23:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

My take on "cob" is that it's not so much a difference in concept of the breed. I grew up in a rural area; we used words in ways that the larger society did not. It's my impression the same thing has happened with the word "cob." It has one meaning in the general society, but the British Romanies adopted "cob" to mean their horses in particular. I will see what I can do with this section.

Think we should start an article on the American Drum Horse? The GCDHA considers the Drum to be a mixture of Gypsy and Shire, Clyde, or Friesian. The IDHA (aka ADHA) considers it to be a mixture of Gypsy and Shire or Clyde. The GHA accepts Friesians, but the relative proportions accepted are different from GCDHA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFGMary (talk • contribs) 02:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hockensmith book

Also note my addition of mention of The Traveler's Way, a book primarily of photos taken by Stephen John Hockensmith. He was introduced to a Gypsy family, the Harkers, i believe, by Jeff Bartko and recorded their journey to Appleby Fair in several living wagons. Jeff Bartko participated, driving a bow top he purchased for the purpose. This book is clearly self published. The photographs have great value in recording the journey to Appleby though. There are a number of fairs in Great Britain, and many wagons do show up there. Many travel to them in the traditional way, via horse-drawn living wagon. I've included reference to the Hockensmith book. If it won't work because it's self published I'll pull it out.

Also Gypsy Horses are used in the London Harness Parade, where they are put to trade wagons, either renovated ones or reproductions. Examples are milk, vegetable, trolleys. I've asked if we could use a photo by a photographer who covers that. The closest to these trade wagons we have are hitches. Not sure of a citation for that though. Don't know if it's stated anywhere. I've seen loads of photos though.

SFGMary (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

It's in a lot of libraries, interestingly enough. I think that it would count as a primary source, perhaps. We may be able to meet the GA criteria with this source, though we'd run into trouble trying to get it past the tougher featured article reviewers (but I've never wanted to take the Arabian article to FA, it took us a LOT of work to get Appaloosa and Thoroughbred to FA. The smaller breeds with "clean" sources are a lot easier). Montanabw(talk) 23:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Breed Standard

Good fix on the breed standards--couldn't figure out how to get them to show more than 6 after I alphabetized.

Question on those--should we include the International Drum Horse Association? I was looking to see if we could put a Drum part under that. GCDHA used to have Drum and Cob breed standards ups but they haven't bothered recently. IDHA doesn't really have a place unless we were to start a Drum page. I'm personally not sure what is going to happen to the Drum--I see a lot of F1 crosses, but breeders don't seem to be crossing F1s to produce F2s. Philosophically I like Jeff Bartko's take on the Drum, as a particular Gypsy crossbreed. I think it has a bright future, particularly the Gypsy/Friesian cross, but I just can't see the "vision" of a Drum breed the two registries have.

SFGMary (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I think we have plenty. Normally I wouldn't even have more than about three -- US, UK and maybe Australia. I don't see the need for the drum horses to get a spinoff at this point. But then, I am snarky about the designer crossbred-becoming-a-breed-in-two-generations thing. We have articles for a lot of crossbreds (like Warlander and such), but I see no reason to create a separate article at this point. The only reason we even have articles like Part-Arabian is because there are so doggone many of them! Montanabw(talk) 01:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Pedigree

By the way, I have created a pedigree for the Coal Horse. It's the same one that's on the AllBreedsPedigree.com website but in graphical form. I'd donate it for inclusion if it's wanted. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFGMary (talk • contribs) 19:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Allbreed is, like Wikipedia, not considered very reliable because anyone can edit it (ironic), but if you can source the pedigree elsewhere, I'd upload it then. Montanabw(talk) 21:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

What's on AllBreeds is what I have. It's what is commonly accepted as pedigree. I obtained my information from asking on Facebook on a Gypsy page, from vannercentral.com, some from the actual breeders. I've pretty much done a graphical version of what's there. It's on my website: http://www.silverfeathergypsies.com/THE%20GYPSY%20HORSE/pedigree.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFGMary (talk • contribs) 01:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I will let Allbreed be the source, it's at least a third party source. In wikipedia land, the horse articles in general face an ongoing problem in that so much information is anecdotal or oral tradition, and/or published in sources that do not strictly align with WP:RS. It can be a real nightmare if we get hit by some random editor who is a Rules lawyer. Pain in the butt. I wa shoping we could get this to GA quality, but absent mort third-party sources, I may just let it continue to quietly sit at B-class until more of this history gets published in mainstream sources. (Can't we get Equus to publish something, perhaps?) I wish there was a good periodical that published more history stuff, most breed magazines are terrible for mostly plugging current breeders and not providing nearly enough historical context! Montanabw(talk) 19:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Update

Nice work! Here's what I'm doing: 1) fixing reference names and consolidating them into a better format (if one ref covers several sentences, I'm just reffing it at the end; must remember this when editing, if inserting a new source, but that's common)

Good to know that's ok. I wasn't sure if it was.

2) You went down a rabbit hole on the vardos, so I moved all that -- with sources -- to Vardo (Romani wagon). I reworded some stuff mostly for flow, but also tone -- you may have paraphrased the book sources too closely, while I have never seen them, so my edit cannot be viewed as copying, but be sure to verify that I didn't change the nuance intended (see WP:COPYVIO for why I'm careful about this). I also removed some over-linking, typically we link to an article either once or only once in a section. Montanabw(talk) 20:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah good to know that too. Thanks!

No, I synthesized a good bit of information. I've recast it several times and was a bit close to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFGMary (talk • contribs) 15:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I get that "I've stared at this article until my eyes bug out" phenomenon too... hugs! Montanabw(talk) 19:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

QUOTE FROM HART BOOK

This quote is important and I want to preserve it with respect to the article. This is the basis I used for the height discussion. Hart published in 1993. This implies that horses in excess of 15 hands were the norm then but that 14.3 to 15 hand horses were becoming desirable. Also note use of "vanner" usage. Not clear what vanner references here--a horse of that smaller size? a horse that size that is a vanner? Not sure. Anyway, I want to preserve this.


Hart quotes John Shaw, whom he describes as a carriage painter from Milnrow, Rochdale, Lancaster, "Very big, hairy coloureds are now in vogue. They are status symbols, , , , but they are not really an economical animal. They cost too much to feed, harness and shoe,. . . and they don't stand up to the work. For that you want the vanner type of 14.3 to 15 hands."[1] SFGMary (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

OK. I'll peek at the changes since my last visit and make any tweaks I think are helpful. Feel free to pop that quote back in, your argument is convincing! Montanabw(talk) 19:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It's ok to put it in? I thought it might make things cumbersome. I think it's very revealing. Interesting too. I have a Gypsy in excess of 15 hands. I've been told she's not a "proper" cob although she is registered. She looks very like the photos of Gypsies in Hart. SFGMary (talk) 10:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Ah I see you incorporated it. I had paraphrased this in the next paragraph. If it's not repetitive we can leave as you have it. SFGMary (talk) 12:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I put it back, I'll also peek at your new edits. I've seen a few probable Gypsies out here, but most are quite tall draft crosses like these. Me personally, I'm a fan of smaller horses; even though they are gentle in temperament, I find draft horses a bit intimidating. Montanabw(talk) 22:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Ward-Jackson Harvey Book

Just found out there is a more recent edition of this--1986. The one we used was 1972 (reprinted 1973). Think i may get it. One of my Romanchal Facebook friends calls that the Holy Grail of books on living waggons. SFGMary (talk) 10:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Health issues

Wondered if we should include a section on this. The two principal ones i know of have to do with feather. Maybe stick it there? They are chronic progressive lymph edema (cpl) and the more benign scratches. I've only heard of a couple of horses that have CPL and only one has been verified by vet testing. Scratches is very common in the breed. CPL has a nice source on UC Davis website. A bunch of farms have mentioned it on their sites. Not sure where there's an official discussion of it in relation to the Gypsy. SFGMary (talk) 10:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but a summary about how Gypsies may be prone to these conditions with links to the articles on the conditions. Scratches is at Mud fever. To the extent there are health issues like scratches related to feather, I'd say add that to the Feather (horse) article too. (I know this is an issue for Shires and Clydes). I just looked at a CPL article at UC Davis, and our own Chronic progressive lymphedema article, and I think that perhaps it would work to improve that article from what it is now... but for here, a simple paragraph in the "characteristics" section noting Gypsies are vulnerable to these conditions would be appropriate. Montanabw(talk) 22:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Name of Page

The name of the breed is controversial. Some truly dislike the name "Vanner." The U.K. breeders call the horse simply "cob." The different registries formed partially in response to the name issue. Thompson adopted the name "Vanner" and assigned it to the breed, incorporating the name into the Gypsy Vanner Horse Society's name when he helped found it in 1996. Two "cob" societies were formed in the years following: the Gypsy Cob & Drum Horse Association in 2002 and the Gypsy Cob Society of America (now Gypsy Horse Registry of America) in 2003.

In the U.S., the name Gypsy Horse evolved as a somewhat neutral compromise. Overseas it's known as the Tinker Horse, Irish Tinker, etc.

Not sure what could be done here. Would a name such as "Gypsy Cob also known as Gypsy Vanner also known as Gypsy Vanner" work?

If we were to go out into Wiki-article-title land and do a requested move, they would look at the criteria here: WP:MOVE. Doing a Google search, "gypsy vanner" gets about 2,580,000 results, and "gypsy cob" gets about 488,000 results, so clearly, "Gypsy vanner" would win in an objective, third party discussion. I personally could support "Gypsy horse' per WP:COMMONALITY though "gypsy horse" as a phrase only gets about 394,000 results on google (2,600.000 without quotes, but that includes a lot of Gypsy ____ Horse" links) I think we need to keep "Vanner" first in article text because of its sheer popularity, though five years from now we might be able to flip it. Montanabw(talk) 21:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, at least some of the photos shown here are not of Vanners, which are GVHS-registered horses. I know the horse in this photo isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFGMary (talk • contribs) 01:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Drum horse

I am of mixed views on doing a spinoff. It is a breed or a type or a job? Always spotted? We DO have, for example, Windsor Grey. I guess maybe it could be a subsection here in this article for a bit, and then if there is enough material, a spinoff might work. No rush. Montanabw(talk) 22:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I was just teasing. The Drum is a conundrum in the U.S. SFGMary (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

You know, as much as I hate to admit it, I think we do need to include a section on the Drum Horse. In Great Britain, it's a job title, and I have a couple of books documenting that. It was accepted as a breed by GCDHA when it was founded in 2002. The American Drum Horse Association also treated it was a breed when it was founded, in 2006, I believe? The Gypsy Horse Association considered it a particular cross when it opened studbooks for crosses and Drums. I think we should acknowledge that, unfortunately. How would be incorporate this? I'm probably going to finish the history section today. The breed standards and characteristics will take a bit of time but is probably the last item to be addressed. Oh, there are a few landmarks wrt to the registries (GCSA/GHRA does classify by height, GHA opened Drum and crossbreed studbooks--have to check on the date). But I think we're winding down on this. SFGMary (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Just create a section or subsection titled "Drum horse" and present the basics in a couple of paragraphs. The Clydesdale horse article once, long ago, had a "coloured cobs" section, as seen here (and actually there was a cool photo there you could swipe too!) . Montanabw(talk) 20:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Still have not found my book on Queen's Household Guard with Drum Horse photos.will keep looking. SFGMary (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice photo!

It's a shame someone who knows hasn't done a page on the Drums. They've been a tradition for decades, actually probably longer. They've been "personalities" of the horse world with their own followings. There's loads of photos of different Drums. SFGMary (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Pleased

Thank you for all your help on this. I am very pleased at how it's turning out.

I will take a stab at the breed standards next and then that should finish us up.

SFGMary (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

For future edits, we may want to see what we can glean/source from the general breed encyclopedias. Of the ones online that I'm listing below, I'd appreciate your take on their accuracy and quality (as much as we can tell) as sources. Montanabw(talk) 20:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry--just saw these. I'll take a peek at these. I think i have Storey but maybe an older version.

Wish someone would do some research into the relative numbers of horses brought in from various sources. My guess would be that the majority of horses in North America today came in via Black Forest Shires. The Bartko's have had a huge influence on the breed here today. Yes they were a commercial operation but so was Dennis. Initially a horse could not be registered with GVHS unless Dennis had imported it. GVHS was a private registry. This got changed just as i was getting into the breed. SFGMary (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I looked at a 2005 copy of Storey that I have . . . . It's very Vanner-centric. There's old information in there, like about the three sizes--mini, classic, grande. Thompson attempted to get that instituted but it's been abandoned by GVHS. It reads somewhat like GVHS PR to me. Perhaps the more recent one is different? There was a tidbit or two--the "vision" that both GVHS and the Bartkos stated on their websites of the Gypsy as a small Shire with a better head. I did notice the usual spiel about the horse who trotted all day and taught the kids how to ride at night. That's pretty standard. The other tidbit of benefit was that the horse had to be a good mover over long distance. I guess the physical characteristics are ok for this; I'd hesitate to use it because it's so Vanner-centric. SFGMary (talk) 03:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

You see, there's a whole world of Gypsy Horse that isn't GVHS. From what i gather, the breeders overseas view our registries and especially the "vanner" stuff with a good bit of amusement. This breed did not begin when the Thompsons saw Cushti Bok in the field. (Incidentally Storey claims that they saw him by moonlight? Thompson has photos of this event on his website and it appears to be broad daylight. He has other photos of Cindy with Cushti and the farmer taken the day of the discovery, and it's clearly daylight.) Anyway, yes, people are grateful that the Thompsons brought the breed to the attention of America, but that's just one blip in the history of the breed. Some feel the "naming" was presumptuous. Thompson did not create the breed; instead he took it upon himself to rename something created by someone else. "Vanner" prior to Dennis is a lot like "cob", describing a type of horse. Moreover, that type could fit the horse used to pull the rag and bone cart. SFGMary (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Genetics

I could expand on this. I am looking at what could be most useful to people getting into the breed. Comparison of genetic markers is particularly important for the Gypsy since there hasn't been a stud book. It's Mendelian inheritance. An individual has two copies, or alleles, at a locus, one inherited from the sire and one from the dam. An individual's markers have to compare with the parents' markers. SFGMary (talk) 12:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hm. That would be quite interesting so long as you focused on concerns specific to the breed, and to beware of going down a rabbit hole on this. We also could have material added to horse breeding. I'd say that a discussion of why and how this is done and the concerns out there would be good. We have bits on genetic disorders in all the horse breed articles where we know of something out there (see Morgan horse, New Forest Pony and others), and if it's a breed with a small population, we sometimes DO address how breeders try to avoid inbreeding depression and other bad things. So I'd say that's also a paragraph in the characteristics section, they way it was done for the genetic disease in the New Forest Pony article might be a good approach. Maybe include with the health issues above. Montanabw(talk) 22:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

What I've added is quite sparse. It assumes the reader is going to go research The First Law of Mendelian Inheritance. I can break it down--the gist is that, in almost all loci, an individual has two alleles, or copies, one from the mother and one from the father. Confirmation of parentage just looks at the DNA markers of the offspring and of the reported parents. If the offspring has an allele which neither reported parent has, then one or more of the parents is excluded (eliminated).

I can go into a bit more detail. SFGMary (talk) 03:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a whack at it and go on a tagging spree as needed. You can then redo what I did! (I've done the genetics stuff on several horse breed articles, this is sort of my subspecialty) Montanabw(talk) 00:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Showing

I'm writing this as an orientation for enthusiasts and new owners. Unlike other breeds, there's no recognized show circuit. GHRA puts on a "World" show in Ft. Worth, TX, that's patronized mostly by GHRA members located in the region. GCDHA puts on shows, a principal one being the Heartland Feathered Classic. This is for profit. GVHS used to put on shows through a regional club which has ceased to exist I believe. The largest show franchise is the Feathered Horse Classic series, which are for profit and not aligned with any particular registry. There's no show points and none of the registries to date are aligned with USEF. There's some moves to certify judges, by GVHS mostly. I don't know--might point out the disorganization within the breed to date to talk about this. SFGMary (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice if someone could get the breed into the USEF the way the Friesians are. But yeah, people would have to sacrifice turf, ooooo, can't be having that! (LOL!) Montanabw(talk) 00:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Conformation Diagram

The best explanation of a GH's conformation is the little diagram that BFS&GH did. It's free for download. Guess we still couldn't put it up? Here it is, bottom of page. http://www.gypsyhorses.com/conformation.htm SFGMary (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they have a copyright notice on it. We MIGHT be able to get it on wiki as "fair use" while this article flies under the radar, but if we try to take the article to Good article status or better, the image won't survive. If the people who own it can redo the copyright to GDFL-CC 3.0 (or whatever that tag is over on Commons) , then we COULD use it. It's a good image, I agree, Montanabw(talk) 00:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Etymology of Vanner, Van, Caravan

I've included a section on this. There has been much debate on the rightness of Thompson's use of the name "Vanner" and I thought this would be of value. Could go in a note, I guess. SFGMary (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh Bother

I missed one. The Traditional Gypsy Cob Association. When last I heard I was not convinced they were a non profit. Guess I'd better include them. This is getting ridiculous. How many registries, associations, and societies does one breed need anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFGMary (talk • contribs) 18:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, a question. The GCDHA dropped the breed standards for its stud books when it redid its website. Although it still considers itself a registry, I believe it's turning more toward putting on shows and inspections. The breed standard link in the infobox leads to a "coming soon" message for their registry, and we can only display 6 breed standards. Would it behoove us to put another one of these other various associations up? On the other hand, GCDHA was the 2nd registry formed and should have pride of place.

That's another question. Should we sort those alphabetically or by date formed?

Thanks for the help. SFGMary (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

You know, I'd not feel the need to include every last club, like you say, it's getting a bit absurd. (So who was in a family feud with who? This feels like turf). I'd start with whichever group grabbed the USEF/USDF affiliation as lead, and/or whichever registry is the largest (and hopefully also the oldest) then whichever group is the next largest. I'd mention the five people who did a spinoff because they were pissed about turf in some other group a mention in passing, if you know what I mean (this reminds me of the Missouri Synod versus the Wisconsin Synod Lutherans! LOL!) These people better realize that if they don't unify, they won't get the kind of national recognition they crave... sigh... Montanabw(talk) 20:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Apparently there was a seminal meeting at the Ohio Equine Affaire where Thompson presented the name "vanner." The founder of GCDHA was there, as were the Bartkos. I've heard versions of this meeting from all three sides. This is where the split occurred. It was felt that Thompson was trying to take over, and, in a sense, he was. Initially he would only register horses that he had imported. This got changed just when I was getting into Gypsies. The Bartkos founded BFS&GH and were wildly successful, and they did this independent of Thompson and GVHS. I have some documents written by someone who worked there. I wish we could document BFS&GH more accurately; they were a huge influence on the breed. SFGMary (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Done

Well except for maybe some finishing touches, I think I'm done. I've ordered a couple of books from England on Gypsies; they might have a few tidbits of info. The registries are always changing; I heard the other day that GVHS had refused a horse because she was too small. They haven't changed anything officially though. And I heard they are closing their stud book, which I consider an act of suicide. Nothing official yet. I'll try to remember to keep this updated when something significant changes. Thanks for all your help SFGMary (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, you fool (grin) You think a wikipedia article is EVER "done?" HeeHeeheeheeeeeee..... Montanabw(talk) 20:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I do keep obsessing about it. SFGMary (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Naming

I changed this heading to "Names" which I felt to be more accurate. As compelling as Thompson's story of the assigning of the name "Vanner" to the breed is, there's a lot of people, including the descendants of the breed's creators, who do not use it, simply because it's not what they've always called it. In my experience, it's being called, both in the U.S. and in the U.K. as Cob and Gypsy Horse. Irish Cob, based on the ICS, is a bit more relaxed and registers horses which the other registries wouldn't accept, ones with lesser amounts of feather and bone. I don't know if you could extend the use of Irish Cob to cover this horse; based on what I've heard, the true breed, what Thompson identifies as Vanner, had strong roots in Ireland. The Coal Horse is supposed to have pulled a coal wagon in Dublin, Ireland, and the Connor family of Ireland gave their family's name to several of the founding sires who preceded Coal Horse. Anyway, names are a quagmire here, and I would suggest that the article not scant the ones most prevalent in use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFGMary (talk • contribs) 19:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you find the "cob" registries in the UK and Ireland and use them for more guidance?? I agree that it is wise to "teach the controversy" and explain the situation. (As we did with the "Andalusian/PRE" thing in Andalusian horse). To do otherwise is to start just another round of wiki edit wars. Montanabw(talk) 21:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Not really. The ICS isn't really the most dependable historically. I just heard on Facebook that ICS has started a new studbook for Gypsy Cobs as opposed to Irish Cobs. It isn't up though. I fear the citations of Hayes and Hart are the best we can do. One thing of controversy is that Thompson cites Chambers Dictionary that "vanner" is a horse suitable to pull a caravan. I'm not sure the context of that--if "caravan" refers to the older, pre-Romanichal definition. Or it just wasn't as good as the OED in coming up with their definition. That's why I wanted to explicitly explore the etymologies of "vanner" and "van." I'm afraid I've covered the issue as best I can find to now. I can only go by what's on the various sites. I'll keep exploring. Things are changing all the time.

I also commented on the names that breeders overseas use. None use "vanner" except in advertisements on dragondriving and places like that.

I'll keep thinking about the issue. Interestingly there's a debate on Facebook about this very thing right now. SFGMary (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

In wikipedia land, blogs and facebook are not WP:RS. We need some people to write stuff up for neutral, third party publications. Which, in the horse world, is tough, no one wants to rake the muck, other than in the Tennessee Walking Horse world, where the muckrakers are - finally - winning. Montanabw(talk) 01:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The main conflict with regard to names in the English-speaking community has been between cob and vanner. The U.K. breeders i know don't say much about Irish Cob vs. Cob. The Irish Cob Society has had some ups and downs. That would be the only piece left to explore, as i don't read any of the languages where "Tinker Horse" is used. I'm not sure of the philosophical basis of the ICS. My impression is that ICS takes a much broader view than do the various registries. Horses that have less bone and/or feather are acceptable there where they would not be in the various American registries. This is where Thompson's emphasis on Vanner came in. Vanner was to be the name of the true breed, the pure breed, as opposed to half leggers. Having been on the registration committees of both GVHS and GHA, i don't see GVHS's horses to be any more or less pure blooded than anyone else's. i will look at the Irish Cob and see what I can do. Supposedly it has now established two stud books one for the Gypsy Cob (under 14 hands) and the Traditional Irish Cob (everyone else). I can only go by their official breed standard though, and I've quoted that already. SFGMary (talk) 05:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Given that the last edit war on this article was a guy who wanted to rename the entire article to "Irish Cob," I'd say it's best to discuss their views. Also gets us out from under the "you guys are too American-centric" slap that goes by from time to time. I have no problem "teaching the controversy" if there are significant differences. We see similar stuff in other breeds where the US and the UK/Europe have parted ways (Percheron among them...note the different breed standards there). Montanabw(talk) 17:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Eeehhh, I didn't know that. The Irish Cob Society has tons of branches throughout Europe. I'm trying very hard to find out exactly what the ICS stands for philosophically. Just got something that they were starting a stud book for the Gypsy Cob, but the horses in it are under 14 hands tall! I'm contacting some people in it very discretely and trying to find out where they stand. My impression has been that they are more liberal as to bone and feather, but they say no, that they are more stringent. There's a discussion on one of the many Facebook pages dedicated to the Gypsy Horse about this right now. I do think, since that's the 3rd name present in registries dedicated to the breed, that we should cover it. The beginnings of the breed were in Ireland. "Henry Connor's Old Horse". "Old Henry". These were Connors-bred horses. I don't know if the Connors were Romanichal though.

You know, I might try to get publish something on the history. Have to do a lot of research, probably overseas, to make it work.

On a completely different note, you once suggested that we rename this article to "Gypsy horse" to duck the vanner/cob controversy and encompass both. I've come to favor that idea. Would you like me to do so??

YESSSSS!!!!!!! I think that's a GREAT idea!!! You see, "Gypsy Horse" sort of evolved, at least in the U.S., as a neutral term so that "cob" and "vanner" people could talk to each other w/out anyone getting offended. I'm not sure about the usage overseas. The Coates have been Gypsy Horse as long as I've been in the breed. No one overseas employs the name "vanner" on his website. You will see it in ads, aimed at Americans most likely. I do think renaming is a great idea though. It's very neutral. Thank you.

Keep forgetting to sign these . . . . I wanted to add, I hope I've managed to communicate that, as important as the Thompsons were to the recognition of the breed, they were only one small part of it. There's years and years of history there that is unrecognized by most people. The breed DID have an identity before their discovery of it,just not one in the mainstream. It's kind of like Columbus discovering America. It did exist before he layed eyes on it. There is a feeling in some quarters that his "naming" of the breed was somewhat presumptuous. AND, "vanner" was simply the name of another type of horse, just as "cob" is. It just happened to have fallen out of use. Thompson did have "vanner" trademarked for a bit too, you know.

Anyway, enough of the soapbox. I think renaming is a great idea although the vanner people would not be happy. SFGMary (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Went back through the web archives. Black Forest Shires was calling the horses "Gypsy Horses" in 2001.

http://web.archive.org/web/20001109071100/http://www.hoofnet.com/gypsyhorse/

The Coates were calling theirs Gypsy Horses as of 2004.

http://web.archive.org/web/20041018121952/http://www.gypsyhorses.co.uk/

Tom Price in 2008.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080512054535/http://www.welshgypsyhorses.com/

This isn't very representative. Most of the breeders did not have sites until fairly recently, and they were perhaps aiming at the American market. "Cob" is not such a popular term over here as in England. SFGMary (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


The Watson family, a VERY well respected family of Romanichal had a website put up in 2009 and they used the name "Gypsy Horses."

Ah, horse politics. Ain't it fun? At least they aren't suing each other in the EU, which happened when Slovenia sued Austria over whether Slovenia could claim sole use of the word Lipizzaner, and two different Spanish registries are suing each other over who gets the "official" [{Andalusian horse]] (Pura Raza Espanola) registry there, which then insists it can dictate to the rest of the world. Montanabw(talk) 19:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

And the Gypsy community thinks it's unusual in the acrimony found there. I'm have to point some people here next time i hear that. SFGMary (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Grai

Oh yes, the grai. I hadn't seen that for a bit. Now we're getting into questionable territory, whether these are truly the breed or simply have some of the true breed's blood in them. We'd best point that out. 75.138.169.164 (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

These gray areas, no pun intended, are what Thompson said he was trying to eliminate. He wished to bore down and identify the true breed, the pure breed, and exclude the questionables like the Grai and some of the horses registered by the ICS in the past. Whether this is even possible, I don't know. Many accepted Gypsy Horses are sired by a Dales Pony. These are first generation Gypsies, and they are sired by a Dales Pony. So, how "pure" are they? All we can do is report all the gradations and let the reader sort it out to his or her satisfaction. SFGMary (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I agree. I'm all for putting in the facts and letting the reader sort it out. The "purity" question on a breed this new is probably a red herring, IMHO. Even the very ancient breeds like Arabs and Andalusians cannot really hold down a "pure since the dawn of time" argument. (DNA studies show Andalusians and Barbs crossed the Mediterranean in both directions) I'd say that the best the Gyspy horse can do at present is have a "semi-closed" stud book that says what outside breeding is or is not OK. (i.e. more Shires or Dales Ponies, maybe, but not a quarter horse!) Close it down too fast and your gene pool will be too limited, you'll get inbreeding and all then will be lost. You might be able to do with the Romanichal something like what the Bedouin did when they'd swear by Allah their horse was asil. As for Grai, Using a babelfish translation from Dutch is not great, but it seems to me that if we have a section on Drum Horses, the "grai" (which does sound like a crossbred in the other direction) also is fine. Probably appropriate unless we want to spin off stubs, which i discourage (we already have almost 400 breed articles as it is...). Montanabw(talk) 20:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Funny you should mention closing registries. I just learned GVHS intends to do that next year. Kiss of Death. You think Tom Price, with his hundreds of cobs, cares whether close their registry to his horses? Not sure how many GVHS has registered now--5000? Certainly less than 10,000. Vanners are doomed unless they set that aside. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFGMary (talk • contribs) 00:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Humans. Take their marbles and go home because someone else tells them they aren't playing the right game with the same rules? Sigh... Keep in mind that, last I heard, data itself is not copyrightable, though I don't know if I am right about that legally or not ... you might not be able to buy a registry database, but if it's public, probably nothing stops you from manually downloading it and incorporating it elsewhere...at least, that seems to be what Allbreed does, it's just that people can go into Allbreed and screw it all up, too...  :-P Montanabw(talk) 19:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

GVHS has about 3,000 registered now. So they are going to be restricting breeding, a GVHS-registered horse has to be bred to another GVHS-registered horse? This is much too small a gene pool! What are they thinking? Well, not my problem.

Correction: Explored more deeply. They are restricting registration to horses sired by GVHS-registered stallions out of DNA-confirmed mares. Also limiting height. This will cut out imports drastically since the overseas breeders are breeding smaller and smaller. SFGMary (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC) SFGMary (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Hart64 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gypsy_horse/Archive_2&oldid=1083503872"