User:Montanabw/HorseRS

Guidelines for identifying, evaluating and ranking sources for horse breed articles and how to assess reliability. No one source is perfect. A certain amount of editorial discretion is required.

Breed encyclopedias

A published book of horse breeds, which may or may not use the word "encyclopedia" in its title, is typically categorized in Wikipedia as a tertiary source. Some of these books include just simple summaries of breeds (example), and others have comprehensive sections on all breeds (example).

The reliability of these works depends on who compiled it and the sources used. Well-researched books written or edited by a subject-matter expert or a well-known notable equestrian with many publications are more apt to be reliable. Books with multiple co-authors who are mentioned, but without any indication of which sections each person authored, can be reliable, though works with specific authors credited to individual articles may be more reliable.

Even print encyclopedias "edited by" an author (notable or otherwise) may simply be a compilation of material mostly taken from other information easily obtained elsewhere, such as breed registries or even Wikipedia itself, perhaps lightly copyedited.

Similar to Wikipedia's reliable source criteria in general, web sites or online "horse encyclopedias" that have lists and summaries of horse breeds are particularly prone to be unreliable sources, usually containing information copied from elsewhere—often from Wikipedia itself— without citation or editorial oversight.

Other examples such as Oklahoma State University's online horse breed index is a tertiary source which cites their sources. But their editorial oversight is not disclosed. It is wise to look up the original sources and cite to them when possible.

Know when to rank these tertiary sources higher than other sources for reliability (neutrality), but recognize their drawbacks, especially a tendency to just quote registry breed standards without critical analysis.

Examples of breed encyclopedia books:

• Edwards, Elwyn Hartley (2008) [1994]. The Encyclopedia of the Horse. Dorling Kindersley. ISBN 9780756628949. OL 21938319M.
• Hendricks, Bonnie (1995). International Encyclopedia of Horse Breeds. University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN 0806127538. OL 1279627M.
• Porter, Valerie (2002). Mason's World Dictionary of Livestock Breeds, Types and Varieties (5th ed.). CABI. ISBN 085199430X. OL 17605327M.
• Porter, Valerie; Alderson, Lawrence; Hall, Stephen J.G.; Sponenberg, D. Phillip (2016). Mason's World Encyclopedia of Livestock Breeds and Breeding (Sixth ed.). CABI. ISBN 9781780647944.

Breed registries

Breed standards of a breed registry are usually the definitive source for a breed's morphology (size, height, weight, color, head shape, etc.). Breed standards are usually published online in breed association websites, though some historic sources may only be available in print (though many of these will be found at Hathi Trust or archive.org). Since URLs may change over time (see WP:LINKROT), a good practice is to include an archived link when citing these. Make an archived version at Wayback Machine if there isn't already one which matches the current online breed standard.

Standards from the breed's country of origin would ordinarily be the primary standard and the first one cited in the infobox. Where governments license a breed registry as the official entity governing a breed in a particular nation, those sources are definitive for that nation. If there are other breed standards in other nations, one expects the standards to be substantially similar. If, however, they vary then briefly note the differences and attribute them to their particular breed standard.

If there is an outlier standard, then decide whether to mention the difference (with attribution), or simply mention the average of the majority standards. If the outlier standard is minor, fringe-y, obscure, or a marketing gimmick, treat it as an unreliable source. A Wikipedia article on a horse breed should be describing the breed, not its minor exceptions or the fringe groups that broke away for what were usually "political" reasons.

If the breed standards contradict a particular breed encyclopedia's information, then go with the breed standards. If, however, a published print encyclopedia provides substantially the same information (such as for size, color, etc.) then you may cite the encyclopedia.

Breed registries may not be reliable sources for non-morphology information because they are prone to "commercial puffery". (WP:ABOUTSELF) History sections in particular should be cross-checked with outside sources where they exist, as breed organizations may promote mythological or romanticized stories. Where a breed registry is the only source other than encyclopedias that repeat the same material, it is useful to note it with an introductory statement such as "According to the XYZ registry, this breed was originally..." However, some landrace and minor breeds may not have any independent scholarship discussing them, so it is acceptable to use a registry source, and in some cases, these sources can be the definitive, most reliable source. For example, if a registry says "breed XYZ began when John Doe crossed an ABC stallion on a JKL mare..." that is probably dispositive. However, if the source declares the breed "truly primitive bred pure since Adam and Eve", that is, most likely, puffery.

Similarly, usage of a breed listed on a registry is generally reliable, but nonetheless should be cross-checked to see if a claimed talent is actually appropriate or merely puffery, a novelty or "off-label" use of the breed, unsuited to its form and function. For example, while there may be YouTube videos showing a Percheron used for barrel racing, it is not a primary use of the breed and most likely is not listed as an intended use on the registry's website. Similarly, while a Tennessee Walking Horse might be trained to jump, such use is not what the breed was developed to perform. On the other hand, there are breeds that are used in multiple disciplines, such as the Morgan horse or Arabian horse, even if they are not the primary breed used in a particular discipline (for example, both are shown in hunter and reining competition). Evidence that this is an appropriate use can be found if there is a national level competition for the discipline at breed shows, if there is strong evidence of past historic use (such as the Thoroughbred in Olympic show jumping) or if the occasional breed representative puts in a credible performance (champion, top 10, or similar) at a national or international competition open to all breeds.

Placement: The horse breeds infobox should link to archived versions of web pages if breed standard links are added there (standards from country of origin is first). General links to breed association websites should be placed in the external links section, per WP:EXTLINK. Breed standards should also be cited in the text where they source content about morphology.

Databases

DAD-IS is a primary source. It is an online compilation of information entered by each individual nation's coordinator with no editorial oversight or evaluation by the DAD-IS project or FAO. As such, it ranks below established breed registry standards and printed breed encyclopedias. While it is not as unreliable as self-published sources because it carries the imprimatur of the FAO and has limited access for input, it does contains self-reported information that is not cross-checked and should be treated with cautious discernment.

News coverage

Sometimes is neutral and useful, sometimes is puffery or sensationalism — use examples. Where a news article discusses a scholarly study, ALWAYS find the scholarly study and read it. Sometimes the news story nicely explains the study in plain English, sometimes it totally distorts the findings. (Case in point: news headlines to the contrary, the failed domestication attempt of the Przewalski horse +/- 6000 years ago does NOT mean that the Prezewalski was “domesticated.”)

Scholarly journals

Sometimes ideal as an RS source, but some pieces are junk science or have sound science but controversial or preliminary conclusions that go beyond the evidence. Look at WP:SCIRS and see if breed articles need more nuance (breeds are NOT a species… and yes, WPEQ editors have at least once had that argument with someone). DNA studies must be handled with particular care, as there is a steady flow of new analysis and some studies contradict each other. (Particularly noticeable with the Thoroughbred — no, they did not descend 100% from any alleged ancestral group… read carefully)

Subject-matter experts

A subject-matter expert would be someone who is notable in their equine field, and is writing on that subject.

• Acceptable: A horse show judge known for their work with a particular breed.
• Not acceptable: A competition rider discussing the breed of horse they ride.

Unreliable sources

Unreliable sources would include:

• Websites with no "About" page, or no indication there is any editorial oversight. (WP:QS)
• Websites with no information about the authorship, or indicating that their content allows "contributors" to self-publish (WP:SELFPUB), or indicating that the website authorship is by a single person who is not a subject-matter expert (fansites).
• Marketing and e-commerce websites such as tack shops or manufacturers. Because they are not subject-matter experts on horse breeds, their content is usually self-published or copied content.

Examples of websites that would not be considered reliable for horse breed information: discoverthehorse.com, horsesteps.com, horseranger.com, horsereporter.com, horsezz.com, tiaraequine.com, and walkerswest.com.

Foreign language sources

Main page: Help:Translation

When using a citation to a non-English source, an English translation for the title should be included.

When translating an article from another language wiki to English Wikipedia, an effort should be made to locate and cite English-language sources. Content must be verifiable. Since many foreign language articles do not meet the English Wikipedia standards of verifiability, you should at minimum run the sources through machine translation to see if they seem to verify what is stated.

Establishing notability

Factors that help establish notability to qualify for a standalone article in Wikipedia:

• Inclusion and discussion of the breed in multiple reliable-source printed horse breed encyclopedias
• Breed standards published by multiple breed registries across more than one country (that are not simply branches of the same organization, though may be affiliated/networked with each other)
• Recognition as a separate breed by a large national-level association which operates horse show classes for that breed (such as USEF's list), or which awards annual prizes based on a ranking system by winning points (for a breed).

The existence of only a single breed registry plus fansites, press releases, and marketing articles, is insufficient to establish notability, especially if the breed is not even mentioned in the main printed breed encyclopedias.

If one is having difficult establishing notability for an obscure or minor (but real) breed, it is acceptable to create content for the breed in a related article—such as "Horses in countryname"—as well as create a redirect to that content in the name of the breed, and add Category:Horse breeds to the redirect.