Talk:Appaloosa

Archives
2007-2009 2010

Pre-FAC read-through...

• Need a cite for "a basic and decisive indicator of an Appaloosa"

--It's a direct quotation from ref name="2007 ApHC"/ which is cited at the end of that very sentence. Do we need it in there twice in the same sentence? --MTBW

• "Striped hooves are particularly bold in many Appaloosas..." hm? this means .. what? Also, why the rest of this? This whole bit about hooves and schlera could be reworked... I'm unclear on why we're mentioning other breeds..

--Because other horses have white stripes on their hooves if they have white feet with ermine spots, Appy feet are distinct from that... I think that's how the source worded it, I'll tweak a little. --MTBW

• Need to explain schlera besides just linking - a quickie explanatino will suffice - i.e. "visible white of the eyeball, which is not normally visible in horses." might work.

-- I explained it, hopefully better, still within what the "Identify" source says --MTBW

• Jargon alert! "Due to the occasional individual who has minimal expression of spotting patterns..." you and I and all horse people know what minimal expression means, but non-horse folks??? NOt so much. Likewise "regular registration" isn't going to mean squat to non-horse folk.

--Dumbed the color stuff down, the registration stuff is explained later in the article, I put "regular" in quotes to identify it as a term of art. --MTBW

• "... the ApHC allows regular registration of horses with mottled skin plus one or both of the other two core characteristics." ... but we've not defined the "core characteristics"....

--Yes we did, first sentence, but I'll put the word "core" up there too. Montanabw^(talk) 04:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Because leopard complex characteristics are the primary identifying factors for an Appaloosa, and because several different horse breeds influenced its development, there is a wide range of body types, with weights ranging from 950 to 1,250 pounds (430 to 570 kg) and heights from 14 to 16 hands (56 to 64 inches, 142 to 163 cm)." is way long and awkward, reword time!

--OK--MTBW

• Jargon alert! "However, pony and draft breeding is not allowed in the modern Appaloosa." Better to say "However, pony and draft ancestry is not allowed in the modern Appaloosa." (although of course, they have it ... shetlands! Percherons! hee!) so maybe "However, additions of draft or pony bloodlines to modern Appaloosa breeding programs is not allowed." And we should link draft and pony here...

--Wording suggestion exceeds the source. Rule 205, quote: " No horse shall be registered with the ApHC that has draft, pony, Pinto, or Paint breeding." ApHC would say that spotted draft horses and spotted ponies have leopard complex genetics, but they are NOT Appaloosas (even if someone can find a pony or a Percheron in old pedigree records)

• What is Bennett's source for "Then, 18th century European bloodlines were added, particularly those of the "pied" horses popular in that period that were shipped en masse to the Americas once the color had fallen from fashion in Europe."?? first *I* have run across this and I've dug a lot more into colonial and early American bloodlines than most folks...

--Bennett's book was based quite a bit on her independent research, I think, and it would have been history of the west coast, not the east. Basically, the deal is that they were dumped on the west coast (how the hell they got them that far alive, I don't know) not the east coast. Hence, how they wound up as Indian ponies. I'll see what else I can dig up, why is it that after leaving Bennett out for months, I finally put it away only to need to drag it out again almost immediately? ARRGH!--MTBW ---Follow up Google books has parts of Conquerors online here by the way, what's the proper way to add a Google Books link to the citation here? Maybe we should. Her info on this topic is page 391, definitely she says they were shipped "Mexico, California and Oregon." She doesn't footnote, there is a bibliography in the book, though. --MTBW

• • I think it might be best to attribute this to her then, as it's certainly a novel point (it may or may not be correct, that's another point, but in the 18th century, Oregon wasn't settled at all besides perhaps some fur outposts... so shipping there seems problematic to me..) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

    I think I did? p. 391?? Is the footnote screwed up? Oh, there WERE outposts! I believe Lewis and Clark commented on Native people on the coast with freckles...those sailors got around! =:-O Actually, the Russians had a major presence in parts of Alaska and British Columbia too, nipping into what today is Washington state. --MTBW

• "After the formation of the breed registry..." but which breed registry? We've not mentioned it... a bit more explanation is in order here.

---

Yes it was, first in the lede and then in "History" -- "Revitalization." However, if you missed that, others will too, so I'll just say it again. --MTBW

MOre to follow. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I've tweaked on some of these, Montanabw^(talk) 03:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

And...

Checklinks report - have some dead links. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

All fixed. Dana boomer (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Are the 'retrieved' dates actually correct on those links? (I'm kinda assuming they're not). Pesky (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Just copying this across from my talk page: Just adding this: "Up to 80% of all uveitis cases...." - ? Can we get a better way of wording this, as up to 80% can include everything from 0% to 80%! - Is it, for example, 75-80%? Or 50 - 80%? Or what? Pesky (talk) 11:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Which dates are you concerned about? As far as I can see they're all OK, but I may have missed something. Dana boomer (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably, yes, we've been working on this article, on and off, since 2006 or 2007! I can check the source on the uvelitis stuff, but I suspect that this is all the source is giving us... =:-O Montanabw^(talk) 19:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Follow up Source actually says "80%." So I guess we were weaseling. I fixed that. ApHC will probably be pissed, though. Montanabw^(talk) 22:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

More...

• Nez Perce War section:
  • "The encroachment of gold miners in the 1860s and settlers in the 1870s put pressure on the Nez Perce to give up much of their land,[43] which covered seven million acres (28,000 km²)." Isn't the amount of land they held really not needed here, especially as anyone wanting that level of detail could go to the main article?
  • In general, I think there may be too much detail in this section - do we need to know all these details? Condensing would help as much of this isn't directly related to the horses.

I'll look at it. At the time, it all seemed relevant, but now that it's sat a couple years, maybe I have fresh enough eyes to see it clearly. If you don't think I chopped it enough, maybe point out what else I should focus on and I'll do what I can. Montanabw^(talk) 21:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Another point is that the main article kind of sucks and I don't have the time or energy to fix it. But maybe I can move stuff into it. Montanabw^(talk) 21:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Follow up' Took a whack at the war section and chopped a bit. Hope that helped. What is left seems relevant -- the journey and its raw distance makes the detail significant...the Appy people actually used have a ride that retraced parts of this route each year, I think. The route is a Big Deal. If you think other stuff is irrelevant, let me know and I'll either chop some more or give you my always-reticent opinion why it needs to stay! ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 21:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Sources:
  • this is the oclc given for the Equine Genetics book but the publisher doesn't agree with what's given...
  • This is the oclc for the 50 years of appaloosa history but that doesn't agree with what is given in the article

Ealdgyth - Talk 20:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how to fix those. Do they actually matter? I don't see any OCLC numbers in the refs, just ISBN (?) If you know what has to be done, you can do it, or tell me what needs to be dug up and I can try to fix. For Sponenberg, I used this, which has no OCLC listed and I just checked the ISBN, it's correct. I don't have Stanger, though looks like there is a copy here in town if you need me to look at something in it??? Montanabw^(talk) 21:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

And:

• • Footnote 15 "Based on images from Sponenberg, 153–156" ... which sponenberg? Needs to be made consistent with the other references
  • "Breed Profiles". Gaited Horses. Fairwind WebPages. Retrieved June 9, 2008. - Needs replacing. Does not meet the FAC requirements for high quality sourcing.

Ealdgyth - Talk 21:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Only one Sponenberg here, but I suppose others could be added, so clarified it was the 2003 book we have listed in the refs. I'm not sure the best way to source that, I said "based on" because basically the images in Sponenberg are all copyrighted where he says, for example, "this is an example of the snowflake pattern," so we have been trying to find ones in wiki that resemble those in Sponenberg's photos. If it should just be a ref that sayd "Sponenberg 2003, pp 153-156" with no other verbiage, feel free to just fix that however it needs to be fixed. Or tell me what to do. This isn't my strong suit. Montanabw^(talk) 21:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

On the gaitedhorses.net one, as Dana has pointed out a couple of times, all we use it for is proof that there are "a number of new breed registries to promote gaited horses with spotted coats." Nothing more. I don't think there's much of a list anywhere else, the ApHC sure doesn't want to admit they exist. I'm open to solutions, but if we can't find a better list, would we have to just go to each breed registry and then have six footnotes?? I'm afraid that too would raise the wrath of FA reviewers. I suppose we could make it a "note" or something. I guess just tell me what you think the best solution is...I'm sort of stumped. Montanabw^(talk) 22:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem is the phrase it's sourcing also ... "... their owners are forming a number of new breed registries to promote gaited horses with spotted coats." the bit about the owners forming the registries isn't supported by the site. You realise that "spotted saddle horses" are not appy spotted, but paint spotted, right? That web page only shows one appy spotted registry at the moment... and in that case, we're better off just using that registry's site. (The gaited curlies have a different type of coat, so they aren't just gaited appys.) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking of the Tiger horse, Wlkaloosa, and the Spanish Jennet Horse, for sure. I'll go surfing and see what I can find. Montanabw^(talk) 22:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Sclera

I was invited a few days ago to comment on this article. I'm not sure how welcome my comments are likely to be at the moment, nor indeed how welcome they have been in the past. But there's one rather obvious thing here that you might like to look at: the sclera cannot be "around" the eye, since the sclera is a part of the eye. If you would like me to read the article carefully for other possible errors, I'd be happy to do so.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. Would "around the iris" work OK? Montanabw^(talk) 22:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know. It would work for me, but I'm not an anatomist. I read that the sclera of some horses can be black, but I don't think I've ever seen that. Vets here use the colour of the "white" as a diagnostic aid in cases of, for example, piroplasmosis. Anyway, as the caption of a rather striking photograph, I think it is particularly evident and should probably be rephrased in some way.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thought about this a little. Maybe "... around the iris of the eye"? But you need to examine whether the point being made is that the sclera is white or that the sclera is visible, which I'm not in any way qualified to comment on. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't help that the ApHC doesn't use the anatomical specificity we are after here either, but I basically agree with you the precision is probably needed or someone at FA will undoubtably pick up on it. Though we can't use WP to source WP, the sclera basically describes it as what in humans is the "white" of the eye -- the part of the eye that encircles the iris. Essentially, the sclera of the Appaloosa shows white around the eye when the animal is calm and at rest, unlike that of most horses, where the "white" part of the sclera doesn't show unless the eye is rolled back in the head due to various stresses. Take a look at horse eye (or any horse nearby, in good sunlight) and you can really pretty clearly see where the iris ends and the sclera begins, even though both are usually dark in most breeds. We had a great photo illustrating this that we had to remove due to copyright issues, and what we have now still shows the visible white sclera, though not as vividly. But this visible white sclera is an inherent component of the Lp gene and thus is a breed characteristic. Give "around the iris" phrasing a bit more thought and if you still think it's the best wording, I'm OK with it if Dana and Ealdgyth agree Montanabw^(talk) 00:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with either "the visible white around the iris" or "the white of the eyeball, which is normally not visible in calm horses" - Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

So, I've read this article a couple of times. IMO the sclera thing needs fixing in all of the 3 or 4 places it comes up. Questions: is the sclera always white in this breed? is the iris smaller than usual, or the eye-surround larger? or in other words, why does the sclera show?

Yes, the visible sclera thing is a trait of the leopard complex. I think that basically, the sclera is usually dark on most horses from the edge of the iris until somewhere farther back on the eyeball, while in horses with leopard complex coloring, it is white right from the edge of the Iris. --MTBW Follow up: This is a TERRIFIC photo showing the way most horses have a pigmented sclera, even those with blue or diluted eye color! The next is a photo of a dark-eyed horse that has a little bit of white in the sclera, but mixed with dark. The third is an Appy with the classic white sclera.

Some other random criticisms, intended only to be constructive/helpful:

• It's an American horse (and a very special one), so the overall US flavour of the article is probably right; but it is also a transnational or transboundary "world" horse, and that aspect is largely missing from the article. The FAO DAD-IS gives crazy numbers for App. numbers worldwide, but possibly identifies correctly the countries where there are substantial populations. Perhaps a short section on The Appaloosa Worldwide? It also might be good to insert "in the USA" where necessary in various places when statements beg the question "but is that really true?", such as "Ace is illegal in all competitions"

Sources for this besides the FAO? We write from the sources... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, me too! I'd start from here, bullet 6, I think. FAO throws up Australia and the UK too. International associations are listed here. HTH Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The situation here is that the leopard complex clearly exists in other breeds, but the Appaloosa, like the American Quarter Horse, is a distinctly American breed, so all international info would do is just say that yeah, some have been exported all over the place. The other problem is that prior to leopard complex genetics being more-or-less understood,"appaloosa" was used as a generic word for the color, which is something of a misnomer, as the ApHC is quite adamant that the Appaloosa is a true breed with a color preference, similar to the Haflinger or Friesian, in that color is only one defining trait. But anyway, the American model sort of dictates everyone else's, so not sure we have the sources to go down that rabbit hole, though would be interesting. Not sure how helpful a laundry list of every international group with cowboy wannabees would be, but I'm not closed to the idea. (OK, mildly disinclined, but not flat-out hostile.) --MTBW

Yeah, basically just "some have been exported all over the place"; but maybe add which countries have stud books, which colour rules they follow, where the biggest numbers are, the part played in rebuilding the Knabstrupper, say a paragraph in all? And keep a weather eye open for sweeping statements that don't necessarily apply worldwide?
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no clue about the Knabstrupper, never heard that one, but if you have a source, do share! As for the rest, if the ApHC doesn't have the equivalent of WAHO, I'm not sure how we will get a comprehensive set of into on international stuff, a horse with spots does not an Appaloosa make. (Or even a loose-headed apple!) Montanabw^(talk) 23:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This is fairly comical reading, but detailed and presumably fairly reliable. The three Appaloosa stallions imported by Freddie Nielsen are near the end. This is someone who is marketing Knabstrupper x Appaloosa or other crosses as Knabstruppers; the history is mostly copied from the Danish site, Nielsen and his 3 stallions are there. Did anyone read this to check there's no useful extra info in it?
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Either of those sites sorta-kinda appear to be breed registries, but are they they official ones or are they ones started by random folks? I"m not clear on the EU's rules for breed registries, and I can't say that I'm feeling all that sure that the first site is "official" for all knap's or just for some subset. The second site, I'm not sure it really counts as a reliable source, as it appears to be as much a personal breeders site as anything else. I have the breed standards book, but it's very variable in its coverage, as they basically took the information direct from the breed registries, so your milage may vary. It's certainly not a "third-party" source for any information in it, since it's pretty much direct from the registry. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

(After edit conflict) That IS some interesting material. As you can see, I asked Ealdgyth to see if that Danish site will pass WP:RS. The bit in Lynghaug is rather interesting, and it does back the spotted horses from Europe material we have from Bennett. But much of it may be more suited to the Tiger horse article -- given Ealdgyth's comments and also that "Tiger Horse" association is kind of over-romanticized to the point of (IMHO) goofiness, I think I'd like to see the actual underlying source material to use here -- Lynghaug seems to be as more-or-less reliable as any of the other breed encyclopedias, but looks like some material comes directly from the Tiger horse association without critical analysis -- what I caught was that it has some aspects of the Nez Perce War history wrong, and the use of "Ni Mii Pu" for the Nez Perce is rather "precious" -- sort of like a German calling himself a "Deutschlander" when speaking English -- the people call themselves "Nez Perce" in everyday conversation and use Nimiipuu more for internal tribal use --it's a long story and you kind of have to live out here to get it, but Indian people generally tend to have a bit of irritation (amount varies) with academics who treat them like anthropological studies and overdo the political correctness beyond what they themselves ask; it can be viewed as condescending. Some use the term "culture vulture" to describe people prone to such things. Or, as one Native American Studies prof I know explained it, "We're OK if you call us 'Indians,' we're just glad Columbus wasn't trying to find Turkey!" :-D Montanabw^(talk) 19:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

My take, fwiiw: the Danish site is reputable; it comes clean on the interrupted history of the breed, the conflicts between various aims of various breeders, the outcrossings etc. I don't think that association is "exclusive" (I believe some horses are or were registered by this organisation, my German not good enough to be sure), but it does conduct national and international grading etc and is probably as trustworthy and "official" as, say, the ApHC. I would definitely not say the same of the other Knabstrupper site. I see no reason at all to trust Lynghaug, the book appears to be just a compilation of blurbs; but the Tiger horse is IMO a valid alternative take on what the appaloosa is or should be, and deserves a passing mention in the article, perhaps no more. IMO the same goes for this society, while this one is an "official" offshoot of the ApHC. I'll see what I can find for other countries if that seems to be a good idea.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• Why does the coat colour table need to be sortable?

'Cause I swiped the syntax from somewhere else and didn't dare change anything for fear of messing it up! I don't really understand how to do tables, so when I steal syntax, I only change the data, not the markup. If anyone wants to make it non-sortable, I don't care, but I'm scared to change it! Worst-case scenario, only some columns would sort and then it would be all mixed up! YIKES! =:-O --MTBW

Fixed that, I think. Capitalisation is quite random throughout that table, didn't know which choice to standardise to, would anyway suggest dumping Title Case. Did you want that layout, with the first column so narrow? If not, it too should be fixable.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll look at the capitalization stuff, thanks for mentioning. Montanabw^(talk) 23:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Suggest getting the technical gene codes (TRPM etc.) out of the opening paragraph, they are just TMI at that point

Will look at that --MTBW FIXED

• Opening sentence needs attention (you want people to say "yes, that's right", not "ermm, which ones?" when they read it, right?) What about something like "The Appaloosa is a horse breed best known for its striking appearance and its colorful leopard-spotted coat pattern."?

Will look at that, there is a need for some technical precision because not all Appaloosas have visible spots. Leopard is often minimal, and the ApHC lets solids be reigstered. --MTBW Fixed -- the ApHC will probably not be thrilled, but we DO mention the other characteristics later in the same paragraph anyway.

• caption of foal registration picture needs rewording to remove the hanging "their". What does it matter if the ApHC change their coats?

Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• "breeding program" looks like jargon. I know breeding programmes exist, using BLUP models and so on to improve diversity in endangered and/or inbred breeds, or to specifically alter breed characteristics as in say the Haflinger, but they are rare. This would seem to apply here to the new Nez Percé horse, but not the other two occurrences; replace with "breeding" or "selective breeding"?

Removed another. The other usages seem consistent with US usage (we tend to describe long term breeders efforts as "programs" more in the states) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, like Ealdgyth says. It's a "program" here. --MTBW.

• The acute accent is missing from "Percé" almost throughout. Is that intentional?

--Yes. The Nez Perce nation, at the moment, does not use the accented form: http://www.nezperce.org/ Also, we say it "Nez Purse", not "Nez Per-say", hence, as the French pronunciation appears to have vanished from contemporary use, so, apparently, did the accent. Montanabw^(talk) 17:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Why the Knabstrupper? The mention doesn't seem to lead anywhere. Is the point the link with a common Spanish ancestor? It isn't clear. Why not the Noriker, then? Visible white sclera appears to be a Knabstrupper characteristic, too. Did they get it from the Appaloosa, or have it before? NB, Knabstrupper is so called in Danish and in US English; maybe move Knabstrupper to that name?

--Will look at that. --MTBW Fix? Lp comes independent of the Appaloosa breed, there clearly are other breeds with that color that stayed behind in Europe, even after they became unfashionable! Source cited uses "Knabstrupper" and makes references to a bunch of other quasi-historical stuff that is dicey and we have better sources. They also do mention the Norkier (Pinzgauer), I tweaked the section, and moved the European breeds up to the history section where it's more relevant. See what all of you think

• I know a lot of work has been done reducing the Nez Percé war section. IMO it is still overweight in this article. It's all very good and interesting stuff, but shouldn't people who want to read it go to the main article and read it there?

--It's not in that tribal article much, and undoubtably the people working on that article would complain that their horse breeding was undue weight if I moved it there, sigh... but to the point, the breed is intertwined thoroughly with the tribal history, particularly of the 1870s, and the big deal was that a 1200 mile flight was possible because these horses are tough as nails. (There is also a joke out here that the Nez Perce were such good fighters because after traveling all that way on Appies, they were so seriously pissed at the horses that they were more than ready to fight with something less challenging, like the US Army!) --MTBW

• Have the Pech-Merle paintings been removed completely (I don't see them)? On the basis of one unreferenced mention of "current studies"? Why not keep them, cite a different source such as Edwards, and note the conflicting view? If there are current studies, where are they published? Edwards also has an image of an ancient Egyptian spotted horse, btw

--Will check. --MTBW Follow up: Found a review of the Haines book, which appears to have been the source. While Haines' research on the Nez Perce appears to be excellent for its time (1960s), he was criticized even then for his weaknesses in palentology: "To include the spotted horses from Peche-Merle, which were not Equus caballus but an extinct Pleistocene variety, is disturbing without an explanation of their relationship to modern spotted horses." Jay D. Frierman, Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Nov., 1963), p. 421 Ealdgyth, do you have Haines? If not, I may need to trot over to the MHS and see if they have a copy; this may also have been Bennett's source for the Europe-to-West-Coast theory. Montanabw^(talk) 20:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hope some of this is helpful, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is what we will face at FA review anyway. Montanabw^(talk) 17:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay...

Just the ISBN issues and the gaited horses site to fix... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I still don't get what, precisely, the ISBN issue is...can you fix it??? I guess we just have to do the three spotted horse registries for sources, will that work? Montanabw^(talk) 19:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Montana fixed the gaited horses site. Did someone else get the ISBN issues, because I can't find the problem...? Dana boomer (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Ask Ealdgyth, I don't quite get it, either. Something about the OCLC not having the same ISBN as the works actually used in the article, I think. But I don't get it. Montanabw^(talk) 15:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Montana hit the nail on the head there. Probably need to just be aware of the possibility of it being raised, and whoever has the books actually being ready to point out the error with the World Cat entry or whatever. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

But when I looked at the WorldCat entries that you linked above, the ISBN given for the book in the references section matches the one given by the WorldCat entry. I'm either seeing things or this issue was fixed at some point, either on our end or WorldCat's. The former is quite possible, however :) Dana boomer (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Heh. I am entirely too sleep deprived to trust myself, but I trust you. Gah! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

For Sponenberg I used the Google Books version online. Who originally sourced the 50 years one? Wasn't me... E, didn't you have that book? If no idea which of us had the original, maybe we could fix to match the OCLC? (Or maybe the catalog of the library where the book was lists ISBN...?) Or maybe I can find it at MHS if needed (ILL is pretty easy for me once I haul myself to the actual building to fill out the form in person). Montanabw^(talk) 18:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC) Follow up The Worldcat link shows ISBN 0966116046 9780966116045 , our version is 0966116046, so I think we are now copacetic. Montanabw^(talk) 18:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: Possible backup sources if needed (not great, but independent of the horse crowd), [1] (they cite Ga Wa Ni Pony Boy, :-P but still...) Montanabw^(talk) 18:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC) Backup source on the color rule controversy: [2] Montanabw^(talk) 17:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The 50 years one isn't me, I don't think. It's not on User:Ealdgyth/Horse References, and I really don't own many Appy books. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who originally added it, but I got it at one point through ILL and verified the information, added page numbers, etc. When I just checked, the ISBN listed in the references section was the same as the one given by Worldcat, so I think everything is fine for that ref. Dana boomer (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Other historical stuff and such

Starting a new header because the discussion has moved away from the sclera into other things. Just spend some time in JSTOR and some scientific databases and can't find anything on any studies of gaitedness in spotted horses that supports the Tiger Horse registry claims. Found a couple reviews of the Haines book, one with some useful info that I may re-add to the article. If no one objects, I don't think we want to venture into the rabbit hole that Tiger horse piece opens up of verifying Indian legends and wild west myth, it could be a long slog. I would like to see if we can properly verify that a few Appies have been sent back to Europe to revitalize the Knabstrup(per), though. Anyone able to help?? Montanabw^(talk) 20:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC) Follow up(Edit conflict) JLAN and E, I'll add a wee bit on the Knabs, we already do have a link, somewhat obscure, to the Tiger Horse down in the "Uses" section where we discuss the various crossbreds. Montanabw^(talk) 20:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess this fits under 'historical stuff' - there seems to be an inconsistency. In the third paragraph under "Breed Characteristics", it states: "The old-type Appaloosa was later modified by the addition of draft horse blood after the 1877 defeat of the Nez Perce, when U.S. Government policy forced the Indians to become farmers and provided them with draft horse mares to breed to existing stallions." However, in the first paragraph under "Aftermath of the Nez Perce War", it states the Nez Perce : "... were required by the Army to breed what mares they still had to draft horse stallions in an attempt to create farm horses." So did the Army/Government provide them with draft stallions or draft mares? I don't want to edit it because I don't know which one is correct. Ruralgal (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, will check the source material and see if they are also inconsistent or if we muffed it up. Montanabw^(talk) 18:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

If we outta, I ain't.. (grin)

If anyone wants to expand the Uses section to add a bit on international use, this may help: http://www.aphcuk.org/web/aphcuk/ulinks.cfm?c=59 However, I am fried, and RL is going to be getting nuts on me starting next week and going into late May, so while I will take the time needed to help shepherd through FA if we take it up, I am too fried to create or add much new material, wordsmithing is all you can hope for... Montanabw^(talk) 21:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much we need to add on international usage. The uses section is pretty general about how they are used, and AFAIK they are used for pretty much the same stuff in every country. The addition on the exportation to Denmark for use in the Knapstrup is good, though. Dana boomer (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

JLAN raised the concern, I just want to be sure we don't have any obvious glitches for FA. He found the Knab stuff, which was cool and a good find. Montanabw^(talk) 15:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyone else have concerns? I'm at a good spot to do an FAC, although I'll be on the road, I will still be able to check in well. Early next week would be good timing for me. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's run it. We can get bogged down in minutae for years, already have. I say do it, but I will not be around much Thursday or Friday, should a reviewer get on it that fast. Montanabw^(talk) 18:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Early next week is good for me, too. I can nom it first thing Monday, if ya'll want... Errr, do we want to ask Malleus to take a look at it first, or have we had enough eyes on it for now? Dana boomer (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably should beg/borrow/steal Malleus' most excellent copyediting skills, if we can. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I've dropped a note on Malleus' talk page; feel free to add to the begging :) Unless he has extended comments, or can't work on it for quite a while, I'll still plan to nominate on Monday - that gives us almost a week. Dana boomer (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Groovy. Go for it. Montanabw^(talk) 16:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not the international use that seems to be missing IMO, it's the international POV. The horse is registered in a number of ways in a number of countries, Germany, Australia, Italy and Britain among them, I think. It is a world horse. However laughable the idea of a British Appaloosa (pure farce IMO), it is, like the Tiger Horse, an alternative take on what an Appaloosa should or could be, and perhaps deserves a passing mention. Otherwise this will just be another of those articles that takes the dominant breed registry as gospel without considering minority views. If the ISBNs still need work I can do that, assuming it's just a matter of matching the ISBNs to the editions cited; this catalogue and this one make that a very easy task, but you'd need to tell me which ones seem to be wrong. The sclera thing still needs fixing; the sclera can't be round the eye because the sclera is a part of the eye. IMO it is TMI on the picture caption anyway.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

How is it registered different though? You haven't pointed out that there are any major differences between what the British/Continental breed registries are looking for and what the US/Canadian registry is looking for. And ... if there are only a couple of hundred horses registered in total in Europe, compared to tens of thousands in the Americas, yes, according to Wikipedia, we should give the dominant point of view to the place with thousands. The reverse is also true for something like the Dutch Warmblood or the Orlov Trotter, by the way. My understanding is that most of the European Appaloosa registries are affiliated with the US registry - and thus don't deviate much from those breed standards. When we get into the "Tiger Horse", that's not an Appaloosa per se, it's a crossbred from the Appy, and should have its own article. I guess I'm not sure what you're saying with "registered in a number of ways in a number of countries". Ealdgyth - Talk 12:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

JLAN, I'm with Ealdgyth on this one, and not really understanding your arguments. The breed associations for all of the countries you mentioned are affiliates of the ApHC, and AFAIK have essentially the same registration requirements and processes. These affiliated registries are discussed in the Registration section of the article. If the international registries register the horses in the same way and use them for the same things and only have a few hundred horses versus tens of thousands, then why do they need more than a brief mention, which is already in the article? The Tiger horse does have its own article, and no further discussion of it is needed in this article beyond what is already there. As for the British Appaloosa, you have two different organizations. The first is the Appaloosa Horse Club - UK which is affiliated with the ApHC and is basically the same horse, same registration, etc. The second is the British Appaloosa Society, which appears to be promoted some sort of crossbred with spots, according to their history page. Although the latter may have some Appaloosa blood in it, I'm not sure what sort of mention it deserves in this article. The ISBNs have been determined to be fine at this point; see the discussion a couple of sections above this one. Dana boomer (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll take another whack at the sclera thing, simply replacing "iris" for "eye" appears to be a simple matter. As far as the international stuff goes, I do think that the leopard complex article is a more suitable place for that sort of thing to be expanded upon than here. If there is one thing I've certainly clarified in my own mind while working on this article, (as if my life having to train some of them about 20 years ago wasn't enough) it is that the Appaloosa definitely fits the definition of a distinct breed and is not just any old horse that also happens to have spots. Montanabw^(talk) 16:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to go harping on on the same broken string. My concern is this: does "Appaloosa" mean "a horse that is registered by the ApHC and one breakaway registry" or something a bit wider? Registration rules for the AAA appear to be totally absent from the article at present (it is also referred to as "a breakaway organization" after it has earlier been named, btw); the APHCC also appears to have different and possibly more stringent registration rules, with full legal recognition, discussed here, not as far as I can see mentioned in the article. More harping: the Tiger horse is not mentioned in the article, but in a footnote; their blurb is quite clear that the registered Appaloosa is the result of indiscriminate crossing, and suggests (for whatever that is worth) that their version is not. I suggest that things like that, which shares some Appaloosa history but not the name, and the comical British Appaloosa, which shares the name but apparently almost none of the history, should get a brief sentence at the end of the Registration section; I don't know if there are others of this sort. Minority views have a place here, I think. Where do you get the "couple of hundred" figure for Appaloosas worldwide from, btw, I find it most surprising (FAO shows 2656 in Holland alone, the only believable number it does show)? Last bit of harping: the Appaloosa is an American horse, and a great one; but it is also a transboundary world horse, and that needs to be reflected in the article with a world POV. Has the ApHC registered 670000 horses in the USA, or worldwide, for example?
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd take the FAO's numbers with a grain of salt - as that same organization reports 300,000 Appy's in Australia in 1990. It's also worth noting that the Dutch figures from the FAO are derived from this registy which is NOT recognized by the ApHC - and includes (from a rough Google translation) "The horses and ponies carry the bloodlines of the famous books, including KWPN, NRPS studbook and Shetland. Initially, the properties of other spotted breeds such as the Knabstrupper Noriker from Denmark and brought from Austria. Now properties are added from other spotted horses and ponies, and solid color parents will be finished with high performance sport horses." Anything with Shetland in it ain't an Appaloosa (Note also this page which lists a "mini" size division). These are the affliated clubs with the ApHC. Spotted horses aren't necessarily Appaloosas (even if the people owning them call them Appaloosas). The same issue arrises with Pinto/Paint markings - I own a horse you'd call a "paint" just by color markings, but he's not - he's three-quarters Arabian and thus is just a "pinto". Appaloosas are a specific subset of spotted horses - and this article covers that subset, not all those people out there breeding cross-breeds with some Appaloosa in them. While it may be necessary to mention that - really, anything that permits a "mini" size or the additon of Shetland blood to the Appaloosa isn't an "Appaloosa". (We even have that cross-breed in the US - it's called the Pony of the Americas.) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, we agree on one thing at least, the FAO's numbers; a whole bowl of salt, not just a grain, if you ask me. Seems they count as Laurens Van Der Post says baboons do, "One, two, a HELL of a lot!". For the rest, you have expressed exactly my concern, just rather better than I was able to. For as long as this article remains about "a specific subset of spotted horses" registered under the name "Appaloosa" by one breed registry, it will continue to fail to be encyclopaedic, continue to fail to represent minority views and continue to fail to be neutral. Where in wikipedia, under what title, should the article for those Dutch Appaloosa horses be created if they are to be excluded from the Appaloosa article because they don't meet somebody else's definition of what an Appaloosa ought to be? If the Dutch society is not affiliated to the ApHC, all the more reason to make sure it is included IMO. As far as I am aware (and as you know, that is not very far), the ApHC does not own the name "Appaloosa"; if it does, no doubt it will soon establish that ownership in the courts. Once it has done so, it would be reasonable to limit the scope of this article to horses registered with that one association under that name. But until then, it is not. The aim here is not to represent things as they ought to be, or as one particular association says they ought to be, but as they are, would you not agree?
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

the predominent usage of Appaloosa in English is, however, to the breed registerable with the ApHC, right? I'm more than happy to be persuaded otherwise by reliable sources, but the article is built on English language sources that refer to that subset of spotted horses. That some other non-English language registries exist (and some English language ones also) doens't mean that they don't fall under WP:UNDUE. All I'm seeing from you is "it should cover these other things" but no sources beyond breed registry web pages are produced, except the FAO's listing, which would probably fail the "significant" coverage portion of the notability guidelines. Sources, sources sources, not just feelings here. I'm all for covering international stuff, but I can't just write what I THINK is out there, I have to write what the reliable sources cover and in significant amounts. Generally speaking, a mention of something in a long listing of items doesn't mean that something passes the notablity or undue boundaries. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

JLAN, the Appaloosa IS a specific breed. What you are getting hung up on here is twofold: 1) Until people started studying leopard complex genetics, the word "appaloosa" (little a) was often used to describe generic spotting patterns. That is, and really always has been, an incorrect (though common) use. 2) The Appaloosa (big A) is a distinct breed, having multiple influences, but with a studbook and a clear-cut breed standard. Other breeds who also happen to have spots are not Appaloosas; the "Tiger horse' in particular is a good example; it's a few people who want to cross gaited horses with spotted horses, and then create a whole bunch of excessively romanticized and unsupportable b.s. on their web page to promote their critters (note this is mostly the work of a single breeder). More power to 'em, but they are NOT Appaloosas. Go see Tiger horse, which would benefit from some improvement. You are not giving me any convincing evidence for a world view here that is broader than what's there. If you want to sandbox a couple paragraphs off your talk page and invite us to look and see if we want to add it in, great. But in the meantime, all you are doing here is being disruptive and offering no solid sources. Montanabw^(talk) 14:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Coat colour chart

I fiddled with the cosmetic layout of the coat colour chart, as the left-hand column looked a bit cramped. Montana rightly comments that the first two rows of the chart now look rather empty. That is because the Spots picture is very tall. That could easily be fixed by moving Leopard and Fewspot leopard to the top of the chart, if no-one has any objection? But that is just cosmetics. What's bothering me more at the moment is that the more I look at the Spots picture the more I see a Blanket with spots horse. As everyone knows, I know a good deal less than nothing about these horses; but to the uneducated eye, it's just a better Blanket-with-spots pic than the other one.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The ApHC uses this classification, so awkward as it is, we must as well. The order of the entries is also parallel to ApHC, I think, so I hesitate to flip it much due to the way that I think they sort of placed these in a hierarchy. I think the chart is good enough as is. Montanabw^(talk) 14:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

LP?

The gene is called LP throughout the article. That seems to be widely used, but is at variance with what is written at Leopard complex#The Lp gene. Any particular reason?
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

This article will be more authoritative that Leopard Complex at the moment; I have had a major hand in writing both of them, and the focus was on updating this one, with the other going to get my attention with updates from the same work I did here. Lp vs LP is not a huge deal, both forms are used, LP more recently, consistency is what matters. No kick if someone fixes any inconsistencies. Montanabw^(talk) 14:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Appaloosa is a breed, Appaloosa is NOT a word for all horses with spots

Wrong. It is at least five closely similar breeds, at least three of them in North America alone. If this article is to be about "the Appaloosa horse as defined by the ApHC alone" then you had better move it to a name that reflects that narrow-minded and blinkered view. Maybe someone else will write an article about the Appaloosa as a world horse.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

JLAN - I'm perfectly happy to include information if it's got sources behind it. Right now, all the source put forth (except for breed registry websites) stress the descent from the Nez Perce horses and tie into the ApHC. We cannot write an article without independent third party sources covering information you wish included. Give me SOURCES (beyond the FAO's breed database, which is a good start, but not enough) to show that they are five closely similar breeds, please. I've done JSTOR/other academic database searches for Appaloosa, and turned up nothing showing research into any other uses of Appaloosa beyond what's included in the article now. I could very well have muffed that, I ain't perfect, but we cannot include information without reliable third party sourcing for the information. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your courteous reply. I am as stuck as anyone else on sources, not just here but throughout the project. With perhaps one or two exceptions, horse breeds are defined by written standards. In some countries, some of those are published by government departments and may have some small degree of reliability as a result; elsewhere, they are written by breed associations, who write exactly whatever they please, and change it at will. In either case, they are primary sources, and as such theoretically closed to us. Nevertheless, in the short time I have been here, I have observed that some credence is given to them here; in my opinion, that makes sense – better to get the info from the horse's mouth than from some less accurate secondary source. But it does not alter the arbitrariness of the process of definition of a particular breed. In North America there are at least three significant versions of the Appaloosa, more or less arbitrarily defined by three different associations, the ApHC, the AAA and the APHCC. I suggest that the publications of those three bodies are not only the best available source for their registration requirements, rules and so on, but are quite possibly the only sources available – unless a compilation volume such as the Lynghaug book has them (would that make them more reliable anyway?). IMO the British and Dutch associations deserve much less space, though 2656 is a larger number than any one of the fifteen or so rare Italian breeds I wanted to write about here. I don't think they can be totally ignored just because they don't meet the rules of a different association; if they weren't different, they probably wouldn't be separate, just as in the case of the two US associations. And I think that their publications also are the best source for their registration requirements. I had hoped to find some numbers for Italy, where there are (subjectively speaking) thousands of Appaloosas, but the website of the Italian association is under construction. More later, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest you look at horse magazines? I can safely say that in the US, there are plenty of horse magazines (such as Horse & Rider, Western Horseman, Dressage Today) which are devoted to either all horses or horses in a specific riding discipline. These magazines are the proper place to look for noting whether or not a giving breed registry is notable or too small and falls under WP:UNDUE. In the US - there is no coverage given to the "fringe" Appaloosa clubs - all coverage is about the ApHC. Very occasionally you'll see coverage for some of the cross-breeding registries (Tiger horse, Arappaloosa, Colorado Rangerbred, etc) but that coverage is under those names, not a "generic" Appaloosa name. We should be looking to that sort of coverage for non-US countries also - see how the non-breed-specific sources cover the subject, and then after determining if there is even coverage of these non-ApHC clubs as well as HOW they are covered, then see where things are going and once that question is answered we can use the breed registries themselves as sources. We can also use things like Bogdiani and other "encyclopedias" of horse breeds to determine if usage backs up the "appaloosa is a common name for spotted horse" idea - but I have to tell you that in the US, this is not the usage. US sources cover the "other spotted breeds" under the names they use - Tiger Horse, Colorado Rangerbred, etc. Third party sources should be available, because at least in the UK, there are similar magazines to the ones mentioned above. Also - Pony Club for the UK should have information. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

JLAN, Ealdgyth is being nice to you, but I've had it! Get constructive or please just go away. All you are doing is disrupting everyone else's work. You had useful comments about the sclera issue, but now you are just being tendentious and arguing for its own sake. You go screaming at all of us for being idiots at the Italian breed articles, (and now I see you are claiming more of Europe by inserting yourself into the Scandanavian articles too), insisting that you are very knowledgable on your topics and the rest of us should leave you alone, whilst insisting the little Italian "breeds" from a single breeder with about 200 animals tops are most certainly "real" breeds, but make the opposite argument here and utterly fail to grant the same courtesy of background to Americans on a breed we know quite well, thank you. You are providing NO verifiable source material, and you clearly have insufficient understanding of the situation. The crossbreds you are getting hung up on (Tiger Horse, POA Nez Perce Horse, whatever) all agree that their horses are NOT of the Appaloosa breed, though some may be derived from Appaloosas. The Appaloosa breed has a primary registry in the USA, ApHC, that has registered thousands and thousands of horses, sanctions horse shows, licenses judges, and so on. Then, a couple political factions got ticked off at some rule changes and formed their own tiny, insignificant clubs so that they could play in their own sandbox and whine, they do not sanction shows to any significant degree, they license no officials and register few animals, and most become defunct in a few years as the whiners just quit playing due to lack of interest. If Europeans misuse the term "Appaloosa" for the color in any breed, there is plenty of peer-reviewed literature explaining that the correct term for the genetic coat color -- anywhere -- is "leopard" or "leopard complex." This is a specific, unique breed with a specific, unique historical origin. To say otherwise is at best improper terminology, ignorance or original research, and as such, indefensible. Montanabw^(talk) 17:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Any 'breed' which has a clear genetic basis and a clearly visible set of 'breed characteristics' has to be a 'breed', really. And the history is pretty ancient - far more so than on many of the other breeds. Yes, a lot of people refer to leopard patterning as 'Appaloosa' - and they probably always will. A lot of people will insist that there are aplominao Haflingers - there aren't, the pally-lloking ones are light mealy flaxen chestnut. Just because 300,000 people say the same wrong thing, it doesn't make it right. You must, surely, be aware of Joe Public's tendency to latch onto an 'easy description' and just use that.

Yer Appaloosa is far more recognisably 'a breed' than (for example) the Cleveland Bay (which, on the face of it, could really be any pure-bay-breeding line of lightish warmblood ... there aren't really any clearly visible characteristics which define them, which don't also occur in many other breeds). And we're never going to say that the Cleveland Bay breed description applies equally to any other lightish bay warmblood, so the Cleveland Bay is 'not a breed'. Part of 'being a breed' includes the fact that we have a register of horses in the breed, whose pedigrees can be traced back for n-generations, and who (for the most part) breed true to what is required of the breed standard. Yes, spotted horses occur in other breeds, the bay colour also appears in many other breeds. But a bay New Forest pony is not a Cleveland Bay, neither is a bay Shetland Pony. The Appaloosa breed is defined by far more than its colour, it's a breed, and the breed deserves an article just as much as Haflingers, Dartmoor Ponies, New Forest Ponies, Arab / Arabian horses, and all the other articles on specific horse breeds, whose description is always going to be based solidly around the requirements of their respective Breed Societies.

JLAN, I suggest you just let this drop, really; although you're right (and make good constructive edits) in loads of other areas, on this one, sadly, you are just wrong. Pesky (talk) 08:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

A couple of quick replies:
Re remarks by Ealdgyth above:

• the "appaloosa is a common name for spotted horse" idea is definitely not my idea, I hope that is clear to all; the heading of this section is an edit comment made by Montanabw, and was previously credited as such. My idea, fwiiw, is that Appaloosa is a word, and that like most words, it is blurry around the edges. But more of that later, perhaps.
• agree on magazines as one measure of notability. Geography limits me to internet searching, found nothing useful on notability or otherwise, but did come across this, which purports to be an article from Appaloosa News, June 1978, on inheritable gait in appaloosas, material currently entirely absent from the article afaics. Unlike the details of breed registration, this should have attracted the attention of academics if there is anything in it, so JSTOR might throw up something.
• Pony Club was a good thought, and nearly right; the British Horse Society has a list of breed societies, which lists both the British app societies
• you probably won't thank me, but I found a fourth North American registry: this one, looks to me like one man and his dog but I'm no judge

Re remarks by Pesky above: you may be right that I am wrong on this, I've been wrong on several things recently, including believing that contributing to this project was going to be a pleasant experience marked by stimulating intellectual dialogue, exchange of views and collaboration with like-minded editors etc. etc., you get the picture. I'm afraid you lost me a bit with yer Cleveland Bay, I wasn't aware that there were multiple registers for that breed. Anyway, convincing me I'm wrong here is quite straightforward: it just involves showing beyond reasonable doubt that the AApA, the APHCC, the FAHR, the British Appaloosa Society and that Dutch one either don't exist or, if they do, that they don't register enough horses to be considered in any way significant. That shouldn't be too hard for a couple of them, but I fear it may be quite tough to make the Canadian one go away.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not on us to show that the various registries don't exist, it's on you to show that they are notable enough to make it past WP:UNDUE. They need significant coverage in third-party sources to justify their inclusion, or even their own articles. The fact that a registry exists and claims to register Appaloosa horses does not fulfill the needs for WP:UNDUE, we need third party notice of these registries with coverage beyond just a bare mention. This is unreliable and possibly a copyright violation, and can't be used in Wikipedia. As far as the Pony Club, we need something beyond the fact that they list both organizations - ideally they'd have articles covering the breed. The way to justify mention of all the fringe registries is to show they have generated notice outside their own websites and the "list of registries" sites. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

International registration

We should probably put in something about the international registration options, including a mention that some registries are not affiliated with the ApHC. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Where would it end? We don't really have much on this in any other breed GA article, not even Thoroughbred, do we? Montanabw^(talk) 19:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we do, in the Thoroughbred article - all that information on the various numbers bred outside the US, as well as the information about the origins in various countries. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe what we need is something like a sentence something like "There are several registries for Appaloosas that are not affiliated with the ApHC.<several refs to pertinent breed registries> However, the ApHC is the oldest and largest registry, and sets rules and regulations for the registration and competition of the majority of Appaloosas worldwide.<ref to some third party source>" And then go on about our way. This would show that they exist, but because they have not been shown to be notable, nothing more would be included on them, per UNDUE. Thoughts? - Dana

I'm OK with something like that. as long as we don't go overboard with the "a guy and his dog" groups. And as long as I don't have to be the one to do it (grin); I've fried on this article. Maybe say something like "other organizations that promote Appaloosas, some of whom have their own registry" or something. A note on gaitedness in Appies, per the comments in the above section, the issue isn't if some registered Appaloosas happen to be gaited (there are lines that are, gaitedness doesn't exclude an otherwise eligible horse from registration, I think the ApHC says nothing at all on the topic, actually), it's that the bulk of people fussing about the issue are simply creating spinoff crossbreds with spots, which are crossbreds with leopard complex genetics, not official Appaloosas. Montanabw^(talk) 21:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

(undent) Proposed text and references:

There are other "Appaloosa" registries not affiliated with the ApHC for horses with leopard complex genetics. These registries tend to have different foundation breeding and histories than the North American Appaloosa. However, the ApHC is by far the largest Appaloosa horse registry as the third-largest light horse breed registry in the world, and it hosts one of the world's largest breed shows.

Thoughts/comments? Feel free to tweak/rewrite, Dana boomer (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Might get Malleus to weigh in on it, since he so very kindly did a copyedit... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Ditto, I made a couple tweaks to the above. My version may not be perfect, but feel free to tweak to keep the nuance I was after... Montanabw^(talk) 18:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Did a bit more tweaking, then dropped it into the article. I'll plan to nominate for FAC this evening, unless something comes up here before then. Dana boomer (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Source check

The sourcing for Stanger's 50 years of Appaloosa history on the article doesn't correspond with this, which comes up in WorldCat for the ISBN: http://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=wikipedia&q=isbn%3A0966116046 Can/should someone fix? Montanabw^(talk) 20:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't add the Stanger originally. I did add the "no location given" to the entry ... as the "[Idaho Falls, ID?]" for world cat means there isnt' a location given on the book but it's possible it was in Idaho Falls. Better to go with "no location given" than a guess. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll see if MHS has anything better than a question mark. If we need anything better than the Animal Movies Guide, I found this on the Brando film: http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9F0DE5DC143BE63ABC4D52DFBF66838D679EDE Montanabw^(talk) 20:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Follow up: MHS Says "Publisher's Press" same as WorldCat, may want to tweak that (if we have to go to the hard copy, this is where I'll find it..) And still the question mark,. Edith Stanger appears to have her own web site, which is out of Idaho Falls, but I suppose its OR for us to synthesize. Montanabw^(talk) 21:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Beautiful horse

Beautiful, great horses. PumpkinSky talk 23:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Infobox image especially. Surprised it's not a featured picture. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 13:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

what age do the spots appear on foals? or are they born with them?? Just had a foal and is black all over! will she get her spots??

what age do the spots appear on foals? or are they born with them?? Just had a foal and is black all over! will she get her spots?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.11.106.140 (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not a chat page, you might want to take your question to some non-wikipedia message boards about Appaloosa breeding. Usually foals that have the Lp gene will have some indication of Appaloosa characteristics, though their coats can change over time becoming either more or less "spotted," especially if they are varnish roans. However, they will be born with a white sclera and hoof striping. You really won't know for sure until they shed out their baby coat. Montanabw^(talk) 18:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Paul McCartney had appaloosas

Would it be worthwhile to add a section on famous owners of appaloosas, or appaloosas in popular culture? Paul McCartney and his former wife Linda Eastman had several of these. I saw them on his farm in Kent, England, and he mentioned them in the news at the time of Linda's death. There is a reference here but no doubt a better source can be found for the same thing. --Storye book (talk) 13:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The question that needs to be asked is ... what does the fact that someone owned Appaloosas add to the knowledge of the breed itself? There are lots of famous folks who owned Appaloosas - but that information doesn't really tell us much about the subject of Appaloosas themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

And furthermore, if we add one celebrity, then we are adding them all, and there are quite a few. WP:TRIVIA seems to cover it. Montanabw^(talk) 05:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Questionable Statement

The article states in part: "... the Nez Perce people of what today is the United States Pacific Northwest developed the original American breed." This page and several other pages related to the Nez Perce tribe (e.g., pages about towns within the present reservation) suggest that the Appaloosas were deliberately bred by the Nez Perce to produce the resulting breed. I was raised on the reservation and the consensus position of all tribal members I asked about this issue were adequately summed up by my high school football coach: "We pretty much left that up to the horses." Moreover, the nature of Nez Perce tribal life tends to confirm that. The Nez Perce at the relevant times were nomadic bands with only small levels of interaction. This fact is incompatible with the notion that they had a deliberate tribal horse breeding program. So unless an authoritative source can be found that says otherwise, language suggesting that the Nez Perce had a breeding program needs to be removed. The Appaloosa evolved; it was not bred.Marbux (talk) 14:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, find a reliable source, "all the people I asked" is not a reliable source. Further, you must not know much of your own history if you really were raised on the res (and which one?). The Nez Perce were reputed by outsiders to have extraordinarily fine horses by none other than Lewis and Clark, plus we have sourced every other statement in the article. Look up what we have. Just because people let their horses run loose and breed naturally without a written stud book does not mean they were not selectively breeding; compare, for example, the Arabian horse. It is clear that the historic Nez Perce selected for certain traits and traded away unsuitable animals. If you must, read landrace, to see more about human-influenced breeding that works with the natural environment. I'm afraid a few local folks won't cut it, particularly when we are well over 100 years past the reservation period, when the US government clearly intervened with the traditional culture of the Nez Perce people. Montanabw^(talk) 21:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Origins ...

Interesting report on UK TV last night about a New Zealand breeder who trekked into Kyrgyzstan looking for spotted horses after seeing one on TV. The genetics of these horses appear to be the same as known Appaloosa genetics, and the meet the "Appaloosa visual tests" explained in the Wikipedia article. Perhaps this isn't relevant to current breed societies but I thought it was interesting. 212.159.59.41 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

This edit is utterly unsourced and differs from the sourced information in the article - which traces the development of the color pattern and the breeding from the Nez Perce. DNA or whatever doesn't really have a bearing on when a breed develops - since strictly speaking most horses will trace to Central Asia (and further back from that ... from the Americas). We're talking about the actual development of the breed as distinct from other horses ... which is clearly traceable in the historical record to the Nez Perce tribe of what is now Idaho. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, the NZ TV show is completely irrelevant and does nothing to review current genetic studies. The leopard complex is a color pattern, traceable to Eurasia, and there are multiple breeds that carry it, including the Knabstrupper and the Noriker horse. The "Appaloosa" is a breed of horse developed in North America that also carries the leopard complex. End of story. Montanabw^(talk) 19:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I just watched the program om the BBC iPlayer http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04z21cc/the-secret-horse-quest-for-the-true-appaloosa (see also http://trueappaloosamovie.com/ ). Towards the end of the program, they speak to a Dr Gus Cothram (professor of animal genetics at Texas A&M University College of Veterinary Medicine) who says "This very strongly suggests that Asia is the more likely source" based on his analysis of the DNA. Also there is a short interview with the filmmaker in BBC History Magazine http://www.historyextra.com/feature/animals/how-did-appaloosa-horse-get-north-america . Stront90 (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You're not understanding what we're saying. The genetics may have originated in Central Asia. But so did the genetics for a number of other horses - including ones such as the Noriker and Knabstrupper - but the breed itself was not refined until the second half of the 1800s with the Nez Perce and then it was formally codified with a breed registry in the 1930s in the United States. ALL horses genetically will end up tracing to Central Asia. The filmmaker is trying to sell a theory (a fringe theory) that the Nez Perce horses didn't descend from Spanish horses but from horses that somehow crossed the Bering Strait and migrated down into Idaho without leaving any traces in the historical or archeology... this is definitely a fringe theory and would require extraordinary sources. If horses from Asia were in North America - they would have been more extensive than just ... Idaho. To reach Idaho, they'd have reached a lot of other places (including ... well, the Great Plains). Instead... there is no record of any horses until a good period after the first arrival of the Spanish ... and after the Spanish lost horses ... then they spread out. (The records of a number of Plains tribes show that horses did not become common amongst them until the 1700s ... ) Until a LOT more sources are available - this is a fringe theory. And even if it wasn't a fringe theory - it still doesn't deal with the fact that the Nez Perce were the ones who selected and bred for the various traits of the Appaloosa ... it's not just the spotted coat they selected for. It's the Nez Perce that pulled all the bits together and created the breed. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

There is too little information in the television programme, it was made for entertainment and the science was just touched upon in a very brief interview. What would be needed is a paper published by Dr. Cothran "Horse expert and Texas-based geneticist" over exactly what the genetic similarities and differences are between the horses in Kurdistan and North America. From such studies it should be possible to discern the genetic path that horse took to go from an area in central Asia to North America (the programme said that there was a genetic link, although of course that would need to be published in a peer reviewed journal). Also to accurately map such movements will take more than one genetic study. Ealdgyth if you are interested in the breed then you would probably find the programme interesting, even if you draw different conclusions from the makers of the programme. -- PBS (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I helped get this article to FA status - (mainly with the history past the Nez Perce sections) - but I don't actually like the breed and don't raise any. But genetic links to Central Asia are a given in any horse population - see Domestication of the horse - the best current theories are that horses were domesticated in Central Asia ... so it stands to reason that any horses world-wide will have some sort of genetic link to horses in Central Asia. There is no evidence of horses in the Americas before the Spanish arrived (at least after they became extinct in the last Ice Age or two) ... and it's unlikely that horses would manage to make it from the western coast of the Americas (whether across the Bering Strait or from Russia or China) and into Idaho ... without also reaching other parts of North America. The spotted genetics are also present in several European breeds - and are known to have been in some of the Spanish horses that formed the pool from which the conquistadors brought their horses over to the Americas. And again ... there is more to the Appaloosa than their spots. They were also bred for hardiness and less hair - both of which things come from the Nez Perce's breeding. Compare the Appy with the Knabstrupper - the Knab's have a much fuller mane and tail and a very different body shape. Noriker's have a draft horse conformation - but the same spotting patterns. I'm betting those two breeds will also show a genetic link to Central Asia - but that doesn't mean the breeds developed there - in the case of the Knab's we had documentation on their beginnings - also for the Noriker. We just don't have that paper documentation as deep for the Appy (there's a gap between Lewis & Clark and further records) which leaves a vacuum that apparantly folks feel the burning desire to fill with fringe theories. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

That there are spotted horses in Central Asia was new (and, yes, interesting) to me, but I find that it is already covered and sourced in our Leopard complex article. But to suggest on that basis that a breed that developed in the eighteenth or nineteenth century and was formally established in the 1930s could somehow have crossed a land bridge which disappeared 17000 years ago, remained completely hidden for ten or twelve thousand years, and then suddenly popped up in Idaho is just ... well, silly. I very much doubt that EG Cothran says anything of the sort; he clearly states here that Equus species became extinct in the Americas about 10000 years ago. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I think perhaps you may be underestimating just how clever geneticist are becoming in tracing populations through known rates of mutation -- as was publicised widely with the recent with publication of of papers tracing the origins of aids (Aids: Origin of pandemic 'was 1920s Kinshasa' How Technology Traced HIV to Its Very Beginnings) developments such as this are allowing scientists to trace movement in populations (in everything from viruses to humans) from wherever the initial mutation takes place. The Leopard complex article hardly scratches the surface on how powerful these tools are becoming. -- PBS (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Gus Cothran is a member of the equine genome project and the Appaloosa project who has done work on the Lp gene. His interview is no doubt being taken out of context. this paper states that the leopard complex gene can be traced back about 17,000 years, so it predates domestication. They did studies on DNA they had from ancient horses found in Russia and Ukraine (which is roughly where the horse was first domesticated). But the modern Appaloosa breed did not come across the Bering Land Bridge (most evidence suggests that the prehistoric horse developed in North America and the migration patterns were into Asia, not the reverse). Nor did it come from Central Asia; the "provenance" of the American Appaloosa is clear - spotted horses from Europe, and then the Nez Perce first becoming talented horse breeders, and then deciding to selectively breed for color. No question that the TV show is oversimplifying for drama. Montanabw^(talk) 05:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the light shed on that. ("Origins" original poster.) I did wonder about the idea what they had crossed the Bering Strait eastwards when the theory as I understand it is that the horse originated in the "american" land mass and migrated westward, dying out at their point of origin. BTW I did at a date my post - it would have been pointless not to as I referred to "yesterday" in it. Best wishes. 26 Jan 2015 212.159.59.41 (talk)

Either someone did not actually see the BBC program or they are being less than reasonable in their representations. In the program much more than spotting was presented. Sparse tails, white sclera, mottled skin, conformity, gait peculiarities and hoof stripes were also noted. Much more than the offhand dismissal admits. Also the genetic comparison showed the relation of the Kyrgyz horses to Appaloosa in comparison to a selection of other horse breeds. While of course this was not an academic paper the mention of Central Asian heritage for many breeds as a dismissal does not really address what was presented. The Wiki article makes no mention of the program and that may be best until rigorous examination is available. However a note at the end of the program mentions an effort to start a Kyrgyz Appaloosa organization and that is noteworthy no matter how objectionable people may consider the speculation in the program to be.184.45.74.170 (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Please go read Leopard complex: the white sclera, mottled skin, and hoof stripes are all Lp traits. The scrub tail is linked to other ancestral stock and not a "wild horse" trait. Modern Appaloosas aren't supposed to have "gait pecularities" but some do have ambling ability, which is a trait linked to the Colonial Spanish Horse, which is one of the ancestors of many horse breeds developed in the United States. The "Appaloosa" is an American horse breed. A TV show, where wrong, is not worth noting. Lots of well-meaning journalism these days needs better fact-checking. (even The History Channel also isn't what it used to be either, sigh...) Montanabw^(talk) 03:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC) (actually wrote this in late January and forgot to sign then, Sorry)

Round two of same

This below comment was put in a 2011 FAC thread, but I think it belongs here. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 00:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Forasmuch as Appaloosas are prone to genetic disorders, the existence of possibly fresh stock which has been running wild around a high mountain valley in Kyrgyzstan since before Genghis Kahn. Where unacclimatated horses can't survive, ought to be welcome news for anybody who actually cares about the welfare of this breed. Yet the DNA evidence is dismissed out of hand as "nonsense" by people here who have never set foot in Krygyzstan much less ever seen one of these horses with their own eyes. Then why has the mere mention of this fact been deleted yesterday off hand from this article with no more evidence than biased, unsubstantiated, and hearsay opinion?

In the face of the DNA evidence showing the proximity of these bloodlines to actual American purebred stock it is difficult to see how this breed's future is being placed above possible financial concerns for American breeders' short term profits. These Kyrgyz mares are currently being bred to pure bred Appaloosa studs in New Zealand. Let us hope that this will strengthen the health of the breed elsewhere ... if not in America.MartinTheK (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

References

It's not dismissed - it just doesn't define a breed. One person's documentary that is written up by the BBC does not scientific evidence make. Especially when the one person's documentary also argues for the survival of horses in North and South America ... which is a fringe claim. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The bottom line is really quite simple: the leopard complex (Lp) gene that creates the coat color may be quite ancient, no one is arguing against that, and, frankly, is obvious because there were no representatives of equus ferus caballus (the modern horse) extant in the Americas from roughly 10,000 BCE until the Spanish brought horses there in the 1500s. And the tracing of the Lp gene in the Americas clearly goes to European imports. Prior to that, the gene obviously has ancient roots, but the "Appaloosa" horse breed is more than just a color - it's a breed that includes selective breeding for the color gene. "Breeds" are a modern construct, and the Appaloosa is a breed in the modern sense of horses with selective breeding by humans for specific traits. Genes, on the other hand, predate breeds. We must not confuse the two. The BBC is all about television entertainment and it is not a WP:RS that trumps scientific documentation. Further, this article and the Lp gene article both explain the roots of this coat color quite well, so one needs to carefully read what is here. If you think we don't make it clear enough, you are certainly welcome to discuss your concerns further, but the BBC's edited "spin" cannot trump actual scientific research. Montanabw^(talk) 03:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, one of the sources used by the BBC was this, and it, once again, clarifies that domestication of the horse itself occurrred in what today is Ukraine and Kazakhstan, so - obviously - ALL domesticated horses have roots - certainly on the Y-DNA side, at least - to that part of the world. Montanabw^(talk) 03:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Finally, per MartinTheK's rather spurious comments here (now deleted by others), let me be unequivocally clear: I have ZERO financial interest in the Appaloosa industry. I do not own an Appaloosa, and I have never owned one. (Full disclosure: I trained a few back in the 1980s when I was a professional horse trainer, and in that same time period I also did some horse show photography - with that old-fashioned stuff called "film" - at a few Appaloosa horse shows in Montana. Thus I have a familiarity with the breed, but that's all) Frankly, I'm not even particularly fond of them. They are just interesting animals with an even more interesting history. (MartinTheK appears not to have even read this entire article, based on the above linked comments) Further, the modern Appaloosa is in no way, shape or form in danger of inbreeding. The history extra link contains very inaccurate information. Most of all, It was other editors who removed MartinTheK's comments from my talk page as personal attacks and this editor's behavior has no correlation to my humorous wikistress thermometer (which has been at level 2 for about a month). This editor's misunderstanding of the difference between equine coat color genetics and a horse breed needs to be cleared up. No conspiracy theories here. Montanabw^(talk) 04:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Be advised that during my 69 years on this earth, I have never met an honest man who claimed he was abused when asked a simple question about his integrity. You claim to be an honest man who has been abused by my simple straightforward question. I take that for what it is. MartinTheK (talk) 08:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

1) The BBC is entirely funded by the British government from TV set licenses. You could have known that (If you had actually watched the program at all--as I did.) because the BBC (including this program) never has commercials. Therefore, your claim that the BBC presented a poorly researched offhand story to drum up viewers is both insulting and plain nonsense.

2) Since you have never actually seen one of these Kyrgyz horses, your claim that they don't conform to the Appaloosa breed standard has no actual factual basis until you DO see one. If you dispute that, kindly tell me exactly what points to which they don't so conform.

3) Weaker DNA evidence than the scientist on the BBC showed, has sent men to death row. Kindly tell me, therefore what actual scientific facts refute 65 years of genetic and biochemical research. Dr. Cothran said that these horses' DNA is extremely close to your purebred American Appaloosa stock. Give me a fact to refute that other than your story that Dr. Cothran has been misquoted by unscrupulous BBC mountebanks. Here is the verbatim quote by Dr. Gus Cothran of Texas A&M University during the show, "So we took the Kyrgyz data and put it into the analysis of the geographic races of spotted horses and comparing them to North American spotted horses. What we got was this tree diagram where individuals are clustered based upon how exactly similar they are to each other. The closer similar they are. And we get a very distinct cluster right here in the middle only composed of the North American horses and the Kyrgyzstan horses. It clearly supports the Asian Ancestry. This more likely suggests that Asia is the more likely source for these horses." Now kindly tell me why this information should be suppressed by you. Tell me why these FACTS cannot be shown on this page so that normal adults may judge their veracity and meaning for their own selves.

4) This 69 year old lady New Zealand Appaloosa breeder rode horseback over a 13,779 foot pass to find these horses. I don't see how any real gentleman would make up some obviously preposterous story that the evidence in this documentary was dreamed up to find viewers for the BBC. Without concrete FACTS to refute her, it is just plain churlish to refuse her (and the readers') the right to have this story added to the Wikipedia Appaloosa page.MartinTheK (talk) 08:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

As to your claim that true American Appaloosa breeding stock is plentiful with an adequate gene pool, this....

"During the Depression years, interest in the breed revived and the few surviving horses were used to create the foundation of the breed. The Appaloosa Horse club was created in 1938. Since then, the Appaloosa Horse has become the third largest breed registry in the world."

--Meet the Appaloosa,By Katherine Blocksdorf,Horses Expert

So now tell me how you went from a few surviving horses to the third largest breed registry without inbreeding. And then tell me why you are so adamantly opposed to adding genes from this newly found Krygyz stock instead of arabians and quarter horses. MartinTheK (talk) 09:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Neither I nor MTBW own Appaloosas. Frankly, I've always found Appys to be either wonderful or awful horses, with no in-between, so I don't own any - so my integrity is quite fine, thank you. Nor are either of us "gentlemen" - we happen to both be female. We are not "adamantly opposed to adding genes from this newly found Krygyz stock instead of arabians and quarter horses" - the Appaloosa Horse Club has not decided on that - but one of the hallmarks of a breed is a closed stud book. Which the Appaloosa is - they don't allow just any outcrosses. Your quote from Cothran does not say anything about Kyrgyz's horses being the same breed - it just shows that their ancestry may trace to Asia. Of course, most horses do. And if you look at the quote - it says they compared the Kyrgyz horses only to "geographic races of spotted horses and comparing them to North American spotted horses" ... so they didn't actually compare the Kyrgyz horses to any non-spotted horses? And again - the person that put out the documentary (which is what the BBC program is about, the documentary) claims that these DNA results means that horses must have come from Asia to North America and survived there until after the Spanish came. There is NO evidence of any horses surviving in North America before the Spanish arrived. Thus, the documentary appears to be propounding a fringe theory of NA horse survival - this makes the documentary (and thus the BBC program based on the documentary) suspect. ANd really - throwing around "censorship" and "right to have this story" doesn't help your cause - Wikipedia isn't a place to push this sort of wild theory that hasn't gained any backing among scientists (and no - Cothran's quote does not support what you think it does...) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, MartinTheK, you fail to understand the difference between the breed and the color pattern. The "Appaloosa" is a BREED. It happens to be a breed that has selected for the leopard complex COLOR - many breeds were mixed with horses descending from the Nez Perce herds to get the color, and the breed registry allowed certain body types and not others (they allowed certain light riding horses, they disallowed draft horses, for example). There are many other horse breeds with this color, including European breeds such as the Knabstrupper and the Noriker. I could cross an Appaloosa on a donkey and get a spotted ass. And some people have. There is no ancient "pure" spotted horse breed out there any more than there are "pure" bay horses or "pure" pinto horses, for that matter -- colors and breeds cross paths but are not the same thing. And indeed, Cothran knows this and what he has said elsewhere about "Appaloosa" horses is a common colloquial conflating of the color and the breed - it is that the COLOR PATTERN has ancient roots, which we all agree on and is not the issue here. Montanabw^(talk) 19:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The question at hand is whether these are true facts that are pertinent to this Wikipedia page and thus deserve to be judged by the people who read it. This is, after all, a page in the Wikipedia and not your personal property. Is that not so? These facts are as follows:

1) Substantial numbers of horses which show many characteristics of purebred Appaloosas have been found in 2014 living in a remote mountain valley of Kyrgyzstan near the Chinese border. These horses exhibit spots, white sclerae, and striped hooves.

2) a DNA analysis conducted by Dr. Gus Cothran at Texas A & M University shows that these Kyrgyzstan horses closely match purebred American Appaloosas in their genetics.

3) As of 2015, controversy exists as to whether these horses should be considered true Appaloosas. A BBC documentary shows the 69-year-old female New Zealand Appaloosa breeder who rode horseback over a 13,777 foot mountain pass to find these horses. This documentary clearly shows these horses in their native milieu and discusses the DNA evidence.

Now Mr. Montanabw Sir, are those facts not true? Are they not germane? People come to this Wikipedia Appaloosa page to learn current and pertinent facts about Appaloosas. In that context neither your opinion nor mine count for a plug nickel.

Therefore I will now repeat my question . Exactly why are you continuing to refuse the addition of these facts to this Wikipedia page? If you wish, I don't see why an additional section cannot be added entitled "Kyrgyzstan horse controversy" containing this information. Can you?

Because if we can't resolve this question here, that is the issue I am going to ask the next level to resolve. I will not ask them to decide about LP genes or whether the BBC has made up some fairy story about the Appaloosa or whether the moon is made of green cheese. I will ask them whether you are in your legitimate rights to deny the inclusion of this information to the Wikipedia readers. Am I speaking clearly enough, Mister? MartinTheK (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You continue to be mistaken on several points - 1. There is no "rights" on wikipedia - there is only if things conform to the policies that wikipedia runs by. None of the statements you make above has any bearing on whether or not the information should be included. The problem is that no, the Appaloosa Horse Club (which is the breed registry for the Appaloosa horse breed) does not consider DNA "closeness" in whether or not a horse is an Appaloosa. 2. Whether or not someone of whatever age rode across however great a distance does not make them a reliable source for information. 3. Cothran does not say "that these Kyrgyzstan horses closely match purebred American Appaloosas in their genetics" - at most he's saying that the Central Asian horses and the Appaloosas share a common ancestry. This does not make them members of the same breed. 4. AGAIN - Montanabw is a SHE. Not a MR. Montanabw Sir... but a she. It's very rude to not even bother reading what others are writing and trying to at least address them correctly - this is the second time this has been pointed out to you. 5. There is no controversy about these horses being considered Appaloosas - the Appaloosa Horse Club has the final say on this ... and so far they aren't talking. Their criteria for admission to the breed registry clearly excludes these horses right now. If the ApHC ever changes it's mind, then it'd be suitable to include this information. 6. Again - the source for all of your statements boils down to a documentary put out by someone. The BBC just is airing a program on the documentary ... they aren't endorsing this information. It's like if the BBC aired a program a UFO documentary - they don't necessarily endorse the contents of the documentary... they are running the program because the people in the documentary are interesting. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

As we are apparently at an impasse over this question, I will set aside tomorrow to ask for third party resolution. As to your theory of your "right" to suppress these facts, I don't give two cents for your words after that ignorant, preposterous, country bumpkin lie of yours about the BBC broadcasting lies in their story so they can drum up viewers like Fox news does. MartinTheK (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you continue to think I'm saying something I'm not. I've never said anything about BBC broadcasting lies. They are showing a program on a documentary. That does not mean they endorse the contents of the documentary... it just means they found teh story of the lady going to Central Asia interesting. But ... whatever, you continue to say you're not bothering to read what we're trying to explain to you. I'm sorry that you think we're censoring and whatever else you're thinking we're doing. But ... we're not out to get you or anyone else. We're just trying to explain why this information does not belong here ... according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I watched that show ( Secret Horse: The quest for the true Appaloosa) and the end credits clearly stated "Copyright BBC MMXV". You would have seen that too if you had actually seen it - as opposed to talking through your hat. The lies of you "honest men" are lame, preposterous, and tedious in the extreme.

British horse lovers are a substantial portion of BBC viewers and would never have stood for that manky nonsense you so blithely accuse them of. That is a reality well known to the BBC - even if it hasn't soaked into the Red state boondocks. Sorry indeed.MartinTheK (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You know... insulting the persons you're trying to convince of something is a tactic sure to convert them... right? (Hint - no, it's not.) And for the third time... neither Montanabw nor I are males. Please quit calling us males. The BBC program is about the making of the documentary related here. The BBC history extra page here states the the director of the documentary says "But Scott has often questioned this history because she thinks the numbers of spotted horses that were in the Pacific north-west part of America when [explorers] Lewis and Clark first made their way over the Rockies in the early 1800s didn’t quite tally with her experience of being a breeder. She said there were too many of them for that to be the case, so she’d always had this theory that maybe horses had come across the Pacific into America by a different route." ... THAT is a fringe theory. And then he goes on to state "That’s a really good question now. [Horse expert and Texas-based geneticist] Dr Cothran’s best guess was that it was probably people coming over from Asia hunting or looking for furs [who brought the horses] – and they could have been pre-Columbus, or they could have been around the same time as Columbus, or they could have been slightly after Columbus, we don’t really know. The other theory is they migrated themselves by land. As far as I know, there’s no archaeological evidence to support that theory, but then a lot of the archaeological record would still be buried under ice, so it would be tricky to find archaeological evidence up in the far north-west, Alaska, around there. I think there is another question to be answered, which is when? Now that we know the horses did come over, when did it happen? Are we talking about the 1600s, the 1400s, the 1200s? Or maybe we’re talking about even further before that..." He's indeed right that there is no archaelogical evidence - but he's wrong that it'd be buried under ice. If horses migrated as he's speculating ... they would NOT have gone to just a little section of Idaho. They'd have gone all over North and South America ... it's a fringe theory, not accepted by any scientists or historians. Cothran's statements don't have anything to do with this part of the documentary. Until the theory that horses did not become extinct in North America and that they were here prior to Columbus gains wider currency - it's fringe and does not belong here. See WP:FRINGE. Why it's fringe - see here, here, here, here, and here - as just a sample. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

In addition to Ealdgyth's excellent examples above, let me explain further:

1. this study explains that the leopard complex coat color spotting gene is very ancient. (here is a layman's version). The pattern was found in both Europe and Siberia, so finding spotted horses in Central Asia is not surprising. But these horses are not "Appaloosas."
2. The Daily Mail presents Engstrom's theory that "American-born Scott always believed they came from Asia across the Bering Strait between Alaska and Russia" As Ealdgyth points out with links to scientific literature, that assertion is simply patent nonsense and WP:FRINGE.
3. The ApHC explains that not all Nez Perce horses were spotted, only about 10% at the time of Lewis and Clark. Had you troubled to read this WP article, which is extensively researched - you would see the full history - the Nez Perce didn't originally specialize in breeding for that color, but sometime after Lewis and Clark, they did.
4. The Daily Mail (such an expert source) also presents Engstrom's theory that there are "fewer than 200 true Appaloosas left in the world". That is also patent nonsense: The Appaloosa museum explains that there were about 200 officially registered Appaloosas in 1947. By 1978 there were 300,000 (living and deceased of course). Today there are 635,000. This breed isn't even close to "rare."
5. The "foundation" horses in the ApHC's first 200 or so were already a mixture of breeds with spots, semi-feral cow horses and work horses scattered throughout the Pacific northwest - there is no "pure Appaloosa" or "true Appaloosa" going back centuries. There is a landrace American body type with spots named after the Palouse area of eastern Washington. Since 1938, these horses were gathered and recorded, with a careful amount of outside breeding allowed so long as the color traits were preserved. (So, yes, there was "crossbreeding" - but it was on horses that were already "crossbred"!

Hope this helps. Montanabw^(talk) 04:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)