Jump to content

Talk:Appaloosa

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleAppaloosa is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 5, 2012.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 12, 2008Good article nomineeListed
May 27, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
December 28, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
May 30, 2011Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Appaloosa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Appaloosa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Appaloosa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Appaloosa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Appaloosa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One...

[edit]

It's really bad form to call someone a "bad editor". This is a featured article - it should use high quality sources - not just "sufficiently reliable". Per this "about me" page from OED, it doesn't appear that the guy is a recognized expert in the etomological field - so he probably doesn't even meet the WP:RS requirement. The origins of the word are actually in the history section with much better sources already - so please gain consensus that the addition meets the high quality requirement for a featured article. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Ealdgyth, I have to say that it made me smile a little to see one of our absolutely best editors called "bad" for making a good edit. The derivation of the word is surely not as clear-cut or as simple as the edit-warring editor seems to believe, but perhaps not as straightforward as our article suggests either. Specifically, the OED (the dictionary of reference for the kind of English I speak) gives it as "... Opelousa, place-name in Louisiana, or ... Palouse River, Idaho, U.S.A.". I don't know what Webster dictionary is online here (it looks pretty infantile), but it gives "origin unknown"; my small Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary gives "... probably from Palouse". We should also probably mention that the word dates from no earlier than 1920. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that it's good editing to commit wholesale removal of valid, mainstream content simply because one doesn't like the entirely reasonable source citation, instead of adding some tag for improvement, then you're no judge of who is a good editor. This is a bad habit that originates with Wikilawyering to censor content that an editor doesn't like even though it's true. The actual standard for Wikipedia is not wholesale removal unless content is clearly false or irrelevant. As noted above, there's nothing in the etymology I added that's even new to the article, it's just a properly-headlined etymology section to make finding it easier. That relative newbies have normalized wikilawyering is one of the worst things ever to happen to Wikipedia. — Kaz (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kaz, this is not reliably “valid” and absolutely not “mainstream.” And putting an etymology section first is undue weight when we are talking about an animal. The word origins are properly placed in the history section, as the context matters. (And dude, You’ve only edited about 15 months longer than I havej. Montanabw(talk) 04:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The origins of the word “Appaloosa” being derived from the Palouse people and geographic area is undisputed, except apparently by whatever fool thinks Louisiana or any part of Choctaw country is anywhere close to the Idaho/Washington region. Occasionally, I have seen other theories put out there for other words with origins in the western United States. But this one is... pure nonsense. I would be quite curious where the OED sourced their information. I do wonder if it’s worth looking into the word “Palouse,” as it was not the people’s own name for themselves, like the Sioux/Lakota issue, the popular name was actually derived from some other source entirely. But that is a different rabbit hole. Montanabw(talk) 04:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow up, the most reliable source for the breed name is that of the breed registry that first used the name “Appaloosa”, formed in 1938. The ApHc unequivocally states, “English-speakers called these horses Palouse horses, or some derivation thereof, after the Palouse River that ran through what was once Nez Perce lands.” People can certainly discuss the etymology of “Palouse” in some article other than this one, but I hope this settles the matter. “A Palouse horse” or “a ‘palousey horse’ became...”Appaloosa.” Montanabw(talk) 04:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming all of that is correct, it only proves my central point, which is that removing the entire Etymology section was bad editing, the correct course of action would be to fix it. As usual, improving the article does not mean removing, wholesale, parts that need to be improved. That bad habit, as I said, originates with editors of bad motivation, who didn't want George Bush's drug charges in an article, or Clinton's sexual assault, or whatever. That relative newcomers have gotten the false impression this is the normal and proper way to edit the site is a degredation of editing standards. — Kaz (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kaz, you are criticizing an editor who is an admin with over a decade of experience here. Plus she was on the team that made this a featured article. Your etymology section might be useful for the Palouse article, as to the origins of that word, but not here. The origin of the name is explained in the article, and the Appaloosa Horse Club is the definitive source on the history of their decision to use the “Appaloosa” moniker as opposed to “Palousey” or “Palouse horse” or whatever other options were once under consideration. To the extent that the OED is cautious, that’s their job, but even they know better than to put a Choctaw origin to a Pacific Northwest name. Montanabw(talk) 20:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]

I nominate Nez Perce Horse to be merged with Appaloosa, for a several reasons: (1) Historically, the two are basically the same breed, with the modern-day Nez Perce Horse being the result of crossbreeding Akhal-Teke stallions with Appaloosa mares owned by the Nez Perce Tribe for a sport horse type; (2) the new "Nez Perce Horse" is not old enough to constitute its own breed, as opposed to an Appaloosa/Akhal-Teke cross, with The Chronicle of the Horse still documenting F1 Appaloosa/Akhal-Teke crosses being registered as "Nez Perce Horses" by the Nez Perce Tribe as late as the 2010s and 2020s; (3) the Appaloosa page already covers the history of the Nez Perce Horse far better and more in-depth than the summary I wrote for Nez Perce Horse; and (4) the crossbreeding of Appaloosa and Akhal-Teke horses does not make the Nez Perce Horse a distinct "breed" any more than crossing Appaloosas with other breeds, such as Thoroughbreds, Quarter Horses, etc. Obversa (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, there are at least a half-dozen other designer crossbred breeds out there that have spots and/or Appaloosa ancestry, and the US has no criteria for when something is or is not a "breed." Technically, the Appaloosa has a stud book open only to three other breeds, and the Akhal-Teke is not one of them. Spots alone don't make a horse an Appaloosa. Adding in all these other articles will just crud up this one (which is a featured article) and create free advertising for the others that they don't need. Removing tag. Montanabw(talk) 03:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's clearly a breed in its own right, however poor and ill-sourced our page may be (see, e.g., Valerie Porter, Lawrence Alderson, Stephen J.G. Hall, D. Phillip Sponenberg (2016). Mason's World Encyclopedia of Livestock Breeds and Breeding (sixth edition). Wallingford: CABI. ISBN 9781780647944, page 489). Were it to be demonstrably non-notable, it should be redirected to the List of North American horse breeds, not to this page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Appaloosa&oldid=1270908657"