Talk:South German Coldblood
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the South German Coldblood article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Oberlander edit
Per Bongianni, which is dated, I'm beginning to wonder of the Oberlander IS the South German Coldblood? Thoughts??? [1]
- ^ Bongianni, Maurizio (1992). Simon & Schuster's guide to horses & ponies of the world. New York: Simon and Schuster. p. 106. ISBN 9780671660680. Retrieved 30 October 2014.
- I've just added a bit of history to the page, including the use of the name "Oberländer" in Bavaria for lighter horses of this type between 1920 and 1939. So I think Bongianni (who I don't trust nearly as far as I can throw him) is not 100% wrong. Edwards said something similar in 1979 (damned breed encyclopaedias - I'm convinced that if you study them systematically you'll find that they are all copied, directly or indirectly, from Columella). The North American breeders of the Oberlander are certainly claiming the history of the SGC, but unless reliable sources can be found (and http://www.oberlander.org/ surely is not one) there is no way of knowing where they got their 5 horses from, or what breed, if any, they belonged to. My guess is that your guess is right. But guesses don't belong in the article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have some old books (Well, old as in the 1960s and 1970s) some of which have better analysis of breeds than now, but also far fewer breeds and a very limited scope (USA/Western Europe). I think one problem modern books have is relying on breed registries to provide information and then taking it uncritically. The problem with all USA sources is that, unlike Europe, there is no governmental licensing of breeds, breeding stock and so on. The USDA may have once done a little bit of this 100 years ago (see Homer_Davenport#Arabians_in_America but they don't now. Much of that sort of work is handed off to the Livestock Conservancy, where I did find this: http://www.livestockconservancy.org/index.php/heritage/internal/conservation-priority-list but it only lists a limited number, and no Oberlanders... Montanabw(talk) 08:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- That is indeed the problem. But the USDA does still take an interest: it reports these breeds and no others to DAD-IS. I've been wondering whether inclusion in that list (or recognition by some other national body such as the BLM or the ALBC) could not become the "bar" for having an individual article here for the US breeds, with other minor registries combined in a catch-all overview page (there's a proposal to do the same for the almost infinite number of industrial chicken "breeds"). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have some old books (Well, old as in the 1960s and 1970s) some of which have better analysis of breeds than now, but also far fewer breeds and a very limited scope (USA/Western Europe). I think one problem modern books have is relying on breed registries to provide information and then taking it uncritically. The problem with all USA sources is that, unlike Europe, there is no governmental licensing of breeds, breeding stock and so on. The USDA may have once done a little bit of this 100 years ago (see Homer_Davenport#Arabians_in_America but they don't now. Much of that sort of work is handed off to the Livestock Conservancy, where I did find this: http://www.livestockconservancy.org/index.php/heritage/internal/conservation-priority-list but it only lists a limited number, and no Oberlanders... Montanabw(talk) 08:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Wow. Just wow. I cannot begin to describe how much the USA DID-IS list positively sucks. I must say that is it useless both as an inclusionary AND an exclusionary list. They include the Akhal-Teke and Caspian (both Oriental breeds) but not the Arabian- and none of these being American-developed breeds anyway? WTF? They call a Standardbred an "American Trotter" - which no one does. They fail to list the Thoroughbred at all, yet they include the Welara and [{Exmoor pony]]- also UK-developed (but not the far more prevalent Shetland pony?). The "cow pony" isn't a breed at all, it's a type. They list both the Chincoteague pony and the "Assateague horse" even though it's the same animal! And they note a "broomtail," which is simply an insult for a Mustang? And they call the Mustang a "wild Mustang" [sic]. There isn't really a breed called an "Indian" ("indian pony" being a colloquialism for horses owned by Native Americans, which were mostly of Mustang origins, but often mixed-breed horses stolen from white settlers and the military as well...) Oh Sheesh! My head is exploding! They list a "buckskin" as a breed (sure, there's a "registry" but the cream gene is an incomplete dominant o impossible to be true breeding), they list an "Appaloosa pony" but fail to list the well-established Pony of the Americas - and then they go on to note the Kanata pony, (which I'd never heard of until today) which is Canadian, but became extinct in the 1980s (ironically, due to the prevalence of the POA) [1]. And WTF is a "Moroccan Spotted" - apparently this: [2] and possibly extinct )or not? YIKES! What bureaucratic ignoramous sent in that list? Oh dear! I've never seen such a disaster! My head just exploded. OK, I'm ranting, someone give me chocolate or something pronto... Montanabw(talk) 01:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)