Talk:Splashed white

Splashed White in gypsies

This article erroneously claims: "In the Gypsy horse, this pattern is called "blagdon:" "a solid colour with white splashed up from underneath."[2]"
[2] http://www.vanners.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Breed_Standard-021309.pdf

The reference makes no claim that blagdon is genetically Splashed White, and is merely describing the patterning. The description is general enough that on this evidence alone it's not possible to clarify exactly what blagdon refers to, and the usage of the phrase "splashed up" could be misleading. Note also that genetic traits such as Tobiano are consistently capitalised, while the phrase "splashed up" was not.

For your reference, a blagdon gypsy typically looks like this: http://www.gypsymvp.com/horses/sundance/sundance.html

Note the irregular edges of markings, and the belly spotting. Compare this to Splashed White, in which "the margins of the white markings are crisp, smooth, blocky, and well-defined" and which usually looks like the horse has "been dipped, feet-first, into white paint". This bears no resemblance to blagdon.

In other breeds, blagdon is called sabino, and is genetically Sabino 2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabino_horse#Sabino_in_draft_horses

I have been unable to find any evidence of a gypsy with clear Splashed White traits, or which has tested positive to SW1, SW2 or SW3.

If you want to claim gypsies have Splashed White, you cannot do it based on the quoted reference. In the absence of any supporting evidence, I recommend removing the above claim from this article.

118.210.247.68 (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

At this point, I dispute that this is an "error," but I think it's OK to move that bit from the lede and put it in the body text. (I think it was someone working on the Gypsy horsse article who put it there in the first place). Not all spotting genes have been defined. However to the best of my knowledge (provide a source if you disagree) there is yet to be a "sabino 2" gene identified - there are undoubtably multiple spotting genes yet to be identified, and a lot of what we used to call "Sabino" is now being identified as splash or even dominant white (for which there are now 20 alleles identified). Your example is what I'd personally call a sabino, akin to that color in the Clydesdale horse, but I must admit that it does fit some descriptions of SW-1 ("extremely large blaze, extended white markings in legs, variable white spotting in belly."). So, unless someone has done genetic testing to rule it in or out, these horses may very well be SW-1. According to UC Davis, the SW-1 may exist in more breeds than have been mapped to date. Some "sabino" coloring is called "splash" at times, particularly in Europe. I also must note that the SW-1 has extraordinary variability: see here. Montanabw^(talk) 02:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

While you are right that SW1 can potentially hide or be mistaken for other things, there is not yet any evidence to support the hypothesis that SW1 is present in the gypsy breed, or that it goes by the name of blagdon if it does occur, but this article states it as fact. It seems to me that this has just arisen from someone misunderstanding the source material, rather than from clear evidence such as genetic tests or studies.

This statement appears to constitute original research, as it "reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves."

Without any supporting evidence for this statement, it needs to be omitted until such evidence is found.

14.2.60.183 (talk) 10:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I tossed it from the lede because that's where the heartache seems to be the worst. But the color description in the source IS the description of splash, and the source doesn't use the word "blagdon" at all. Further, the pattern you call "blagdon" is called "Sabino" by a lot of people in the US, particularly for Clydesdales) but it IS called "splash" in parts of Europe. And "blagon" is just insider talk for the pattern. Similarly, the Fjord horse people have special names for the color varieties of their horses, which are, at the end of the day, all duns. So unless you have "proof" that "blagdon" is a genetically tested form of Sabino (which no one has), the issue goes both ways. I think it was a Gypsy horse expert who added the "splash" bit anyway. The OR I see is actually the PR of people wanting to give a well-known color pattern a fancy name different from other breeds. This is no different from the gaited horse people wanting to claim that their breed's ambling gait is totally not the same as another breed's ambling gait. Seriously. These horses are going to sell for big bcks no matter what you call their color. And not all splash genetics are connected to deafness. (Splash horses with white ears appear to be connected to deafness) Montanabw^(talk) 17:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. The question is, does this source (or any other source for that matter) state that "blagdon" is Splashed White? The source does not state that it is, all it says is "Blagdon* – Solid color with white splashed up from underneath" (not sure why you said the source doesn't mention blagdon). To extrapolate from this description and say that blagdon is the same as Splashed White constitutes original research on the grounds that it "reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." It is not enough to say that it might be true, especially since there are several different patterns that could match that description, including Sabino. Wikipedia deals only with that which can be shown to be correct. It is not the place for hypotheses. I reiterate that this claim needs to be removed from the article until evidence for it is found.

My other statements were merely trying to point out that the hypothesis was probably incorrect, but regardless, it is still a hypothesis and as such has no place here.

129.96.83.65 (talk) 03:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your assessment. "Blagdon" is nothing but a regional British word for "pinto", just like "calico" or whatever. The Gypsy horse crowd calming it for what is the same pattern called "Sabino" in Clydesdales and "splash" in other places is just breed propaganda. Montanabw^(talk) 23:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

You are still missing the point. Am I not articulating myself properly? The issue is that if the source does not say blagdon is Splashed White, then the article cannot say blagdon is Splashed White. There is no evidence provided here which suggests the Splashed White genes are present in the gypsy vanner. It needs to be clearly stated, not just extrapolated from a vague description. If you think they are present but can't provide an external source that explicitly states this, then this is called original research, and it therefore CANNOT be included until independent verification is provided. This is simply how wikipedia operates. If you would just familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's No Original Research policy I think you would recognise that this sort of statement constitutes original research, and you would understand why it needs to be removed. 121.45.16.201 (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

You are crystal clear. You want "blagdon" to be defined as "Sabino 2" even though no such thing exists. I've been editing here for over 8 years and have been involved in almost every horse color article on wikipedia. I removed the reference to "blagdon" from the lead and the definition at the gypsy horse page of the splashed white pattern is near-identical to that of splashed white. Further, the description of splash does not mandate that genetic testing is the only criterion, you can't prove a negative. Now assume a little good faith and lay off lecturing me and get an account instead of IP-hopping around and arguing. Montanabw^(talk) 05:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

That is not what I'm saying at all! I'm not asking for blagdon to be defined as anything. I am saying that if you want to say blagdon is Splashed White then you need to provide a source which says this. The source does not say this, therefore the statement needs to be removed. I am not saying it needs to be replaced with some other statement. 14.2.24.179 (talk) 08:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The Gypsy breed standard uses near-identical language to describe "blagdon" as does splash. Go look at the actual paragraph,you will see it is precisely worded: "In the Gypsy horse, the pattern called "blagdon" is described as "a solid colour with white "splashed" up from underneath."[12] There is other material in the section (cited to a major genetics researcher) stating that the splash pattern has been identified in Gypsies. That's what we have and I really wish you'd chill out here. Montanabw^(talk) 09:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

A week or so ago I commented on this over at the OR Notice Board. I will say hear, in brief, what I said there. You can not call 'Blagdon' 'Spotted White' unless some source says that all 'Blagdons' have the SW1 gene. 'Spotted White' makes an assertion about both genotype and phenotype. 'Blagdon' *only* describes a phenotype and in no source presented here nor any source I could find, does it claim that 'Blagdons' have SW1 (or SW2 or SW3) genotypes. Because of this I am going to remove the line that implies that 'Blagdon' == 'Spotted White'. If anyone can find a source that says otherwise then please add it. As it now stands there are several genotypes other than SW(1,2,3) that can give markings that can be described as "white splashed up from below". The description for 'Blagdon' was likely written before the SW genes were identified. Jbhunley (talk) 15:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I missed Montanabw's comment over on ORN before I made the changes. I responded to his comment there. If, after reading my response over there he wants to revert my edit until we get it figured out that is fine. JBH (talk) 17:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC) (JBH == jbhunley)

Here is a link to the Gypsy Cob Register's Basic Color Genetics page: http://www.gypsycobregister.com/basic-colour-genetics.html . They do show SW1 SW2 SW3 as being possible colors, however, they do *not* equate Blagdon with those genotypes. Some Blagdons have Sabino (SB1) while "There is another sabino gene that is common in Gypsy Cobs & Clydesdales but it has not yet been identified and is likely responsible for the flashier "Blagdons"". The SW1 gene's coat is described as "A dominant gene that makes the ragged and often spectacular white patterns in Gypsy Cobs. Often described as marked like a map.". That seems pretty definitive to me particularly since this is such a minor issue on the Spotted White page. My thought is that it is OK to say that Spotted White exists in the Gypsy Vanner but it is not synonymous with "Blagdon". What do you think? JBH (talk) 19:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted per BRD. By the way, it is "splashed" white, not "spotted" (all pinto horse and leopard complex color patterns can be considered "spotted"). If you will notice the article history, I edited the article a fair bit since the original concerns were raised here and at the OR board. The gypsycob site basically is copying from other sites, and no, they do not think SW-2 or -3 exist in Gypsies, and neither does SB-1 (read the chart more carefully). I also think you need to read the actual sources that are now cited in the article. I very very carefully phrased the blagdon bit to directly quote the definition from a breed standard that uses "splashed" as a descriptor of "blagdon." I do not say the two are identical, I only note, without analysis, the definition. The reality is that there appears to not yet be DNA testing verification of SW-1 in gypsies, only peer-reviewed studies saying that the phenotype exists. It is more than likely that the "blagdon" in Gypsies (which is nearly identical to a "sabino" gene in the Clydesdale horse, is probably SW-1, based on the way it looks on some tested horses to date. However, I was very careful not to engage in SYNTH and say so. Montanabw^(talk) 00:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I ended up writing a lot below so... Summary of below: Noting the definition of "Blagdon" without analysis adds nothing to this article. What do you think it adds?

Yes... For some reason I keep typing spotted... I don't know why... Anyway... I was surprised when that web page said that SW1 was found in Gypsys (" SW1 -A dominant gene that makes the ragged and often spectacular white patterns in Gypsy Cobs. Often described as marked like a map. Sw1 is not lethal when homozygous.) and that is the only reference I have seen so I have no real problem throwing it out. What I do not understand is why you think splashed (adjective) used in one description is the equivalent to Splashed used in a lable ("Splashed White") when there is absolutely no evidence that there is a common derivation. By the logic you are using I, as a typical non-specialist Wikipedia reader, can not see why you do not equate Blagdon with Sabino or Tobiano or Overo because they all have the work "White" in the definition. What I take away from the article as it is written is that SW1 is more likely the cause of the "Blagdon" coloration than SB1, TO, or O but what I see when I look to the sources is that SW1 is not even known in the Gypsy Vanner.

So the next question I, as a reader, come to is how can a "Splashed White" be a "Splashed White" with no SW gene. I then read about horse breeding for a bit and find that you can indeed name a coat pattern without knowing the gene by the coat meeting a specific set of criterion set by various breeders associations. However I read the descriptions and "Splashed White" is "dipped in white paint" mentions blue eyes, mentions white markings on head, mentions how the upper half of the horse is often solid and mentions that the markings are always well defined. While "Blagdon" says "a solid with white splashed up from below" but is silent on *all* of the other characteristics that seem to be used to tell "Splashed White" from all the other white coats. Finally, again as a reader, I wonder why the Gypsy Vanner and "Blagdon" are singled out for comment, are they an important and well known breed? Are their markings a particularly good example of "Splashed White" even though no SW1 gene has been found (other on that web page which you say is in error).? Or is it because some breed registry happened to use the word "splashed" in a description? Right now it seems to be this last. Now, what is your justification that these two uses of the word "splashed" are connected in a meaningful way since it does not refer to genetics and there is nothing to differentiate "Blagdon" from between "Spotted White", "Sabino", "Tobiano" and "Overo". There is nothing in the sources that answer these questions so...

Even without sources can you explain why the conflation of "Blagdon" with "Splashed White" with respect to the Gypsy Vanner is so important in an article on "Splashed White" not even on the Gypsy Vanner. And, why the issues I mentioned above are not relevant (I am happy for them not to be if there is a reason I do not know.). Basically, the definition of "Blagdon" without analysis adds nothing to this article except the potential for confusion. JBH (talk) 02:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

PS Do you know what happened to the IP editor (he is not me)? Were his issues answered somewhere else? JBH (talk) 02:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

You raise legitimate questions. Let me try to take a whack at them.

1. First off, they only mapped the horse genome in about 2007, and the genetics underlying a tremendous number of equine coat colors were not fully understood before then, only a few could be tested, and even today many are still yet to be fully mapped. So words for colors are sometimes hundreds of years old, long predating modern genetics. "Splash" is one of these concepts.
2. The source about some Gypsy horses having a splash phenotype ("patterns described as slashed white") is footnote #4, here, so that's a pretty strong RS. One of the co-authors, Dr. Samantha Brooks, happens to be one of the world's leading experts in equine coat color patterns, she has done extensive research on white spotting, particularly the stuff that goes on with the KIT gene. I feel that this needs to stay in the articles
3. The web site you found appears to be playing a little loose with the source, I have yet to see any articles stating that a gypsy horse has been DNA tested for and proven to carry SW-1. (Or SB-1, for that matter - Most Gypsy horses look tobiano)
4. Splash is not common in Gypsies. I suspect that the "laundry list" of horse breeds that have some individuals that look to carry splash is being put out there in hopes that owners will have their horses tested, which is both money for more research and adds to the data about the gene. (Most color tests are $40-$50 each). See the intro to chapter 10 in the book cited in fn 4)
5. The Gypsy horse is not a particularly common breed, but in the USA, it's sort of a "flavor of the month" at the moment (along with the Friesian horse) - sturdy, big-bodied horses with cool colors and fluffy legs are in style right now, I guess. ;-) Horse breeds have fads just like dog breeds... Gypsies are "in" and all that. (Every little girl can own one: [1] LOL!)
6. I don't recall who added the "Blagdon" bit to this article, but I think it occurred back when I was helping someone with the Gypsy horse article and they might have added it or asked me to. I suppose that it isn't a huge deal here, but I already removed the material on "blagdon" from the lede pretty early on when the anon IP raised this issue, and so IMHO having it quietly sitting in the article body seems to be doing no real harm, and in my view, demonstrates that at least some breed organizations support the outside third-party observation that the splash phenotype exists in Gypsies. But at the end of the day it isn't as important as the stuff supported by fn #4 is.
7. As the photo of the horse that HAS tested positive for the SW-1 gene indicates, not all horses that carry SW-1 have blue eyes - it all depends on how the white pigment is distributed throughout the body of the animal.
8. On top of that, different parts of the world use different words for the same horse coat colors (for example, the palomino is called "isabelline" in much of Europe) and the pinto-family colors are the absolute worst - overo, sabino, tobiano, calico, blagdon, tovero, splash, frame, OMG you name it... (To make it worse, overo and sabino have flipped meanings in the USA and Latin America. ) Plus even in the same country, you see regional differences in terms (e.g. chestnut and sorrel are the exact same color.) Horribly confusing at times. But over time, you come to know when two different words describe the same color or pattern.
9. Then, if that's not confusing enough, some horses carry genes for more than one spotting pattern (like this fellow: File:PaintHorse2.jpg, who clearly has sabino and frame, plus possibly some rabicano roaning)
10. The unspoken reason I suspect this drama occurred is because SW-1 may, in limited cases, be linked to congenital deafness (basically if the insides of the inner ears are white-pigmented, that messes up something with hearing). Horse breeders in general get totally insane about genetic diseases in "their" breed and the problem of denial is huge - and extremely emotional.
11. Another unspoken issue is that some- but not all- white colors and patterns in horses have health issues, so knowing who carries what has implications for breeding healthy horses (see, e.g. lethal white syndrome, which is also the "frame" or "Frame overo" gene)

That's a lot, but does that help? Montanabw^(talk) 04:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions. I did not see a Footnote 4 just paragraphs headed Gene Function, Breeds (with the info on the Gypsy), Health Concerns and References. Is that what you were linking to?

I have been using, besides the article refs available, some of the color information put out on the Paint Horse, whatever I could find on the web and an old genetics book I dug up [The Genetics of the Horse - Bowling and Ruvensky 1st ed. 2000]. So I guess my primary reference is out of date. If I understand what you are saying "splashed" is essentially a technical/jargon term when referring to horse coats. Is that correct? Also, as a read up on coat descriptions, I saw the same confusion of names/types of white markings you describe above. That was what led me to question the benefit/wisdom/propriety (whatever) of the "Blagdon" line as it stands. Personally I would stick to something based on the line "...all exhibit patterns described as splashed white" in Horse Genetics and just drop the word "Blagdon" and the drawing out of the Gypsy Vanner from the list. This is why:

1. I have seen no sources that mention "Blagdon" and "Splashed White" together in any relation to each other. That is the hump that still needs to be overcome before the two can be superimposed either directly or by implication.
2. The sentence, as it stands, draws special attention to Blagdon/Vanner over and above the other breeds mentioned which seems UNDUE when the sources are silent on the relationship. It appears more definitive than the sources merit. Even though it just cites the breeders description of Blagdon, the way it occurs implies that Blagdon and Splashed White are tightly related rather than loosely related which goes beyond the sources.
3. While "splashed" may be a jargon term and the linkage obvious to a person familiar with horse breeding, those are not the people who will be getting their information from Wikipedia. They will, on average, be at least as confused as me. This could be taken care of by stressing that a horse can be "Splashed White" without being SW1-3 positive; That Blagdon is a coat pattern based on a physical appearance and can be caused by several known or unknown genes; and, possibly, that SW1-3 have not been documented in Blagdon colored horses. This seems way UNDUE except for stating somewhere prominent that a horse can have "Splashed White" coat color even if the SW genes have not yet been documented in the breed. (Am I correct on this?).
4. There is no reason I see to give any more space to the Gypsy than to the Clydesdale, Shetland, Paint Horse, Quarter Horse or any of the others. Although, I would like to know more about the others but that is just because I'm interested from this discussion.

I guess the short of it is I have no objection to something that says that some Gypsy Vanners have been describes as Splashed White, that is supported. To go the step further and say that the designation "Blagdon" is *how* they have been described as "Splashed White", while it may indeed be correct, goes beyond the sources and is SYN (as I understand SYN IF A => B & B => C it is not permissible to, on our own, say A => C. In this case A="Splashed White" B="splashed" C="Blagdon"). I think that singling out the Gypsy from the pack is UNDUE, especially if they are "the flavor of the month" leads to more confusion than clarity especially since this article is on "Splashed White" not the Gypsy Vanner. Is there a particular reason for drawing attention to this breed/color? If so, would it be worthwhile to do a breakout paragraph? Although I think that without a good reason ie using it as an illustrative example (not sure of what though) or some other like purpose it would still be undue, even though less confusing. JBH (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Your UNDUE point is worth considering. I realized that the last paragraph of that section mentions various theories and speculative material, so I moved the "blagdon" bit there. ( diff ) does that fit better? Montanabw^(talk) 22:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

That takes care of my concerns and works well as an illustrative example. Thank you for your work here and for the chance to learn about something I otherwise likely would not have. JBH (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

This has been a most productive, congenial, and useful conversation; a good example of what wiki can be at its best. Montanabw^(talk) 09:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I am the IP user who commented above. I've only just found the rest of this debate. I just thought I'd mention that I am satisfied with how this has been resolved, and with how the article now reads. I believe the article no longer contains the original research I initially expressed a concern with. @Jbhunley: thank you for your assistance in this matter. 14.2.119.6 (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I am glad we were able to get the text into shape. The whole experience was fun and interesting. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)