Talk:Thoroughbred/Archive 2

What is the purpose of restricting some forms of horse racing to thoroughbreds?

As a practical matter are there any breeds of horse that might be faster than thoroughbreds in thoroughbred flat races? Is there any flat racing that doesn't have breed restrictions? What is the history of the restriction and when did it come to dominate flat, distance horse races?--Davefoc (talk) 01:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Apparent Error of Fact

This sentence, from the first section, is so odd that I suspect someone typed "small" when "large" was intended: "Thoroughbred racehorses perform with maximum exertion, which has resulted in high accident rates and health problems such as bleeding from the lungs, low fertility, abnormally small hearts ...". SMALL hearts? Someone comment please, or fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janice Vian (talk • contribs) 17:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

No, this is correct. See the Health issues section, which expands, "Thoroughbreds also have other health concerns, including a majority of animals who are prone to bleeding from the lungs (exercise induced pulmonary hemorrhage), 10% with low fertility, and 5% with abnormally small hearts.". Dana boomer (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Janice, you are probably thinking about how a large heart is a desired trait, and also the "x-factor" linked to abnormally large hearts found in horses like Secretariat and Phar Lap. But this sentence is discussing problems, not positive traits. Montanabw^(talk) 23:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't support all of these statements being included based on one short article published in 2005. Are there any other sources that can back these claims? I disagree in particular with the statement on "low fertility" rates. 6 July 2017

Order of colours

Hello Montanabw. I reordered the colours according to my perception of order of prevalence. Do we have any figures of the percentages of each colour in the Tb population. I would have thought that the order would be bay, chestnut, grey, brown, black and that 90% of Tbs would be in the first 3 categories. A lot of Tbs that have been described as "black" are nothing of the sort, and a lot of the "brown" horses are dark bays. Apologies for my awful habit of not leaving edit summaries. Tigerboy1966  21:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It's OK. I half-agree with you and where we are is a Catch-22 that the Jockey Club is behind the times when it comes to understanding the DNA of coat colors. Basically, before I started sticking my nose into WP Horse racing articles, I was one of the people who went through and upgraded most of the coat color ones. And, "Seal brown" aka "brown" IS a specifically identified and now-testable variant of Bay, genetically all but the same color, based on the agouti gene, bay being A and seal brown being A^t (the Jockey Club drives me nuts, also having "roan or gray" when true roan doesn't even exist in the Thoroughbred (or the Arab, for that matter) but then the Quarter Horse people drive me mad by trying to distinguish between chestnut and sorrel, which is also the same color genetically). I agree that bays and chestnuts are the most common colors, but given that "brown" IS just another word for dark bay (not all dark bays are genetically seal brown, there are also "sooty" genetics that can darken the coat), I think it best to keep them together. I agree that gray is next, followed by black. I'm not sure how we can verify this without a lot of SYNTH sorting of the databases, but we actually have no real disagreement here. Thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 04:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thoroughbred families

There are categories for 46 thoroughbred families under Category:Thoroughbred families, yet there is no article on thoroughbred family or thoroughbred families, and no field in {{Infobox thoroughbred racehorse}} to confirm that a particular horse is in the correct category. I suspect that the sections on Thoroughbred#Foundation mares and Thoroughbred#Foundation stallions may be related to this topic, but that's just a guess.

Since categories must be verifiable and can be disputed, I think this is a problem. 72.244.200.23 (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. As a starting point, someone familiar with the topic could follow the advice from WP:Categorization#Creating category pages, which says:

Sometimes, a common-sense guess based on the title of the category isn't enough to figure out whether a page should be listed in the category. So, rather than leave the text of a category page empty (containing only parent category declarations), it is helpful – to both readers and editors – to include a description of the category, indicating what pages it should contain, how they should be subcategorized, and so on.

What you're looking for is discussed at Thoroughbred breeding theories - which is linked here in the article. I'm utterly against putting the "family number" into infoboxes - most of the time this is utter trivia for a general purpose encyclopedia. If people really want to know family numbers - they will know where to go to find the information (you may take this as a vote to get rid of the category also). Ealdgyth - Talk 02:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. My interest in this topic is only as an editor who wants articles, including categories, to meet the WP:V policy. Perhaps it should be in {{Pedigree}}? If it's too trivial for that template too, then perhaps its too trivial for there to be categories on the subject. 72.244.200.23 (talk) 03:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I edited Category:Thoroughbred families, as a stopgap. 72.244.200.23 (talk) 04:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Usually it is added manually to the pedigree box within the article. That said, I am vehemently opposed to cluttering up the infobox with yet more detail, there is already a lot crammed into those. These horse biographies should all contain a pedigee chart, and the box for the dam line is the place to put the family number, which has been done in a number of articles. Montanabw^(talk) 04:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Too many references to Peter Willett

I know this article is considered one of the best on Wikipedia, but this page is overly reliant on referenced quotes from a book written 40 or so years ago. The world of horse racing has changed since then. For example, there is a reference in this article to the following (and based on a Peter Willett quote):

Other countries in Europe have Thoroughbred breeding programs, including Germany,[63] Russia, Poland, and Hungary.[64] However, none of these countries have made a large mark on the breeding of Thoroughbreds.[63][64]

This simply is not true. Urban Sea, the dam of Galileo and Sea The Stars, among others, is from a German thoroughbred family. The progenty of Galileo (a Derby winner) are among the most sought after by breeders around the world. Sea The Stars won the 2000 Guineas, Derby and Arc. Urban Sea Herself won the Arc. Urban's Sea's half-brother King's Best won the 2000 Guineas. All of them from a German bloodline on the dam side of the pedigree.

Such elements of the article need changing in order to improve it further. I say this not out of malice, but with almost 15 years experience as a racing analyst, handicapper and thoroughbred pedigree nut!

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.65.57.211 (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

You'll need to provide reliable sources for all of this. Also, see that Galileo is only German from one set of great-grandparents, plus he's got some top British/American lines, including Native Dancer x2. So, saying that people want his progeny because he's from German great-grandparents really needs a reliable source. Pedigreequery.com is not considered a reliable source, and those are especially important because this article is a featured article. We appreciate your interest in the subject, but we can't change things without reliable sources (i.e., a book or journal article that says Germany is now a powerhouse in the Thoroughbred breeding world). Dana boomer (talk) 23:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

And we'd also need sources for the claim that certain horses are "among the most sought after." And frankly, one horse with one line to one country does not that nation a "powerhouse" make. Montanabw^(talk) 17:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

You are both missing the point, unfortunately. The existing quote is: "Other countries in Europe have Thoroughbred breeding programs, including Germany,[63] Russia, Poland, and Hungary.[64] However, none of these countries have made a large mark on the breeding of Thoroughbreds." This simply is not true. No claims are being made about Galileo per se, but about his dam Urban Sea who is from a German family and just so happens to be the dam of the world's most sought after sire, as judged on sales figures of Galileo's progeny around the world. And at no point has a claim been made by myself to say Germany is a powerhouse - those are your words. The facts of the matter are the paragraph is based on an out of date quote from a book published 40 years or so ago. By not amending the line in the Wikipedia page you are willingly misleading the Wikipedia community. But what would I know? I only do this for a living :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.65.56.194 (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Simple: PROVE IT. See WP:V provide sources beyond your own knowledge (we all have to no matter how much we personally know, see No original research). If you are right, it won't be difficult. Montanabw^(talk) 02:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

"Thoroughbred 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." Erm yes, easier said than done... Let's keep out of date info on the page instead! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.120.247.64 (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Prove your material isn't just something you pulled out of thin air. We are open to proposals that pass wikipedia's criteria for reliable, verifiable sources. You haven';t provided any. So please, to be blunt, put up or shut up. Montanabw^(talk) 22:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. Unsourced, unverified material is subject to challenge and removal. The material has been challenged, and should without a doubt be removed. Wikipedia absolutely does not place the onus on the challenger to provide reliable, verifiable sources. Do not suggest for a minute that it does. 107.77.75.79 (talk) 07:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The Gist of the problem

I've just written an article about Samuel Gist. However, this can't be the person referred to in this article as the one who imported the first Thoroughbred into the American colonies. My Gist would have been around 7 or 13, depending on which birth year you accept, and not wealthy at this time. I find it hard to believe that there were two such prominent people associated with Hanover County roughly around the same time period, especially since I'd expect somebody to have taken note of the coincidence regarding their common name somewhere. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Possibly father and son? Maybe Ealdgyth knows the answer, I'll ping her. Montanabw^(talk) 15:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Fairfax Harrison in Early American Turf Stock: Volume Two Horses calls the stallion "Bully Rock" and disagrees with Sanders in the American Stud Book (which is the source here) in saying that the importer was probably James Patton (1692-1775) a ship master, and that Gist owned the stallion. He says of Gist "an English merchant who was resident in Virginia from 1720 until he reitred to England at the time of the American Revolution" (p. 19). On p. 20 Harrison gives the dates BR was at stud as 1731 and after. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the evidence for BR is all recorded much later - in "traditional pedigrees". His racing career in England is fairly well attested (he appears to have raced from 1713-1718 in Yorkshire mainly and is recorded racing by 1748...) The connection to Gist is probably questionable, but most sources accept it as a given. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

My Gist was an orphan, and almost certainly still living in Bristol, England, at that time, so the father-and-son scenario is out. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Based on what you've told me and what I know, I'm going to tag that claim as dubious. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I just removed the name and location. The fact of BR's importation in 1730 is pretty well established and accepted. The name of importer and where they lived isn't really anything but trivia in this large overview article so losing it isn't a problem at all. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)