Talk:Tiger horse

COI edits

I have undone some major COI edits. The edits were completely unsourced and may have been related to infighting between different breed registry groups. I'm not saying all of the edits have to go, but I'd like to see an explanation of what's going on and some sources fo rthe wholesale changes. Meters (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Good call. At least some of it was copied from somewhere else, so was also a potential copyvio. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it all will be stronger if what is put in there is cited per WP:CITE, WP:RS and {[WP:V]]. Beyond that, let's also remember WP:NPOV. Frankly, I don't even think this is a real "Breed" nor does it warrant a wikipedia article, but given that I lost that war on Moyle horse I officially DGAF. Montanabw^(talk) 01:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Folks, I do want to note that I did a major cleanup of this article back in about 2011 in a good faith attempt to deal with copy and paste issues - almost restored from the original more blatent copy and paste here. Running duplication detector gets me this result, which I hope answers the matter. I frankly do not care deeply about this article as I think this is a non-breed and silly, but I also have lost in previous attempts to get these articles deleted as failing WP:GNG, so I'm trying to at least improve them. All of this FWIW, I hope all is resolved soon. I see no reason to blank the whole article, particularly as I blanked about half of it and rewrote much of the rest. If the paraphrasing is still too close, we can address that, certainly. But let's see what we can salvage. Montanabw^(talk) 02:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree on looking at this again that much or all of the original copyvio/ close-paraphrasing has been removed, probably mostly by User:Montanabw. I may have over-reacted here when I looked at the initial versions of the page. However, there may be an upside to that: it might provide an opportunity to rewrite the page based on independent reliable sources, if any such can be found. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

No argument there per WP:GNG. That said, breed registries/associations are probably the best RS for things like the history of the breed (at least from formation of the registry forward, before that, only where verifiable and not fairy tales) and especially for the breed standard. Montanabw^(talk) 20:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the copyvio blanking. That was an over-reaction on my part. I'm sorry about that. I've looked for Google books sources about this "breed", with predictable results: I get hits in Lynhaug, Dutson and Hendricks, and nowhere else - except a lot of stuff about Feng Shui and the Chinese calendar. Lynhaug and Dutson seem quite content to reprint the poppycock given out by the breed association. I can't see page 473 of Hendricks, but it seems to be just a listing of registries; can anyone tell me if she actually writes anything about it? No relevant hits on Scholar that I can see, nor on JSTOR. It's not among the breeds reported to DAD-IS. If no better sources can be found I'm going to suggest redirecting it to Appaloosa, of which it appears to be a variant. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh! You missed the link to the garage band with that name! LOL! You've pretty much nailed it, those encyclopedias do borrow freely and uncritically from breed propaganda, though I guess we should thank them for not including the "Bay Horse Registry" (yes, there was one once, a true low even by USA standards) but I do oppose redirecting it to Appaloosa - which is an FA - as these are not really Appaloosas and more than they are Knabstruppers. What we have here is, IMHO a designer crossbred - gaited horses with spots, with some Appaloosa breeding, but also lines that the Appy registry doesn't accept. There is also the "Walkaloosa" which is a similar concept. (Appaloosa registry used to actively discourage the registration of gaited horses) Maybe leopard complex could absorb it, I don't know. I'm really in a quandary where to draw the line ever since I lost the AfD for Moyle horse, which was one guy's breeding program down in Utah. We have a bunch of these "crossbreed breed" articles - I don't know what to do about Georgian Grande Horse, Friesian Crossbred AND Friesian cross (those who care, care a lot), oh gosh and there are more. Warlander is my current not-favorite. Yet, Azteca seems to be kind of inching into "real breed' status, so wher to draw the line? Developed before 1990? I truly don't know the answer. And at the other end, the FAO is, frankly, sometimes guilty of the same thing, such as when they list the "Egyptian Arabian" as a separate breed from the "Arabian" which is nothing but a bunch of nonsense promulgated by the Pyramid Society and the Asil Society.  :-P Open to further discussion. Montanabw^(talk) 03:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Every working ref and link on this page is to the breeder's website. If there are no independent, reliable sources lets just put this up for deletion and let more people take a look at it.

Well, Lynghaug manages to go on for five pages about it, even if it is fairly uncritical copying from the breed association web site. So I think I'd have to mildly oppose an AfD based on the precedent of Moyle horse, which is, basically, if it pops up in a third party work published by a "real" publisher and not a self-pub, then it's met the minimum for GNG. What I do wonder, though, is if there is any argument for merging this article, Walkaloosa and my least favorite Spanish Jennet Horse into a single article titled something like Gaited horses with spots. (big sigh). Thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 23:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

If Lynghaug is just a copy from the breeder's page, how is that an independent, reliable source? Meters (talk) 01:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a major breed "encyclopedia" published by a reliable-third-party source: see here. It's an adequate source as far as it goes, but it tends to uncritically describe the breeds pretty much as each registry describes them, even when the "registry" is a small one that does romantic, poorly-researched "history" (more like legends) of a breed. We prefer to use stronger sources where possible, but for these small breeds they often don't exist. The reality is that this "Tiger horse" is now listed in two breed encyclopedias, so objectively an AfD would probably not be the way to handle this "designer crossbred called a breed" problem that is pretty common here in the states. Montanabw^(talk) 05:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for explaining. Meters (talk) 05:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Merging "Tiger Horse" into "Appaloosa"

The Tiger Horse Breed Registry appears to be defunct as of 2023, and any and all website and web pages linking to "tigrehorse.com" no longer work. I can only access them using the Wayback Machine. It appears that Victoria Varley, the website manager, no longer manages the website, and Annandale's Tiger Horse Farm - the main hub of the Tiger Horse Breed Registry since 1992 - has either been sold, or is now owned by someone else, as it has been renamed "Tiger Owl Ranch". Due to this, I propose merging the Tiger Horse page into Appaloosa, as the Tiger Horse used Appaloosa horses as its foundation stock. Ergo, the Tiger Horse is not really its own horse breed, but an Appaloosa cross. Obversa (talk) 02:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that will be popular – that's a page that's had a lot of work done on it, much of it by Ealdgyth. Probably better to just redirect it to List of North American horse breeds and write a short sentence about it there. It isn't, and really never was, particularly notable, but is mentioned in several solid sources including Porter 2016. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with merge to the list of breeds, but if this breed isn't notable enough for its own article, I'd argue that its not notable enough to merge to Appaloosa. We already say that some breeds were influenced by the Appaloosa, so adding a breed that doesn't merit an article to that list doesn't strike me as helping understand the Appaloosa at all. Frankly, I suspect we should consider an AfD here ... see what the wider community thinks if this article meets GNG. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose merge or redirect, support delete — Tiger horse is mentioned in just 6 articles:

• Template:Horse breeds of Canada and the United States (unsourced)
• List of horse breeds (unsourced)
• Appaloosa (OR, no source)
• Narragansett Pacer (I have no way to verify the single source mentioned)
• List of North American horse breeds (tertiary source, weak)
• Tiger horse (only cited with primary/self sources)

In other words, we don't have any reliably sourced content in Wikipedia. The Tiger was someone's private breeding experiment that never gained notability. The breeders asserted the breed dates back to "ancient China" which contradicts the other theory that all North American gaited horses stem from the extinct Narragansett Pacer—meanwhile they are trying to recreate their mythical extinct horse breed from current non-Tiger breed stock. My recommendation would be to AfD the article and remove it from the above 5 articles. It would only warrant a redirect if there was some place that was mentioning it, and since I can't find any reliable sources for Tiger then there's no place for it to land, or content to be merged somewhere.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)