Talk:Mongolian horse

Equine Low‑importance

	Horses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.EquineWikipedia:WikiProject EquineTemplate:WikiProject Equineequine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Horse breeds task force.

Mongols Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mongols, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mongol culture, history, language, and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MongolsWikipedia:WikiProject MongolsTemplate:WikiProject MongolsMongols
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology: Oral tradition

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by Oral tradition taskforce.

Questionable sentence

Montanabw deleted a single sentence -- here -- and the edit summary presents an arguably good reason for removing the following sentence:

"Although, their height classify them as pony (less than 14.2 hands of height), but Mongols feel proud to call these animals as horse."

However, if there had been in-line citation support per WP:V, I have would argued that this sentence enhanced the article's quality, value and usefulness.

The horse in Mongolia -- whether considered in terms of an historical period or in a contemporary context -- holds a unique place in the culture of that nomadic people and their modern nation-state. In my view, the following sentences from the lead paragraph do not say quite the same thing:

"Nomads living in the traditional Mongol fashion still hold more than 3 million animals, which outnumber the country's human population. Despite their small size, they are horses, not ponies."

This mild disagreement is insufficient reason to revert Montanabw's edit, but maybe it is enough to pose a mild question ...?

I believe that if this sentence were to have been accompanied by an in-line citation, it would still have been repetitive, of course; but it might have illustrated the kind of helpful restatement which amplifies and suggests welcome nuance. --Tenmei (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tenmei, there were two problems. The first was just "unencyclopedic" language, ..."feel proud to..." as an example. There was also poor English grammar, though that was fixable. The second problem was basically that the rest was redundant, the very first paragraph already said they are horses, not ponies. The cultural bit could easily go back in with some sources and better phrasing, I had no real problem with that. It was the language on height I had a problem with, it was, if you will pardon the pun, beating a dead horse to say essentially the same thing within two paragraphs in a short article. That's all. Montanabw^(talk) 05:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Montanabw -- No reason for concern. We are on the same page. --Tenmei (talk) 09:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to go too deeply into this, IMHO. Here's a cite from Wikipedia's page on ponies: "Other horse breeds, such as Icelandic Horse and Fjord Horse, may sometimes be pony-sized or have some pony characteristics, such as a heavy coat, thick mane, and heavy bone, but are generally classified as "horses" by their respective registries."

It must be true, I read it at Wikipedia. Kortoso (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Art

This section was getting too commercial, but has interesting info and some cool images, so parking it here for now in the event that sometime it can be reworked without being advertising:

The Mongolian Horse was the subject of various works by the English painter Vincent Haddelsey, who undertook a trip to Inner Mongolia in 1980, to study and paint this animal. Also for young Mongolian painters, like Adiyabazar CHADRAABAL in Ulan Bator, are horses main motives of their paintings

Those images may be "cool", but in Wikipedia and on Commons they are all copyright violations and will be deleted. The uploader is not the copyright owner of those paintings and has no authorisation to release them into the public domain. --Latebird (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add them to wiki, I just removed them from the article and put them here. If they are deleted, then we can just toss the gallery here, too. No big deal to me, I was just trying to remove spam from the article without starting an edit war. Montanabw^(talk) 03:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was never implied that you were the uploader. The images are gone now, so it was doubly justified for you to remove them from the article. --Latebird (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I tossed the gallery link too, then. I guess if legal versions reappear, they can drop us a note here. Thanks for your help and, by the way, your continued monitoring of the various Mongolian/Pzrewalski's/etc articles. It has been noted by us at WPEQ and appreciated! Montanabw^(talk) 23:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

I've noticed a lot of recent changes here. My compliments to 216.67.121.149 for these additions. While I think the article is very good as it stands, I have a few questions and suggestions:

Mongolia reports five horse breeds to DAD-IS (apart from the Przewalski Horse). Are the other four (Darkhad, Galshar, Jargalant and Tes) really breeds as such, or regional variants, or what? Specifically, should there be either mention of them here, or a separate page for each? This page, for example, seems to suggest that the Tes horse is considered in Mongolia to be a separate breed; if so, it should probably have its own page here.
While the article has a lot of references, it needs more (or at least, more footnote citations) - there are long passages that are without a citation. Also, many of the references are bare urls, and many are duplicated. I'd be happy to work on that if anyone wanted, but would in that case probably suggest migrating the page to the list-defined system (which is the one I'm familiar with) to get the references out of the body text.
Some of the content here (well, quite a lot of it, actually) is as much about Mongolian culture as about the horse itself. Had you considered splitting that off into a separate page such as Mongolian riding or Horse culture in Mongolia? I'm not saying this is necessary at this point, just asking. An alternative would be to move this page to, say, Mongolian horses and make a separate page for Mongolian Aduu.

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re breeds-- Hm, good find on the different breeds/regional variations in Mongolia. It seemed a bit suspicious that there was just one kind of horse living there, though not a single one of the sources I mentioned listed any breed names other than "Mongol Horse." I agree it would be a good idea to call out the specific breeds(?) or regional variants. My only concern is that practically none of the information in this article is "breed" specific; researchers one and all speak only of a generic "Mongol horse." If I had to guess, I'd call them regional variants. I have seen mentions of regional variation, but I never saw anyone refer to separate breeds. This is just a guess, though.

References and footnotes-- When I do writing projects, I usually save the references for last. This is partly due to my laziness (sorry) or in this case, me not really understanding how Wikipedia's interface works. But I agree it would be a good idea to consolidate identical references. If you think we should fix that by switching to a LDR|list-defined thing--not sure exactly what that means--go for it. :)

I had been thinking it would be a good idea to split off some sections; the fact that the Mongols cook a special kind of bread shaped like a horse didn't really seem to sit well with info about breed height and weight. :p The categories you suggested, Mongolian Riding and Horse Culture in Mongolia, sound like a good start. Would you mind doing that? I don't think unregistered users are allowed to make new articles.

216.67.121.149, 8/27/14

Comment: To IP 216. 216, I ran reflinks and consolidated the existing references. JLAN is right that in the long run, the LDR format is nice for subsequent editors, but it is kind of a PITA while writing - that said, it is critical to source with page numbers while your write, (even if in a summary form) as if you are using hardcopy sources, the rest of us will be left helpless should you not keep editing for some reason. (It happens...) It would also be useful for you to get a user name. But may I propose we begin with ONE spinoff article, either titled Horse culture in Mongolia per above (only with Wp's capitalization standards as they exist this week) or perhaps Mongolian horse culture? Whatever everyone agrees on; an article just on riding implies equitation of a sort, while here, we are not really able to separate riding from training, from management, from spiritual aspects, and so on. Pick a title and I can at least put up a stub that can be expanded. IMontanabw ^(talk) 00:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

216 here, thanks for doing all those reflinks, Montanabw. I'll certainly make the effort to include page numbers for hard copy sources, but it's not like there have been that many. I only know of one English book that deals purely with Mongolian horses and horsemanship, and I'll probably end up having the library order it from out of state. How about Horse culture in Mongolia? I'd agree it's hard to separate the riding/training/spiritual aspects you mentioned, so it's probably a good idea to keep it as one thing. Re username: Alas, I have a sneaking suspicion that as soon as I get a user name, I will totally lose interest, because it implies that I would be making a(nother, sigh) online commitment to procrastinate. :P Anyway, it's not like I plan to make a lot of new articles, which is about all you need a username for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.67.22.179 (talk) 11:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Horse culture in Mongolia has been created as a stub. go for it. @16.67.121.149: @Justlettersandnumbers: Montanabw ^(talk) 20:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.67.22.179 (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source material

New study about diet and foraging behavior in competition with the Kulan and the Przewalski: http://www.thehorse.com/articles/38491/tail-hairs-reveal-gobi-desert-equids-dietary-choices Montanabw^(talk) 17:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mongolian horse. 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) 13:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]