Talk:Riding Halter

I am working on getting some more references together... patience please! AeronM (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do this, AeronM. You are in COI. This is your own name for your own product, in effect a brand name. This is not appropriate for Wikipedia and the article probably qualifies for speedy deletion. --Una Smith (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Una, the brand name for the particular riding halter I developed is called an Aeron Riding Halter. My brand name does not appear anywhere on the page. There are other riding halters out there as well. If you would like to write this page instead of me, please feel free to do so. AeronM (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS, This from Wiki: "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason..." If you find something in the page that is not factual or neutral, by all means, let me know. AeronM (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PSS Many other manufacturers of products have pages on wiki, for example: Bates, Devoucoux, McClellan, Neatsfoot, Wintec, etc. and that is only in one small category. Are you going to delete their pages as well? AeronM (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aeron, Una has nothing against you, I have nothing against you, we don't know you from a hole in the wall. We are just trying to get you to understand and follow the rules and getting very, very tired (and in my case, a bit snarky). Would you please just read the wikipedia guideline links we send you IN THEIR FULL CONTEXT? Please. Pretty please?? Or start with the "help" link to the left of every page and read about the Five Pillars of Wikipedia policy. If you'd read them, you'd "get it." When you have sold, oh, just guesstimating, say, a hundred thousand copies of your invention, and it is reviewed by mainstream magazines and carried in major tack catalogues (and not just eBay for $32.99), then it passes WP:NOTABILITY and can get a wikipedia article. Does that make sense? Montanabw^(talk) 06:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Your condescension comes through loud and clear. Have there been "say, a hundred thousand copies" of the Bitless Bridle sold? Written up in mainstream magazines? Carried in major tack catalogues? And yet, there is the page.AeronM (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AeronM, I wonder if you are even able to address the content of the comments that are directed at you, rather than criticizing the manner in which they are conveyed? Have you tried it?--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC) (This was a response to a comment which was refactored by its author, and it makes more sense in that context. Here is the original context.--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

2008-02-22 Automated pywikipediabot message

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)
Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.
Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

--CopyToWiktionaryBot (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT AeronM's personal product! Why can't you understand what she is saying?

I have made substantially similar products, based on a design much older than AeronM herself, for some time. I do not know the age of the basic design, but I expect it has been around hundreds if not thousands of years. There are many others making them as well, and countless online and print articles on how to build them. Among certain groups they are far preferred over various other types of head gear. I can not tell from her article any manner by which her product is better or substantially different from the designs in books I own that likely predate her grandparents. I'm sure she could have gone into that if the article was simply a commercial. As she states, she also does not own the name "riding halter." It is a type of halter differentiated from other types of halters, and such a name is necessary for that purpose. Again, the name predates AeronM's product and AeronM herself. The referenced search engine results clearly list her name as part of the product name. Even the first page of Google results (I list 100 results per page) makes frequent use of the term, although the non-relevant references do hold the majority.

If you can provide a proper name for other riding halters, please let me know, as I have a number of people with a combined several centuries of horse experience to correct. Otherwise, if you send someone out to ride with the wrong type of halter they are not as likely to be coming back.

This information clearly belongs in any reference of any length on the various types of equine head gear. I don't care if it is all on one page or separate, other than the fact that proper illustration would make the page rather large, but the information definitely belongs here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwstreb (talk • contribs) 22:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Well said. Here are just a few of the other riding halters on the market today. I am happy to include them in the page as well:

Half Bosal Riding Halter

Half Bosal Bitless Riding Halter

Bitless Riding halter

Rope Riding Halter

And some additional links about riding in a halter:

Riding in a Halter

Single Rein Riding, Riding In A Halter

Plenty more where those came from.... AeronM (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing the "riding halter" with the hackamore. They are not the same thing. The 'hakma' of the ancient Persians was a heavy noseband akin to the modern bosal, Another "hakma" was brought by the Arabs to Spain, where it became the jaquima. When the Americans got the concept from the Spanish via Old Mexico, it became "Hackamore." Hackmores are not halters. Hackamores are also not bridles. Hackamores are hackamores. And yes, hackamores are in fact thousands of years old. I wish people would read more of the books that explain this history, it's fascinating. Montanabw^(talk) 07:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a matter of my confusing the names; these are the names by which these items are called on their respective source pages. I am merely providing the sources. --AeronM (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not the point. Just like shanked bits with jointed mouthpieces, which are curb bits, get called "cowboy snaffle" and "tom thumb snaffle" and "Argentine snaffle" in catalogues all the time, but that doesn't mean they are correctly termed, as I think (hope?) that we all CAN agree that a jointed mouthpiece bit isn't what makes a snaffle a snaffle, and that a jointed mouthpiece bit with shanks is technically a curb -- no matter what the catalogues and inventors say... Just frustrating, that's all. I can also rant about how fetlocks are NOT "ankles, same problem. There is a line between proper formal use (like "doughnut"), informal, acceptable use that isn't quite correct, but is common ("donut"), and common misperception (bagels are neither doughnuts nor donuts, all they have in common is being a bread product with a doughnut-like hole in the middle.) Montanabw^(talk) 01:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

montanbw, please put comments on talk page and not in Edit summary so they can be addressed as necessary. Thanks. --AeronM (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]