Talk:Clydesdale horse

Picture of Australian Clydesdale

I have returned this picture to the article. The reasons:

1. There is room for it.
2. All the other pictures are dark and partly obscured by shadow.
3. There are all sorts of features not revealed in the other photos, such as characteristic head shape, large eyes, expression etc.
4. This photo reveals the most characteristic colouring. The other pictures don't.
5. There is an overwhelming emphasis on the modern American version of the breed, which are rather over-beefy, in the view of an Australian. We are accustomed to lean horses that can survive ten years of drought on tough feed.
6. As the "Horse that built Australia", the Australian version of the Clydesdale ought to be represented.

I have also returned this referenced sentence, because it perfectly summarises the quality that is characteristic of Clydesdales, and which no description that deals only with body-type, size, colour and conformation can convey:

The Clydesdale presents with an energetic quality described by the Clydesdale Horse Society as "gaiety of carriage and outlook."[4]

Amandajm (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

And I have removed the image. The location in which you placed it sandwiched text between it and another image - a no-no according to the MOS. This might be able to be rectified by moving some of the other images around. However: it is of a horse that is either poorly built or standing downhill, but I can't tell because of how far away the horse is. A horse with almost identical coloring (bay with high white and a belly spot) is shown in the lead image, and almost all of the other images (with the exception of the plow shot) show more of the face than the Australian image. I have no problem with an Australian horse being represented, but this is the wrong image to do that. Find an image of a properly stood-up, close to the camera, well-conformed Clydesdale and it can go in - it can even have the lead image spot, since that image is definitely not perfect either. While I sympathize that we need to represent various types, doing so by adding in a poor picture that shows differences that few readers will be able to spot is not the way to go about it. I have done some minor copyediting to your prose addition, and have also formatted the reference to match all of the others. Dana boomer (talk) 02:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Dana, why do you say so many things that are simply not accurate?

• There was room for the picture. The problem of sandwiching was one which you could have fixed easily, if you had wished to.
• Apart from the drawing of the mare, which is actually a lithographic print, (almost certainly drawn from a photograph), there is no good photo of a Clydesdale's head, showing his distinctive Roman profile, and large eye. The young horse fills that gap. Why do you say that the other photos show "more of the head" when they show neither the shape of the head clearly, or the horse's eye?
• His conformation is fine, for a young horse. He is, in fact, very typical of the historical Australian Clydesdale, whether you recognise that or not.
• And yes, the camera is a little nearer his rear end than his front. The angle of his stance, the fence and the shadows all make that perfectly obvious to any viewer who gives it more than a glance. What do you mean by "Can't tell because of how far away the horse is"? Of course you can tell. The horse is relatively close, not far away!

Check out this rangy, lean horse [1] and these [2], and here is a very similar, but somewhat older horse, in Scotland. [3]

• The horse in the lead pick is not a "typical bay" of the Clydesdale variety. Bay Clydesdales have always tended have chestnut coats, rather than dark brown. Why do you say that they are "almost identical colouring" when they are plainly quite different?
• As for the horse being "properly stood up", what are you on about, exactly? This happens to be the image that Wikipedia has, of a typical Australian Clydesdale, of the sort which "built the country". There ought to be an example. Your other other photos are all less than perfect, so why are you so insistent on finding fault with, and deleting this image?

I am loathe to trot out the cliched line "You are acting as if you own the article", but it seems I must. You are behaving as if you believe know everything about every breed of horse in the world. This is a highly unlikely situation, even in light of the fact that you undoubtedly do know a great deal about a great many.

Amandajm (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

First, the process is bold, revert, discuss. You were bold, I reverted, now we're supposed to discuss - you are currently edit warring by readding the image.

Just because the images which are currently in the article aren't the best doesn't mean we need to add another poor one in just because. However, looking through Commons, I have found:

• 
  A nice image of a pair of NZ Clydesdales, showing the head. This could either replace the current plowing image, or be in addition to it.

More shortly, I'm still looking through images. Dana boomer (talk) 11:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm really not seeing what is so illustrative of a horse that built a country by a poorly stood up young horse facing a fence. The color difference between your image and the current lead is minor (a lighter vs. darker bay) and they are both bay - the most common color for these horses. We don't need to use a poor image just because. There are other Australian/NZ horses on Commons (one example above, and there are others) - why not use one of those. You have admitted that the lithograph shows the Roman nose - so that we already have. The lead image shows the color - so that we already have. I have no problem replacing the current plow image with one of Australian horses, or adding in another Australian image - this one is just not the right one. All of the other images illustrate something specific - the way they looked 100 years ago, their use in agriculture, their use as the infamous Budweiser Clydesdales. Your image illustrates nothing - again, it is of a poorly set up young horse tied to a fence. I understand and agree with your wish to have horses illustrative of the Australian version of the breed in the article. However, again, this is not the right article to do it with. Dana boomer (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

My reason for reverting was plainly that what you had written was largely nonsense. I have no respect whatsoever for blatant mis-statements. So please don't accuse me of starting an edit war.

Yes, this is a good image. As you are perfectly aware, the current ploughing image is terrible. I can't imagine why you chose to delete a good image and leave a tiny, fuzzy, poor resolution image.

No, I don't think this image is an "as well". It is plainly an "instead of".

There are also considerably better images of those great bulky American, half-shires or whatever they are (certainly nothing like Scottish Clydesdale) so if we have to have an American horse in the first box, please pick a better image.

The Budweisser image, being a "portrait" format, needs reducing to "upright" so it doesn't take up more "area than the other images. Not unless there is enough room, and it is high detail, high quality and highly representative. This is basic layout. Or else it can be replaced. There is quite a nice paddocky picture of Budweisser horses.

I will come back, when you have had time to check through Commons thoroughly an lift the standard.

There needs to be at least one picture of an Australian Clydesdale. Don't imagine that they are the same horse, or that we are the same people as that country across the Tasman Sea, 1,500 miles away.

The front-on view of the three Clydies ploughing at Mullumbimbi Show (or wherever it is) is a good one.

Amandajm (talk) 12:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to be insulting, either to me or to American horses. What I wrote was not "nonsense", and so you were beginning to edit war. Based on your comments above, I have added in the NZ image and replaced the Australian image you had added with the one of the three horses pulling the spike harrow. The Budweiser image is high quality, and fits fine in the space that it is in, but I have changed it to upright. I hope this is acceptable to you. Dana boomer (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The pictures are much improved, thank you!

The Budweisser image is better at "upright" but only fits if you have an older-style squarish monitor. On wide computer screens it breaks the section. Never mind.

Regarding the lead image, (...having just shifted into my commercial artist/illustrator mode) I would much prefer the litho of the mare to be the lead image. It would look good in the box. It is a clear and "ideal" view. From the point of view of layout, photos and graphics don't sit very well side by side, unless the graphic is obviously technical in nature. I think you could try it and see.

I love the expression of the driver in the NZ pic. Amandajm (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Amandajm, there were too many images added, and I cut one, it was a poor example of the horses, anyway, their heads looked huge. The NZ image is the better of the two. Montanabw^(talk) 22:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Translation in french

Hello. I've translated this article into french and soon there will be a featured article review. There's some english sources online don't use here, I put them here, it can be useful ;)

• (en) Margaret Elsinor Derry, Horses in Society: A Story of Animal Breeding and Marketing, 1800-1920, University of Toronto Press,‎ 2006, 302 p. (ISBN 0802091121 et 9780802091123) (online read : http://books.google.fr/books?id=JuJbzVzon44C ). An "universitary" (don't know if it's the name ?) book.
• Emmanuelle Hubrecht (dir.), « Le clydesdale », in Les plus beaux chevaux du monde, Éditions Atlas, coll. « Atlas nature »,‎ 3 may 2005 (ISBN 9782723451406) - one of my books in french. Seems to be good quality.
• Laure Marandet, « Clydesdale, le gentil géant », Cheval magazine, no 460,‎ novembre 2010, p. 50-53 : a press article - in french again. Very interesting. It say that, around the world, the Clydesdale embodies the "American gigantism". Another interesting book : The Fox aired a clip after the attacks of Sept. 11, showing two Clydesdales in snow. It represents the biggest audience of the year 2001, 50 million people affected (source : (en) Steven M. Chermak, Frankie Y. Bailey, Michelle Brown, Media Representations of September 11, Greenwood Publishing Group,‎ 2003 (ISBN 0275980448 et 9780275980443, p. 47 )

I don't try to put these information in the main article, you have bizarre formating ;) Thanks to the contributors of this page... I learned a lot of things. --Tsaag Valren (talk) 08:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, a fun thing : the name Clydesdale is juste horrible to pronounce for a French (it's almost impossible for me). It would be very interesting if someone knows about phonetic alphabet to transcribe it like that. --Tsaag Valren (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello again! It's awesome that the article may become a featured article in French - our work together has had benefits for both language 'pedias! Thank you for listing the sources above - this is definitely one of the articles on my list to come back to and get up to featured status, one of these days. The above should definitely help. There is at least one book on the Clydesdale that I'm going to need to get through inter-library loan before I can make the article truly comprehensive though, which is what I've been putting off. As for the name, it's interesting to me that it would be a hard one to pronounce. I guess I have the same trouble with "Boulonnais", though :) Dana boomer (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to you - perhaps we could work together on a passage at featured article on the two 'pedias ? It could be a good way to verify interpretations of english books ! I try :) --Tsaag Valren (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Tsaag, does IPA phonetic stuff work for you? If so, try:" klaɪdz-deɪl " ("Klidez-dale"?) Montanabw^(talk) 21:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. The article linked below written "claïdz-dèle". Probably = klaɪdzdeɪl ! --Tsaag Valren (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Two syllables only, CLYDES-dale, emphasis on first syllable, ending with the "l" sound: the "y" pronounced like "eye" ( rhyming "Clyde" with slide, ride, tied, died, glide, etc...) the "a" is what we English speakers call a "long a" --- "dale" rhymes with pale, snail, tail, quail, mail.... etc. The "s" could be either pronounced "sss" or "zzz" depending on regional dialect. Montanabw^(talk) 09:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

This is all very cool stuff! I'm not going to have access to the library for the next couple of weeks, but I'll move this article to the top of my priority list, and try to get the main book I need from the library in early February. The stuff here I will try to add more quickly - we might be able to get the "horrible scientific things" (that made me laugh, since it's the same way I think of them!) through the Reference Desk here. I'll give it a shot in the morning. It's getting late here, so I'm going to go watch TV for a while and head to bed. Night ya'll. Dana boomer (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Cultural popularity of Clydesdales - translation from fr, need probably a good review, thanks

The popularity of this horse in the United States owes much to the internet culture, the television , and the Super Bowl. The commercials (don't know the english for "publicité" ?) of Budweiser regularly show Clydesdales in the scene. Jake the horse, which measures more than two meters for over a ton, made ​​representations noticed in the United States (ref = Marandet, Laure, « Clydesdale, le gentil géant » [Clydesdale, the gentle giant] in Cheval magazine, n°460,‎ november 2010, p. 50-53). This breed embodies the "American gigantism" (ref=Marandet, Laure (again)) . The Fox Broadcasting Company aired (?) a clip (?) following the September 11, showing (among other things) two Clydesdales in snow. It represents the biggest audience of the year 2001, 50 million households affected (Chermak, Steven M.; Bailey, Frankie Y. ; Brown, Michelle, Media Representations of September 11, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2003, 0275980448 , 9780275980443, p. 47, online read http://books.google.fr/books?id=Y2QtZUuyNLkC&pg=PA47.

Actually, I think that 9/11 one was a Budweiser tribute/commercial. See Budweiser Clydesdales and the external links to the actual ads. Montanabw^(talk) 21:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

In Scotland, an entire musical album was produced to honor the Clydesdale in songs : Gentle Giants - A Celebration Of The Clydesdale Horse In Song (Gentle Giants - A Celebration Of The Clydesdale Horse In Song, Greentrax, 2005, ISBN 5018081027125). However, outside their country of origin, Australia, New-Zealand and the United States, the Clydesdale remains relatively unknown. For example, in France, there exists a dozen of horses in 2010, for one to two annual births (ref=Marandet, Laure (again)). Brave, animated film by Mark Andrews for the studio Pixar, released in 2012, is inspired by Scotland. It also features a Clydesdale horse type, named Angus (link : http://www.aileencampbell.com/index.php/archive/788-brave-boost-to-tourism).

Things about the "feathers"

The white feathers of the Clydesdales, although aesthetic, are not always popular because they can be the seat of a recurrent eczema (Emmanuelle Hubrecht (dir.), « Le clydesdale », in Les plus beaux chevaux du monde, Éditions Atlas, coll. « Atlas nature »,‎ 3 mai 2005 (ISBN 9782723451406), p. 131). They are the result of a fad, British farmers have favorised this feature and the first Clydesdales imported into Canada had abundant feathers. In the United States, at the time import of race (until the 1930s), feathers are not appreciated because they are considered rude, dirty, likely to tear, attract dirt, and cause irritation or swelling of the members ( Margaret Elsinor Derry, Horses in Society: A Story of Animal Breeding and Marketing, 1800-1920, University of Toronto Press,‎ 2006, 302 p. (ISBN 0802091121 et 9780802091123) p. 68, online read : http://books.google.fr/books?id=JuJbzVzon44C). An Edinburgh veterinary and an author of the Gazette breeders abound in this sense, up to describe the presence of feathers a "curse" for the breed. In contrast, traditional breeders believe that abundant feathers are indicative of a good framing members and enhance the size and weight of their horses. This feature is now very popular for horse parades and shows (Margaret Elsinor Derry, p. 69)

Ha ha! Try the "horrible scientific things: this is Pastern dermatitis, also called "scratches" in English. (and hmmm, we have no article on this. ) Definitely a problem in wet areas, but also true for other breeds. Montanabw^(talk) 21:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've ever seen this word, "scratches", but I don't understood what it means. Better now. But always an horrible scientific thing ;) --Tsaag Valren (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Horrible scientific things

• http://europepmc.org/abstract/AGR/IND20594782/reload=0;jsessionid=lS176Nh3NfOssGnPBTuS.2 (If you find an online read. I don't find.)
• http://www.j-evs.com/article/S0737-0806(01)70153-0/abstract (perhaps some scientifics wikipedians can read this freely ?) --Tsaag Valren (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't read either one without paying money. But we have people here who can probably get us full text of both. Dana? Montanabw^(talk) 21:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments

"Mom.me" is not a RS for horse articles, nor are blogs. Montanabw^(talk) 00:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference format

i'm thinking of trying to do something about this page – adding a good number of solid references and copy-editing based on what they say. If I do so I'll change the current mishmash of references to one consistent list-defined system. Unless anyone has any objection, I'll probably do this in a day or two. If anyone does object I will of course leave the page alone. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Citations

@Justlettersandnumbers: I'm not sure why you reverted my updated citations formatted with Template:Cite book to change them back into an older version and older format, removing some information I had added including some page numbers, links to Open Library, author links, updated ISBNs, etc. A few weeks ago I had checked every last one of those references either through a copy available at Open Library, google books, or from an actual paper book I had in my possession from the library. Specifically, I had checked Dutson, Edwards, Edwards2, and Rousseau. The ISBNs matched the version of the book I was using to check for page numbers.

The change you made reverted my verified citations while re-introducing some of the older errors I had corrected (my edits: here, here, here, and here). The links to Open Library were valid on the day I made those edits. Some don't appear to be available today through OL, and I have no idea why not; I have seen that behavior with Open Library in the past... the "borrow" button disappearing.

I have changed them back. Please don't change citations from Template:Cite book format to a more basic citation format (WP:CITEFOOT), especially if you are removing page numbers or changing vital things like ISBN (which indicates the version the page numbers were taken from).   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)