Talk:California Chrome

Archives
Archive 1

OK talk page stalkers... =:-O

We have a RS for a rumored and now verified California Chrome idiosyncrasy: http://www.drf.com/news/hovdey-california-chrome-some-down-time (search for "let the tittering begin"). Open question: Does this go into the article or not? Montanabw^(talk) 22:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Four white feet passage

I know there was a big brouhaha over the four white hoof belief and I don't want to reopen the underlying drama, but the passage that has resulted from it reads as a stilted compromise. It's really the only part of the article that I view as a problem after my last pass.

"The horse's hooves have generally been healthy,^[71] belying a commonly held belief in the horse racing world that four white feet on a horse are undesirable"^[72]

It's hanging out in space. "Undesirability" is not a match with "healthfulness"; the specificity of the color invites telling the reader what the alternative is (what other kind of feet is this opposed to? any other color? black feet? red, blue, polka-dot?); and is the belief, as the sentence implies, really that the number of feet is the problem, rather than the type of feet, i.e., the sentence's structure implies that it's having four white feet, as opposed to three or two... that is believed to be unhealthy (undesirable).

In order for this to work, it would have to say something like "The horse's four white hooves have generally been healthy,^[71] belying a commonly held belief in the horse racing world that white feet on a horse, as opposed to the common _______ type of hoof, are more prone to medical problems".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

That's the problem, there is no scientific evidence either way that white hooves are a problem. The compromise was trying to skirt around having to say white hooves are inferior with nothing to back up that theory. In my opinion, if CC does not have a problem with his feet anyway, why mention this at all? Froggerlaura ^ribbit 17:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@Froggerlaura: We don't need evidence of efficacy, inefficacy, inferiority, etc. to describe a belief, we just have to be sure in the way we couch our description that we do not imply efficacy and at the same time make clear it is indeed a belief being described. Why it should or should not be included (in some form) resolves on weight and comprehensiveness. If it is sufficiently the subject of reliable sources in relation to the topic at hand then it is part of the story and thus should be included, just as someone's belief in, or constant treatment with, bullshit homeopathic "medicine" would be properly part of their biography if it sufficiently formed part of their story. Mind you I have done no survey of RS to find out if it meets those thresholds to beg mention.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

True, but this stuff comes up all the time about horses with white feet even if the horse has no foot problems whatsoever. In the collapsed section above on this talk page, there was a discussion that spanned several days about how to dance around this issue without giving undue weight to either side. Before, there were quotes from Art Sherman and another trainer with one saying the superstition is totally true (no RS back up this view, we've looked) and the other saying it is bumpkis (RS scientific studies are admittedly flawed), but this made it look like wiki was choosing sides, endorsing one view or engaging in SYNTH. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 22:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Your comment above appears 100% focused on what it said before. I am not suggesting a return of any prior content but my problem with the form of the current sentence, with a suggestion for modification, which I think adequately gives no endorsement of efficacy and makes it clear it is a belief.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Kay, but your suggestion is essentially what was there before another user had problems with it. I don't really care. It can be changed but don't be surprised if it is again challenged. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 18:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The context was that he wears unusual shoes and that they addressed a specific problem, that probably had little to do with his hoof color, but the press at the time jumped all over it with the old "four white feet are bad" thing. Froggerlaura accurately noted what has transpired since. Let me take a stab at rewording this and see if we can finally kill it for good. Montanabw^(talk) 01:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC) Follow up: I tossed the white feet part altogether and just kept the part about the shoes. The issue arose mostly due to this article which was picked up by others in the press with varying degrees of "white feet bad" hysteria. In retrospect, the only real issue was the cool high-tech shoes. Plus, tossing another couple sentences will undoubtably edlight Blofeld at the FAC! (grin). Montanabw^(talk) 02:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Pre PA Derby workout photos

Usable Flickr photos here if needed. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 05:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Like and **bows** to your amazing image-finding abilities! And congrats on passing your test stuff! Montanabw^(talk) 19:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! And congrats on MMM's recent showing on FA. Fine job all around. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 01:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Source parking

• http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/88191/sherman-sees-california-chrome-bouncing-back

Articles for updates

For week of Feb 1:

• http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/89920/california-chrome-picks-up-cal-bred-awards
• http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/89919/california-chrome-works-set-for-san-antonio