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 articles
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Why does this article go to such lengths to avoid mentioning the name of David Boggs? It says "one prominent trainer" and "this person", but never gives his name. It's a matter of public record, both in the disciplinary hearings of IAHA, and in the various Court cases he filed (and lost). And it is given in other articles on Wikipedia, like the one on Michael Brown. T-bonham (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the high probability that this would start a major edit war. (smile) It's a fight I don't personally feel like starting. If someone else wants to, I also don't care either way, all I have to say is to write well, remember WP:UNDUE, WP:V and remember that the rules for citing information on living persons are tighter than for other aspects of wikipedia. I personally have an opinion of Boggs, (who in the industry doesn't?) but I don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia article. Just IMHO. Montanabw(talk)19:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I echo Montana. I won't edit war to keep it out, but I've got enough battles to fight so I'm not going to fight on this one. I have my opinion also, but, I could see that it's perfectly legit to put the name in, and certainly wouldn't object. I was out of Arabians at the time it happened, so I don't have any of the information to hand, which is one reason I've not bothered about it. Ealdgyth - Talk20:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without getting into the personalities involved, I felt that the core court decision (which AHA has now pulled off its web site, as far as I can tell) clearly established the legal principle that a breed association does have the legal authority to discipline its own members, which was a point worth making, but it nearly bankrupted IAHA in legal fees to do so, particularly after all the owners of the various horses got done suing and settling. As for naming names here on wiki, note that the whole section is properly footnoted, and anyone that goes to the references will get a big part of the whole tale, which is pretty colorful to tell. Montanabw(talk)03:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
