Talk:Bridle

Is a major rewrite needed?

Can I suggest that the entire subject of harnessing needs to be reviewed for the following reasons: 1. The usual History section is missing almost everywhere. 2. Geographic distinctions are missing: in this meme, the English and American bridles are the usual alternative forms, and no such distinction is evident. 3. There is massive terminological confusion in the real world use, so some clearer definitions are needed. 4. Details are insufficient, and often inaccurate. For example, citing the OED on the subject as an expert authority is rather hilarious. I doubt if those academics have ever driven a horse in anger (to quote my harp teacher who, as a clarinetist in the UK Household Cavalry band, was used to driving his horse using reins attached to his stirrups, both hand being needed to play his instrument! That is, admittedly, a rather unusual form of harnessing, however of potential interest to modelmakers. for instance: an encyclopaedia should be encyclopaedic, cover all matters in pertinent detail, at least where the subject is relatively static in development as is the horse harness)

Functionally, I rather feel that the history is one of constant technological development, starting from a physiological minimum, the simple noose, through the minimal halter comprising a browband and a headband behind the ears, running down to a chinstrap/noseband loop, then progressing to a two-part bridle, with the cheekstrap holding the bit split from the lower parts of the headband in the English style, and as a separate complete unit with its own headband running through and on top of the halter headband in the American, may be the way to go, with links describing every part in particular as separate memes: this can be of interest to leatherworkers, for example, as well as apprenctice horse-riders. I came here as a leatherworker wondering how blinkers are attached to the cheekstraps, for example: the details are missing. The effect of the myriad different bits is also absent. The use of distinct memes allows more detailed explanations of the functional design of each part, and the scope and use of optional alternatives and extras.

misc

I htink that this is great!! I am in PC and had to do a presentation on the bridle. I wanted to do somethiung a little different from the regular parts of the bridle. Truth is I really didn't know what parts of the bridle did what! I think that this is a very helpful page and I will recomend others!

Skull injuries?

I left in, but toned down, the part added by an anon relating to skull injuries from tying with a bridle: it seems unlikely, since a halter contacts the same areas, but possible, since the pain and constraint of the bit might induce a horse to react more strongly than to a halter. Does anyone have any evidence of skull injuries as a result of being tied with a bridle?--Curtis Clark 15:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Not skull injuries, the skull is pretty tough, but neck injuries and sometimes injuries to the occipital joint at the poll. I changed the article to be more specific as to the most probable types of harm. Usually a leather bridle breaks before serious damage is done to bone tissue, though tongue injuries are not uncommon. I have known of some bad tongue and jaw injuries from horses tied with nylon bridles, which do not break. Halters made of that nylon climbing rope that are so popular with the natural horsemanship crowd are more a hazard for doing permanent neck damage because if the horse is tied hard with a good rope, they will not break no matter how hard the horse struggles and twists. Breaking bridles and halters is not good, but broken necks are worse, IMHO. Montanabw 22:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What would you suggest instead for a rope halter? I've wondered about braided cotton.--Curtis Clark 03:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Headcollars (or halters) made of nylon are cheap and ubiquitous nowadays, and are quite suitable for leading a horse in routine activities, such as taking from stall to pasture. However, if the horse is to be tied up, such as in a trailer or if needed for clipping/shoeing/etc., then the restraint should be deliberately weak. One option is to use a leather or synthetic leather headcollar, since they are strong enough to hold a calm horse, but can be broken without injury by a horse in panic. However, if a stronger headcollar must be used, then it should be attached by light string to the holding point or linked by light string to an existing rope or chain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AliasMarlowe (talk • contribs) 10:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Gag

The gag bridle could also be mentioned here, too? Cgoodwin 21:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

See gag bit. Montanabw^(talk) 05:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Could we please have link to the gag bit as many of these bits require a special bridle for their use? TIA Cgoodwin 06:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I did, click on the words in blue, I wikilinked them here! Gag bit Indeed, they do need different headstall, maybe look at the interrelationship between double bridle and the main bridle article for a model of a summary and a spin-off. Another editor named User:Eventer did a bunch of these articles, she probably created at least half the tack articles here...she also has bit ring, bit mouthpiece, and I think she started bit (horse) (not to be outdone, I expanded bit shank!) Anyway, take a look around in those articles and see what you want to fix. Oh, and FYI, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing and you may find some fellow travelers! Montanabw^(talk) 06:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Other bridles

Grackle bridle (also known as "Mexican" bridle in some places). It comprises a leather strap in a figure 8 from headstall over nose and under the horses mouth, fastening with a buckle just above the mouth on the near side. It's popular with showjumpers & event riders.

I believe you are describing a type of caveson noseband? Maybe check that article?? Montanabw^(talk) 06:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I added a photo to the article (my horse, wearing a Grackle). The Grackle is significantly different to the Cavesson, and always has two adjustment points. Moreover, the two adjustment points are not independent, since they tighten the same loop of leather - this allows the positions of the straps on the horse's muzzle and their crossover to be changed (useful if the horse has a sensitive spot or gets a cut, etc.). The Cavesson has only one adjustment point, unless it is fitted with an optional drop-noseband, in which case the two adjustments are independent - each tightens a single loop of leather, whose positions are less changeable than on the Grackle.

I believe in the US it is known as a Figure 8 Noseband, and in the UK as a Grackle. Same apparatus. --AeronM (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Australian bridle, which has a single leather strap passing from the brow to the noseband along the top of the horse's muzzle. It's popular on racehorces (in Australia, obviously).

Similar concept is used on some old-style western bridles in the USA, find a photo and add info? Montanabw^(talk) 06:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The only picture I have of this type of bridle is in the book by Susan McBane. However, there is another kind of bridle which is also known as an "Australian bridle". It is a combination bridle/headcollar, with a strap from throatlatch to a ring under the Cavesson. Here's an example [1]. The throatlatch is stronger than usual, and the cheekpieces and bit appear to be detachable.

In the US that is often known as a "trail bridle"; in UK it is often known as a "combo halter bridle" or "combo bridle". Re the strap from throatlatch to noseband, see fiador on Bridle. --Una Smith (talk) 06:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The strap running down the forehead is common in Argentina, where it is called a "frentera". --Una Smith (talk) 06:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Kinneton bridle, which has a band passing only over the upper surface of the muzzle. The band is joined to the cheekpieces by open metal loops, which also anchor the bit (which must be slightly oversized as a result). —Preceding unsigned comment added by AliasMarlowe (talk • contribs) 17:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of these are technically either bitless bridles or mechanical hackamores. If you have photos to add, they can be compared here and maybe incorporated into the article. Montanabw^(talk) 01:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, none of them are Hackamores, and certainly not bitless! The Grackle, Kinneton, and Australian bridles all require the usual cheekpieces holding a bit. They have different kinds of noseband, which are wrapped around the horse's muzzle in specific ways. I have lots of photos of horses jumping with Grackle bridles, and will post one. In the meantime, I added reference books by McBane and by Edwards (both highly recommended, by the way) which illustrate these and many other types of bridle, and the various ways bridles and bits go together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AliasMarlowe (talk • contribs) 10:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What we can do on the talk page, but not in the article, is use inline links to places like tack shop catelogues to illustrate what we are all talking about to one another. Sometimes just the UK English versus USA English thing is a roadblock. Once we are all on the same page, doing things like image searches can go faster (often searching for a gadget under different names will get results) Montanabw^(talk) 02:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, here's a catalogue picture of a Kinneton [2]. Note the open loops through which the (necessarily oversized) bit must pass.

Should driving bridles be mentioned here?? Cgoodwin (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably yes, I don't have enough background with driving to do justice to the material, so other than adding the part about blinkers and overchecks (which I know a little about, basically I can pinch-hit in a pleasure driving class, but if it gets more complicated than that, I'm lost) but if you can, go for it and I will clean up, wordsmith, all that other stuff that I like to do just to be either the goddess of quality control or maybe just annoying and anal-retentive! (LOL!) That said, we may need to do some serious reorganizing of the article if it gets too "listy." I'm not super happy with the layout and flow as it is, but I guess my thinking is add the material anyway, we can always clean it up later. Montanabw^(talk) 06:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know any more about these bridles than that wich you mentioned, but it would make a starting point. Cgoodwin (talk) 10:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC) Re the bradoon slip head - it should buckle on the off side so as to balance the buckles on each side. I can dig out my Weymouth bridle and supply, hopefully, a better photo if required. Cgoodwin (talk) 10:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. In Saddle seat riding over here, and the double bridles for dressage that are sold in the USA that have a one-sided bradoon hanger, they buckle left (near) side. Or at least, "everyone does it that way." The offside thing makes a bit of sense, if you count the throatlatch buckle. Maybe we can just say "buckles on only one side" and leave it at that? We could use more good photos of bits and bridles, have you looked at double bridle and the others? Montanabw^(talk) 06:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Gag bridle or bits

Are not approved for horse racing in OZ, uncertain as to other countries, but I have not seen them used in racing. Cgoodwin (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Photo Caption

I have added a fact tag to the caption under this image Image:SplitEarShow.jpg due to insufficient evidence that the "one ear" name is incorrect. See [http ://dblrsupply.pinnaclecart.com/products/One_Ear_Rawhide_Bridle-2215-351.html here] for examples where it is referred to by this name. I have always seen this referred to as a "split ear", and this referred to as a "one ear." More examples are here here, and here. There are also "two ear" bridles, as seen here and here. --AeronM (talk) 03:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This is edit warring. "Split ear" and "one ear" are terms used interchangeably. "Split ear" is an older term, "one ear" is more recent. Probably no source to that anywhere, including the OED, but if you actually care (rather than simply attacking me), it really is no skin off my nose. Montanabw^(talk) 05:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not edit warring, montanabw. The two terms are not used interchangeably, as shown in my refs. I am not attacking you. This was a good faith edit. --AeronM (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

On one hand, catalogues selling products with names that are sometimes patented are not much of a source, (recall my comment elsewhere about the "cowboy snaffle") but that said, research has led me to change my mind and I WILL accept your suggestion on this one. (See, when you ARE right, I can admit it!) I did some digging elsewhere and here we do have a legitimate terminology shift: "split ear" does now refer to bridles where the gap cannot be adjusted (which was once all that was sold), while "one ear" suggests a movable ear loop, I also noticed some catalogues saying "slip ear." What was called a "split ear" in the 60's and 70's is now called a "shape ear," and what is now called a "split ear" is a design you used to not really see much at al. Again this is a change that happened somewhere in the 80's or 90's, but given the differences in the style, in that there are now 3 or four designs where there used to be one, this IS one situation where I am OK with the name change, I looked up the actual product and it is described as "one ear" in its own promotional literature and fits the movable ear loop criteria, so I can live with the change. this is the catalogue entry for the particular bridle featured The source that helped convinced me on this one is here, and educational sites like this are usually better sources than catalogues (though catalogues can help you find terms for google searches). Montanabw^(talk) 02:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, not to confuse you further, but the split ear and shape ear are slightly different, and both still in use today, although not as fashionable in the show ring. The split ear is when you have a single slice through a flat piece of leather, while the shape ear is more shaped (comes out away from the main piece of leather a bit more), and was used more as the split ear tends to rub the ear which can be bothersome to the horse. --AeronM (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Um yes, and I happen to have all three kinds in my tack room, including some "shaped" ear bridles that date to the early 60's. These designs used to all just be called "split ear." I'm not sure when they started breaking out the terminology, but it must have been as more and more styles started coming out and the design becoming more popular than browband-based western bridles in the show ring. On this one, old habits just die hard. Montanabw^(talk) 09:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Have you considered photographing these and putting them on Commons?--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Some interesting pictures here of some early artistic renditions of bridles....(scroll down on page).... --AeronM (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting page; thanks!--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should definitely put this on the hackamore page!!! ha ha --AeronM (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, I just MIGHT put that into mechanical hackamore, it may be the best image of one that we have found yet! Montanabw^(talk) 23:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Bridle has reins, halter does not

I think the emphasis on a bridle having a bit is misplaced. For me, the fundamental difference between a bridle and a halter is that a bridle is designed and used to steer the horse from behind, whereas a halter is designed and used to tie or lead the horse. I have a book that mentions in certain mountains of Spain ranchers on horseback hold a crook in one hand and a rein in the other. Meaning, the bridle has a rein on one side only. The rider neck reins left and direct reins right, or vice versa. (The book does not mention if the bridle has a bit.) Every style of bridle that I know of attaches the reins more or less at the corners of the mouth (or to shanks that attach at the corners of the mouth). Hence, every style of bridle without a bit (including hackamores) has a noseband. So I suggest in this article, for purposes of this article, define bridle as a headstall having a bit and/or a noseband, and one or more reins. --Una Smith (talk) 04:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

We had this fight at the bitless bridle article, it died of exhaustion. Bridles have bits, there is the OED definition around here somewhere. Headgear without a bit is sometimes called a hackamore and sometimes a bitless bridle, but the need for the modifier "bitless" itself implies that the usual state is to have a bit. Let's not start another fight about this on yet another article page. Please. Montanabw^(talk) 21:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Una was talking more about the rein and not about the bit. But I could be mistaken. --AeronM (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Four horses shown in hand, in a line, wearing halters with bits

Think about it. A bridle has at least one rein (and up to four, two pairs). A bridle might or might not have a bit. The rein function does not require a bit. The function of the bit does require at least one rein or, lacking any rein, a lead. In this photo, the horses are wearing bits. But are they wearing bridles? I say no, those are halters. What do you say? Do you see the problem? What is the essence of a bridle? What is the essence of a halter? Is it presence or absence of a bit? Or is it the presence or absence of reins? --Una Smith (talk) 04:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Stallion wearing show halter with bit

This Arabian stallion has a bit in his mouth, but is he wearing a halter or a bridle? I would call it a halter. --Una Smith (talk) 04:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

File:Marko 244.jpg

Haflinger

How about this Haflinger in a bridle with bit but no reins? Is this tack being being used as a bridle? Or as a halter? What is more defining, the style or the function? --Una Smith (talk) 04:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• OK. Heres' the deal: The OED definition is the beginning and states that a bridle is a headstall and reins attached to a bit. Bridle=bit+headstall+reins. Total package. In most of your examples, which are of in-hand equipment used in conformation classes, we could say these are bridles with a single lead rein. (The halter/bridle thingamajig on the four horses is yet another story, I'll not fret about it) In sport horse in-hand class rules, the Haflinger's outfit is called a "Bridle" in the rulebook, and is specifically differentiated from a "halter" which doesn't have a bit, and is used only on young horses in these types of competition. Some people show the animal with the two regular reins attached, others do as in the photo and replace the two reins with a single lead rein. In the Arabian (and Morgan and Saddlebred and Walking Horse...) world, where some horses may be shown in-hand with bits, people are sloppy in their use, some will call a bitted bridle a "show halter," others will call it a "show bridle," I've even heard the totally illogical term "halter bridle" used. But the object is a bridle. Montanabw^(talk) 05:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Noseband

In some usages, "noseband" is the part above the bit and/or cheekpieces; the part below is the "chin strap". This is seen in Image:Polo noseband bridle.jpg and described in the 1893 English translation by Morgan of Xenophon. --Una Smith (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

While on one hand, this also is true of the mechanical hackamore, I hesitate to go into this in the article, partly because the strap that runs under the chin groove, attached to the bit, usually a curb bit, is also sometimes called a "chin strap," though curb strap is considered more correct by some in the English riding community. Because an English bridle with a curb bit will have both a cavesson and a curb chain, to describe a noseband in two parts may cause unnecessary confusion. I think that we need to be extremely careful about going too far afield from standard usage unless described in historical context. Montanabw^(talk) 18:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Injuries due to tying.

The truth is, no matter what you use to tie a horse, injury is possible. The only skull injuries I have ever seen was due to the horse pulling back, and the halter breaking suddenly, causing the horse to go over backward. I have also seen wither damage from this. If the equipment doesn't break and the horse is panicking, he can beat himself all to pieces. If on the other hand, the equipment breaks easily, he can run off and injure himself that way. I would say the only hard and fast rule is never tie a horse in a way that you can't untie quickly and easily if need be. The only other way to make sure your horse is safe is to TEACH him about being tied. There are several different methods to do this, but which one works best depends on the type of horse and the trainer's preference. Equusma (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You've never seen horses with their tongues half-severed from setting back on the reins of a nylon bridle tied to a post at a rodeo, then, have you? It's safety 101 to NEVER tie a horse in a bridle, ever, never, period. Yes, injuries from setting back on a rope are possible with a halter, but triple the risk for a bridle. Montanabw^(talk) 21:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm new to this forum, so I may not be doing things properly. Let me try again. No, I have never seen a horse cut his tongue that badly from pulling back, but I know it happens. I have personally witnessed a horse pull back with the halter, which broke suddenly, causing him to flip over. His resulting head injury was severe enough he had to be put down. Tying any horse in any manner has its dangers. And in general, I agree with you, if a horse is young or has not been trained to stand tied properly, then the halter is the way to go. However, the sweeping statement that a horse "should NEVER be tied with a bridle, ever, never, period" is not a fact. It is an opinion. It is my understanding that Wikipedia is not a forum for opinion. Many types of working stock horses are routinely tied with the bridle, with little or no incidence of trouble. They have been trained to tie, so they don't panic and fight the bridle, if something unexpected happens. Most of the western bridles I've seen have reins which are attached to the bit using a leather string. This string will break if the horse really gets into a bind. Many of these horses are also trained to ground tie, which is still a useful skill. Horses who are properly trained in this manner will not break their reins. If they accidentally step on them, they will simply step back off them. And they will stay in one place for quite some time, even without supervision- especially if they are in a familiar working environment. I'm not just saying these things. I have extensive experience with these types of horses, working with them on a daily basis for over 40 years. I get that you're concerned for the horse's welfare. I also care deeply that my horses are well cared for and safe. But to say that NO horse should EVER be tied with the reins is not a factual statement. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Equusma (talk • contribs) 01:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem that you are new to WP. The main thing to do here is understand that your expertise or mine takes the back seat to reliable general information (see WP:NOR). This IS quite frustrating in the horse articles, because so much of what we all know is from an oral tradition and personal experience, you can't always find a book to say what you need. (One time I had the world's stupidest edit war at halter trying to find citations for the very thing you discuss above -- the dangers of tying a horse hard and fast; this idiot insisted that you shouldn't tie with a release knot because the horse might escape, but instead always carry a knife in your boot. Yeah, right) I too live in the west, I too have worked with horses for decades, and have seen those very same horses step on reins, break bridles, and, notably, one time at a rodeo, someone's rope horse set back when tied with nylon bridle reins to a pipe panel and when the bridle didn't break, the horse panicked, pulled down several pipe panels in addition to the one it was tied to (thank god no cows in the pens it pulled over) only stopping when the weight of the pens flat finally exceeded the ability of the horse to pull, no idea how much damage that caused (I was in the stands, so not up close when it happened). (True would have been equally bad for the pens had the horse been tied with a halter) Some rein designs are tied with a leather thong, but most of the time, the rein breaks in the middle anyway. Some horses well-trained to ground tie do figure out how to step off of the rein if they step on it, but the trained ranch horse is the exception, not the rule. You will not find a reliable source that states that it's OK to tie with the reins. And yes, even cowboys shouldn't be tying horses with reins; l learned to ride with people, like my dad, who worked with cows and tied their horses with the reins. A trained horse generally (unless badly spooked) won't set back or test being tied, but it's a risk. But most of the old cowboys just looped the reins around a rail, no knots, a horse could, if it really wanted to, pull loose. Montanabw^(talk) 16:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

First let me say "Thank you" for being so kind to a newcomer. I would like to tell you a little about myself. I have worked in many facets of the horse industry through the years, but the biggest part of time, I have ponied horses on the track. It is usually impractical for us (the pony people) to tie with halters since we may have to jump on our horses in a hurry and go. Also on some tracks, the holding area is far away from the barn area and halter transport would cause some problems- so it generally works better just to tie with the bridle. And actually, after the first day or so at a new track, you can usually just wrap the reins like your Dad did. Or drop them on the ground in a ground tie. Most of the pony horses will just go to sleep in the shed. I guess we (pony people) are a little unusual. But it's been my life for so long that it seems normal to me. :) I was also a trail guide at the stables on a Marine base for awhile. If something happened with one of my riders in the back, I could get off my horse (one of my pony horses) drop the rein, and go back and fix the problem. Being retired pony horses, not only would my boys stay there, they wouldn't let another horse past them- which was a big comfort. I had nightmares about the lead horse deciding to go home, and everyone else deciding to follow, while I was in the back and on the ground. :) So I have found ground tying to be a useful skill in much of my work. I always use leather reins, as do most of the other pony people, and the reins that have been broken over the years almost invariably break at the strings or the strings themselves break, (Although I have seen 1 or 2 break in the middle), so that has never been a real problem for us. And you're right - where in the world would you find documentation for this stuff? (A knife in your boot, huh?) I still feel that taking you time and teaching your horse how to stand tied is the best way to avoid accidents, whether tying with a halter or bridle. But I have also given some thought to the type of horse that usually makes a pony horse. They have to be pretty calm and patient to begin with, and they know they will be working long hours. So maybe it's different with different breeds and disciplines. I certainly wouldn't tie one of the race horses with a bridle. (What a wreck that would be!) I probably wouldn't tie him at all though, until we had done some serious ground work. Most race horses, when tied in the stall are tied with rubber ties or bungee cords, to lessen the strain if they do set back. Well I won't take up any more of your time. Thanks again for being so nice. If I was rude before, it was not intentional. I am going to take my time, and see how all this works, but I'm sure I'll have questions for you in the future. Equusma (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Psalia

I noticed this redlink in wikipedia. CAn some equestrian please make make sense for this part of the bridle? [3]. -No.Altenmann >t 15:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

We don't need to do a separate article for every part of every historic bridle. Absent something showing how these were used, it's pretty much useless to just link to pictures. They look to e to be more of an adjunct to a bitting system (possibly intended for an effect not unlike a modern full-cheek snaffle bit or perhaps a Baucher bit ring than something to hold on a bridle. Montanabw^(talk) 06:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

If you don't need it, then obviously I am not talking to you. If you don't know something, please don't interfere and let other people add useful information missing in encyclopedia. I am severely disappointed with this dismissive attitude.

Re: "pretty useless": if I could quickly find information myself, I would not be asking for your "pretty useless" answer and wrote something to this end myself. <shrug> Looks like I have to do it anyway, since the supposed experts in horse tack are happy in their ignorance. -No.Altenmann >t 15:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Your attitude is inappropriate, as was your edit. I answered you in good faith. This article is about modern equipment. A history section on bridles might be useful to add, though only if it was properly sourced and comprehensive. Information on historic equipment can also be added to appropriate articles as was done here. You are discussing a bridle part that appears to be limited to ancient Mesopotamia in the Bronze Age; absent use in some form in the modern world, an article on the Ancient Near East is probably where it goes. Similar articles you could use as an example are Frentera or Horse brass. However, even a Google search on "Psalia]' presented very few hits and no clear definition other than photos. Per WP:OR, there's not much to say other than a sentence or two as far as I can see. I could not locate anything that described how they were used, if they were a control element or merely decorative, if they replaced or supplemented leather, and so on. If you found more, you certainly could post here. It might be suitable to add to articles on the Sythians as well. But it isn't suitable here other than as historical trivia. And your insults are both personal attacks and do not assume good faith, so I suggest you stop ordering other people to do work you are not willing to do and then calling them ignorant when you get an answer you don't like. Montanabw^(talk) 03:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Where the hell you see I "ordered" you to do work? Initially I politely asked for help. I even did not contest your revert, in full accordance with AGF (i.e., I assumed you know what you are doing in your article). My "personal attack" was triggered by your "Royal we", who don't (doesn't?) need extra information. So I ordered you not to mess with my request if you have no want to answer it. Anyway, thanks for the suggestions about other places where someone may be less disinterested. Bye. -No.Altenmann >t 07:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Your attitude is terrible. If you can't see that, then I have nothing more to say either. Good luck finding help, with your approach, you'll need it. Montanabw^(talk) 04:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bridle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061229024449/http://www.newrider.com:80/Starting_Out/Getting_Ready/Checking_throatlash_250.jpg to http://www.newrider.com/Starting_Out/Getting_Ready/Checking_throatlash_250.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)