Jump to content

Talk:Bitless bridle/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

LG Bridle (aka Gluecksrad)

Do we have a consensus to add? --AeronM (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but explain what it is, photo if possible. Montanabw(talk) 05:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Una gave a link to a photo. It sure ain't a mechanical hackamore. I would like to see an explanation of how it works. And is it Glücksrad, with the "ue" the result of not having an umlaut?--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Pull on the reins rotates the wheel, effectively shortening all 3 straps a little, hence putting a little pressure on the nose, chin, and poll. Yes, ue = ü. But what does "LG" stand for? This thing isn't a mechanical hackamore but it shares some physics with one. The diversity of mechanical hackamores that I have seen in person is huge. And take a gander at "mechanical hackamore" on Google Images... --Una Smith (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Here in the US it is now known as "LG Bridle." Used to be called the "Happy Wheel." No, it is not a mechanical hackamore, except maybe by a very loose definition. It is most definitely Bitless bridle, so should appear in this article IMO. --AeronM (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe LG stands for “Lehmenkühler (the inventor's name) Glücksrad (=Wheel of Fortune or Happy Wheel)" --AeronM (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Settle this calmly

If this edit war doesn't stop, I'll protect both this article and Hackamore. Since I don't know a single thing about horses and have no prior involvement, I can be totally neutral. In this thread, be concise, to the point, and calm. Each side please list bullets to present their side of the bitless bridle/hackmore "which is a subset of which" issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Bitless bridle is a type of hackamore
    • list evidence....
    • list evidence....
  • Hackamores are hackamores, but they can be mentioned in passing in this article with appropriate wikilinking as a type of headgear for controlling a horse without a bit. I can live with that.
  • Bitless bridles are a variant on the hackamore to the extent that they use a noseband instead of a bit. However, some modern designs that have developed inthe 20th century do not operate on ancient hackamore principles, so they are in a gray area
  • The word "bridle" inherently implies attachment of a bit, so the description of "hackamore" as a "a type of bitless bridle" is a simile ("my love is like a red, red rose") more than an interchangable term.
  • "Bitless Bridle" with capitalization is a patented invention that has been a patented name for about 10 years

I explained a lot of this in the recent edits I made to hackamore, the word goes back to "Hakma" in Ancient Persia at the time of Darius the Great, circa 500 BC or so. This was a heavy noseband with an added third rein (still seen today in both the longeing cavesson and the mecate rein of the bosal-style hackamore) that was a unique historical development and a major technological improvement upon the old rope around the nose and/or neck. It became part of the Arabic language as "hakma" referencing the noseband and šakīma, (bit),or šakama, meaning a bit or bridle. When the Arabs invaded Spain, they brought a lot of horse words with them, and the term for a headstall with a heavy noseband became xaquima, and then jaquima. (Pronounced, roughly, "hakima"). When the concept came to the Americas, English-speaking people altered it (or "corrupted" it if you will; English-speakers tend to do that) into "hackamore." I would refer you to the "Origins" section of the hackamore article (this version) for refereneces.

"Halter" is a wholly different concept with different word origins and includes not only horse headgear, but things you put on cows and goats, animals that generally are not ridden. See the hsitory section of this version of halter. Some people DO ride in halters, Tazzle22's comment that insurance companies are not always happy about this is true, and it does depend a lot on the specific design of the headgear; my guess (?) is that Tazzle is using (can you confirm your gear, T22?) either some type of heavy cavesson or a cross-under, both of which offer significantly more control than a "halter."

I can in part agree with Tazzle22 that semantics is a huge problem. Is a word being misused (like the common misuse of schizophrenia when one is really talking about multiple personality disorder)or is language changing so that what was incorrect is now correct, like spelling "doughnut" "donut"? or "Jello" instead of "gelatin"? There is also the question of formal and informal use. We all know that there are terms in English we use in every day spoken useage that are sloppy and are not to be used in formal writing. (For example, in horses, the word "stud" is used colloquially in spoken English to refer to a stallion, however in formal writing, a "stud" is either the farm - especially in UK/European use - where the stallion lives (usually with other stallions) or a 2x4 in the wall of a house!)

I maintain that, based on the fact that we can trace the English word hackamore to the 19th century, and its linguistic roots to antiquity, with "halter" having different roots, that one could call a hackamore a "type of bitless headgear" which it certainly is, but the word "hackamore" predates "bitless bridle," which was a mere descriptor until about the 1970's when the increasing number of gadgets came on the scene that didn't fit the heavy noseband model that we think of as a hackamore, including the mechanical hackamore and the "cross-under bitless bridle". Sure, there are those who describe a hackamore as a type of halter, there are also those who describe it as a type of bridle, (Una cited several examples of each above, in fact) but to me the trump card comes from the experts: One of the heavy-hitters in the field of equestrian history is Dr. Deb Bennett, who has written extensively on the history of horses and horsemanship, whose work I have cited in the Hackamore article. There are also a significant number of respected hackamore reinsman, Ed Connell in particular.

While Rollins is a source on cowboys in general, I cannot locate sufficient biographical information to tell which tradition he wrote about, nor how western scholars evaluate his work, but there is a distinction between the cowboy of the west in general, and the hackamore reinsman in particular -- the difference between the generalist and the specialist. The Texas cowboy tradition also took a lot of Spanish equipment and sort of mixed the tradition with stuff from the Eastern USA, plus a few uniquely Texas twists, and thus there are two significant sub-schools of horse training, the so-called "California" or "buckaroo" tradition being the more "pure" form. (This is true of other horse training schools, amongst English riders the Classical dressage tradition is regarded as the most "pure" form, with competitive Dressage seen as a departure in some respects)

The whole language issue really heated up about 2000 when Dr. Cook's "Bitless Bridle" was formally introduced at Equitana and got a lot of positive publicity. Prior to the last decade or so, at least in the USA, most folks generally called any type of bitless headgear a "hackamore," even though that was sort of a broad generic use that didn't quite fit either. To the best of my knowledge, the word "hackamore" was also seen in UK English as well, though the concept was simply less familiar because the Spanish vaquero tradition was a lot stronger in the United States, where western riding was a big factor. Australia has borrowed both from the USA western riding traditons and Europe both England and, to a lesser extent Spain, and to the extent that usage has changed from incorrect form to legitimate regional dialectical variation, I have no problem with saying "Australians call this doohicky an X," but while I am most certainly willing to cite this material as time permits, I also happen to have direct knowledge of this equipment, who uses it, what it is called, and where it came from.

I have no interest in playing dueling credentials or engaging in original research, but I do have background as a horse person, as a fourth-generation resident of the American west, and as a person with a history background that is reasonably extensive when it comes to the history of the Rockies and the Pacific Northwest. There is the perception here that I am "anti" natural horsemanship, which is not the case -- I am anti the hype of the modern movement, which claims to be the first and only "humane" method of training horses, even though the tradition itself dates back centuries. I actually have the deepest respect for several of the core practitioners, and being a Montana horse person, I have crossed paths with a couple of these guys back before they got famous. (I also have little respect for others that I consider primarily showbiz and flim-flam artists) And for a couple of them, give them another 20 years and they will have invented dressage - all by themselves!

I am going on and on here and shall stop soon. Actually, as far as I am concerned, this article isn't horrible as it sits, and I have come around to it being a basic overview of bitless headgear for people who type in "bitless bridle" as a search phrase, but the problem has come from folks 1) trying to promote their own personal invention and, to a lesser extent, 2) POV edits from the fan club of Dr. Cooks' offically patented "Bitless Bridle" concept, which is gaining a significant following. Problem is, a) the studies by Dr. Hilary Clayton, a professor at Michigan State and a dressage competitor, are somewhat undermining some of Cook's basic claims, and thus the headgear, while it probably does no real harm, is also not quite what it was promoted to be. B) The misunderstanding of the differences between bridles, hackamores, halters and the "bitless bridle" concept is making for a really useless consumption of time. Montanabw(talk) 19:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to start archiving. --AeronM (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

Has someone made a Request for Arbitration? --Una Smith (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No, see Wikipedia:RFAR, I'm just trying to stop the edit war in a calm way. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I was under the impression that it had died down, but perhaps I'm wrong. --AeronM (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly that the defining of a bitless bridle is fraught with the difficulties of semenatics and the individual preconceptions of us all depending on our knowledge and experience. Even the defining of a halter is open to interpretation and there can be , for the purposes of riding little practical difference between a rope halter and some bosals / bitless bridle but a huge difference in effect between a rope halter and a webbing halter / headcollar ( terms interchangable in many countries). However the definition can be crucial for insurance purposes as one can ride in public in a bridle but a halter is often declined ..... depite many horses being safer in a rope halter than a bitted bridle.

May I also call on the author to ammend the article to include DRIVING in the definition. I know of several people in the UK, USA and Scandinavia who drive bitless and I personally drive my horse in an open bitless bridle with the full knowledge and support of the BDS and my insurance company. I am new to wikipaedia and do not know how , or if I can , alter the page. tazzle22 Tazzle22 (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I know in the UK they are not "road legal," but I am not familiar with any insurance company restrictions here in the US. And yes, I would be amenable to adding driving to the article.
I think one thing we all need to keep in mind is: who is our reader? Is it likely to be someone very familiar with horses and horse tack terminology? Or more likely to be someone who is not as familiar and looking for information? In that case, I think the whole bitless bridle vs. hackamore issue is not as important, and therefore we should focus on general descriptions and photos while keeping NPOV. Just mO. --AeronM (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd personally prefer to see a resolution of this issue without resorting to the big guns. My initial concern here was that someone was promoting their own personal product, that seems to now be less of an issue that just POV edits with insufficient documentation and a lot of personal attacks. Further, it is spilling over into other articles. Montanabw(talk) 19:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I did edit the article some days ago to abstract the "riding" to any manner of steering as opposed to leading, but my edits were reverted. Certainly driving (including ground driving) qualifies, and arguably so does vaulting. (When training people to vault, the horse is often worked on two reins, similar to lungeing.) --Una Smith (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Round two

OK. I've read all the comments here and on Talk:Hackamore. I'll probably ask some dumb questions because all this horse terminology is a foreing language to me. Some points...

  • It seems the term starts out in ancient times as "hakma" in Persia, then to Spain/Mexico as "jáquima", then morphs into "hackamore" circa 1850 by the language-corrupting English speaking Americans. Is this so? (just yes or no, no essays)
ANS:
  • A lot of the dispute seems to be dependent upon regional variations in equipment and terminology. Is this so? (just yes or no, no essays)
ANS:
  • A hackamore is a bridle without a bit. Can a bitless bridle be a hackamore? (here one paragraph should do it)
ANS:
Bridles have bits per the OED definition, but that useage is loose. "Bitless bridle" is something of an oxymoron. But a "bitless bridle" can be a sort of hackamore, as it uses a noseband and not a bit to control the animal. I admit that there is terminology flux, but I think it is triggered by a commercial product introduced to the market in 2000, Montanabw(talk) 03:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • How is a bitless bridle different from a hackamore? Can a hackamore be bitless bridle? (hint: to me, the photos in the two articles look like they're the same basic thing, ie, is all this debate about is mere preference in terminology?) (here one paragraph should do it)
ANS:
  • Excuse me. A hackamore is a bitless bridle made of tubular (not flat) material; tubular vs flat is important because it dictates many other aspects of construction and design. --Una Smith (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • A hackamore describes a more limited type of bitless bridle. The term bitless bridle is generally all-inclusive. I.e.: All hackamores are bitless bridles, but not all bitless bridles are hackamores. --AeronM (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Purists assert mechanical hackamores are not hackamores, yet there is no question mechanical hackamores are bridles without bits. Both mechanical hackamores and hackamores are bitless bridles.
  • This is the crux of the matter. My original position was that the cross-under is the main "Bitless bridle" mostly because of the neologism coined by Dr. Cook. Hackamores have nosebands that are heavier, sometimes braided leather, braided rawhide, or smooth leather. (True Bosals are never made of "rope" Some sidepulls are made of rope) Hackamores don't tighten up or squeeze when you pull on the reins, cross-unders do. Bennett refers to the Hakma, the Cavesson and the Bosal all as descendants. I can make a case (though I don't care that much) that the sidepull and jumping cavesson are hackamores, but, the [[mechanical hackamore] is not. The patented "Bitless Bridle" has a light noseband that is not solid, works by straps tightening around the head and is a paented variant of the "cross-under" that has been around since sometime in the 1970s (have not seen a source for it prior, not that there isn't one, but earliest I can find an example is 1977) Montanabw(talk) 03:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • How is a bitless bridle different from the "Britless Bridle" that recently appeared? (NOTE: Pushing a item for purchase is a potential COI and blockable, see WP:COI and WP:SPAM). (here one paragraph should do it)
ANS:
  • A bitless bridle is any bridle designed for use without a bit. It is a generic, descriptive term. The Bitless Bridle(TM) is just one bitless bridle, among many others, on the market now. (NOTE: AeronM is the inventor of a different bitless bridle, and a novice Wikipedia editor, and has not pushed any product since learning that marketing is not welcome here.) --Una Smith (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • There is a minor point of contention in that "bridle" is defined in some circles to be the combination of a headstall and a bit (bridle used to imply this, but it may not any more), which would make "bitless bridle" an oxymoron. I don't hold this view, but I imagine I could rustle up some non-editor horsemen who do.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
And that is where our #1 disagreement is. No dictionary anywhere defines "bitless bridle," whereas the words "halter" and "Bridle" and "hackamore" all have roots that go back centuries. We are making a descriptive phrase into a title, but it is a neologism. Not long ago, the Cook advocates were jumping down the throats of anyone who called just any old headgear without a bit a "bitless bridle" (I can't find the diff now, I even got nailed for it here and clarified my own usage.) The saying "the hackamore is a type of bitless bridle" is like calling a bagel "bread with a hole in it, thus a type of doughnut." Well, kinda, but not exactly. Montanabw(talk) 03:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
— Rlevse • Talk • 02:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Round three

ANS:

NO! HORRORS! I never got my stuff into round two due to several edit conflicts! Please read. Above. But in short, my summary:

  • A hackamore is a type of headgear used to control a horse (while riding) with a noseband instead of a bit. It consists of a headstall and a heavy noseband of set diameter. Not that long ago, it was the catchall generic term for any headgear that controlled a horse with a noseband and not a bit (and bosal hackamore people had fits about the mechanical hackamore being called a "hackamore" at all)
  • A bridle is a type of headgear that uses a bit and is the most common device used to control horse while riding or driving. Sometimes bridle is confused with "headstall" The bridle is the complete unit, the "headstall" is the part that goes over the horse's head, behind the ears, and holds everything on. Both bridles and hackamores have headstalls.
  • A halter is a type of headgear primarily used to lead and tie up animals in general, including horses. Some people ride with them in place of a bridle (a different dispute over whether this is safe or not)
  • A "Bitless Bridle" (capitalized) is an invention of Dr. Robert Cook, introduced to the market in 2000, it is a variation of a gadget called, generically, a "cross under bridle" or "cross under hackamore"
  • A "bitless bridle" (not capitalized) is the topic of dispute. It is more of a hackamore than it is a bridle, but if it wants its own article, I haven't proposed it for deletion, but I think it should be confined to an explanation of the various cross-under designs.

Montanabw(talk) 03:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Maybe. If it is a question of narrow vs broad circumscription, then the argument for narrow circumscription is this: "bitless bridle" should be reserved for the bridle patented by Robert Cook, and perhaps also the earlier bridle patented by Edwin Meroth, because Robert Cook claims a trade mark on "Bitless Bridle", and because "bitless bridle" does not occur in the OED. The argument for broad circumscription is that the absence from OED is not relevant because "bitless bridle" is a phrase; the trade mark claim is not relevant because the phrase predates the claim; and "bitless bridle" has been used to mean any bridle without a bit since 1867, if not earlier. --Una Smith (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I would also submit that the popularity of bitless bridles seems to be increasing recently (I can provide refs if needed). It may be a case where attributable sourcing (e.g.the OED) has not yet caught up to current usage. --AeronM (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • In my estimation, the issue is the definition of "bridle": in some usages, a bridle cannot be bitless. Wikipedia, being descriptive, must include those usages, and we all have to expect that some Wikipedia users will come here with the expectation to find things in specific places. We must accommodate that (that's why dab pages are so popular). One solution might be to call this article Bitless headgear (horse) or some other neutral term, have Bitless bridle redirect to it, mention Bitless Bridle™ and the generic "bitless bridles" in the article, mention in Bridle the variant uses of the term, and link to [Hackamore]] and Mechanical hackamore every place where someone might think to look. That way, we've covered all the bases, the name of this article has been made explicitly NPOV, and users (as contrasted to editors) can find the information regardless of their preconceptions.--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I see what you're saying, but I don't think anyone is going to search for an article called "Bitless headgear." If the majority would search under bitless bridle, why not call it that, instead of having the redirect? I think the term "Bitless bridle" is notable enough to warrant the title. --AeronM (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
We my be getting to a resolution (thanks Rlevse!). Curtis has a solution that I like, but Aeron is also correct that a lot of people will probably do a search for bitless headgear using either the phrase "bitless bridle" or "hackamore." However, both are specific enough designs that neither page should be a mere disambig or a redirect. I think that appropriate disambiguation statements at the beginning of hackamore and bitless bridle, each cross-referencing the other may help. This leaves unresolved the question of whether a hackamore is a bitless bridle or if a bitless bridle is a hackamore, but given that even the experts have no meeting of the minds on that topic (most hackamore experts wrote prior to the invention -- or popularization, at least-- of the cross-under), but I could live with something like "a hackamore is one type of bitless headgear" in this article, with appropriate cross-refs, and likewise in hackamore, a statement like "a type of headgear that controls the horse by means of a lightweight noseband is sometimes called a bitless bridle" would be suitable. If there was a need for a full-blown disambiguation page, maybe Bitless headgear would be an appropriate title for a disambiguation page that lists ALL the assorted articles. Montanabw(talk) 20:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
That said, FWIW, I disagree with Una's claim that "bitless bridle" dates as a term to 1867. Her sources do seem to use it as a descriptive simile for hackamore, but she also shows us others that say it's a type of halter. Either way, this is like saying "a bagel is a sort of doughnut." That doesn't mean a bagel IS a doughnut. Unless "doughnut" can be etymologically traced to mean "any bread product with a hole in it! LOL! Montanabw(talk) 21:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Suggestion It does seem the core of this issue is that definition of bridle. Closely related are the etymologies of the terms related thereto and what appears to be supporters of some sort of modern day movement within the horse community. I can't see either side 'giving in' to the other. I can see merit to both arguments. So here's my suggestion...Bitless bridle should be an article covering all types and interpretations of that term and deal with each community with a different school of thought. Within that article should be a section on Hackamore which should be more or less a copy of the (hopefully well-written) lead of Hackamore and have a {{main}} link back to the hackamore article. The hackamore article should describe how it's different from other bitless bridles and notate any opposing views. This suggestion is standard wiki policy; nothing earth shattering here folks. And while we're at it, everyone stay calm, be civil, and learn wiki policies. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I support your solution 100%. I would be absolutely delighted to bring the hackmore article into line with the above suggestions, in fact it is pretty much already there, as far as I can tell. (Though suggestions from someone NPOV on this issue would be respectfully considered.). But see last set of posts, below... I think that a simple disambig link at the beginning of each article would work better than making the hackamore article into a disambig page. Montanabw(talk) 05:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive and clean start?

Aeron, you may have a solution; I am in favor of archiving this whole discussion and starting clean, without referencing any of the old debates. As for what is "settled" or not, sometimes "settled" takes 2 or 3 days, even a week, because people have a real life and may not get onto Wikipedia everyday. Also, people giving up because they are just too darn tired to keep fighting isn't "settled," it means that we are worn out, grumpy, feel beat up and so on. I personally think this article should ultimately have some balance between the plusses and minuses of various designs, and there has to be criticism with the positives. Sometimes when there are strong viewpoints that make true NPOV difficult, like, say abortion, the best that can be done is to "teach the controversy," and explain each side in a way that the advocates of a given position consider to be a reasonably fair representation of their views. I also think that, if possible, debates about other articles need to not spill over here any more than they have to. It's tough with overlap between halter, hackamore, mechanical hackamore and this article, but let's try. Montanabw(talk) 02:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw, you may be fighting, but I am not. I am calmly discussing the problems with this article. I have devoted considerable time to it, and also to mentoring Aeron who in my opinion has more reason to feel "beat up" than you do. The time to archive is when the article is stable; now is not that time. By the way, it seems "hackamore" is your favorite branch on the bush and you try to describe the entire bush in terms of how far it is from your branch. This article and all related to it are in need of {{globalize}} tags. --Una Smith (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
It is generally bad practice to archive things directly related to ongoing matters. IE, no, don't archive yet. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, no archive, but Una, you ARE throwing fat on the fire, you offer no Australian sources for your contentions, but only throw out assorted USA refs, taken out of context. And implying that I am stupid and don't know what I am talking about. Oddly enough, I am not a hackamore fanatic, I actually do 90% of my own training in a snaffle, but incorrect material is incorrect material. Sorry Rlevse, that was snarky, but I am sick of this stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 03:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Montanabw, what does Australia have to do with this? "Hackamore" originates in western North America. Re your accusations against me, please make diffs and use them per WP:CIVIL; personal accusations do not belong here. --Una Smith (talk) 04:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm on a slow dialup and have no interest in dealing with diffs, this issue is taking up several hours a night that I wish did not. You've made a couple of snide little cracks, you know where they are, I'm not going to argue further on the point. As for the Australian thing, you are arguing that there are regional useage disputes, I am asking for your sources to show that this is a regional useage issue as opposed to simply incorrect useage. That's all. Montanabw(talk) 19:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
One has to wonder whether it's worth it? If you do not wish to spend several hours a night on this article, then don't! --AeronM (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Where it all started

I just had to laugh.... when I went back and read the original stub... it sounds fairly innocuous. Could all this have been avoided??! ==AeronM (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, how about with you not reverting the original edits by User:Ealdyth, who made the first good faith attempt to create a balanced article? Will add diffs in a sec. Montanabw(talk) 03:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Riding Halter to merge here

AfD result here. --Una Smith (talk) 03:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

ACtually, no one has closed it yet.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Oops. Curtis is correct. I saw not a result, but another opinion out of place. I'll ask the contributor to move it. --Una Smith (talk) 04:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
It is now merged. I will shorten the section on riding halter if needed. --AeronM (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Article merged: See old talk page here

Riding halter

Hi Una. Good edits to bitless bridle, esp. disambig. I am still thinking that the second paragraph gives too much emphasis to the riding halter! And the section seems redundant with the third section, and with the "Halters With Reins" section. Can we merge with "Halters with Reins" section and call the section "Riding Halters"? Another editor made a similar suggestion, although I am having trouble locating the comment just now.... --AeronM (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

ahhh, found it here. --AeronM (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Aeron, the current text describes a "riding halter" as a close cousin of a rope halter, and different from a web (flat) halter. But on most of the UK web storefronts I checked for "riding halter", the product is a web halter. So, I suggest invert the structure of the paragraph/section to first specify that the category is something like "bitless bridle derived from a rope halter" then explain these are commonly known as riding halters (in the US). Then, make a separate section on the category "bitless bridle derived from a flat halter", also noting they are commonly known as riding halters (in the UK). Some focussed searching of web sites will help to further define the current usage patterns. If that is too much bother, make the category simply "riding halter" but explain that these are bitless bridles derived separately from different styles of halters. --Una Smith (talk) 03:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I still want some mention of halters with reins, though; those are items designed and normally used as halters, not bridles. I would put them at the very end of the article, as they are the absolute least bridle like of the lot. Mentioning them helps to demonstrate that "riding halters" are not just halters with reins. --Una Smith (talk) 03:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. --AeronM (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I kind of agree here that "halter" is a better section heading, and then break down into halters that have been specially modified for riding, and then how people ride in ordinary halters. My opinion of the lack of safety of both styles is known, but I guess we must agree to disagree on that. My opinion aside, Una IS correct that ordinary halters are used as riding gear. And probably everyone has done it once in a while, even if we know better (Confession: I am guilty of cooling down hot horses by riding with a halter, but they are well-trained, tired out AND in an arena when I do it-and all we do is walk, and walk and walk...). Robert M. Miller's book (p. 229 if you want to look it up) has a 1955 photo of a rope halter he rigged with a heavy knot at the jaw that he describes as "loosely" like a bosal. Montanabw(talk) 04:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about 'halter' as a section heading. But I do agree that there can be two sections, riding halter and halters with reins, although it may confuse some readers..... --AeronM (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

New Section

Have added new section (second para). Feedback is welcome. Thanks. --AeronM (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss additions/edits here first, tho. Thanks! --AeronM (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, this is what starts these spats in the first place, I spend an hour trying to make a truly good faith edit, cited everything I wrote, went to some source material that you yourself used, and then you revert significant amounts of it with no explanation. Here is what I added and you deleted. Why should any of this not be in the article?

1) Expansion of disambiguation:

This page is about about horse headgear without bits. For headgear with bits, see Bridle. For other types of bitless headgear, see Hackamore.
We had already reverted a similar earlier addition at least once. It is not needed here. --AeronM (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

2) Attempt to use neutral language and expand history section (my edit in bold): "It is likely that the first domesticated horses were ridden with some type of noseband-based headgear, either made of sinew, leather, or rope.

Your addition constitutes Original Research. In fact, it is thought that originally a neck rope may have been used. See Source. --AeronM (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

3) Added material trying to explain why it is uncertain if bits came before hackamores or nosebands or bitless bridles by adding: "There is evidence of the use of bits, located in two sites of the Botai, dated about 3500-3000 BC.[1] Nose rings were used on the equids portrayed on the Standard of Ur, circa 2600 BCE - 2400 BCE." Then I go on to explain the hackamore and such, which, thank you for keeping that in. (Deleting this one was the least irritating and maybe it is not needed, but it puts everything in context)

Per Una's recent edit, I think we need to add this back in, so I did. Montanabw(talk) 04:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

4) And what on earth problem could you possibly have with this sourced statement that comes from a web domain you yourself were citing to? "In the middle of the 20th century, bitless design innovations shifted to assorted refinements of the mechanical hackamore, but by the 1980s, the modern "cross-under" design developed, with several variations and innovations between 1982 and 2007.[2]

  1. ^ Anthony, David W. and Dorcas Brown, 2000, “Eneolithic horse exploitation in the Eurasian steppes: diet, ritual and riding," Antiquity' 74: 75-86."
  2. ^ (Wainwright previously cited in article

5) Deleted new heading of ==Cross-Under== for the section describing the various cross-under designs. If you are making this article an overview of the various types of bitless headgear, then subcats for each "family" of gear helps the reader understand the material. By deleting the category, are you acknowledging that the only bitless bridles ARE in fact the cross-unders, (I don't think you are) or what?

I didn't intentionally delete Cross Under section. I think it did that when I reverted something else.... history is unclear. --AeronM (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, that was a good faith edit, I would be interested in understanding what the problem was with that material. #3 I can sort of get, if you don't want to talk about bits at all, but the rest??? Montanabw(talk) 03:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me answer with an analogy. There are generally two schools of writing... I liken them to sculpting: the first school sculpts in clay, adding a little here and a little there until the piece is finished. The other school sculpts with stone, starting with a very large block, and then chipping and carving away at it until the essence is revealed. I tend to be from the first school. You tend to be from the second. Neither is better than the other, they are just different. What it means is, you have to be prepared for your additions, many of which are quite long, to be chiseled away at. We need to get to the core of the information without adding a lot of peripheral information and details. I left a lot of what you had written, but felt some streamlining was necessary. --AeronM (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you guys are getting there, so I'm taking these pages off my watch list. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hackamore issue

I absolutely am opposed to redirecting hackamore as jaquima. That article is stable, heavily sourced, and absolutely defensible. You will find most horse books say "hackamore (or jaquima)" when describing bosal-based equipment, i.e "Hackamore" is the English word. Period. (Derived from a Spanish word, as are so many horse words) I can find 20 books and probably a zillion web sites to support this (I don't really want to, PITA to cite, but I can). It is of ancient roots, even to the word and its pronunciation, and you have yet to produce ONE SINGLE SOURCE for any other proposition. Certainly you have yet to produce a source for the mechanical hackamore being a "real" hackamore, when in fact, it is simple to find 10 sources that explain, adamantly, that it isn't. The bosal is the noseband only, the hackamore is the complete unit, headstall, bosal, mecate, and when used, fiador. There is most certainly no consensus on this issue of disambiguation, and if you keep insisting on degrading the hackamore article into a disambiguation page, I will submit the issue to some sort of third party arbitration because I can't see any other way to solve this. I suggest for the sake of peace in the family, we just agree to keep both articles, editing as appropriate. Montanabw(talk) 06:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

most horse books say "hackamore (or jaquima)" makes my point: the article title should be Hackamore (jáquima) and Hackamore should be a disambiguation page. No one here is claiming that a mechanical hackamore is a "real" hackamore; on the contrary, that is another reason why Hackamore should be a disambiguation page. Hackamore is stable in part because I have refrained from editing it, pending resolution of Curtis's proposal to make it a disambiguation page. The topic needs work. What Montanabw proposes amounts to maintaining a POV fork, which this article is now, and I won't let it remain that way. --Una Smith (talk) 15:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Every bridle in use today has equally ancient roots because (as far as we know), they all share a single common ancestor. --Una Smith (talk) 15:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Una, sigh, you are not understanding. "Jaquima" is a Spanish language word, "Hackamore" is the English language word. I suggest we take Rlevse's suggestion and leave both articles in place, graciously include cross-wikilinks, and let it go. You have no source for your "common ancestor" comment; the hakma design of heavy noseband came AFTER the bit; headstalls may have a common source because there are only so many ways the laws of physics will let you keep something on a horse's head, but the noseband or bit thing are two different families. I suppose we could as easily say English and Spanish are the same language because they both have Indo-European roots? You take things out of context and claim they mean the opposite of what was intended. I have no idea why you are so emotional about saying the hackamore article, first written in 2005, is a "POV fork" when it's the older article, and (now) thoroughly sourced. Can we please just let this go? You've won on the issue of "bitless bridle" being a free-standing article, that's a significant victory, can't you call it good? Montanabw(talk) 05:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

General Comment

Just wanted to say I think this article is starting to look pretty good. --AeronM (talk) 02:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

First Paragraph (Origins)

I think the paragraph has lost something. First of all, the very first sentence says it's likely the bitless bridle came first, which is then immediately put in doubt by the second sentence. I think the second sentence is unnecessary. Also, I had deleted the redundant sentence about the materials not surviving through time (last sentence), and it is back. Again. And still redundant. The third and fourth sentences are awkward together. Why the "however"? I would like to revert back to a previous version which sounded/flowed a bit better. --AeronM (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

What's missing is the context that bits don't disentegrate, so archaeologists found them dated to around 3500, but logic suggests that obviously SOMETHING was used to control horses for the 1000 years prior to that, but because rope and sinew disentegrate, we can't "prove" anything about design. I'll leave it for now, but the same web site you refrence that calls the "bitless bridle" original headgear also claims horses were domesticated 50,000 years ago, hence its entire validity (other than the research on the patents in the last 100 years) is really pretty iffy. Given that even Lascaux only dates back 16,000 years, and that is mostly evidence of hunting, not domestication, well, it's just a very badly researched claim that calls the whole article into question. Any number of published authors have speculated that early headgear was probably first a lasso of some sort, then probably a halter, if I feel like doing the research, I'll update the article later. As for the term "bitless bridle," well, we've been over this and over this, I am tired of wasting my breath. I have other articles on my watchlist, and over time I hope you will learn that "NPOV" means you present all verifiable, sourced sides of the issue, including mine. Montanabw(talk) 03:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Adios!

It has been my pleasure to write and help edit this article. I will check in from time to time to see how it looks. Good luck! --AeronM (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You may have noticed I decided to stick around. I knew montana would have missed me too much.  : ) . --AeronM (talk) 00:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
What's amazing is that, occasionally, we have even found some things we agree on. Montanabw(talk) 22:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Crazy, ain't it? --AeronM (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, I really don't eat puppies and torture bunnies. LOL Montanabw(talk) 03:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

LG Bridle

I want to re-propose to add the LG bridle in the styles section. --AeronM (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It definitely belongs here. --Una Smith (talk) 02:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I will try to contact them to see if we can use a photo. --AeronM (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Voice of experience speaking: People saying you can use their photo on wikipedia won't satisfy the wikigods, it has to be released either GDFL or public domain so everyone and the universe can use it for free. Some manufacturers won't do that. Just FYI...if you succeed, no problem, but a lot of "permission" given by professional photographers and owners of patented designs won't be good enough for wiki. The easier thing to do is, if you own the equipment in question, slap it on a local horse, take a shot with your own digital and upload that. If you own the image, you can do whatever you want with it. Montanabw(talk) 23:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I contacted LG and they have agreed to let me use a photo (and license it under public domain) for use in the article. --AeronM (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a good photo on the German Wikipedia; I just have not bothered yet to move it to Wikimedia Commons so it can be used more easily on other Wikipedia. --Una Smith (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can provide the link to the photo, maybe Aeron can move it. Montanabw(talk) 23:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I moved it to Commons: Image:Gluecksrad.jpg. --Klara (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bitless_bridle/Archive_2&oldid=1083499779"