Talk:Horsehair

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Equine (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

My Additions[edit]

I've added a list of many of the uses of horsehair, and a list of references. However, these are not necessarily authoritative or comprehensive, so the article still needs major work. David spector (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hard to believe this is horsehair[edit]

Is the brown wispy straw-like material obtainable from traditional upholsterers as 'horsehair' actually obtained from a horse? Or is that a different material from that described in the article? It seems unlikely, as it is much more like the dried fibres of some plant. This article really needs a photo. Centrepull (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Good question, I would expect horsehair to look like, well, a horse's hair. Maybe that's hay, mentioned in the upholstery article, that's being offered. It's hard to get people to surrender the rights to a photo. The photo here shows horsehair mixed with some other stuff[ing]. Article here has some detail but no picture. Don't miss "Photo showing use in hat" in the article. --CliffC (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it may be coir fibre. Richard New Forest (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to imagine that with all the uses for horsehair that any horses were left with tails or manes, at least in the past. Surely the stuffing for one sofa would require the hair of several horses. I imagine that before automobiles, horses were so common that hair could be taken from dead animals. Surely, only short trimmings of hair from living animals would provide a frction of what was needed. I recall a news article where a large number of horses had their tails "stolen" and they mentioned that it takes so many years to grow back that the horses may never have another tail of any use. It's not like wool, that be "harvested" every year or so.71.218.254.202 (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but yes, horsehair did come primarily from dead animals, there was once quite a horsemeat market, though in the USA, mostly for dog food. As for living horses, a mane (horse) trimmed short will grow out about 6-8 inches again in about six months (I know this, had a horse that routinely rubbed her mane out - down to the skin - on a fence every summer and by the next summer it was grown out just long enough to start looking good when she'd do it again!) Cutting off the "skirt" of the tail (horse) at the bottom of the dock will take about a year to get to a "normal" look, though they will be able to swat flies with what's left; if the dock itself is taken, then there is a bigger problem, not at issue here. Montanabw(talk) 04:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

December 2010[edit]

[Following discussion copied from User talk:Richard New Forest#Horsehair]
You deleted various sections on the Horsehair article, what seems to be the issue? The information provided is correct and from reliable sources and seems to fit nicely as a brief background for uses of the hair. Its for a college class project and the fact that it is being deleted will have an impact on my grade.HIST406-10110425205Brownley (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I did the first revert and rewrite of your edit. Richard did the second one. So I will answer for my part, and this whole discussion actually needs to go to the talk page of the horsehair article. I kept the sourced material and deleted the unsourced. If you want to go in and improve the material, footnote it all, footnote it properly, and if a web link exists so we can verify the material online, provide it. Also do not delete source material already there, and be careful that your edit is not redundant or contradictory to what is already in the artice. I must also note that if your grade depends on an wikipedia edit remaining unchanged and unedited, then your professor doesn't understand wikipedia. If your grade depends on the existence of your edit, you have the article history to prove you did it. If your grade depends on meeting the standards of wikipedia's WP:MOS, WP:V and WP:CITE, then it didn't. You had few if any wikilinks, you did not cite all your material at the places where you inserted it, and much of what you said had previously been stated in the article in a more concise fashion. You should be glad that we kept and incorporated some of your material-- the things that were properly sourced. So I suggest that if you need it to stay in the current article, then you need to insert the material carefully, add a lot more citations to verify your work, and don't remove existing sourced material. Montanabw(talk) 01:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I can't add anything to that (though actually all I did was reinstate Montanabw's edit). Richard New Forest (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

[End of copied discussion] ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I added in some more of the referenced material and found a ref for something already here, that I expanded. Brownley, you need to understand that wikipedia is a collaborative process and we ARE incorporating your work, just in different places and with different format more in line with WP:MOS. However, at this point, I'm starting to feel like I'm writing your term paper for you (punctuation comes BEFORE the ref, by the way), so I'm not going to edit further until finals are over!  ;-) Montanabw(talk) 22:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Facts?[edit]

There's a lot of curious information in this article. Some of it seems to bear little or no resemblance to the facts as usually understood. So, a few questions:

  • if the famous plan of the abbey of St. Gall is made of woven horsehair, why does this site not mention that fact, stating instead that it is made of five pieces of parchment sewn together?
  • if shaving brushes are almost always made of horsehair, why is it almost always called badger? And why does the Shave brush article in this wiki give accurate details of the grades and types of badger hair used?
  • if many sources indicate the Spaniards in the 8th century were the first to use horsehair as a textile, why not cite a few of them here?
  • if horsehair is "widely" used for artist's brushes, why does searching for horsehair or horse-hair on this site or this one yield no result? As far as I know, use of horsehair is in artist's brushes pretty much confined to Oriental calligraphy brushes; but that would need to be researched and referenced.
  • why is the reference to "Martha Stewart Living Oct2008, Issue 179, p51-52" linked to the article on Marriage?

And so on ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, all I ever did on this article was a fast cleanup of what was there and to grab a few fast links (that worked at the time) when we had a problem with some WP:NOR a while back, so I honestly couldn't care less about the rest. If you can improve this article with good sourcing, it's all yours and welcome! Montanabw(talk) 02:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)