Talk:Hackamore

Leveraging this article

Montanabw has stated somewhere that the hackamore was the original bitless bridle. Although the jaquima and bosal go back into antiquity, in my neck of the chaparral when most people say hackamore, they mean "mechanical hackamore". I think we should turn this page into a disambiguation page, something like:

Hackamore can refer to:

• Jaquima, one of the earliest forms of bitless bridle
• Bosal, a rigid form of jaquima
• Mechanical hackamore

The content in this article could be moved to the respective articles. Does this make sense.--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. --Una Smith (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No. As a westerner from the homeland of the whole "natural horsemanship" movement, I beg you to understand the classic tradition involved here. The word "hackamore" traces in the OED to 1850 as an American term that is derived directly from the Spanish jaquima. No dictionary on the planet has a definition for "bitless bridle," and in fact, the OED defines bridles as inherently having a bit -- You can call things by the wrong name all you want, and they are still being called by the wrong name. The bosal is not a complete hackamore, it's the type of noseband on the hackmore of the vaquero tradition. (And, to be really technical, the bosal is the little button knot at the back) You call it a "bosal hackamore" or a "bosal-style hackamore." All this research has actually refined my own understanding of the terminology. To say "bitless bridle" is to explain what the thing looks like and does to someone who needs an explanation; it's a description, not a definition. This whole style of riding came to the Americas from Spain and from there to the rest of the world. Just because the Australians and people in the Eastern USA have it wrong so often that they think it's right doesn't mean this article should be corrupted. A pillar of wikipedia is verifiability. The I think that the edit war at bitless bridle needs to be settled before this article is discussed in any depth. This article has been stable until recent edit warring.

I checked history and am not seeing evidence of edit warring. AeronM (talk) 03:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

As a comparison, I wouldn't think to challenge the German and French masters on the topic of dressage, the discipline came from there and they have the first right to explain what it is and is not. The great reinsmen and vaqueros of the western United States are the works that need to be consulted on this. I don't have hardcopy of Connell's Hackamore Reinsman, I have to get it from a library, which, given that I have a life outside wikipedia, may take a bit. I urge patience on this historical sourcing material. Montanabw^(talk) 00:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

That said, mechanical hackamores probably should have their own article, they are a hybrid that really doesn't fit in either category. I have no problem with that. Sidepulls really don't have enough info to be worth breaking out, may do no harm for sidepull into to be duplicated in both articles. Montanabw^(talk) 00:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, leaving aside whether a jaquima is a bitless bridle (and I see your point), what about the basic idea of a disambiguation page? None of the horsemen I know (and almost all of them are more experienced than I am) would think of a bosal as a hackamore (although if pressed on the issue, some would say "oh yeah"), and essentially none of them would know the word "jaquima" (although they might think I was mispronouncing "hackamore". I think your average user would think of a mechanical hackamore, and a dab page might get them there faster.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I would point out that A) the OED is not the be-all and end-all reference for all things wiki. and B) Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I agree with disambiguation proposal. AeronM (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I am sitting here with 10 books and a screaming headache trying to check over other articles (someone blanked the Hay article and replaced it with an obscenity, gawd, I hate vandals!), and then do some footnoting. It may take a few days to complete because I only have so much steam right now, and I have an outside life, but let me get this article sourced and things explained. Once I do, I hope everyone will understand. I also think Mechanical hackamore DOES need its own article, so will break it out as well. I am a little bit concerned that the attempt to downgrade this article is possibly motivated by an urge to retaliate against me. Now, I really want to Assume good faith and believe deep in my heart that NO ONE would ever think to do such a thing, so I hope no one decides to do anything drastic any time soon. Montanabw^(talk) 07:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I had no intention to downgrade the article; rather, it's my feeling that the common use in my area of "hackamore" to mean mechanical hackamore has blinded people (even those who have used a bosal) to the nuanced history of the things. Now that I know you're working on it, I'll wait to see what you got. Best of luck with the headache.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That is so true, and Wikipedia needs to reflect the diversity of usage, not try to dictate ideal usage. In my experience, people who know the difference are careful to say either "mechanical hackamore" or "jaquima", altogether avoiding the ambiguous "hackamore". --Una Smith (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"DIversity of usage" hmm. Well gee, lots of people refer to a horse's fetlock as the "ankle." That is completely incorrect from both an anatomical angle and a term of art perspective, but I bet if you point to a fetlock, 9 out of 10 people (and probably 7 out of 10 horse people) will call it an "ankle." Doesn't mean that it is correct, and it isn't disrespect for "diversity of useage" to say it's incorrect. When terms are incorrectly used, they are incorrectly used, no matter how popular "wrong" may be. It is fair to say that the term hackamore has become a term of general use for any type of bitless headgear, but then, aren't we arguing with equal vehemence on a different talk page that it ISN'T the "term of general use for bitless headgear"? Sigh. My take is that there are bridles, which have bits and date to antiquity in their use; there are hackamores, which use heavy nosebands and also date to antiquity in their use; and then there are a whole bunch of assorted gadgets, all invented since around the end of WWII, probably no earlier (the first book I can find a mechanical hackamore in dates to 1951), and most of them (like the cross-under) apparently only coming on the scene in, at the earliest, the 1970s. What to do with that? Montanabw^(talk) 06:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Restating my point, if it were common for people to call the fetlock an ankle, we'd want Ankle (horse) as a redirect page to the correct term. You can't educate people until you can get them in the door.--Curtis Clark (talk) 06:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with that, but not with making hackamore into a redirect. (OK with mucho wikilinking. Wikilinking Goooood!) The bosal-style hackamore is the classic model, and the "bosal" is just the noseband part. That's all. The web is all over the place, there are bitless bridle sites, sites that say bitless bridles are hackamores, etc...only thing anyone can do to get to the bottom of things is look to etymology and history. Bottom line is that bosal hackamores date back farther than any other design used today. Actually went off searching patents for the mechanical hackamore article (that is a weird process) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 08:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Another disambig

Hackamore can also refer to:

• Halter

Rollins (1922, page 151) says Mere leading halters, whether in the form of the Eastern stable halter with a short rope attached or else evolved out of various turns and knots in a longer and continuous piece of line, often were, in the loose language of the Range, termed hackamores.

Rollins, Philip A. (1922) The Cowboy: His Character, Equipment and His Part in the Development of the West, C. Scribner's sons, 353 pages.

--Una Smith (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Una, that is one interesting source. I will look at some others and do a comparison, this is not the only source to call a hackamore a "halter," but I can find other sources that explain that it is not a halter. For that matter, dictionaries are all over the place on this too.

I am in agreement with disambiguation as proposed by CC above. Do we have a consensus here? --AeronM (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No, there is not consensus. This is a long, stable article that has been in wikipedia for two years, and the etymology of the term is sourced and widely understood. You are now on the verge of edit warring by attacking this article, and I am concerned that it is in retaliation for the problems we have been having on your bitless bridle one. Your tags are acceptable, but your threat to destroy this article is not. I will consider any attempt at moving, renaming or making this article into a redirect to be vandalism and report it as such. I will improve the article as needed, but it takes time Montanabw^(talk) 05:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There is also "California hackamore" and "English hackamore"; I am wondering if "English hackamore" is a separate derivation from "jaquima". --Una Smith (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have never heard of a "California hackamore," so would like a photo to see what you are talking about, maybe it has a different name here (or maybe it is what someone calls the traditional Bosal hackamore). The "English Hackmore" is also new terminology to me, but based on the edits I think you made, it appears to be the English riding version of a mechanical hackamore -- in fact, surfing web sites, I think I came across another definition that flat-out said the English Hackamore was like a western mechanical hackamore, only with leather noseband and chin strap, plus shorter shanks -- essentially a mild mechanical hackamore. (And no, I didn't bookmark it, should have) The other possibility is that it's a jumping cavesson, but I've only seen that called a jumping cavesson or a jumping hackamore. Montanabw^(talk) 20:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, let me be clear: "Hackamore" is the English language version of "Jaquima" OED calls it a "corruption," but that's what we English-speakers do to a lot of words, that doesn't mean that the word isn't a legitimate derivation. "Buckaroo" from Vaquero is a similar corruption/derivation; both mean a cowboy of sorts, particularly one of the California tradition. Montanabw^(talk) 20:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

edits

Do we need "(pronounced "bo-SAL," not "BO-sul")", or will "(pronounced "bo-SAL")" suffice here? -AeronM (talk) 01:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Spanish accents the next to last syllable, else requires an accent on the stressed syllable. Hence jáquima and malpaís. The article probably needs to explain that in Hispanic cultures the stress is on the second to last (ie first) syllable (BO-sal; see Spanish Wikipedia: Bozal) and in (some?) Anglo cultures it is on the last syllable (bo-SAL). --Una Smith (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I learned that words ending in a vowel, "s", or "n" are accented on the penultimate, and everything else on the ultimate, hence chaparral and avenal are accented on the last syllable (in Spanish, as well as in English). So in IPA, the Spanish pronunciation is [β̞o'sal] and two common English pronunciations are [boʊ'sɑl] and [boʊ'sæl] (Wikipedia prefers IPA for pronunciation).--Curtis Clark (talk) 06:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Williamson says it's bo-SAHL, Price says "bo-sal' ", neither Bennett nor the Millers give a pronunciation here, of the ones who add a pronunciation, they both agree that the accent is on the last syllable. I can probably dig up more books if you don't believe me, but what I can tell you is that the word, as used by horse people who actually use them, is bo-SAL, I have never seen a reference that says it can be pronounced any other way... also ro-MAL for the heavy reins, me-CAH-te for the hackamore reins, etc... Now, I ran into some similar disputes over the derivation of "buckaroo" from "vaquero" and in that process someone pointed out that 14th or 15th century Spanish as it evolved into 19th century Mexican Spanish, from which these words derived, is not necessarily equivalent to modern Castlian or Mexican pronunciation, and given that I am no expert in Spanish, all I can say is how horse people who use and write about the equipment state that it is pronounced. Folks, I really DO know what I am talking about here and if I am unsure, I am really willing to source. Montanabw^(talk) 08:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I was agreeing with you.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not good with IPA stuff, couldn't tell if you were accenting the first or last syllable, sorry about that! Montanabw^(talk) 20:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with having the pronunciation help included, just wondering if we need the second part of the sentence. Seems sort of... well, unnecessary since we have already told them the correct pronunciation. When I read it... it almost sounds like "pronounced bo-SAL, not BO-sal, you idiot" or at least that is what it feels like is being implied. --AeronM (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is, the correct pronunciation in English varies with location. So the article at present is POV and needs more detail to reach NPOV. --Una Smith (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, got ya. --AeronM (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem is, this isn't potayto/potahto, because these exact mispronunciations and misconceptions occur right here in Montana too. My concern is that it isn't dialect, it's lack of knowledge. I suspect that you would both agree with me on one topic, which is that a shanked bit with a broken mouthpiece is a curb, not a snaffle, but I also have fairly regular arguments with people who insist the Tom Thumb and other ahanked bits are a "snaffle." This hackamore thing is similar, in my thinking. Montanabw^(talk) 20:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Want a source that even in English, one should say the word correctly? I have no problem with cleaning things up, "bo-SAHL" alone is probably fine, but "BO-sul" and, worse yet, "BAH-sel" (like the herb and the man's name) are common mispronunciations, many, many books explain the way it should be spoken. Montanabw^(talk) 05:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw, Wikipedia describes not prescribes. If this article is to describe pronunciation, then it should describe the variations in pronunciation as given in verifiable sources. But I think pronunciations belong in Wiktionary, not here, so omit any mention of pronunciation here. And one of us should consult the Dictionary of American Regional English (DARE). --Una Smith (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have a copy, I'd be interested in what it has to say. Of course, many wikipedia articles include pronunciation, so that is a different issue entirely. We can always expand the etymology section ad infinitum (Just like, oh, for example "In Texas they say "bob war", but in Montana they say "barbwire," but the dictionary says "barbed wire fencing." sigh.) All we do is add more stuff to wikipedia's poor servers. And, if you really want to break out in hives, some folks out of the Texas tradition call the mecate a "McCarty" and the fiador a "Theodore", just like some people call "Alzheimer's" disease "OldTimer's disease. There is some sort of line between wikipedia and wikibooks too, Sigh...

Indeed, many articles do include pronunciation. It's a tricky subject, but I do believe that (1) it's useful to include all variants (even McCarthy) and (2) describe where and how they are used.

IPA chart for English is a useful article for getting used to IPA; it's just a matter of picking your own regional dialect and seeing which IPA symbols are used for the sounds.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Curtis, if you know how to use the IPA symbols, go ahead and add that form both here and to bosal if you'd like, you can do it easier than I can. I'll mull over the "Theodore" and "McCarty" thing, problem is the edit wars that start when you say something is "incorrect," even if your source also says it's incorrect! I'm tired of inadvertently tripping on land mines. (Sigh) Montanabw^(talk) 20:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Will do later (gotta run now), and also the note that it is sometimes called ['boʊsəl] in the US. The way to avert edit wars (although not always avoid them) is tp write stuff like "Mecate is pronounced and written 'McCarthy' in some parts of the western US."--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hackamore vs bitless bridle

See Talk:Bitless_bridle#Settle_this_calmly and let's settle this. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Gladly, but how much source material is required before the point is accepted aand how much time will be given to produce it? And how do we tone down the problems with personalities that have clearly cranked up? I feel like this little article is on trial here and yet I am not hearing comprehensive reasons for the attacks, just assorted material taken out of context to validate a POV that I really can't even sort out any more, except that it seems to have something to do with questioning everything I write because it was my edit (?) I would most sincerely hope that is not the case, but I am really tired of snarky comments and what appear to be retaliatory edits. I hope it is just fatigue that has me thinking that there is not an assumption of good faith here. Sigh... Montanabw^(talk) 20:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Rlevse. No one is saying we have to put the article to bed yet, just tone down the comments. ==AeronM (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, I was not the person who started all this, OK? Montanabw^(talk) 01:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Roots

One method of reconstructing the history of a class of man-made object is to look at the current range of variation of that object worldwide. To look at the roots of the jaquima in western North America, I think it helps to look at halters in use now in South America and in Europe. See for example this web storefront. --Una Smith (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is an Argentine braided nylon rope halter and an Argentine rawhide halter, both described in the vendor catalog as "bosal" style. Both have what I was taught to call a fiador, not a fiador knot. --Una Smith (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I also say fiador, but wanted to link to the wiki article, so there is some discrepancy. Not caring deeply about that one. Montanabw^(talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

New Photo

I am nominating this photo for the hackamore page (hee hee) --AeronM (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: I put it into mechanical hackamore, as that is what it is! We'll see how long it lasts! (Agree with the LOL) Montanabw^(talk) 23:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Text from Fiador (tack)

The following contribution may belong in this article. --Una Smith (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

In North America, a fiador is used most often on the bosal-style hackamore, when starting young horses with a heavy bosal within the "California" or vaquero tradition, and used throughout the hackamore phase of training horses within the "Texas" tradition of Western style riding.

Well, some variation of it sort of was, once, before people started messing up this article. Montanabw^(talk) 18:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

References

Adding a new section: Proper Use of a Hackamore

I will be adding a new section to the wikipedia entry. I think that it is important to know and understand how to use the hackamore. The Wikipedia page offers a general overview of a hackamore and the different types of hackamores, but there is not a lot of info on how it is actually used. I have found useful information on another website that I am using to provide a reference for my new section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollandta (talk • contribs)

Be mindful of WP:NOTHOWTO. - MrOllie (talk) 03:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

New Edits

I appreciate @Montanabw new edits, but I disagree in removing some things. For example, it’s is highly important to clarify that in Spain and Latin America, “jáquima” is a simple halter for tethering and leading animals. It has always been defined as such. There is no evidence of the Spanish using a “jáquima” or “hackamore” for training horses. The Spanish, specifically the Andalusians, have been using a serrated cavesson (serreta, media caña) since the 1500’s. While it’s likely that the “hackamore” or “jaquima” descend from the serreta, the hackamore is different, both, in its construction and in the way that it’s used by the Mexicans. The Spaniards use the serreta for basic training, and introduce the bit for the more advanced training. While the Charros used their “jáquima” not only for the horse’s basic training, but also for the more advanced education. Only after everything had been learned, did they introduce the bit. As I said, the bit was only a formality. Also, it’s important to mention that most historical evidence show that “Californio” vaqueros very rarely used the “hackamore”, introducing the bit from the beginning. There’s only one mention of the hackamore being used by the Californios, but it should be mentioned that their methods were harsh, completely different from how it’s being told today. Nortekman (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

You got WAYYYYYYY too much into the weeds. This is an article about the modern devices called hackamores, by whatever name, it was derived most closely from Spanish and Mexican horsemanship, and it is one of many variants on the heavy cavesson used for training purposes that dates back to ancient Persia. A serrated iron noseband was an extreme (and cruel) device and not all that common. Your own sources are not entirely complete as to training methodology, which has wide regional variations, some quite harsh, others quite refined. Some of the sources you used were also of dubious reliability, particularly given the anti-Spanish attitudes of many early US writers, who exaggerated the "cruelty" of the Mexican and Californiano horsemen. I would instead refer you to more modern scholarship. We also have a separate article on just the bosal. Montanabw^(talk) 16:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I would’ve agreed with you on believing those sources as being “anti-Spanish” or “anti-Mexican” coming from Anglo-Saxon American sources, maybe trying to demonize them to justify the conquest, but we also have Mexican sources describing the harsh methods used by the Mexicans on the northern frontier. Also, it should be noted that those harsh methods were once used in central and southern Mexico, as those methods were the first, rudimentary methods used in Mexico for training horses. Being that the northern territories were far and isolated from the rest of Mexico, such methods continued to be used well into the 1800’s. For example, tying the horse to a pole or tree and leaving it with out food or water for days. Also, the cavesson was introduced to Andalusia in the 1540’s, according to Don Pedro Fernández de Andrada’s “Libro de la Gineta de España” (1599). According to Andrada, ever since the cavesson was introduced, horsemanship in southern Spain ceased to exist. Before the introduction of the cavesson, the Andalusians used Gineta (Moorish-Arab) methods, using nothing but bridles to train their horses. Nortekman (talk) 00:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)