Talk:Missouri Fox Trotter

Missouri Fox Trotter has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 21, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

Equine Low‑importance

	Horses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.EquineWikipedia:WikiProject EquineTemplate:WikiProject Equineequine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Horse breeds task force.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Missouri Low‑importance

	Missouri portal This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Missouri Fox Trotter/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Keilana (talk · contribs) 01:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dana! I'm going to copyedit a bit as I go; anything that might accidentally change the meaning I'll stick with the rest of the comments below.

Can you explain further what "four-beat broken diagonal gait" means for us non-horse types?
- Done. Oakley77 (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keilana, do you mean in the lead or in the Characteristics section? If the latter, I'm really not sure how to explain it any better than the successive sentences do, although I might be able to tweak something specific if I knew which part of this you found the most confusing. Basically, "four-beat" explains the number of beats (a walk/amble is four, a true trot is two, a canter is three). "Diagonal" means the legs move in diagonal pairs (front left with rear right and front right with left rear), and "broken" means that one leg in each pair comes down before the other, unlike a trot where both legs in a pair leave and hit the ground at the same time (resulting in the two-beat gait). Dana boomer (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I meant in the lead, I got a better picture later on. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK, I've played with the lead a bit - better? Dana boomer (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, much better. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What does "eliminating the moment of suspension and giving a smooth ride said to also be sure-footed" mean?
- Changed to make sense. Oakley77 (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've rewritten this a bit, but don't know if it helped. Basically, a two-beat gait (the trot) can be very bouncy, due to the jarring when two legs hit the ground simultaneously. When you move this to a sliding four-beat gait, it smooths out the ride considerably. Dana boomer (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, that makes sense. I keep learning things about horses from you two! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Am I correct in saying that a "four-beat gait" is one where you can hear four beats and a "two-beat gait" is one where you can hear two beats? Because that's what I'm understanding from the article as it stands.
- To be honest, I am not a horse expert of any sort, so I understand it the same way as well. Oakley77 (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, explained a bit more above. Dana boomer (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Gotcha. 21:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Is "medium trot" an established criterion, or just a casual term?
- I believe it is established, but even if it isn't, I don't think it is an issue. Oakley77 (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - An established term. I have linked to Trot (horse gait)#Types of trot. Dana boomer (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perfect, thanks. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sentences about its smooth gait in the Ozarks are a teensy bit redundant. A little polish would be nice.
- Done. Oakley77 (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tweaked a bit more. Dana boomer (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's great. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there more information about their ability to work with cattle?
- Changed sentence to better display meaning. Oakley77 (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've reverted Oakley's changes, because they were incorrect. Keilana, I'm not sure exactly what you're asking for here? Basically, they were very close to other stock horse breeds in conformation and temperament - some breeds (and some individual horses) do better at working with cattle than others. For example, any individual American Quarter Horse is much more likely to be good at working cattle than any individual Shetland pony or Suffolk Punch draft horses, simply because of their breeding history, conformation and temperament. Same with Missouri Fox Trotters. Dana boomer (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - And that said, they aren't a stock horse breed. They aren't noted for handling cattle, though if asked to, they have a good disposition and probably can do fine. Montanabw^(talk) 23:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - They're not a typical stock horse breed now - there's been too much TWH blood added. When they were first developed, they were a lot more like the other stock horse breeds in conformation, and they were noted for working cattle in the Ozarks (not out west, though). More of a specialized stock horse breed, kind of like the Florida Cracker Horse that was great for Florida cattle, but couldn't handle Texan cattle. Dana boomer (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        That makes sense; is there a way you could include a bit of that background? Thanks for the detailed explanation. :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The problem is that I don't have any sources for the above - it's OR based on quite a bit of reading and general knowledge of horses. I haven't come across any sources that expand on the use of MFTs for cattle work, or about a comparison of their abilities with other stock horse breeds. So, basically, there's not a lot out there that's sourceable, other than that ranchers liked their gaits in rocky terrain and thought they made good cattle horses for the Ozarks, and that's already in the article. Dana boomer (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why were they trying to reduce the amount of Tennessee Walking Horse blood? That could be interesting to include.
- Added on to this part. Oakley77 (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reverted Oakley due to grammatical problems, but added more here that was quite similar to his. Dana boomer (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's perfect, thanks. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything special about MFTs in Europe? Just curious.
- I did a bit of research, and considering there is only 600, nothing really interesting appeared. Oakley77 (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Added some to the history section on their history in Europe. Nothing really special about the horses themselves - they're the same as in the US. Dana boomer (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's fine, the bit about the Queen is a nice touch. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The bit about the first descent of the Grand Canyon was interesting!
- I though it was too! Oakley77 (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for another excellent horse article! As always, I learned a lot about something I don't specialize in. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the concerns raised at WT:GAN#Oakley77 block. --Rs chen 7754 05:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keilana, thanks again for taking on this review. Your edit to the article looks good - no changed meanings. I have answered everything above, although I'm not sure I have addressed everything to your satisfaction - please let me know if there is additional work to be done. Dana boomer (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to help as well. I was lead editor on the ambling article and can clarify any stuff on the gaits. Montanabw^(talk) 23:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks to both of you for your conscientious work and your patience. Just one more thing I believe, and then I'm happy to pass. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation above, this meets the GA criteria and I'm happy to pass. Nice job! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 20:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Dana boomer (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious-discuss

Trails in the Grand Canyon are open to horses in general. See [1]. The people at this place have been guiding rides for 35 years - and say nothing about MFTs. The Kaibab trail is clearly open to equines, not just mules. I find it unbelievable that in the 100+ years people have been touring the Grand Canyon that no one did it with horses (and the native people before that, this link notes the Havasupai had horses on 1770 - word search for "horse") until 2003. I would suggest that this new bit be removed, and in fact, the bit about MFTs in the Grand Canyon that is already there be subjected to some more research for reliable third party sources that don't just parrot the registry. it's an extraordinary claim, particularly given that there are thousands of horses nearby of Mustang, Arabian, Morgan, Appaloosa, old-time Paint and foundation Quarter Horse lines. Montanabw^(talk) 05:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm beating this to death, but:

Kaibab trail in 1962 "Canyon officials prefer to use mules" - horses not banned.
[2] Back Country Horsemen of Arizona help clear the Kaibab trail.
Mustangs in a group (this year, but shows that while difficult, not extraordinary.

OK, hope that helps. Montanabw^(talk) 06:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, removed. However, I did find another article about the guys from the Unbranded blog in Western Horseman that said they had to get special permits from the NPS to take horses through the Kaibab... Dana boomer (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation Foxtrotter Heritage Association (FFHA)

User:Cmdomino2000 has removed the content re: the Foundation Foxtrotter Heritage Association (FFHA) stating that it is controversial and not approved by the MFTHBA. However, the article is about the horse breed and not the organization - so the removal seems invalid. Where is the reference for the controversy? I've restored and re-organized the history section a bit. Vsmith (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy behind the Foundation Foxtrotter Heritage Associatin is that the creator/owner of this registry is putting forth and registry based on an unproven theory. Mr. Ken Kemp did a paper on all the weaknesses to be found within this newer Association, and the link to that is: http://kenkemp.net/ffha/vfact2013.pdf 216.252.18.157 (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would need a WP:reliable source, where was this pdf published? With a reliable published source a bit could be added to the article disputing the FFHA statement. Disclaimer: I know nothing of this and have no clue who this Ken Kemp is - so maybe educate us here :) Vsmith (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, given the details in the "Credentials" section of the above paper, I think Kemp may quite well qualify as a SPS by an expert author, which would make it a reliable source. However, this does not mean the FFHA information should be deleted. Instead, what should happen is the article saying "The FFHA believes/claims xyz. Expert Kemp/the MFTHBA disputes this, claiming abc." I don't have time to write up an actual blurb for this right now, but if no one gets to it by later in the week I'll work on integrating the information. Vsmith is correct that this is an article about the horse breed, not the registry, and so both sides of the story need to be presented, rather than just deleting anything that does not fall in with the largest registry's party line. Dana boomer (talk) 12:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like Dana says. It's an intra-breed dispute and we teach the controversy. Looks to me like the big thing with the fountation foxtrotter heritage bunch is a dislike for Tennessee Walker bloodlines, which, IMHO is mot much different than stuff like the "Egyptian Arabian" crowd in Arabs - The "V-factor" material in the foundation foxtrotter heritage association site is not just WP:FRINGE but gets into tinfoil helmet territory. That said, the article by Kemp buys into the silly stuff all gaited people get into about lateral ambling gaits versus the pace - the failure to acknowledge that ambling is simply a pace broken into four beats; likewise the synchornous singlefoot (1-2-3-4) versus the asynchornous stepping page (1-2,3-4); but that's kind of universal in the gaited horse crowd, the desire to claim their breed has the unique gait. For Fox trotters, this is an issue because the Fox Trot is a broken trot, not a broken pace. But all that said, the legit stuff is in sections 18 and 19; among them that the V-factor is a totally bogus theory and the FFHA bunch seems to be kind of an internal self-promoting bunch. I'd say we could add some carefully-phrased discussion of the issue. Montanabw^(talk) 02:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for educating me :) -- I'll defer to the experts here to clarify the article. Vsmith (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happened again

And now a different new editor tried to remove the same stuff. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 19:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it keeps up and becomes an edit war, ping me at talk and a message will come to me via email. Montanabw ^(talk) 07:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will do. They seem to have given up, though. It's another case of, "I don't like this so let's get rid of it." White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 14:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And go off and complain on their facebook site for their group about how inaccurate wikipedia is and how we evil wikipedians revert their edits! LOL! Montanabw ^(talk) 23:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Missouri Fox Trotter. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 12:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]