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

Move this page[edit]

After mentioning the recent addition of "Parts of the Saddle" on User talk:Eventer, I've been pondering. Perhaps this page should be moved to Saddle (disambiguation), and a more generic article on saddles can be written here? Perhaps it could discuss things that are common to all saddles, and use one-paragraph summary sections on English saddle and Western saddle (for example) linked with {{main}}.

A lot of the incoming links are just about "saddles" in general -- when a Simpsons episode talks about a saddle, they don't care whether it's an English or Western one, and someone clicking a link from that article shouldn't be presented with a disambiguation page.

In fact, I think I've just convinced myself that this is necessary. Barring any disagreement here, I'll take care of it in the next day or two. — Catherine\talk 21:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Generic Saddle Article[edit]

Hey, I'll be happy to help contribute to the saddle article once the moves have been made. I have some resonably good sources which should help. -Eventer

All right, I've created a skeleton for you -- only the bare minimum of information about specific saddles should go here; this should just concentrate on information common to all saddles. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for more information on providing references, and let me know if there's anything more I can help with. Thanks for volunteering to knock this into shape! — Catherine\talk 18:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge: Horse tack[edit]

There is content about saddles on both Saddle and Horse tack. I don't think that we can merge these two pages 100% (since there's content on both that doesn't relate to the other subject), but I think we need to at least cross-reference the two and remove unnecessary redundancies. -- 18:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This used to be a disambiguation page (now at Saddle (disambiguation)), and it's just recently become its own article; Eventer has been doing some excellent work here. I think much of the info at Horse tack could be moved here, leaving behind a summary section there like those for Stirrup and Bridle. (See Wikipedia:Summary style.) — Catherine\talk 20:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this article should NOT be merged. Like the horse and equestrianism articles, I think the tack article can be an overall summary with main page links to articles like this one. Therefore, am removing merge tag and will put a cleanup tag on tack article if it looks like it needs one. Montanabw 19:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Roman saddle[edit]

There needs to be rather more than this one sentence. In particular, how we know wbout this saddle, the Connolly reconstruction, and where it came from (Gaul, apparently). I will try to add some of this. --Nantonos 22:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like this could be a whole new article. I think I will take this bit and the McClellan bit, put into a nes section on "historic" saddles, and people who want more than a sentence or two summary can link to a new article they create on the subject. How's that sound? Montanabw 03:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Native American Saddles[edit]

[[1]] -- This is an article about the saddles that Native Americans used as described by Lewis and Clark. Interestingly, young men did not use a hard saddle, but rather a leather pillow stuffed with hair.-- Puddytang 17:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Varies depending on tribal group. Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


I wonder, that there is nothing about saddle fitting like here and the problems with non-fitting saddles. --Wertzu 08:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is so generic, and mostly historical, it probably doesn't fit here, but perhaps the western saddle could use such a section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Montanabw (talkcontribs) 15:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC).


It looks like this article needs some information on saddles for animals other than horses, as mentioned in the first line of the article. I also think that "and be comfortable for both horse and rider", from the treeless saddle controversy section, is biased. The section also cites no references. And perhaps treeless saddles deserve their own article? I am a lemon 06:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The treeless saddle probably would benefit from its own article, with just a mention here. I tried to tone down the original anti-treeless editor's rant by creating the controversies section, but it could probably use more work. I'll look it over. As for other animals, if someone has expertise and wants to add a section, that would be cool. So far apparently we don't have any wikipedians who are interested, but a section on, say, camel saddles, would be rather nice to see. Montanabw 16:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

all the kanpur fitter is totally waist a time - asad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Military saddles[edit]

I don't think that any police use the military saddles that were used in the wars. I have a photo of one. Comments please.Cgoodwin (talk) 01:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure. Probably most "war" saddles are now antiques. Not sure if still using some of the old basic designs or not. Any info you can find would be groovy. Montanabw(talk) 05:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I have added info on these saddles at: [2] Please ammend as neccessary. There does not appear to be a police saddle as such. Europe using European saddles; AUS their own saddles or European saddles etc.Cgoodwin (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
In the states, models similar to these are sometimes marketed as "Police" saddles. I really don't know that much about them. In the USA, they kept the McClellan model quite a while, maybe to the end, but I can't say I know what was used post WWI, here, though, without doing some research. However, I have seen mounted USA police in English saddles, western saddles, "police" saddles, you name it, much variation by region. Are you thinking of making a military saddle section in this article, or just adding the paragraphs you have created to the existing list? The basic outline looks pretty good to me, just be careful of adding something too long to the laundry list, maybe a new section (as exists for English, western, etc. has) is the best approach. I trust you, do what works. Montanabw(talk) 03:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Whats the difference[edit]

whats the difference between the english and western besides the obvious. who did they come from--Brent Perry 19:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brentperry14 (talkcontribs)

I think the respective articles on each saddle cover the history in more detail. Click the wikilinks and feel free to comment there if we need to expand them more. Montanabw(talk) 23:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Linking issues[edit]

Samuraiantiqueworld, please stop reverting this article and discuss the issue. The problem is that your links to Commons don't work per WP:MOS for two reasons: One, you can't use one wiki as a reference in another wiki. Second, "See also" is for internal wikipedia cross links. You may also want to read WP:UNDUE because while Japanese equipment is relevant to discuss, it's only one piece of the article. This article can benefit from more footnotes, but not improper ones. Third, galleries are discouraged on WP and using a commons link to a category page is poor sourcing, particularly when there is already an image in the article. Better to create a new article on the topic and wikilink to that. Montanabw(talk) 23:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

    • Your actions are inappropriate and rude, by reverting information that pertains to the article you are doing a disservice to any reader who wants information on the subject. You should have left me a message and discussed your views instead of trying to enforce your personal views on what method is used to bring information to interested readers. You could also have moved the link you feel does not belong in the "also see" section to a more appropriate section or proposed a better section to put the link in. Instead you decided to just delete the information and deny other readers the chance to find and see this information.
    • The "see also" section is for Wikipedia links and in the absence of an article there is absolutely no hard rule that I am aware of forbidding a link to images that convey the information. There is nothing wrong with using Wikipedia commons links to a certain image in order to better explain that image to a reader. It is no different than linking to an article, this method is used in many Wikipedia articles when there is no Wikipedia article to link to. If I said in a sentence "on the four corners of the kura (Japanese saddle) there are tie downs (shiode or shiho-de) for various ropes and straps." You would not be able to visualize what a shiode or shiho-de looks if instead the article had a link to images of Shiode (shiho-de) the reader can instantly see what this looks like. "on the four corners of the kura (Japanese saddle) there are tie downs (shiode or shiho-de) for various ropes and straps." What sentence provides more information to a reader????
    • Just because you do not know of or approve of a certain method of disseminating information on a wikipedia article does not mean you have the right to remove that information. Galleries are not "discouraged" on Wikipedia, many articles have galleries to assist readers in visualizing certain items which would be hard to describe with words alone. By linking certain complicated to understand terms to Wikipedia commons images the need for galleries is eliminated and the reader is still able to view images of an object while reading the sentence to further the readers understanding of the item being discussed in the article.
    • You should have discussed your concerns with me in the first place when you saw that I considered your revert to be an inappropriate revert. I will continue to use links to Wikipedia commons images when needed in order to properly convey information on subjects I am writing about unless you can show me that this practice is "specifically forbidden". As for the "see also" section, if you do not think Wikipedia commons links belong there please show me any were that "specifically forbids" this practice or suggest or create another way or section for placing links to Wikipedia commons images in the article. Since you are the one who is protesting you are the one who needs to have absolute proof of what you say, not just some vague reference to Wikipedia rules.
    • One other thing, you mention what is "discouraged" and what is not allowed, if you read the rules on "In line citations" and proper "references" you will see that the entire article is not properly referenced, where was your concern there? I have looked through the history, were are your contributions to fixing the REAL problem with this article? This practice of writing entire articles with virtually NO references goes against everything Wikipedia is about, maybe you should pick up a book and do some reading and solve the REAL problem this article has. If you read the RULES, I would be within my rights to delete this unreferenced information, but of course I would never do this, I would instead use the appropriate "tags" and try to find references which either prove or disprove, I would not use YOUR method.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

When to link Wikipedia encourages links from Wikipedia articles to pages on sister projects when such links are likely to be useful to our readers, and interlingual crosslinking to articles on foreign-language editions of Wikipedia whenever such links are possible. By far, the most common use of links to the non-Wikipedia sister projects is the use of images that are stored on the Wikimedia Commons site.

How to link See also: Help:Interlanguage links Editors link to pages on sister projects (other than the inter-language Wikipedias) in five ways: Wikisource has original text related to this article: The Wind in the Willows by linking images and other files hosted by Wikicommons, such as File:Wind in the willows.jpg, through inline links such as this link to wikisource:The Wind in the Willows (the pipe trick works: The Wind in the Willows produces The Wind in the Willows),

through large graphical templates, such as

, as shown at the right,

through standard links directly to the URL, exactly like any other website, such as The Wind in the Willows, and with templates that produce a formatted line for a bulleted list, such Works related to The Wind in the Willows at Wikisource, which produces: Works related to The Wind in the Willows at Wikisource As with standard wikilinks to other Wikipedia articles, pages at sister projects are normally linked only once within an article.

Where to place links See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout)#External links The best place and the best format for a link to a page on a Wikimedia sister project depend on the situation. For example, if a word in the text might be unfamiliar to some readers, then an inline link to Wiktionary directs readers to the definition of the word.

    • "Were to place links:For example, if a word in the text might be unfamiliar to some readers, then an inline link to Wiktionary directs readers to the definition of the word"

So if a word in the text might be unfamiliar to some readers (such as a Japanese term), an inline link to "Commons" would direct the reader to an image or images of the word. The result is the same, readers can see images of words they are not familiar with, the article is not cluttered with an over abundance of images.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────You are linking not to wiktionary, but to Commons, and specifically to a category page of photos you took of things you are clearly trying to market and sell; your user name says it all and so does your user page at commons. That doesn't help this article, though writing an article on the topics you want to link from commons, andt hen linking to the article you have written would be helpful. The commons links can properly be placed in an "External links" section, not as a "see also." Other than that, you are mostly adding useful information, though you must watch that you don't give it undue weight. It is one thing to take useful photos and use them to illustrate articles; I think that's a good thing. But it's another to be doing what certainly looks like a personal agenda to sell antiques and then viciously attacking anyone who disagrees with you. Montanabw(talk) 16:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

    • You are the only one attacking anyone VICIOUSLY here, maybe you should look at my history,

[[3]] [[4]] I have provided a huge amount of images (and research) of very rare and hard to find images for ANYONE to look at and use for FREE, maybe you have no idea of how Commons works but only images that are personally owned or that you have permission from the owner to use or are out of copyright can be posted. The items I have provided for ANYONE to see and use as they see fit are currently in use to illustrate many Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is about providing information to the world not just in words but in images also and I have spent many hours not only providing images but in researching unreferenced articles and providing good usable information to people who happen to come to Wikipedia for knowledge about a certain subject. What a person does with an item they take a picture of and provide to Wikipedia commons is no ones business as Wikipedia commons is about IMAGES not items. I have in many cases provided the only images available to the public on Commons of many items and anyone can use these images how ever they want, the images are not for sale they have been provided for FREE. I have spent countless hours taking and editing images and up loading these images and somehow you manage to twist that into something sinister?

"You are linking not to wiktionary, but to Commons" Wiktionary and Commons are SISTER projects, there is no difference, one provides words and the other provides images, both help people gain KNOWLEDGE, thats what the whole project is about, sharing knowledge with other people.

"Wikipedia encourages links from Wikipedia articles to pages on sister projects when such links are likely to be useful to our readers"

"by linking images and other files hosted by Wikicommons, such as File:Wind in the willows.jpg, through inline links such as this link to wikisource" (isnt that what I am doing?)

Providing an inline link to an image or images of an object that is being discussed is one way of helping people gain an understanding of what is being written, what possible objection do you have to that? How is having a link in an article so that readers can instantly visualize what they are reading about cause you so much concern? I think you are over reacting here, there is not harm being done by giving reader an immediate way to see what they are reading about and many of the terms I am linking an image to are not well known items, average readers would not know what the item looks like with out being able to see it at the same time they are reading.

You say "The commons links can properly be placed in an "External links" section, not as a "see also." Then why didnt you do that in the first place? or suggest that rather than just removing them? I have no problem with that.

"you must watch that you don't give it undue weight." UNDUE WEIGHT? The article is about SADDLES, how is adding a few sentences that are REFERENCED be called UNDUE WEIGHT? 99% of the article is about WESTERN saddles, maybe you are the one with a PERSONAL AGENDA here, do you have a problem with information about saddles from other cultures being included in the article? The article is not called "Western saddles", the whole article is completely one sided and mostly unreferenced, as you well know. I have provided researched information to readers, thats what the article is about, I do not understand your objections considering that a huge amount of information in the article is just personal opinion with no way for readers to see were the information came from.


Lets get this article unblocked and end this so we can get back to business, I suggest that we place the links that you object to in some other section instead of "see also" and that you drop your argument against inline links to Commons images for terms in the "Japanese saddle" section until the time that there are articles on Wikipedia to link directly to.

"It is one thing to take useful photos and use them to illustrate articles;" That is exactly what I am doing here and nothing else, there is no AGENDA here except helping people gain knowledge and understanding and SHARING with people.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I second unblocking the article and coming to some sort of reasonable conclusion. David Straub (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I support your two proposals, David, as this is, I think, all that is at issue. Montanabw(talk) 18:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Montanabw, I suggest the you ask for the article to be unblocked then, I realize that you are quite active in horse related articles but I am also, I specialize in Japanese and samurai horse related research and I am not interested in changing articles, just ADDING additional information on the subject. I am sure you realize that the majority of articles on the subject currently are slanted towards the western use of horses and understandably so do the lack of available research of the subject from other cultures. I am just adding a few sentences with references, images etc on the appropriate horse related articles and this should not be mis-construed as me adding a personal point of view on the subject. As for writing additional articles..well that would be the eventual solution but I am currently working on MANY badly written unreferenced articles (look at the Japanese and samurai related weapons and armour articles) already as well as researching correct terms for items and purchasing rare items so that I can photograph them and make the images available for use. I have organized and created many categories on Wikipedia commons and added many images (and terms) which were not previously available for public use any were. Hopefully you will see that I am (not of that ilk!!!) and I am just as interested in adding to the available information on the subject as you are, in addition you might actually learn something you did not already know.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Saumrai, read WP:UNDUE and WP:SOAP before you next reply. Also WP:AGF. I, and the others on wikipedia, are not at all opposed to adding relevant material to an overview article, and here many of your substantive content edits were useful, but just a little too much, and then you were edit-warring over links and MOS issues. And you apparently see others as abrasive and rude to you but do not recognize the abrasiveness and rudeness in yourself. For example, comments like "you might actually learn something" are completely out of line and very unhelpful. What you need to understand is that Japan may have developed some pretty cool-looking saddles, but the point here is not to discuss every single style of saddle in the world, but to focus on the aspects of technology and improvement in history, note significant contributions, and to provide information on the most common present uses. Montanabw(talk) 04:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, if you have no interest in actually writing any new articles on your areas of interest, that is sad, as they are probably needed and would be valuable. Sometimes an overview article is insufficient to cover a topic. For example, though I hesiitate to send you to yet another article since you've been behaving in a problematic manner at every place I've encountered you so far, nonetheless, I AM going to assume good faith on your part, and do it anyway: Look at another example: the bit (horse) article is, at most, an overview that leads to multiple specialty articles. Then one of those, the curb bit article, could not adequately cover a historically unique variant, so I created spade bit (horse). On the other hand, someone tried to spin off weymouth bit, but it was re-merged because it was just another term for an ordinary English curb, and there wasn't enough that was unique enough for a new article (at least, not yet). So you could do the same with your Japanese saddles, your existing summary is a good lead in to another article that covers the topic in depth. Montanabw(talk) 04:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
    • You call it an "overview" article, which is what it was supposed to be but take a GOOD look at it now, look at the majority of the sections, The Middle Ages, Parts of an equestrian saddle, English saddle, Stock saddles, Military saddles all about western or European saddles as opposed to a few sentences that I added on Japanese saddles. "Parts of an equestrian saddle", should be called "Parts of an Occidental equestrian saddle" there are other types of equestrian saddles, and 10 out of 14 images are of Western or European saddles. The Japanese saddle has its own list of parts, why should I not add a "Parts of the Japanese saddle" section in the article? If you really want a pure "overview" article then a lot of the text in this article should be moved to articles on "European" and "Western" saddles instead of being given EXTRA WEIGHT in this article. You also like to throw Wikipedia policy out, well how about the policy on INLINE CITATIONS???? How is it that this article is almost completely unreferenced with some sections having no references at all, is not references one of the key Wikipedia policies? Where did I say that I had NO interest in writing an article? I said that I was currently FIXING articles that various editors wrote with little to no references, including this article. Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 04:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, read WP:UNDUE again, please. And discuss what the Japanese added to saddle use and technology, quit trying to just add links to more pictures. And I think you should write an article on Japanese saddles, just like we have on all the other kinds. The "extra weight" on modern designs reflects the relative use of these saddles worldwide. Millions of people ride these saddles, so OF COURSE they are weighted relatively higher. Now, I am calling it an evening and I am going to strongly suggest that you take all the advice and examples I have provided and think over how you can help the process instead of attacking everyone else for trying to help you out. Montanabw(talk) 05:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Future ref[edit]

Good article on saddles in other parts of the world Montanabw(talk) 23:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Is the use of leather (vs. synthetics) steady or declining?[edit]

I just came over from visiting the PETA site, and was wondering if (almost) all horse saddles are still made of leather. I would guess that there is some pressure to move to using more synthetics, but I didn't see any mention of that here. Mwr0 (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Overwhelmingly still leather. Synthetic materials are better than they used to be, and getting more common with cheaper saddles, but there really hasn't been a replacement for leather to a significant degree. Montanabw(talk) 15:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I sign Montanabw's statement. At least in my part of the world there is absolutely no "pressure" to move to synthetics. The upside to synthetic saddles is lightness, but few people prefer the "cheap" look and feel to them. I would say there's a large proportion in synthetic children's and pony saddles, in part due to cost, but high-quality saddles are still overwhelmingly leather. Nimloth250 (talk) 09:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Nimloth250
To put it upside down - I would actually say "is the use of synthetics vs. leather steady or declining?" and put a finger on declining. There was a craze for synthetic saddles when they were first invented, but in what I can see these days that popularity is quickly waning. Nimloth250 (talk) 09:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Nimloth250
Looks like a dead issue. I think you are close, but as we probably can't find RS stats either way, I'm not going to fret about adding much to the article. Montanabw(talk) 00:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


References MUST pass the validity requirements of Wikipedia, I have asked for an opinion of this type of reference Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 123, it does not matter whether an article is stable or not, they are not valid references and these types of references are not allowed to remain as references on Wikipedia articles as was implied on my talk page ("Please do not remove sources as you did on the article saddle. In a longterm stable article such as this, it is more helpful to tag problematic links and allow them to be fixed. Please respect the process. Montanabw"). This type of reference can be placed in an external links category if they are not commercial links. If there is any doubt as to the validity of any references I have removed take it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard as I did, removing invalid references is NOT vandalism.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Please read this WP:SOURCES and specifically this WP:SPS ("Self-published sources, Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[4] Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.[6] Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."). I will continue to remove references that are invalid for use on Wikipedia and attempt to replace these references with valid reference in order to protect the reliability of Wikipedia articles. Readers of these articles are expecting that these articles are based of factual, verifiable information and not personal opinion, original research, etc.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
MTBW recruited a budddy to help here, and in one of the more bizarre instances of meatpuppetry I've seen, User:Nyttend returned the removed sources with the edit summary: "Are any of these reliable sources? They don't look like it". In other words, xe agreed with User:Samuraiantiqueworld while undoing his edits. You can't make this stuff up. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Check this out from User:Nyttend on my talk page, ("I looked at the two articles Montanabw linked; at one of them I reverted you, and at the other I restored your edits after Montanabw's reversion. I don't see any reason to say that you're in the wrong or that Montanabw is in the wrong, so I'm not going to be getting involved. Nyttend") "I'M NOT GOING TO GET INVOLVED"!! and at the same time reverting YOUR reversion of a clearly indefensible revert by Montanabw and I don't see any reason to say that you're in the wrong or that Montanabw is in the wrong!! Calling someone a "vandal" for making perfectly credible edits and no one is in the wrong? Very strange indeed.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I will AGF here and assume Nyttend's edits were not meatpuppetry (although playing the admin card wasn't really necessary). Basically it seems that Nyttend had it backwards at first, and agrees that the links that Samuraiantiqueworld removed were removed correctly. Even though xe doesn't want to get involved, I would appreciate it if Nyttend, as an administrator, would second my statement that User:Montanabw's use of Twinkle to revert 7 good-faith edits as "vandalism" was entirely unacceptable. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes I agree, a misunderstanding but regardless the reverting by an experienced editor of invalid referenced is inexcusable, there are a lot of perfectly usable references online, these resources need to be exploited instead of taking the easy way out and trying to make any old web site work as a reference, the saddle article will benefit from having reliable inline references added and so will any readers of the article. Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 01:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me, but the seven edits REMOVED links with no discussion or explanation. The links were old and I have no argument that better sources are preferred, but the solution is NOT to just randomly remove things, but is to go find those better sources and put them in. (Which was eventually done, actually). Per WP:RS, first you need a source, and ideally you want sources that are as high quality as possible, but you don't just randomly remove links because one editor feels they are no good, and especially you don't move them to an external links section where they are removed from their context. Better policy is to point out the problem via a tag such as [better source needed], [dead link], [dubious ], [unreliable source?] or something similar. Just tossing them makes more work for everyone. And on that note, my reverts were far from indefensible; the lack of collaboration that occurred with the removal of sources from an article was the problem and a full-scale revert was appropriate. And frankly, with 3000 articles now on my watchlist, it is more than fine with me if people improve articles; makes less work for others. But the operative word is "improve." Montanabw(talk) 22:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Force/Pressure confusion in History and Development[edit]

In the third paragraph of the History and Development section appears the clause, "reducing the force directed on any one part of the horse's back (lb/sq. in. or kg/sq. cm)": this is a misuse of the term "force". In a casual context such as this it's not really important, but the introduction of units, albeit with no actual quantities, implies that someone was thinking about this and wanted to get it right, but had a bit pf physics trouble. This is a small enough edit that I will go ahead and just make it; I'm sure someone will inform me if I'm wrong. Scutigera (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe wikilink to the concept if you haven't done so already. Whatever is the right way to phrase pounds of pressure or weight per square inch, the importance is that the solid treed saddle allowed horses to carry more weight on their backs for longer periods; whatever gets us there!  :-) Montanabw(talk) 22:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I linked to the definition of "pressure", and so I'm puzzled to find that the re-edit of my edit restored the original conceptual error, though the phrasing is better: "pressure per unit of area" is redundant, as pressure is force per unit of area; a rider in a proper saddle exerts the same force on the horse, but less pressure; note that "pounds" in the example unit "pounds per square inch" is a unit of force and "square inch" is a unit of area. Still, I'm a science guy, not a saddle guy, so I'll stay out of this one; I've said my piece. Scutigera (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm OK if you want to refine the phrasing a little more to use language that is correct from a physics point of view, I have no problem with that, so long as it is put so non-physicist can understand it (smile). Perhaps before you do, peek at this article which is about a study of the question of how a treed saddle works to distribute a rider's weight better than do so-called "treeless" saddles, so you have an idea of what they are doing in various studies. I understand that "pounds per square inch" is awkward, but I'm looking for something easy for laypeople to understand -- Maybe we just need to discuss kilopascals??? Here's the point of this section, however we get there: there is a school of thought that believes it is better for the horse to ride it bareback or with a soft "treeless" saddle, but studies have shown that doing so is actually harder on a horse's back than riding with a properly-fitted saddle, because the rider's weight is concentrated at the seat bones, putting more weight in a much smaller area of a horse's back, leading to a greater risk of muscular pain and soreness. The solid-treed saddle was invented for a reason: so a horse can carry more weight for more time, and with less fatigue to the rider as well. Obviously, a poorly-fitted saddle is bad, but this deosn't mean all saddles are bad, they serve an important purpose for the things we ask horses to do. An analogy is that poorly-fitted shoes on people are also bad, but just because early homo sapiens ran barefoot doesn't mean we go barefoot in the modern world! Montanabw(talk) 22:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
That sounds fair. I'd like to change "reducing the pressure per unit of area (e.g. pounds per square inch) on any one part of the horse's back" to either "reducing the pressure (e.g. pounds per square inch) on any one part of the horse's back" or "reducing the force per unit of area (e.g. pounds per square inch) on any one part of the horse's back"; these are equivalent, and while the first is shorter, the second is more explicit. You have a closer affinity with this article than I do; which works best for you? Scutigera (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd say either is fine; do what is correct in the world of physics, with appropriate linking. Either way, the "e.g." parenthetical should make it clear to the layperson. Maybe, given that the researchers are going this way, work in a link to kilopascals too, I'm all for new vocabulary words!  ;-) Montanabw(talk) 21:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Done. I went with "pressure" rather than "force per unit of area"; "pressure" has already been used in the discussion and "force per unit of area" adds terminology that I think breaks up the flow of what is, after all, a history article. I added the link for "pounds per square inch" to the already-extant one for "pressure" in case anyone really wants to go into those. Scutigera (talk) 04:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Works for me, I added kilopascals too, so we have both Imperial and metrics for those who care (some do, some a great deal) and for possiblebenefit if adding more stuff on modern studies to the article later. Montanabw(talk) 22:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Saddle. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

What the heck is a "tree"?[edit]

The article uses the word "tree" all over the place, but never defines it. There's even sections on "treeless" saddles, but they never talk about what's missing. A clear definition of "tree", early in the article, would be very helpful. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Good point. Have also been thinking about creating saddle tree for awhile. Montanabw(talk) 08:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)