User talk:Jmilchick

I like a lot of what you are adding to the reining article, though I think we may need to discuss some of the future changes to the reining article before we implement them. Going into huge detail on the different rules is probably not a good use of bandwidth, (no one cares but reiners and we can provide external links to the details for them.) and the reality is that there ARE a number of different ways things are done, depending on region. I am more than glad to base the text on the NRHA as the standard and other things as variations, but AQHA isn't the only other organization to sanction reining, and so we need to tread carefully not to favor any one breed over another. Montanabw^(talk) 18:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

AQHA

Although AQHA is not the only breed organization that sanctions reinings, it is by FAR the largest and most widely recognized of the breed organizations that include reining as an official class. While paints, arabians and several other organizations do have reining, the world wide numbers are miniscule in comparison to AQHA. It would seem to me that any general article on reining would recognize this. Further, in international comptettion, the quarter horse reins supreme. In addition, the large majority of paint horses have there genetics in quarter horses that have "cropped out" of AQHA in the past, with too much white. In conclusion, in my view, no article that discusses the fundamentals of reining, is complete without recognizing the impact of AQHA and the American Quarter Horse in the ongoing evolution of the sport.

First off, welcome to wikipedia! Next, one thing that mght interest you: there is no article on National Reining Horse Association. If you'd like to create one, using wiki guidelines (Neutral point of view, write like an encyclopedia, not a promotional brochure, and some good sources when possible, etc.) it would be welcomed; NRHA is "red linked" in a number of places, waiting for the article to be started. You can just click on the red link I made here to go to the create an article page. (For that matter, there also is a need for one on the American Paint Horse Association too, if anyone is in new article starting mode) I have been floating around the wiki horse articles for quite a while now, so the big thing I can contribute to anyone else's effort is wikilinking to the content I know is out there (some of which is not easy to find, nor logically named, sigh) and, as you have already seen, assorted wordsmithing, footnoting and POV-patrolling. (Plus have survived several edit wars, so an awareness of what can trigger them.)

Also, if you had a photo of a reining horse doing a flying change, both the reining article and the Flying change article could use it. Due to the international nature of wikipedia, the English disciplines have way more photos uploaded. (VERY tough to find free images generally, I struck out totally at trying to find a GDFL or public domain image of a freestyle reiner last night!--lots of copyrighted images, none that would pass muster in wiki) And thanks for making me check NHRA, AQHA and USEF on the junior/senior horse thing. Rules do change, and I hadn't been tracking that. (I personally spend more time working with green but non-junior horses).

As for the rest, I know that AQHA is the big dog, that's not the point. Aside from the fact that the NRHA is deliberately an all breed organization for a reason, the point is that here in wikiland, once you start promoting one breed, then everyone else who ever taught their horse to do a rollback -- or tried to -- wants their breed listed, and before you know it, the article has a laundry list that contains everything form the Racking Horse to the Chincoteague Pony, and woe be it unto the poor editor who suggests that a Percheron can't be a reining horse. (see list of horse breeds if you want to see how bad it can get) At least, that is what has happened over in the Dressage article and some of the other English riding articles. (Actually, leave out one single warmblood "breed" in a laundry list and oh dear...) Many an edit war has been resolved by tossing out all the named breeds and saying something more general, like "Warmblood," "Sport Horse," "Gaited horse," or, here, "Stock horse." So, the reining article DOES say that the stock horse breeds predominate, and the link goes to the page that explains what a stock horse or a stock horse breed is.

And anyway, it's not like the AQHA desperately needs more promotion, and the last thing we need is an edit war with the Paint folks; I know how touchy that whole issue is. There are links to AQHA rules within the article and it's fair to list the AQHA in that little section on history. (and if the Paint and Appy people want to add footnotes or links to their rulebooks, that won't take up all that much space, so that's not going to create a problem. I don't care enough to do it but if someone else does, rulebook links are reasonable to have, I suppose) Anyway, it's not a huge thing, I just have spent too many hours in wikipedia dealing with vandalism, tossing out laundry lists, removing promotional links to various stud farms, (if you think breed lists are bad, try listing individual horses that are deemed famous, that gets even worse) and so on instead of doing what I like, which is editing, and trying to source and hopefully improve article content. Sorry to write a book here, just trying to explain the thinking behind my edits. Montanabw^(talk) 00:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

AQHA, ETC.

Ok then, to clarify, I was in no way attempting to promote AQHA. In fact, although I deeply involved in reining, I rarely show in AQHA classes. My point was, and is, that very factually Quarter Horses dominate the sport. That includes AQHA, NRHA, USEF, FEI and APHA events. Although many other breeds hold reining classes, the numbers of exhibitors is small by comparison. Therefore, I feel it very accurate and not promotional at all, to clearly say that quarter horses dominate the event. It's just a fact at this point in time.

Don't tell that to the Paint people! (grin) Like I say, the English articles get into these breed edit wars, and generic terminology avoids problems. For example warmbloods might be pretty dominant in Dressage, but OMG if someone claimed there were more Hanoverians than Swiss Warmbloods, even though that is true...I know that the QH is more dominant than anything, and there is probably some way of talking about quarter horses without someone roaring in and screaming "My American Saddlebred can too do reining!" (grin). But I like being generic. Montanabw^(talk) 02:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I am very involved (for many years) in the sport of reining as an exhibitor, futurity horse owner, and officer of several reining organizations. I also am currently running for the executive board of NRHA.

Terrific, then you have a hardcopy of the rule book! I have found that when these articles are worked on, it REALLY helps when we can cite to specific rules, I downloaded part of the NHRA rulebook, but I confess that I know USEF much better and I am not a specialist, most of my reining days were back when I had to do it for equitation, but did the open classes on the side to stay tuned up, but all at breed shows, not NRHA.

OTOH, while expertise is great, remember wikipedia's "no original research" rule. That trips up ALL the horse editors because we carry so much stuff in our heads, horse people in general transmit a lot of knowledge via word of mouth, and it's a PITA to drag out a book or a magazine to source something we already know. But, all it takes is some non-horse person to get article on their radar and start demanding sources...I just had to source in the horse article that a "White" horse is almost always really a gray! Arrgh! Just a heads up. I deliberately choose to not discuss my own background any more than I have to, because I find citing a source quiets an edit war faster than claiming I know something (FYI, Wiki also frowns on people who cite stuff they have written, though it can be done if from a real mainstream publication in the field). Montanabw^(talk) 02:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

A few other points. There are many classes where horses compete together with some in a curb bit (one hand) and some in a snaffle with two hands. Early futurities almost alway allow either. It is also not uncommon for some older horse to compete in a snaffle bit in NRHA competition. This is allowed, but they must ride with one hand.

Hmm. Details on rules can be overdone in wikipedia, but on the other hand, an overview is nice. Maybe the problem is that we have the "Bits" section, and the "competition" section, and maybe what we need is a third section that sort of covers the types of classes and the more picky stuff...call it "rules" or something. Don't know, maybe give it a shot, see what happens. Montanabw^(talk) 02:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The term pivot is rarely used to describe the spin in reining. Since this is a general description, why would you insist on including the term when it is more suitable perhaps in dressage or other events that include a pivot type maneuver?

I am showing my age. Spins were called pivots back in the day, especially back when you had to do less than a 360. "Turnaround" is a more recent phrasing. Also, as you point out, pivot is a more generic term familiar to non-reiners. I also still see it in things like 4-H judging manuals and such. I'll do a little tweak, see if that settles this one. Montanabw^(talk) 02:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Finally, it is also rare for a reining pattern to include more than 8 maneuvers. In fact, in all my years in the sport, I've never witnessed a class that had 12 maneuvers. Reining patterns include 7 or 8 maneuvers. Perhaps you are counting lead changes separately, but they are scored as part of the circles. Same with rollbacks and back-up. Each reining pattern will include 2 sets of spins, 2 sets of circles (included the lead changes) and 3 or 4 stops (which include both the rollbacks and back-up).

That wasn't one of my original edits, I don't think, but if you want to just eyeball all the patterns and put in the actual range as listed there, I'm happy to go with whatever the NRHA patterns say, everyone uses them anyway. Possibly FEI has their own? Maybe we need to check?? I will check the USEF rule book and see if they have patterns with 12 maneuvers, though I think they now just swipe the NRHA ones too...Montanabw^(talk) 02:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to further discussions with you on this topic. Rest assured that I have neither the inclination nor the time to engage in any sort of editing war. I made changes only to details that I felt made the article more accurate and more informative for anyone that wanted to know more about reining.

Excellent...my contribution here is that I am sort of a generalist and have also been floating around wikipedia for awhile. I also do a lot of writing and wordsmithing in real life for my job, though as you can see, typos trip me up constantly! Montanabw^(talk) 02:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Freestyle Photos

I've uploaded 2 pics from a freestyle competition where the exhibitor is costumed as Miss Piggy. You may judge whether they are usable of not. The file names are "

" and "

"

Made them into thumbnails so I can see them here. LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 01:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Flying Lead Picture

I would guess that it will likely be impossible to find a single picture for a flying lead change. Since the flying change is a movement, no single still picture will show what it is. A still pic will only show a particular moment in time. Perhaps a better idea would be to use two pictures, one clearly showing each lead and then describing the transition.

Yeah, I know, check out these articles: canter, flying change and horse gait. There are already photos of horses and leads, I do agree that the flying change is sort of hard to illustrate, but maybe a horse on a circle, showing the bend and the lean...bottom line is that the "flying change" photo that is in that article is of a dressage horse, it would be cool to add one of a western horse that is at least setting up for one (and not cranking its tail around the way the dressage horse is...(grin))

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Chitari0407 3.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Chitari0407 3.jpg

The file File:Chitari0407 3.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)