User talk:Keith Kibler

Welcome!

Hello, Keith Kibler, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

TWH and Endurance

Keith, I am posting your long reply here, on your talk page, and will discuss:

Hello Do you have any endurance background? If you do, it is way out of date and your are incorrect on breeds. I am on the aerc membership committee and write for several different publications gaited. Here is the breed break down for 2011 from the aerc data base: Number Breed 2652 Arabian 64.15% 451 1/2 Arabian 10.91% 110 Arabian Cross 2.66% 89 Anglo Arab 2.15% 79.87% 74 Tennessee Walker 1.79% ................................. 65 Morgan 1.57% 60 Grade 1.45% 50 Appaloosa 1.21% 49 Mustang 1.19% 42 Quarter Horse 1.02% 41 Missouri Foxtrotter 0.99% -------------------------------------- 36 Thoroughbred 0.87% 31 Mule 0.75% 30 Morab 0.73% 27 Paint 0.65% 23 Paso Fino 0.56% 18 National Show Horse 0.44% 16 Standardbred 0.39% 15 Rocky Mountain Horse 0.36% 15 Spanish Mustang 0.36% 14 Shagya 0.34% 13 Kentucky Mt. Horse 0.31% 13 Other 0.31% 13 Quarab 0.31% 13 Quarter Cross 0.31% 12 Appaloosa Cross 0.29% 11 1/2 Connemara 0.27% 10 Akhal Teke 0.24% 9 Pinto 0.22% 8 Arab/Appy 0.19% 8 Morgan Cross 0.19% 7 Pony 0.17% 7 TN Walker X 0.17% 7 Thoroughbred Cross 0.17% 6 Appendix Quarter 0.15% 6 Saddlebred 0.15% 5 Spotted Mountain Horse 0.12% 4 Am Gaited Endurance Horse 0.10% 4 Friesian Cross 0.10% 4 Kiger Mustang 0.10% 4 Shagya Cross 0.10% 4 Standardbred Cross 0.10% 3 Andalusian 0.07% 3 Haflinger 0.07% 3 McCurdy Plantation Horse 0.07% 2 Arab Pinto 0.05% 2 Akhalteke Cross 0.05% 2 Andalusian/Arab 0.05% 2 Connemara 0.05% 2 Curly 0.05% 2 Grade Walker 0.05% 2 1/2 Mustang 0.05% 2 Mustang Cross 0.05% 2 POA 0.05% 2 Polish Arabian 0.05% 2 Racking Horse 0.05% 2 Saddlebred Cross 0.05% 2 Welsh/Arab 0.05% 1 Blazer 0.02% 1 Canadian Sport Horse 0.02% 1 Connemara Cross 0.02% 1 Friesian 0.02% 1 Foxtrotter 0.02% 1 Gypsy Vanner 0.02% 1 Halfinger 0.02% 1 Hungarian 0.02% 1 Irish Sport Horse 0.02% 1 Icelandic 0.02% 1 Lusitano 0.02% 1 Mangalarga Machador 0.02% 1 Mountain Pls 0.02% 1 Nez Perce 0.02% 1 Oldenburg 0.02% 1 Pinto-Arabian 0.02% 1 Shetland 0.02% 1 Single-Foot 0.02% 1 Spotted Saddle Horse 0.02% 1 Welsh 0.02% 1 Walkaloosa 0.02% 1 Welsh/Shetland 0.02% 1 Welsh Cross 0.02% 4134 There really is not much difference between mfts and twhs. We breed and compete both. They share common foundation horses that were cross registered with both association. I am the liason between aerc and both TWHBEA and MFTBA. The national average for completions for arabians in endurance at the 50 mile distance is about 82%. My wife's and my program of gaited endurance, again with twhs and mfts, has been over 91% completions in 67 races and that includes 100 mile 24 hour events.

 If you do not believe this data for some reason, I can have it verified by the aerc endurance news editor and the TWHBEA director and the Fosh (friends of the sound horse, the anti soring association I present and write for).
I would need an email for you to have those people verify what I have said.
However, you have completely lost me in your logic as to how saying that a twh has won a 100 mile endurance race (actually the same horse has won 2 100s, 2 50s and a 30 and been the national point champion for the last two years) is somehow different than all the other numerous wiki articles indicating accomplishments. Do you have a bias?

Keith Kibler Shawnee Sunrise Farm Marion IL kwkibler@frontier.com

btw, this is Kate in her aerc/ twhbea 2010 national award: http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v106/kkibler/?action=view&current=kate1.jpg

Keith Kibler (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that counts is what has been publicly published by third-party sources, and sometimes what can be verified on a paid subscription site if a hardcopy exists or if URL to the data can be supplied. "I can call people" will not pass the criteria for a reliable source on Wikipedia. A magazine or newsletter article, web site, news article, or other public material is what you need. This is an example:Tevis Cup winners. And do not accuse an editor here of bias, in fact, I once owned a partbred TWH and liked her very much. I know that TWH's are very good trail horses, that is not the same as being champions in endurance racing. My previous comment was looking at past stats (which are several years old) on WINNERS; finishing is an accomplishment, but a testament to soundness and conditioning, sometimes to individual breeding, but it is winners that define the dominant breeds. For example, Arabians dominate endurance, but not barrel racing, so even though a few Arabians are good barrel racers or occasionally win barrel races, that doesn't mean Arabians as a breed are significant players in that event. Montanabw^(talk) 18:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please do not insult or attack those of us who edit wikipedia. There are rules here and everyone has to follow them the same way. My point is that you can't promote yourself, (please read Wikipedia's conflict of interest info) and you have to use data that can be verified by outside, third-party sites. If you can, also post a link to that site with the stats, please, and perhaps that material may be of use on the Endurance riding article-- but are those numbers of WINNERS, finishers, or just competitors (a Friesian??)?

I have no bias other than to follow wikipedia and write good articles, particularly the need for verifiable sources and No original research (Original research is "I know this firsthand/I talked to people who know."). The bottom line is that information needs to be cited from reliable, third party sources. If your horse had an article done on her in a magazine, for example, that would be a reliable source, but for what? Has she changed the breed? It's a new accomplishment, will it be viewed as significant in the industry 10 years from now (as in, "it all began in 2010 when a TWH won a 100 mile ride...") . However, it still has to be PROFOUNDLY relevant; if you will note our quality breed articles (the GA and FA ones listed in the Horses Portal), you will note that the ONLY individually-named animals are those famous foundation horses of the past or those with truly significant impact on the breed that was viewed as significant even several years later. We had a spat here several months ago from someone who insisted on adding information to the Percheron article that they could be used for barrel racing. It took several conversations to explain that just because someone tried it, didn't mean it had any relevance to the article (any more than having a light saddle horse pull a plow -- or in your list, Friesian doing endurance!). Montanabw^(talk) 18:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]