Talk:Equestrianism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Expanded[edit]

I think this page needs to be expanded in terms of perhaps methods of teaching/training and also the different disciplines of riding. There is nothing on hacking or trekking and little on English riding. Ashfan83 15:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible material for incorporation--with some editing?[edit]

I removed this paragraph from the horse behavior article, as it seems more applicable here.

These insights are based upon natural horsemanship principles. The first known instances of natural horsemanship were writtten by Xenophon in On Horsemanship. Lost during the Dark Ages, natural horsemanship was reborn again during the Renaissance in the schools that trained horses for military cavalry. There is an unbroken line from these trainers and institutions to the Olympic equestrian sport of dressage. This discipline is still the foundation which other equestrian sports such as eventing and stadium jumping build upon. One of the most revered institutions of the art of dressage is the Spanish Riding School of Vienna.

Montanabw 18:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree in part: Natural Horsemanship to me has everything to do with horse behaviour and the interaction between horse and man, i.e. the way we train horses to do our bidding. At the same time, true "natural horsemanship" to me are the training methods of people like Monty Roberts and Ferdinand Hempfling, which are based totally on horse behaviour and is in many ways different to the traditional military, and later civilian methods used in equestrian sports today. I didn't manage to find the original context of this paragraph in the Horse behaviour article, but still feel that it belongs there, although perhaps in a briefer form. The point really is whether the history of training horses belongs in "Horse behaviour" or in "Equestrianism"? I still lean towards "Horse behaviour", but with some editing! --Wilma Sweden 01:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To complicate matters, there is also an article on Horse Breaking where it also could go. The horse behavior article is really more of a horse psychology piece, not a training piece. "Natural" Horsemanship is more a training philosophy. And not even a new one.
The Horse breaking article was obviously developed by a major Monty Roberts fan, maybe the paragraph needs to go there. But it's also just poorly written as is, needs an edit
Like I say below, the horse articles in Wiki are actually extensive, but no one can find them! Montanabw 16:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections to be made[edit]

The Olympic section needs editing, we need to check whether vaulting, reining and driving haven't been made into Olympic sports? One could also mention the other major international tournaments like the World Cup and Samsung Nations' cup.

Other points barely covered: para-equestrianism, pony competitions and Young Riders, Breeder's shows and of course, general expansion of the European/Olympic forms of competition. I'm aiming to look into the European sections in the next few weeks, hopefully before Aachen!

I have also noticed that very few famous equestrian performers are covered in Wiki as a whole, would it be appropriate to include a few here, or should they go under their respective sports, such as show jumping/dressage/eventing/driving? --Wilma Sweden 01:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Horse category is HUGE and very disorganized. There are in fact articles on most of these things--somewhere. There are articles on hunters, jumpers, Olympic Equestrian (though that article is terrible!), almost every breed out there, most of the international and American organizations, etc. The problem is lack of linking and lack of good categorization. Everyone can help with that problem! Montanabw 16:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

I have removed the External links because none of them seem to meet Wikipedia's standards for External links WP:LINKS. "it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic". The pages linked are home pages and therefore have no specific information related to this article (and 5 of those six links specifically relate to other articles re: Dressage, Endurance riding, ect). A web page could have information somewhere in their content that could be cited and linked but that specific page on that website should be linked, NOT the websites homepage. For example:

Wikipedia also asks that: "If the site or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source first" Fountains of Bryn Mawr 22:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm putting these links back in for the main reason that the External links list has already been reduced (mostly by me and a couple other editors) to about 1/3 the length it once was. Also, I do this because the Equestrianism article is largely unsourced (very insufficient footnotes, but I haven't the time or energy to fix this particular problem). What was left of the link list were primary links to major riding organizations of national or international importance. It is, for example, impossible to reproduce the entire USEF rule book and people may very well need this reference. The other articles are, in come cases, very weak articles without good sourcing. So if you insist on removing these links, then please either create a new article on each of these topics or at least check the existing articles to see we have them in the "see also" section AND that the organizational link to their sanctioning group is included in these articles. Having written articles for Wikipedia that have achieved "Good Article" status, I believe you are applying too rigid a standard for external links. We have enough trouble with people who keep putting in links to their personal business, farm, local club, etc...sigh. Montanabw 22:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"External links" is not the place for "Reference" or the place to propose future articles (that can be done in a "Reference" heading and in TALK respectively). Wikipedia is not a directory to link someone to the "USEF rule book"; it is an encyclopedia that should explain why knowing about the "USEF rule book" would be informative to the reader. And a link to "USEF rule book" should be in the context of the article... it is very uninformative (and un-encyclopedic) to link it under external links with zero explanation.
The following links are a slam-dunk for removal:
The remainder:
could probably use a page on Wikipedia but again "External links" is not the place to propose that.
It is not my place as an editor to look at some external links and figure out if someone is keeping them for some non-obvious reason... again that is what TALK is for, it is my job to say "hmm... these simply are not adding any information". Fountains of Bryn Mawr 04:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your problem is primarily with semanics. "External links" are places people can go for more information. They are appropriate, and here, where the topic is so huge and there is no single "Equestrianism" source, there is a need for multiple sources. While I agree that they don't need to be extensive, and perhaps some could be reclassified as "References", "Sources" or "For more information" -- or whatever-- I think you misunderstand the wikipedia principle here. The principle is to provide needed information to the reader. And, again, if you want to go to the other articles and verify that their links are all good and link properly, that may be a job worth doing. All I am really asking is that you realize that there are a lot of people working on this page who are taking something that was a total mess six months ago and have brought it a long ways in terms of removing link farm links, repeatedly reverting a pornographic image that some idiot keeps putting in here because they think it's funny, moving extensive material on a narrow topic into a new article, and generally work on improving substantive content. We don't need an edit war over this. The whole article still needs organizational work, it may benefit from having some content merged with existing articles or new articles created, and in the meantime, I think that links to the major sanctioning organizations for worldwide equestrian activity will stand up under scrutiny until the overall article has things like sources and footnotes. Montanabw 04:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horseback riding and animal cruelty[edit]

I recently read an article saying horseback riding belongs to animal cruelty. Perhaps an expert can verify to what an extent this is true and then include the results with cited references in the article. Skypher 19:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, riding as cruel per se is pretty strong POV. And, anyway, this article already has a long "cruelty" section under the "criticism of horses in sport", it's at the bottom of the article. Plenty of material and many wikilinks. You could say this particular horse has in fact been beaten to death...the whole article needs more citations,overall, but that's a different issue. Montanabw 00:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The section you mention is indeed not satisfactory, just a collection of "might be"s and "could be"s. No information on hard, for example medical, facts, nothing particular on horseback riding... Skypher 18:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Find it, cite it, add it. Don't whine. If you want to put in the proposed language here first before sticking it the article, go ahead, probably best, actually. However, remember that Wikipedia is NPOV. And you will also start an edit war on this highly controversial topic, so tread with great care. Riding done properly isn't cruel in the eyes of anyone but extremist animal rights people. I mean, is there a section in the fishing that says fishing is cruel to fish? Montanabw 20:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably some Peta people will run and add that fishing is cruel to fish just as they claim hunting is cruel to deer. White Arabian mare (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Necessary Section Missing[edit]

The article neglects to mention warfighting, one of the most prominent historical uses of the horse. Fuegonel23 19:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the VERY EXTENSIVE and long, detailed article Horses in Warfare, which IS linked from this article. Montanabw(talk) 18:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland[edit]

Can we have a section on horse-riding in Iceland as their style of equestrianism is unique —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catherinefionarichardson (talk • contribs) 17:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Icelandic horse. Seems the breed of horses are unique, but the riders don't appear to be (grin), I know there are some riding style things related to riding gaited horses generally, maybe you want to look at equitation. If there is some unique aspect to riding Icelandics, maybe explain what you mean here and I can direct you to the appropriate article or make a suggestion for a new article. Also maybe take a look at gaited horse and ambling, these are the general articles on gaited horses. The problem is that EVERY gaited breed(heck, every breed, gaited or otherwise, we have over 350 breed articles in the task force...sigh) thinks their breed is unique...don't want to start edit wars with, say, the Peruvian Paso crowd (smile). Montanabw(talk) 20:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gambling section[edit]

I am proposing getting rid of the gambling section.... I have nothing against a good wager, however, it doesn't seem to flow with the article and I find the section is too long/detailed. It doesn't seem to me to be integral to 'equestrianism.' Can we just mention betting on horses, and then link to the gambling page? --AeronM (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have mixed feelings on the issue. On one hand, I kind of agree with you, I bet on a few horse races on occasion and gambling is big money in the horse industry, on the other hand, the relevance is questionable. Guess I don't care deeply either way, but whoever added the section, whenever it was added, cared. I suggest we let it sit a week or so here as a discussion and see if anyone else weighs in. You may also want to read what's in the horse racing article and the articles on gambling or parimutual betting to see if a simple wikilink or two would be apt. It's also possible that it could just be added to the laundry lists at the end of the article. Montanabw(talk) 03:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a very good description on the parimutuel gambling page... I suggest a wikilink and remove section here. --AeronM (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't break my heart. I say go for it. Use the "Main" template to link to the appropriate articles, perhaps both the horse racing one and the parimutuel one. Been several days now. Maybe see if Cuddy Witter has an opinion, that editor patrols the horse racing articles a lot. Montanabw(talk) 02:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Do Sections?[edit]

These section headings need a bit of clean-up... for example, 'English Riding' is bold, but 'Western Riding' is a section heading. Also, could we organize the headings a bit better, for example, using English and Western as major section headings, with other things falling under these, such as

English[edit]

    • Dressage
    • Show Jumping
    • Saddle Seat, etc
Dressage and show jumping are listed in the Olympic/International section Montanabw(talk) 02:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Western[edit]

    • Rodeo
    • Roping, etc
<- Roping is a rodeo event. Montanabw(talk) 02:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harness/Driving[edit]

etc. etc.? --AeronM (talk) 01:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The harness stuff in general needs expansion. Montanabw(talk) 02:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with you that there may be a better way to organize the article, but it needs to be handled carefully so as not to, for one thing, provoke one of those "US-Centric" spats, which has hit this article in the past. (Arrgh).
I did make "English" into a full section heading, that kind of made sense. Note that one problem is that what we Americans call "English" riding lumps in a lot of things that people in other nations (particularly where virtually ALL riding is "English") break out into separate disciplines. Plus some things about how the article is structured (which long predates me, by the way) I think represented some sort of compromise between UK and US writers. Long story short, the international disciplines of Dressage, Jumping and Eventing are up in that earlier section, while the stuff sort of unique to the US is in the "English" section. Not sure if that can't be improved upon, but there was some logic to the break out (I think the Olympic section was there before the English section.)
I hesitate to lump rodeo with other western riding material because, for one thing, there are rodeos in Australia and South America, so it isn't just a "western" discipline, though that is its best-known form. Also, rodeo only sort of plays nicely with the other western disciplines, there is not a lot of cross-over between practitioners. It's possible that the rodeo section is disproportionately long and could be cut down quite a bit, seeing as how there are several long articles on the competition and all the various events. I'll think about that piece a bit.
At any rate that's my two bits. I'm not opposed to playing around with section header rearranging a bit, though maybe don't alter content much for now. This article sort of represents a lot of delicate compromises from a lot of different editors over the years, and is also subject to a significant amount of vandalism and nonsense editing. Many, many sections were broken off into separate articles over the years, it is pretty bad for looking put together by a committee. It may also be worth going to WikiProject Equine and seeing if the group as a whole wants to make a project out of it. Montanabw(talk) 02:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, side question: are there any Western Olympic events/competitions? --AeronM (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(answering Aeron) Rumors persist that Reining is just short of being an Olympic event. FEI sanctions it now, I believe (double check me on that, I don't keep up with that sort of thing that close). Reining is probably the only western event that has a chance. Perhaps barrel racing, but that's a long shot. Cutting is too expensive! Ealdgyth - Talk 03:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horse murders scandal article request[edit]

Hello, all --

I realize that this is a distasteful subject to many in the horse field, especially among those with a love of show jumpers, but the John Edwards and Rielle Hunter affair currently in the news has opened up many, many questions on the subject of the late 20th century horse murders scandal. The reason for that, in case you don't know, is that Rielle Hunter was formerly Lisa Druck, whose father, James Druck conspired to have her beloved show jumper Henry the Hawk electrocuted to collect the insurance money on him. This tragedy formed the backgtound for a 1988 novel based on Lisa Druck's life, called Story of my Life by Jay McInerney. Later, in the early to mid 1990s, the scandal was exposed to the public through articles in the New York imes and Sports Illustrated, and then through a full-length book called "Hot Blood." An FBI investigation into the horse murders led to the conviction of a number of highly placed people in the show jumper and general equatrian sports world on charges of insuracne fraud.

When Rielle Hunter's background was probed, due to her affair with John Edwards, it turned out that she and her horse were prominent victims of the horse murder insurance scam. But in trying to link this information up to her bio article, it turned up that there is no article on the subject of the horse murders at Wikipedia, doubtless because the scandal occured before the development of the world wide web. There is an article on the murder of the millionairess Helen Brach whose death, in 1977, was also connected to the horse murder scandal.

I am looking for a few good editors who have the brackground to write a horse murders article, and to link it to the Helen Brach, show jumping, and Rielle Hunter articles. No need to reply to me -- if you are interested, you know what to do. I will try to help, also, as best i can, but the topic is far from my usual fild of writing, and i would prefer to see it handled by those with the greatest depth of knowledge on the subject.

I am posting this identical request to a number of horse-rleated talk pages, so you may see it more than once, for which i apologize in advance.

Sincerely, catherine yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 02:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts[edit]

I've reverted some good faith, but unneeded edits and unsourced edits to the article. Discussion of horse breeds is better done at the horse breeds article. Equestrianism does refer to other activities with horses besides just riding. And we don't need to update the date on the "references needed" tag nor do we need footnote text on an interwiki link. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I reverted some more. Will the editor doing this please take their concerns here to the talk page? Montanabw(talk) 08:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
---All I am trying to do is add references as the page needed. Apparently my additions are too wordy so I am shortening them so references can be added to the page. 03:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Kris. We do welcome your attempts to improve this article. However, this article needs to be summarized, not made longer! LOL! The problem isn't that your additions are too wordy, it's that they contain material that was moved to a different article several months ago and deleted from this article as unnecessary. Perhaps read Horse racing, Thoroughbred horse race, harness racing and some of the other articles to see if the material is still there. By the way, if you are looking for a project, all of those articles are sort of a mess and could use some organization and cleanup! Montanabw(talk) 23:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Health concerns[edit]

There seems to be a relatively new study [2] that suggests that longterm riding seems cause some damage to a woman's clitoris. Should a new health concerns section be made, or incorporate this into an existing section? I also have a reliable secondary source available, citing that and another study [3] (which is more related to bikers and runners), but unfortunately it's only in Finnish [4]. — Twinzor Say hi! 18:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very dubious. You don't sit on a horse that way anyhow. If one did, then it would be impossible for MEN to ride at all! Just more of the same old b.s. revisited. Prior to the 20th century, it was claimed that riding would either impair women's ability to bear children or give them "unnatural" stimulation, etc. Same old, same old. Montanabw(talk) 03:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard the very same arguments from other riders. I do ride myself (and I am male), and I am aware that in the correct posture this does not seem logical, but this study does seem to show that riding for several years does cause some damage to a woman's clitoris. The secondary source I posted above says that all the women in the study also claimed to not having experienced any such effects, but an ultrasound examination revealed microdamage and "degenerative changes" in the clitoris. I'm not suggesting that we say riding is dangerous, but in my opinion it should be at least noted that such a study exists, and that some possibly adverse effects have been documented. I realise this is hard for anyone else to check, since the article is in Finnish, but if you'd wish I can make a translation for review (I know the translation cannot be used as a source, but it might help evaluate the article's and study's validity). — Twinzor Say hi! 04:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Montanabw. Just more of the same old b.s. revisited. Cgoodwin (talk) 05:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate on why this study should be not included? — Twinzor Say hi! 05:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's junk science, basically. Right up there with phrenology. Men have been trying to argue for millennia that women shouldn't ride horses, which in the 20th century morphed into why women shouldn't drive cars. In short, if you are a guy and you ride, you KNOW there are certain riding errors that can, in theory, cause discomfort and pain to certain anatomical regions unique to the male. The same riding errors can cause similar, though less extreme, discomfort and pain to women. Likewise, if you commit certain riding errors and fall off a horse you risk head trauma and broken bones. I mean people injure themselves around horses in the darnedest ways. So if you have a study showing microdamage and degenerative changes to the various regions of the far more vulnerable male anatomy, well then fair is fair. I suppose inhaling fly repellant is carcinogenic too (Had a student's mother worrying about that one). I mean you can kill yourself riding a horse. Maybe we could add in a "stupid ways to get hurt" section? LOL! Montanabw(talk) 21:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article I'm citing does also briefly note that longterm riding may cause male impotence by "blocking vascular and nervous systems in the genitals". The study I linked also says "Repeated microtraumas in horseback riders and mountain bikers are, in males, associated with perineal and scrotal lesions". 4 out of the 6 MDs behind the study are female, so I don't think this is a case of men putting women down. The findings were done with ultrasound, which surely can be regarded as a reliable examination tool. This can't really be equated to falling or other accidents that can happen with horses, since this study is about damage caused by riding itself (even with proper skill), and not something that happens due to carelesness or lack of skill (or by pure chance). Also, we can't just assume that none of the women who were studied knew how to sit properly on a saddle. I think this should be mentioned because if it is true, it's highly relevant to riders, both men and women, and in the spirit of "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", and we have a seemingly valid study, published by a notable publisher, and a quote of it in a reliable secondary source. — Twinzor Say hi! 22:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about riding and not the multitude of ways ways that riders and handlers may be injured. In any case it most inappropiate to discuss this rubbish in this topic which is often used by children. Cgoodwin (talk) 05:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about riding and should cover all essential parts of the sport, and possible health hazards are quite relevant. Whoever reads the article however is not relevant, as Wikipedia is not censored. You've stated several times that the study is "rubbish", but I'd to hear some objective arguments as to why this is. — Twinzor Say hi! 05:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Twinzor, I cannot view the link you gave; could you give the reference in full? Also, I think you are running up against a wee bit of ownership here. My advice would be to consider dispute resolution sooner rather than later. --Una Smith (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once I stripped the URL to http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121557798/abstract the link worked. --Una Smith (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that perhaps there might be less resistance to the information if there was also information on the more common riding hazards, such as broken bones, etc. By concentrating on one study devoted to a not very common health concern of riding without discussing or even having the much more common hazards even in the article, it certainly looks like pusing a POV in regards to this study, and brings up undue weight concerns by excluding other studies concerned with health issues. Keep in mind we're not a riding manual here, and lets compare this article to articles on other sports such as baseball or auto racing. Do those articles cover the health concerns of participants? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the quote I'm referring to:

Methods. The patients were assessed with a detailed history, and were submitted, in the periovulatory phase of the cycle (day 14), to clitoral ultrasonographic analysis and color Doppler evaluation of the dorsal clitoral arteries. The women were not sexually aroused. On the same day, in a separate room—and prior the ultrasound and Doppler examinations took place—the subjects completed the two-factor Italian MFSQ.

Results. All the patients were completely asymptomatic but reported a past history of intermittent perineal tenderness or discomfort. In five out of the six subjects, the ultrasonographic assessment of the clitoris evidenced a disseminated clitoral microlithiasis. Only the youngest (18 years old) biker showed a normal pattern of the clitoral structures.

Admittedly, the study has a limited sample size, but the secondary source I provided quotes it as a valid study. I don't quite understand the notion "we're not a riding manual". If there was a reliable study showing that driving a car had an adverse health effect (apart from the accident risk), shouldn't that be mentioned in the related article? We are talking about systematic changes to male and female genitalia, resulting from the sport itself and not from accidents or lack of skill. I must stress the fact that in the study, only 1 of the examined women did not show signs of the damage mentioned, and she was also the youngest. To me it seems that this is clearly not a random occurrence, but something that will eventually result from riding. — Twinzor Say hi! 14:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may be interesting to have a brief (one sentence) mention of this in the article, on a couple of conditions. First, that the damage to both female and male genetalia is mentioned. Second, that other health risks due to riding are mentioned. And third, that this can be proved to be a valid study. Twinzor, you appear to be quoting only from the abstract that you linked to. Have you read the entire article? I would also like to point out another section of the abstract that you did not quote:

The chronic traumatisms may be responsible, especially in well-trained riders, for microhematomas, inflammation, and/or degenerative processes at level of the clitoral structure. Further studies should be undertaken to determine the clinical significance of the described disseminated clitoral microlithiasis. (emphasis mine)

To me, this means: 1) The researchers not even sure it is responsible, and 2) They're not sure if the damage is even significant in any way. And also, the abstract, from what I can see, doesn't mention men in any way. I agree with Montanabw that if we mention this at all, it should not just be focused on women, because men are...ummm...a bit more vulnerable :) Dana boomer (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The abstract says the study involved only 6 subjects, both mountain bike and horse riders, and that all 6 subjects "reported a past history of intermittent perineal tenderness or discomfort." So there were no controls and there is evident selection bias. The article is not free, so I am working from the abstract alone. Twinzor, have you read the article? How many of the subjects were horse riders? Perineal damage is a huge topic for bicycle riding, and close to a non-issue for horse riding. The study provides no evidence of correlation (much less causation) between riding and perineal tenderness or discomfort or lithiasis. That said, I do think this article should be mentioned on Wikipedia, along the lines of "it has been suggested that in women riding may contribute to minor perineal and genital injury,[1] but evidence for this is lacking." I would mention it in Cycling#Injuries, and here also if two or more subjects were horse riders. --Una Smith (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a section along the lines of Cycling#Injuries. --Una Smith (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Unfortunately, I do not have the full study text available, but I do have the article in the secondary source, which discusses the matter further, citing the second study I linked as well. I'd be completely happy with brief mention of this somewhere in the article, but I think it should be mentioned at least. A quote from the secondary source (my translation): "Several studies have shown that longterm bicycling and horseback riding are bad for a man's ability to have an erection. (cut for brevity) ... Unfortunately the beneficial health effects (from cardio vascular exercise to the ability have an erection) are not as great as the adverse effect from the saddle blocking vascular and nervous systems in the genitals. This may even lead to erectile dysfunction. Numbness in the crotch has also been found in women after longterm bicycling and horseback riding. This has been confirmed with studies." Could we agree on having something like "A study has suggested that longterm riding may cause some degenerative changes to both male and female genitalia, but also that further studies should be made to establish the exact effect of these changes." somewhere in the article? This, in my opinion, would not be WP:UNDUE or WP:POV. I also agree that a section dealing with injuries should be added. Apparently, 2 of the 6 subjects were horse riders. — Twinzor Say hi! 16:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the review article misinterprets Battaglia et al (the one about the 6 women); Battaglia et al's study cannot show causation, nor even correlation, between riding and the changes observed, due to the study's selection bias. --Una Smith (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's an obvious selection bias. We cannot know what was the exact question in the questionnaire in which the women reported the symptoms, nor do we know the timeframe. It is completely possible that all or nearly all women, or women who ride, would answer the same way. — Twinzor Say hi! 17:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Selection bias refers to who was included in the study, and who was not. --Una Smith (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what it means, but I'm saying that this might be something you'll find in (almost) every riding woman, in which case having the same amount of women who report these symptoms and those who don't would itself be a bias, if the other group was a very small minority. I'm not saying there definetely is no bias, but I don't think whether there is or isn't can't be concluded from this. — Twinzor Say hi! 18:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Including women who report no problems, and women who do report problems but do not ride, is not selection bias: rather, it is an fundamental requirement of a controlled study. What if the women with signs have children, and in fact the observed signs (microlithiasis and other changes) are due to childbirth and have nothing to do with riding? --Una Smith (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree controls should have been included, I just didn't understand the use of the term selection bias in this context. — Twinzor Say hi! 20:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess have no real problem with a general health concerns section, if it discusses things like the high risk of head injury, broken bones, and other common risks. Per WP:UNDUE, this study might merit a sentence phrase along the line of "...one study found a potential risk of genital damage in ordinary riding", and Twinzor DID note that apparently the article covers both male and female damage, which would downplay my main objection, but it still is a VERY minor problem compared to, say, concussions. If we compare to cycling, we have to be careful as in cycling you sit in a totally different way. If someone wants to sandbox a proposed section here on this talk page, I'm OK with taking a look at the idea. Montanabw(talk) 16:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a suggestion for the new section in my userspace, here. I think it's concise enough to not fail WP:UNDUE, but states the risks and lists the most common injuries. Feel free to edit it in my userspace if you'd like to modify it. As for the new section itself, I suggest it be named "Health concerns" or "Injuries". — Twinzor Say hi! 17:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This reference represents a case series of six women, of whom five had evidence of this injury. This does not even qualify as class IV evidence. The authors of the paper acknowledge that this evidence is weak and requires further investigation before any definite conclusions can be drawn. In addition, the women had no symptoms, and there is no evidence that the women were actually harmed. In my opinion, this information does not belong in Wikipedia's article about "Equestrianism". [However it would deserve a single sentence in Wikipedia's article about "Clitoral injury", if such an article existed.] Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it deserve an entry in another article but not here, since it's very much related to this article? In the suggestion I made above, it's mentioned very briefly in one sentence, and I think this is appropriate. — Twinzor Say hi! 18:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Axl. Despite its weakness, I would include the study (and this perspective on the low quality of its evidence) because it reflects a bugaboo about horse riding. --Una Smith (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the proposal I've made here, and let me know if you agree with the wording & content. Thanks! — Twinzor Say hi! 18:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it deserve an entry in another article but not here, since it's very much related to this article?

— Twinzor

I disagree that "it's very much related to this article". Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm being stupid, but I don't quite understand how a possible riding related health risk is not very much related to an article about riding. I understand that the study was very limited and can't be taken as conclusive proof, but regardless, it's still related to this article and documents a possible health risk. — Twinzor Say hi! 18:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think what you have written up in your sandbox is very nice, with no undue weight on the study that first brought us to this discussion! I would say to give other editors a chance to tweak it, and then insert it in the article...although I'm not sure where it would fit, exactly. Dana boomer (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait until some more people have commented on it, and then we can discuss where exactly it should be added. Thanks! — Twinzor Say hi! 20:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked over Twinzor's sandbox, and I mostly agree with Dana, but it's a start, actually, and needs better sourcing. I actually am OK with the general direction Twinzor is going in his sandbox, and Twinzor, can other people go over there and work on it in a collaborative fashion? I'd also like to point out the high rate of finger and foot injuries, back injuries and see some real statistics cited on the death rate. But please let's NOT get into the pregnancy stuff too! (Pregnancy is a question raised with skiing, bicycling, rock climbing, you name the sport. Shall we put in a bit about pregnancy and bicycles too? How about pregnancy and basketball? Some people even used to say that pregnant women shouldn't drive cars because they'd hit the steering wheel! :-P ) I actually agree completely with Una on this one. (*waving at Una*) There is a "bugaboo" about women riding horses astride that dates back millennia and has more to do with men's hangups about women's sexuality than anything. I mean, in the past they claimed that riding would interfere with child-bearing, then, in the Victorian age, that it would make women have "unnatural stimulation" (i.e the opposite of this study! LOL!) Now that our social hangups are different, someone now wants to claim clitoral damage. IMHO a study of five women IS junk science. Same. Old. Bullshit. I know, I'm ranting, but it is just so annoying. Montanabw(talk) 20:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is as Axl said a case series; that is far from junk, but also far from rigorous evidence. --Una Smith (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, let's not turn this into a sexism issue. The vast majority, I'd say about 95%, of the people I ride with are women, and I'm completely fine with this and women riding in general. Claiming this study must be sexist because sexist claims have made before is somewhat similar to claiming global warming cannot exist because of the global cooling theories. The reason I centered on the effect on women is because the news article that cited this study was mostly written for a female audience, and thus centered on the effects on women. I do understand the criticism for the small sample group, which indeed means that the study can't be said to be conclusive evidence of whether this sort of damage can result from riding or not. It is still a scientific study, albeit with a very small test group, and warrants a mention. For the sourcing, pretty much all the text before the first cite I've put in can be verified from the first cited source. As to your objection about having something about pregnancy, I think it should be mentioned. Why do you object to it? The text is sourced, and think for example a case where someone has heard that they shouldn't ride while pregnant and comes to check Wikipedia on whether we have any information about this. Shouldn't we inform them that there is currently no consensus in the scientific community on whether they should or shouldn't? It's relevant and doesn't have undue weight. — Twinzor Say hi! 21:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem with adding that study here is not the small sample size, but that the study provides no information about the relevance of the findings to riding horses. See Correlation does not imply causation, and then consider that because the study included no control subjects, it cannot even address correlation. --Una Smith (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot really debate this, since we don't have the full text of the study, unless you have specific quotable medical evidence available that says this kind of damage appears with age, or from another common cause. Without the full text, we cannot judge for outselves whether or not the study took into account other possible causes for this damage. They may well have used data from previous studies, which might not be noted in the abstract. The article which quoted this study regards it as reliable and indicative that such damage may result from riding, and judging from the text in general they had the full text of the study. The publisher of the article is MTV3, which can be regarded as a reliable news source. — Twinzor Say hi! 23:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The abstract describes a case series. News media are not reliable sources for interpretation of the medical literature; see Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles). As for damage occurring with age, in women the single most common cause of tissue damage to the perineum is either vaginal delivery or episiotomy (depending on prevalence of the latter), and parity increases with age. There are many reliable sources concerning perineal injury in women, but virtually none involving horse riding. An exception is PMID 17450681, although it is in French. Anyway, when a source is disputed, it is helpful for someone to read the source. Thanks for starting this discussion! --Una Smith (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not claiming the damage cannot be caused by anything else, but surely we can't assume all of the women had given birth or sustained other damage to their genital area. I'm not saying this proves the study's findings, but I simply don't think it can be dismissed on these grounds. In my opinion the abstract is quotable as a primary source, and could be mentioned briefly, as I've done in my suggestion for the new health risks section. — Twinzor Say hi! 01:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an addition, I do admit this is a bit tricky case. On the other hand, policy says that a valid secondary source would be a medical review article or textbook, which the article I've posted is not, but it also says a primary source can be quoted as long as this is done carefully and without any interpretation. The issue with controls cannot be addressed because we don't have access to the full text, which is unfortunate. — Twinzor Say hi! 02:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and I forgot to mention that I don't mind other people editing or adding sources to the scetch in my sandbox. Feel free to do so! — Twinzor Say hi! 21:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And another note: read through the "Horse riding during pregnancy" article I posted as the first source for the sandboxed section. It has a lot of information and links to additional studies on horse related injuries in general, and not just while being pregnant. There's a lot of stuff that can be used. — Twinzor Say hi! 21:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Una, I like how the new section is forming up. Perhaps we should start considering integrating it to the article? — Twinzor Say hi! 21:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the sandbox, the Perineum section is overdone. We need, at most, a sentence. If you want to spend a paragraph on something, make it about concussions and why helmets are a good idea! The numbers speak for themselves! If you want to talk about pregnancy and riding, then are they talking about pregnancy in all other sports? I am very serious here. Skiing is a dangerous sport, so are a lot of other things. Fair is fair. People have been claiming that women can't ride horses for various reasons for millennia. And yes, it actually IS a sexism issue. Can't be helped. You want to discuss women's health issues here, then let's see if similar discussions are held in all other sport articles -- women used to only be allowed to play half-court basketball too, you know. I believe that you intend to be very sincere here Twinzor (though your "95% of the people I ride with are women" remark isn't helping your case, sound like "some of my best friends are..." LOL!), but this IS an issue where you are colliding with a lot of myths and obsessions. And when the evidence is this slim, well, read WP:UNDUE. The sandbox is getting better, I'll say that. Will toss in a few fact tags where I see problems. Montanabw(talk) 07:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Montanabw, the Perineum section is overdone and is turning into another sexist addition. I don't see anything about spinal injuries, either. See: http://www.nature.com/sc/journal/v40/n6/full/3101280a.html Have you not seen a brilliant cutout halted and a grown man ride out in tears, if not perhaps you should experience it.Cgoodwin (talk) 08:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Perineum section, which Una Smith added, is a great addition. How is it sexist? It currently says there isn't much evidence of riding causing damage to a woman's genitals, and that riding may in fact decrease the risk of urinary incontinence. Overall, it dissolves misbeliefs and says that riding may in fact help with a rather inconvenient condition. The fact that something isn't mentioned in another article is hardly any reason to not include it in this one. The part about pregnancy, which states that there is currently no scientific consensus on whether it is dangerous or not, is relevant and it's sourced. — Twinzor Say hi! 13:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For me, the main problem is that this section is given too much weight compared to the "normal" injuries associated with riding. It's out of proportion to the fact that broken limbs, concussions, etc are much more dangerous and prevelent forms of injury. And there are no mentions of male-only concerns with riding, which in fact, do exist. I'm not saying that including the information is a bad idea, but that if you're going to include that much detail on a small subset of injuries, then the much more common injuries need the same level and proportion of detail. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to point out that it's not just me who has contributed to the draft. The whole Perineum section was written by User:Una Smith, so this not just my opinion. You are free to add sourced information to it, related to male-only injuries or otherwise. — Twinzor Say hi! 14:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of important information is missing, but that does not justify removing other information. I have included no information on equestrian related injuries to sex organs in men because I have found no information. I have seen men suffer blunt trauma to their gonads, but that is neither here nor there. --Una Smith (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask your opinions on which source to use related to the percentages of cause of injury. PMID 3580722 says 60% caused by falling (see full text, section "The mechanism of injury"), and this says 80% caused by falling (section "type of injury"). Any thoughts? — Twinzor Say hi! 16:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me, I cheat. give both figures. Attribute them to the two differing studies and if need be explain a bit of the studies methodology. And i'm not contributing to the medical sections because I dont have the access or sources to do so, quite honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read that paper last night, although an interesting observation it would be giving this small set of asymptomatic case reports undue wight to make any conclusions on the possible risks to the sexual health of horseback riders. The article should instead discuss the real and validated risks of horseback riding - concussions, spinal injuries etc, rather than hypothetical risks with little or no supporting evidence. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, does the draft now accurately reflect what little evidence that paper offers? --Una Smith (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the draft we are collaboratively working on. It's mostly about the more common types of injury, and the study this whole discussion originated from hasn't been given undue weight. I think it's coming along nicely! Especially considering that at the time I'm writing this it has 11 unique sources, compared to 4 on the whole Equestrianism article. — Twinzor Say hi! 17:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(r to Twinzor) It isn't a question of "which is best", because the data vary by study population. Eg, the New Zealand article finds more horse-related injuries per capita in adolescent girls and in Maori men. Twinzor, some text you have added needs more qualification re to what population the data apply. --Una Smith (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is I don't know to which population this piece of information from the "Horse riding during pregnancy" applies to, as it's not clearly attributed to any single study. The other study gathered it's data from 237 patients from Addenbrooke's Hospital Accident Service, quote: "Addenbrooke's Hospital Accident Service serves a mainly rural population of some 350,000 including South Cambridgeshire and the town of Newmarket, a centre of the racing industry." — Twinzor Say hi! 17:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the article on obgyn.net, here? --Una Smith (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. — Twinzor Say hi! 17:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would check the article's source 8: "Silver JR. Spinal injuries resulting from horse riding accidents. Spinal Cord 2002; 40: 264-71." If the source for that number (80%) cannot be found, then the number should not be used. --Una Smith (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was the first thing I checked, but didn't find the amount in that source. Did you notice how I've presented it for the moment? You can change it if you think the 80% claim should be dropped altogether. — Twinzor Say hi! 18:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
E-mail the author? [email protected] --Una Smith (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I'll do that. — Twinzor Say hi! 18:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
E-mail sent. I also asked for permission to publish her reply, should she have the time to give one, on the talk pages. I'll post it here if I get one. — Twinzor Say hi! 18:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation of data[edit]

Interpretation of data concerning risks require consideration of statistical issues. Some helpful Wikipedia pages about these include:

A handy navbox is Template:Medical research studies. --Una Smith (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sanity check: Syndey NSW data[edit]

Could someone with statistics experience please read PMID 12887517, Pattern of equestrian injuries presenting to a Sydney teaching hospital for some important information. The article reports a trend over 6 years of increased helmet use and decreased rate of admission to hospital. But, did the analysis properly control for any confounding effect of year on the association between helmet use and admission? Also, is there possible selection bias due to a patient consent requirement in the 2nd half of the study period? --Una Smith (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing content[edit]

I appreciate the work that has gone into this proposed addtition, but it still lacks credibility, does not address the issue of riding drownings, spinal or men's injuries. A quick check of some other sites makes no mention of Twinzor's injury claims. Tim Vickers has summed up the issue very well. Other sites of interest are:

Cgoodwin (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drownings... Is that an equestrian problem, or a backcountry travel problem? Are people more likely to try to cross swiftwater on horseback, than on foot? Cgoodwin, do you have other contexts in mind, apart from swiftwater? --Una Smith (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to Cgoodwin, could you elaborate on how in your opinion the proposed section lacks credibility? Are you contesting the whole section or a part of it? What, in your opinion, should be done to establish credibility? Thanks! — Twinzor Say hi! 20:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article matches one of my search terms (equestrian or horse riding), so may have some relevant information, but it has no abstract on PubMed. --Una Smith (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merged sandbox into article[edit]

I have merged the text from User:Twinzor/Equestrianism health concerns into the article, and added {{expand}} tags where more content is needed. --Una Smith (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am moving the section down in the article because it doesn't need to be issue #1. I am also trimming it a bit until the contentious issues are resolved. I have no problem with further expansion later, but for now, there are things that still need to be resolved here on this talk page or in the sandbox. Montanabw(talk)

Cavalry revolution[edit]

This article should mention this term, which refers to the major changes that occurred in cultures that mastered the art of horse riding (refs). The history section could use some major expansion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not here, as this article is a very brief overview of everything, but perhaps in the Domestication article or [{Horses in warfare]], depending on the quality of the source and the verifiability of the material. Montanabw(talk) 06:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff that is missing[edit]

  • Ban'ei sled racing
  • gaited horse showing
  • horse pulls
  • ploughing contests
  • other types of draft/work horse showing

~:-- Pitke (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, do we want this to be a general overview article or a "list of things to do with horses?" (You've left out something, I'm sure!) There IS an argument for the latter -- years ago, this article started out as something like "horseback riding" and was renamed and changed into its present form, though most references to "riding" in wikipedia link here. We do have articles on all of the above, I think, more or less. (No way to do a "gaited horse showing" article because they are all so very breed specific, and remember that in the gaited horse world EVERY breed has a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT lateral four beat gait that is TOTALLY unique from all the other gaited breeds, making them the VERY SMOOTHEST breed of horse in the WHOLE WORLD? (Can you tell that gaited horse stuff is starting to annoy me? ) I guess we have a pile of links in there some place already... I don't know. Open to further thoughts. Maybe we SHOULD redo this article into more of a glossary like we did for Glossary of equestrian terms. I've been letting an article on just riding sort of languish in my sandbox for years, maybe it would be worth resurrection if we made this one into more of an index... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs)
I wouldn't have argued if the article didn't include driving sports now. I don't particularly care if the sports I listed above aren't introduced in this article, but I very sure want them somewhere. As The Mad Finnhorse Editor, I'm all for reminding people that horse sports are not a private realm of the light breeds. As for "gaited horse showing", I was thinking about a line, not necessarily a full article... BUT I'm intending to at least try. Just found a cool ok-licenced video of an Icelander tölting at whopping speed and all, I'm inspired so could try banging my head on the gaited horse wall for some time :) Pitke (talk) 07:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the problem: We now have driving (horse), but all riding titles now redirect here, yet this article has become an overview article and there is no generic "riding" article. FYI, the driving article may need some links to the agricultural-pulling sorts of articles. (horse pulling, draft horse showing. I have no real problem with a line somewhere about how gaited horses exist and may have their own special competitions for various breeds. Montanabw(talk) 00:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General structure[edit]

Ok, I have this page already a long time on my watch-list, and now that I see some new activity regarding this article, I think we maybe have to consider what we want in his article, and what should be in other articles. What bothers me is that this article is primarily a list. I think that is not a good idea, and I suggest that we lift the list aspect out of this article, and make that a separate List of horse sports or List of equestrian activities or something like that.

After that, we can focus here on the general aspects of equestrianism that span the different sports etc, aka, History, Diversity of activities, Health, Criticism, Cultural aspects, etc. What do others think of this?

Anyway, it would be nice to take this article to GA or something like that as this is one of our top priority articles! -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article really fits the B quality as is. It is mostly list-like, and its scope is not what I would call clear. Generally agreeing with Kim. There's weird stuff like gymkhana being a side clause under a list entry under rodeo, and endurance riding under racing. There's stuff that's dealt too generally with (like "Standardbred horses are used for harness racing".) The structure overall is messy. Stuff is missing, and it's going to be tricky to add with the current structure... IMO we need to first decide what we want this article to be (I suppose some of the subtitles proposed by Kim should go to a "horse sports" article in case this gets redefined as a "horse riding (and nothing else)" article), maybe create a draft with nothing but subtitles, and then start from scratch, maybe returning to this article as a guide. Pitke (talk) 09:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking is keep this a sort of annotated uber-list because we already have separate articles on almost everything. Someone pointed out that we failed to look at things like vaulting, and that horse management is also equestrianism (History of equestrianism? OMG where to begin? We already have the domestication article, and then we need to split off riding and driving ... I'm not opposed to material on health, culture, etc., but I think they may be the proper separate articles. We DEFINITELY need a general-overview riding article (which this once was), but I think it needs to be a new article with a logical title, and we probably need to add a history section to driving (horse). The reason this article has been languishing is because fixing it is a big, time-consuming job. But if everyone is in, so am I. Montanabw(talk) 03:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Men and women[edit]

The following text was removed from this article yesterday, with the edit summary "Actually not, apparently men and women also compete together in the yachting sports":

Equestrian events are the only Olympic sport where men and women compete equally with each other.Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).

References

  1. ^ [1]

I suggest that this edit be reverted and the text edited slightly to make it clearer that (if the source is correct) it is only in the equestrian disciplines that men and women compete against each other on equal terms. If my understanding is correct, which it may well not be, in yachting and, as has been mentioned elsewhere, badminton, men and women compete together in teams, but not against each other. The only other sport I can think of offhand where men and women may compete on equal footing is target-shooting, but I don't know if that is an Olympic sport, or what the rules are if it is.

I'd also suggest that the point be amplified, either in this article or elsewhere. Sexual discrimination in sport is entrenched and apparently virtually unopposed, in a manner that would be considered unacceptable in almost every other context in modern society and is to me personally quite incomprehensible. One of the most attractive aspects of equestrian sports is the absence (in places, at least) of that discrimination.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, there was already a reference on the page, which didn't show up in preview. The relevant one is [2] of course. I think the formatting of the reference itself may need some attention. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. If there is a man and a woman on one team, and a man and a woman on a second team, and the two teams are competing against each other, doesn't that mean that men and women are competing against each other? Also, the equestrian article is not the place for an extended discussion of sexual discrimination in sports, nor are any of the other equine articles that I can think of. Something like Gender in sports or Sexism in sports may be the place... The majority of your second paragraph (on sexual discrimination) above is also opinion, not sourced fact... A brief mention that equestrianism is one of only a few Olympic sports where men and women compete together and against one another would probably be warranted - a discussion of why it is anti-discrimination not so much...even if you could find a source for that, which I don't think I've ever seen, even in books that deal solely with equestrianism at the Olympic Games. Dana boomer (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We got our heads handed to us (or, to be accurate, I did) for making this claim on this very topic a couple years ago in the Equestrian at the Summer Olympics article, so I for one would be pretty gunshy about splitting hairs, particularly given that I know squat about yachting and very little about badminton. I agree that sexism in sports is a serious issue, but this isn't the forum to beat that particular drum. Maybe the Olympics article, which raises it briefly as, I think, "one of the few" sports, would be a place where there could be some expansion on the topic. In this article it could hijack it with undue weight, particularly as there is another lurking issue of sexism in rodeo and, for that matter, horse racing, and several other disciplines. Montanabw(talk) 01:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First riding question[edit]

There seem to be two estimates of first riding 4500 BCe in Russia according to reference or 8000 BCe in Iran according to cave painting
Can this be clarified

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chadnash (talk • contribs) 13:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably needs to be reconciled to Domestication of the horse, thanks for pointing that out. Montanabw(talk) 01:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refdesk query about riding accoutrements[edit]

Can anybody please help with a query over at the Miscellaneous Refdesk; WP:RD/M#Shabraque_image. I seem to have stumped the resident polymaths! Alansplodge (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll peek, thanks for the heads up. Montanabw(talk) 18:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tags[edit]

Taking tagging issue to talk, per BRD - the situation is simple: As you can see, this article is long, complex, and occasionally subject to assorted controversies. It is in need of general improvement and sourcing, but the three most active members of wikiproject equine are working on other things. Periodically, small runs are made at various sections, but progress is slow. There is no harm to a universal tag, and if we were to go through the article and place {{citation needed}} everywhere GA standards would require a cite, there would be a gazillion tags. That's why it's there. And why it needs to stay there. Montanabw(talk) 18:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spurs contribute to ankle injuries?[edit]

The way the article is currently written makes it sound like simply wearing spurs can cause ankle sprains or dislocation. I think what the contributor was implying is that when a rider wearing spurs falls, the spur may catch on the ground or something else and cause the ankle to twist hard enough to cause a serious injury. White Arabian mare (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

THat's a really good point; the source article is only available as an abstract and the bit on ankles is vague- unless someone can access the full article and explain it better, I think it was best to cut tht bit for now, so I did. We can re-add it if we get additional sourcing (can't google "ankle" "spur" without tons of articles on bone spurs, meh...) Montanabw(talk) 03:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read something somewhere talking about a man who broke his ankle when he fell and his spur caught, but I can't remember where and it was more a 'warning, this can happen to you!' thing anyway. White Arabian mare (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Western, NPOV?[edit]

The line "Show events such as Western pleasure use much flashier equipment, unlike the English traditions where clothing and tack is quiet and unobtrusive" bugs me. Sure, some western rodeos and such will sometimes see bedazzled clothing and a little silver here and there, but compare that to English riding with white gloves, bright white breeches and top hats and long tails (on the jackets, not necessarily the horses), knotted manes, and I would argue English styles are far from quiet and unobtrusive. See File:Saddle_seat_Tail.jpg for example. But I don't know how to describe the differences in a way both camps would appreciate. Nerfer (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, show western has rhinestones and bright colors to put you eyes out, lots of silver on saddles and bridles, and so on Atsme: got any photos to show this?)-- all the English disciplines have clothing based more or less on formal wear of one century or another. Huge difference. Montanabw(talk) 07:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I do and it's a side by side to show the contrast. Atsme📞📧 15:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation[edit]

Strange there is no article about horses as transportation.-ApexUnderground (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question about riders per year[edit]

The article states that 30 million people ride horses in the US each year. While the cited source supports this, that number seems incredibly high. A quick google search shows a number of other sources, all of which seem to suggest numbers that are lower by at least an order of magnitude. For reference, a number of 30 million would suggest one in ten people in the US rides a horse each year (including the elderly, infants, etc). While this is possible, it strains credulity. Jefffhaynes (talk) 01:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Garrocha?[edit]

Hi, garrocha seems to be some Iberian riding-wih-a-pole exercise. There are a few YouTube clips, but not much info there or elsewhere; all I know is the Goya painting. Anyone? T84.208.86.134 (talk) 07:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Acoso y derribo. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you :) T 84.208.86.134 (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Equestrics[edit]

I believe the correct term ought to be (although it currently isn't) Equestrics. Equestrianism sounds like a horse-ruled political system, such as a herd of wild horses might observe amongst their own kind and hierarchy. Rather, in the same manner we refer to athletics, gymnastics, aquatics, aerobics, Olympics, and acrobatics... we ought to be saying Equestrics. 2601:243:4:E90A:84F5:EC7A:8C9E:8699 (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Equestrianism&oldid=1200999792"