Talk:Friesian horse

Untitled / Spelling

I removed the reference to the film "300" as the horse this article is referring to is not a Friesian, but a Cheval Canadien. They are very similar in appearance, but that film being shot in Canada makes it quite unlikely the horse is a Friesian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifelike001 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just moved "Friesian horse" to "Frisian horse", since thats the right spelling. Friesian, = wrong. -The Bold Guy- 10:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved it back. http://www.fhana.com/ says Friesian = right, Frisian = wrong. Please discuss spellings that are terms of art with those who care before being quite so bold. Montanabw^(talk) 20:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, okay then, if you say so! But the Frisian people are also known as Fries in Dutch, but as Frysk in their own, and as Frisians with one i in English. Thats why I got doubts. -The Bold Guy- 17:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, Horse people just have to be weird, I guess! (smile). Montanabw^(talk) 21:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

No, they aren't! My daughter rides horses herself, and she's kinda good at it. So I don't think horsepeople are strange. I, myself, love to watch horses (they are tryly magnificant animals), but sadly, I do not know much about them! -The Bold Guy- 11:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

FHANA is not to be trusted on this issue, they use "Friesian" when referring to the sjees, and THAT is wrong. ThW5 (talk) 09:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by this?? In English, the breed is spelled "Friesian," regardless of other spelling conventions for other things. Montanabw^(talk) 22:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

FHANA's bussiness is horse breeding, not thinking about the finer points of English spelling of "Frisian". No serious book on the history of the Frisian horse uses "Friesian" as spelling in English. My goodness, FHANA indicates the bybooks as B-books! Good on horses, but translations and spelling... Some people say this, some people say that, OK? --ThW5 (talk) 00:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

www.kfps.nl the official registry of this Dutch horse... in Holland spells it Friesian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC4E:A800:AC32:3E00:EAFB:F609 (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with Bold Guy. Correct English to denote people from Friesland and for denoting the breed of horses would be 'Frisian(s)'. The breed originated in Friesland (or 'Frisia' so you will). I note that some internet sites are using 'Friesian' or 'Friezian' in their spelling but not only does that seem wrong, you can also come to the conclusion that they got their way of spelling from the KFPS site or this Wikipedia page.... To eliminate any discussion I conclude that denoting a horse from Friesland as 'Friesian' (or US spelling: 'Friezian') is not correct English. People from Friesland and the horse breed from Friesland should be called 'Frisians' in the UK and 'Frizians' in the US. Also note that the KFPS website is Dutch/Frisian. They don't have English as their mother tongue.. They probably had no idea how to write Friezen (Frisians) in proper English. I suggest that at least this Wikipedia page should be adjusted accordingly, to comply with standard English spelling. SaksischRos (talk) 07:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Moved from article

There is an error on the description of the Friesian Horse.

In the film "LadyHawke", the Name of the horse is not 'Othello', but "Goliath".

Just a trivia note!

Thanks!

Colte

The name of the equine actor was Othello, not the character he played 09:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThW5 (talk • contribs)

Source

"In the 1800s the Friesian was bred to be lighter and faster for trotting, however this led to what some owners and breeders regarded as inferior stock, so a movement to return to pureblood stock took place by the end of the century." What is the source for that? The trotter WAS somewhat lighter than the typical horse from the LATER farm period, but as far as I know there is NO indication that the horses were ever bred on purpose FOR their trotting qualities, be it in bodytype or otherwise.--ThW5 (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Chestnut Friesians

Can we find a pic for a chestnut Friesian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.110.74 (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably because the registry is trying to get rid of them and there aren't supposed to be any? Montanabw^(talk) 05:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Genetic disorders

new article] :"Megaesophagus, a chronic dilation of the esophagus in conjunction with a lack of normal tone or strength, appears to occur at an atypically high rate in Friesian horses, according to a report in the proceedings from the 10th International Congress of the World Equine Veterinary Association. The report authors suggested that this might be considered a hereditary problem in the breed."

Needs to go into the article, just as we list genetic difficulties for other breeds and just as the dog breed articles list the genetic problems there. Montanabw^(talk) 19:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Serious genetic faults of the Friesian Horse - the article needs to start including these

SERIOUS GENETIC FAULTS OF THE PUREBRED FRIESIAN HORSE:

1. Tendency to have sickle hocks

This is a common trait among Friesian horses, not usually seen in the show horse. However, you will see it commonly in breeding farms in The Netherlands, where Friesian horses are in large numbers. Some documentation of this trait with statistics for occurence needs to be researched and included. Sickle hocks are a serious fault in any horse, leading to lameness if the angulation of the hock is severe.

2. Tendency to have a short lifespan

This is a peculiar trait of the purebred Friesian horse. Typical lifespan is 16 years, compared to 25 - 30 years for other horse breeds. Friesian breeders tend not to advertize this trait because it make a prospective buyer think twice before investing money into a horse with a premature death rate. It takes years to train a dressage horse, the most common use for Friesian show horses. Starting between 2 - 3 years old (x-ray to determine when the growth plates in the knees have closed), a fully trained Prix St. George dressage horse will be 8 - 10 years old, with Grand Prix horses 9 - 12 years old. Only the finest athletes under the guidance of a skilled rider will reach the Grand Prix level. To have such a horse expire at the young age of 16 is a risk many equestrians would choose to avoid. More research and bibliographical sources are required to write a paragraph about this devastating genetic fault in the Friesian Horse.

3. Color variation - not true black, excess white hairs

There are many purebred Friesian horses in The Netherlands which have abberations of color not acceptable to a star ranking for a breeding horse. Such abberations include black bay instead of true black, white hairs on the body, for example, under the chin, snip on the nose, small patches on the fetlocks just above the hooves, etc. Some horse farms in The Netherlands may have been faulted for applying artificial dyes to cover such faults when presenting horses for sale. More research is required via horse inspections by qualified Dutch horse inspectors to gather statistics of color abberations and determine if certain bloodlines have a higher rate than the breed average.

Note: I have raised and trained purebred horses for over 20 years and viewed hundreds of Frieisan Horses from The Netherlands. I will be completing a more in-depth study in September - November 2014 and will report back to Wikipedia with my findings.

Personal Opinion: The conformation of the Friesian Horse, identifying individuals with no leg faults who can consistently produce correct offspring, and determining whether planned breedings can lengthen the lifespan of the average Friesian Horse should take precedence over color considerations. The fault of white hairs other than the forehead is penalized too heavily if the horse possesses much desired superior traits. Chestnut is a recessive gene and should not be penalized. These are my opinions with the view that the breed needs improvement to overcome serious genetic faults.

References: Data on Friesian Horse Genetic Defects and Serious Health Problems is an ongoing study. I will be adding more references as new studies become available.

Wikipedia articles on animal breeds do mention known genetic issues where we can provide solid, reliable sources. So, if you can provide GOOD sources for this information, (see also WP:V) we can sure take a look at it (the Friesian-crazy web site, however, is down and would not be a reliable source for this even if it was up). For example, if you read our articles on Appaloosas and the Arabian horse, you will note we have carefully researched sections on genetic disorders known in those breeds. I have heard about the shortened lifespan thing in Friesians, and it is probably well worth further looking into for possible inclusion. However, sickle hocks are a problem for many breeds and have a complex genetic origin, so unless it's something particularly extreme and unique like the very weird and severe lordosis problem in American Saddlebreds, I'm not sure we can add that one. The color stuff isn't a genetic "flaw," that's more a registration controversy (and the bay thing is easily determined by genetic testing). Unfortunately, our personal opinions and research, however well-informed, aren't worth squat on wikipedia, as they constitute WP:OR. I hope this helps you out and we would welcome any source material you can provide to us on this. Montanabw^(talk) 17:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

According this very reliable article, friesian is the horse breed with the higher prevalence for gfebnetic diseases : http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2042-3292.2011.00302.x/abstract?userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage= , "A clinical challenge to the equine veterinarian". --Tsaag Valren (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Probably a lot of these genetic problems are due to the obsessive breeding that is going on to meet the huge demand for them here in America. It's like when a breed of dog becomes popular, a lot of people start breeding animals with faults to meet the demands of buyers. I've thought often that popularity is the worst thing that can happen to a breed; just look at all the problems in the Quarter Horse.

I got sidetracked here, but yes, this needs to be in the article somewhere. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 02:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm always glad to see some reliable source material on this. We DO have some mention of the four they admit to in the last paragraph of the "breed characteristics" section. While friesian-crazy itself not a good source for scientific stuff, nor is an undergrad term paper, some of the sources cited in that term paper mostly ARE. The wiley source Tsaag found better abstract here I think is already being used in the article. But I'm on board for appropriate, sourced expansion. Montanabw^(talk) 23:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

More sources for article upgrade

• http://www.thehorse.com/articles/33222/friesians-blood-work-alike-but-different ON blood chemistry. Interesting. Montanabw^(talk) 23:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Quick note

Another interesting horse breed with a family connection (my mum) for me, but I'm no expert, far from it, so just a few thoughts, and leaving the rest to the experts.

The lead seems a bit "soft". It should more completely summarize what's in the article.

There seems to be a lack of sources in general. I haven't looked at the sources themselves to know if the sources used are good RS, I'll take a look and add a cmt here.

What about delineating breed characteristics, registry, and judging/competing, although I realize they are interconnected. Colour for example is more diverse than is allowed in a show situation? (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC))

Precisely. We need more sources, more solid material, etc. If you want to see a FA-class breed article that is abut a kind of similar horse (at least, European origins and kind of heavy type), try Haflinger or Andalusian horse. For general guidelines, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Equine/Horse_breeds#Structure_of_Articles. I don't fiddle with the lead until the body of the article is up to speed, otherwise it gets rewritten a zillion times. The color thing is quite interesting; the breed mainstream wants them black, black and did you say black. However, due to genetics, a chestnut occasionally pops out (complicated to explain here, but if interested, read the articles black (horse) and chestnut (coat). If you are interested, I suggest starting with the United States Equestrian Federation rulebook for Friesians, and go from there. https://www.usef.org/documents/ruleBook/2014/14-FR.pdf They also have a link to the mainstream registry that is the USEF affiliate and promotes the breed. From there, maybe look at the organizations in Europe, etc. I'll keep popping by with more ideas. Montanabw^(talk) 00:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to be away from home for a week with family,but hope to do a little as time allows. Just Ignore my cmt on my user page. I wrote it before checking here and reading this. So yes, sources. I started to check some of them. Some are definitely better than others. Definitely good to start with the national associations. Same procedure with dog breeds.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC))

I'be done some reorganizing. If anything I do creates misinformation just revert me...:O)(Littleolive oil (talk) 05:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC))

Great! Using the dog breeds guideline, if you are already familiar with it, is fine, the horse breeds task force guidelines are probably similar, and everyone knows I don't hesitate to revert anyone! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 21:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox etc

Some minor cosmetic changes by Hydrargyrum were recently undone here. I was wondering why? The infobox is indeed {{Infobox horse breed}}, while "Infobox Horse" is a redirect; the disambiguation page is indeed at Frisian, not at Frisian (disambiguation); and so on. Overall, they were an improvement, I think; was the revert perhaps over-hasty?

I notice that the language variety of this article was clearly established with this edit in 2004, and seems to have been incompletely migrated to another over the course of the years; unless there are good reasons not to, I intend to restore the original variety per WP:ENGVAR. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that revert probably was over-hasty, the main thing is that we are careful to note that we have 350 horse breed articles, and the template redirects or transcludes or whatever it is... just like we renamed the racehorse infobox that is on 1000s of articles, doesn't mean we go into every article and change the name... the dab thing, sigh, whatever the rule is this week, it keeps changing, so whatever. Montanabw^(talk) 05:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

However on ENGVAR, I realize that the "whoever created the article gets the nod" rule is one way to settle a huge pissing match where there is one, but here, I see no compelling reason other than that to switch; the breed is Friesian, not British, so the language of origin issue is irrelevant, and frankly, it's a "flavor of the month" in the USA where it's very popular. I don't care deeply enough to fight about it, but given that most of the English-language source material appears to be coming out of the USA and not the UK, I guess if you really want to do all that work, it's your party, but it seems unnecessary. Montanabw^(talk) 05:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Closeup

I've reverted the thumbnail which does not serve the purpose of a close-up. With a close-up we should be able to scrutinize closely, to see more. That can't happen when the image is too small.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC))

"Closeup" refers to the distance of the shot, not the display size of the image. To scrutinize closely one need merely click on the image to view it at full size. If you are displaying the image as a thumbnail (as you are doing here by having the |thumb parameter applied) rather than at full or a specified size, and the image is portrait-oriented, the proper procedure is to apply the upright parameter (|upright) so that the Wiki syntax knows that the image is taller than it is wide, and will automatically adjust for this depending on the user's display (desktop vs. mobile) and preferences (users can adjust their default thumbnail size in Preferences, under "Appearance"). Without |upright, the Wiki syntax incorrectly interprets the image's width as greater than its height, which mucks up how it displays on different devices and with different user preferences. If your desire is to show greater detail via a larger display size, you can use a scaling factor as described at WP:THUMBSIZE (note that is a policy page; Wikipedia:Picture tutorial#Thumbnail sizes elaborates further). In this case I do not see the a need to upscale, as neither the image caption nor any text in the section adjacent to the image describes anything about the characteristics of the horse's head, so displaying the image at an increased size does not increase a reader's understanding. In any case, this is an upright image and should therefore use |upright for correct syntax. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with IllaZilla. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. However, my thought is for the casual reader and the quick glance in which case a close up, and yes one purpose of a close up is to see detail, is a better alternative. I have no problem with someone else reverting if there is agreement to do so. I won't revert myself since I don't agree with a revert but please feel free.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC))

IllaZilla, don't lecture me about image sizes, I have been around here longer than you have. The page you linked says "Sometimes a picture may benefit from a size other than the default." Here, there was a reason for doing so. (And, by the way, I saw your changes to other articles and kept them, FWIW). FreeKnowledgeCreator, "Me too" is simply a WP:TAGTEAM discussion. That said, this article needs some overall work and there is a good argument for the image to be placed in a different location, but the smaller size is not helpful to assess the details of this particular horse, which is a breed that is black in color, and the smaller images get muddied. People don't want to open a dozen windows, they want to compare and contrast images within the same article it's a readablity and graphic design discussion. Montanabw^(talk) 18:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll agree with someone if I want to agree with him. By invoking WP:TAGTEAM, you seem to be implying that I am IllaZilla's meatpuppet or vice versa. That emphatically is not true and has never been true. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

My point is that "me too" is not helpful in the least. WP operates on consensus, not a majority vote. Tag-teaming doesn't imply meatpuppetry, it implies lack of a cogent argument. Montanabw^(talk) 05:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Saying that you agree with someone is potentially helpful; it can help to establish consensus. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's moot here because we wound up rewriting the whole article. If you want to be taken seriously in the future, do something useful. Montanabw^(talk) 00:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Montanabw, we've "been around here" about the same amount of time (if you mean editing Wikipedia...if you mean editing articles about horses, I admit you've got more experience in that area). I can see the desire for wanting the head photo to display larger than the default, but I suggest using a scaling factor to achieve that and expanding the caption to describe the distinguishing features of the breed's head. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but that makes no sense to me, If we are using an image to be able see a close up of the horse's head, why would we use an image that we can't see well, then add text to explain what we can't see, rather than just use a slightly larger image. An image presents visual information; having to add text to what we can't see undoes the primary purpose of the image. (Littleolive oil (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC))_

That's not what I'm saying, Littleolive oil. I'm saying yes, make the display larger (but do it by using a scaling factor so it will behave properly even if users adjust their thumbnail settings), and add text to the caption explaining what you want readers to be looking for in the image. For example, "Friesians are known for their long, arched necks, thick manes, and 'Spanish-type' heads with short ears and well-chiseled features." That not only tells readers that it's a closeup of the head, buy why you want them to look closely at the head. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I did misunderstand. thanks for clarifying.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC))

I can see the idea of explaining, but WP:CAPTION discourages long image captions; here, we expanded the overall article and I'm fine with the use of the upright parameter as a scaling feature, but where the width default looks better - all images the same width looking more reasonable even if a few are extra-tall - I fail to see how saying "upright-1.5" is better than leaving a default that has the same practical result. At the end of the day, it's probably just a layout decision. Montanabw^(talk) 06:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Pic

Really cute pic:

Do we need this anywhere? Maybe swap out the infobox pic since this is a left-side photo and you can see the conformation better? (It may have upright pasterns, but that might just be my eyes, or the three/quarter angle of the pic..) (It may also not have eyes, but that could just be the hair...😉) White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it's an ugly image, looks like he has no neck. I agree that it would be nice to have a left-facing side view, but ... not this one, I think. Montanabw^(talk) 03:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Genetic testing source

Article needs to be updated on the genetic conditions affecting the breed. Here is an article announcing two genetic tests now available. Montanabw^(talk) 23:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC): http://www.thehorse.com/articles/39120/friesian-dwarfism-hydrocephaly-genetic-tests-available

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Friesian horse. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141218030132/http://www.fhana.com/horsehealth/ to http://www.fhana.com/horsehealth/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources, questions

Some of the uncited history in the article is covered in Elwyn Hartley Edwards' The Encyclopedia of the Horse (1994) which I picked up at the library. Is this an appropriate reliable source to use for citations?

I was able to find out that Bouma was a book published for the centennial of the KFPS organization. I don't have a copy, but I was able to find it for sale in Dutch online book stores, complete with photographs of the book. So I changed the citation to a book with as much info as I could find.

I have been unable to identify what is Boer's Judging of the Friesian Horse. Any clues?

  ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Grorp, Elwyn Hartley Edwards was a noted authority on horses and should be a reliable source; Dorling Kindersley is (or was then) not a specially reliable publisher – the books were produced as a team effort rather than by a single author, and not for an academic market. I have used this source (which I own), but with circumspection. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

An update: I was able to find out today that Judging of the Friesian Horse is a KFPS publication, used to teach judges how to perform evaluations/keurings, and given to student judges at the time of training. I'm told that the authors have changed over time, and was unable to get information on which year of publication would be appropriate for authors deBoer/Minkema/Teekens. Interestingly, the book can be seen at the very beginning of a video I had skip-watched yesterday https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SzNlUqPR-k with a few excerpts throughout the video. It was through that video's description block that I was able to find more about the book here: https://www.tweespan.nl/kfps-beoordelen-van-het-friese-paard-4/   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 05:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)