Talk:Peruvian Paso

Cleanup

This article needs cleanup badly, as it appears to be a machine translation from Spanish. Brighterorange 20:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

After hearing a number of supposedly knowledgeable people talk of suspensory problems of the Peruvian Paso, I wonder why there is no mention of it in this article.(Chismosa (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC))

All we need is a reliable source. The breeders are pretty close-lipped about it. Can't add what would be viewed as critical without a source. If you can find one, I'd be glad to include it, we do note genetic diseases in other breeds where we can source it, it's appropriate, just controversial without good footnotes. Montanabw^(talk) 00:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Peruvian Paso vs. Paso Fino

Hello horse lovers - how are you?

Looks like an article on the Peruvian Paso turned into one on the Paso Fino. How about one of you give the Paso Fino its own article and let this remain a Peruvian Paso article?

Finishing cleanup

The below text is needlessly techincal and not very clear. I'm not sure how relavent this is, so I've reduced the section in the main article and transcluded the text to the talk page. If someone else can make this more understandable and put it back in the article. --Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 22:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

A unique trait of the Peruvian Paso is termino — a loose, action in which the front legs are rolled to the outside as they stride forward, similar to a swimmer's arms. Individual Peruvians may have more or less termino.

Which makes to this animal different from other races equinas in the world is its typical air of intermediate speed, that in the others is of trote. This air Or MODALITY in walking is trote lateral 'or AMBLE and denominates level step in its more typical rate; but it can have different rates and speeds, that they can be executed as well by a same unit

To this sum of airs it is called steps to them. During the execution of these fine steps, the mount has a single and exceptionally smooth horizontal balance; The other races of horses balance horizontal vertically and. This causes that riding it he is specially pleasant. The smoothness is one of the appreciated fundamental virtues and more in the race of this horse.

"To Walk in Level Step", Carlos Parodi García (criador) speaks on the level step: He is to show the innate isochronal harmonic displacement of each individual search of the extremities of the horse. The animal raises the previous extremity and later of the same side, it locates the first later one in the ground and soon the previous one of the same side, also does with the other biped. Obvious this isochronal harmonic movement of individual searches goes accompanied with previously enunciated when we defined what is the "Termino".

It is important to need that, in the harmonic time of the displacement the Peruvian horse of step gets to have greater number of extremities in support on the ground, consequently better impulsion and minor reaction at the moment of impulsion in the transfer of the center of gravity. Which one comes off the following variations in airs or modalities of the level step: Crawled Level Step, Level Step Mincemeat, Struck Level Step.

The TERMINO: is a particular attribute that jointly and after: the smoothness and the advance, are the original and beautiful spectacle of the observation or dynamic morphologic evaluation of the horse like individual, in the mechanics of his to walk racial.

In the Peruvian horse of step it has like characteristic, greater predominance in isochronal harmonic movements of searches in the previous members that in the later ones.

Consequently the harmonic, isochronal execution and of peculiar graciosidad of elevation, suspension, elegant rotation outside the line of seriousness, reduction and support of each isochronal search, of previous or front extremity, denominates “Termino”.

In addition depending on the elevation of the arm, it rolls and cane will show greater or smaller agudes in the “termino”.

What's the proper bit type for the Peruvian Paso horse?

I always have seen use the curved bit (hard) on Peruvian Paso Horse reins. Is there a 'type' of bit specially suited for these horses? or are there other types that could be use depending, say, the horse itself, or depending on how confortable is with a given type of bit? Thanks

Cite

I placed that "Citations needed" on your page. Your article is really nice and the pictures of the horses are beautiful. My issue is that you have several phrases in the article such as:
" The always tractable Peruvian Paso presents a noble, arrogant appearance that makes him a preferred entry for shows and parades."
" The Peruvian Paso was refined exclusively in Peru and has even been called that country's "national horse" and
" Hence, this is a favored mount for riders with back trouble " .
I'm definetly no horse expert, I know just enough to know which end is the front on the horse ;), so I'm definetly not arguing about the validity of those statements, however, I suggest that you place a footnote or something similar to indicate what source provided that information to you. Otherwise it may be considered as original research . Thanks
KoshVorlon
".. We are ALL Kosh..."
18:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup II

This article has been cleaned up somewhat, but it would be nice to have some more footnotes and sources. But please, when you edit, remember Neutral point of view, WIkipedia is an encyclopedia, not a promotional brochure for anyone. Particularly, "Peacock" wording should be avoided, and please act with great care if naming any individual animals other than foundation bloodstock, because it can appear to be advertising. Also remember the No original research rule (which can be tough in the horse articles because a lot of stuff is known word-of-mouth-but you can usually find an article or website somewhere to cite!). If you want to look at the standard, Thoroughbred recently was given "Featured Article" status, meaning it could (someday) appear on the main page. It is a good guide to what a top-quality article on a horse breed should look like. Some other articles that have second-tier "Good Article" status are Appaloosa and Arabian horse. B class articles include Lipizzan, Morgan horse, Miniature horse and American Quarter Horse, if you want to look at articles that are a little less daunting to write. It is very important to understand that there are over 350 horse breed articles in wikipedia and every one of them has someone who thinks their breed is the best in the world and gets really emotional about it, so a neutral-sounding tone is critical. It is also important to follow the wikipedia style guidelines found in WP:MOS and remember that you are writing for a general audience who often needs explanations of jargon and technical terms, hence the need to use appropriate wikilinks. Montanabw^(talk) 18:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Its clear someone has an "ambling" agenda. If you really look at a lot of Peruvian Paso websites and information the word ambling is not common at all. It is represented in the gait section and that is its only appropriate place. There is also way to many link to things that do not pertain to Peruvian Paso like Columbia. Also linking to brio is not even valid as its relevant definition does not exist on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.235.35 (talk) 00:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No agenda, (smile) just wanting a neutral point of view that (among other things) does not start "my breed is better than your breed" editing wars, (trust me, they are a pain in the butt), or, worse yet, "my gait is better than your gait" spats -- plus good wikilinking to terms that are jargon to the uninitiated. I can live with not wikilinking the nation names if that is a huge deal, but it is an appropriate use (relevance to the article is not the point, it's more a reference or dictionary thing).

As for "brio," if it's just that the definition is wrong, then provide a correct one, but write it in a gramatically correct manner without misspellings, use correct sentence structure, and ideally, link it to the description used by the registry (I can format the link into a reference if needed). My goal here is to just avoid jargon and that no one outside the field can understand.

But the ambling terminology is verifiable: per sourced material, (Bennett, who is an expert on the historical Spanish horse) any four-beat intermediate gait, particularly lateral gaits, today is in the group of gaits now collectively called "ambling." (The historic "amble" was a simple lateral intermediate gait, the term now also encompasses diagonal intermediate gaits such as the fox trot). The term is not widespread in popular literature, but it is accepted terminology and so far the best term to describe intermediate gaits as a group. Gaited horse people may balk at it, but there is a need to have a group term for these intermediate speed gaits, and "intermediate speed smooth four-beat gait" is pretty awkward.

As for who has an agenda, I've been editing wiki for over two years now and it seems like all the gaited breeds spend a lot of energy explaining how one breed's lateral ambling gait is something totally different from another breed's lateral ambling gait. Peruvian Pasos do one type of lateral ambling gait, Paso Finos do a fairly similar but not identical ambling gait (and also can do a diagonal ambling gait, but they aren't supposed to), the running walk of a Tennessee Walker is an ambling gait, the slow gait and stepping pace are ambling gaits. The Tolt of the Icelandic horse and the Rack of the Saddlebred are also lateral ambling gaits, albeit faster ones, and there is no footfall difference between them and the paso largo of the paso fino, the three only seem to differ in the style of execution. Oh yes, and by the way, the Missouri Fox Trotter people claim that their diagonal ambling gait is superior to all the others (sigh...) Welcome to my world. I just want peace in the family. On wiki, all breeds are equally cool each in their own unique way, but none have superpowers that allow them to leap tall buildings in a single bound while invisible (grin). Montanabw^(talk) 05:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I keep asking myself why "ambling keeps making its way to the top when its clear should be in the gait section which it is. Now the first sentence of History starts off with something that totally out of context and references Spanish Jennet before it is introduced as part of Peruvian Paso. Honestly, not at any point in the page has there ever been some type of comparison that the PP is better than another breed or whatever as your reference above ""my breed is better than your breed" editing wars,". I really think you are not being neutral and I honestly cant figure what is going on. Yes, you do a lot of stuff for Wiki Horses but and I have taken some of your suggestions but really...honestly...what is the deal. If you look at the Paso Fino page and history it doesnt have that reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.237.104 (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

All that's going on is basically an attempt to bring this article somewhere close to the wikipedia manual of style (WP:MOS) and the bit in the history section is a start on showing where the breed came from with a wider historical view. If you want to compare this article to an official Wikipedia Good Article, look at Appaloosa, which is another breed with both a European and American history. On the other hand, the Paso Fino article is simply terrible. I did a rough fumigation on it a while back to get rid of some really bad POV (the Puerto Rican and Columbian Paso Fino people don't play well together, sigh), but no one at WikiProject Equine has yet found the time to do a full rehab on it, so no defense there, I certainly wouldn't use it as a guideline to anything much.

The purpose of the introduction is to "tell them what you're going to tell them," or, to be a brief summary of the article. For that reason, a wikilinked mention that the four beat gait is in the ambling family is a perfectly appropriate link in the lead. (it is OK to wikilink the same concept more than once in an article if the links are far enough apart, usually once per section is considered the maximum, though) Notice the leads in any featured article any day, many wikilinks in the lead.

As for the history section, the Palfrey thing was already in the article before you or I started editing it and what I did was move it from a lonesome hanging sentence in an odd location up to the history section, reword and source it -- I'm hoping that you do agree that the Spanish Jennet was the premier gaited horse of the Middle Ages, the breed that was most often used as a Palfrey (which was a type, not a breed) and the Jennet was the common ancestor of most of the gaited breeds of the Americas. This is where I am going with the ref to Bennett, who talks about this quite extensively (the truth is, that bit would make more sense if expanded, actually...but I have to dig out the book again...). I'll admit that it's a bit awkward, but if we can hang in there, the point I'm chasing is basically a short discussion of the gaited horses in Europe. Am certainly open to some rewording ideas, but don't want the whole concept scrapped. Maybe we can toss the word "Palfrey," if that's what's causing the headache, but keep the rest with the Bennett cite. Montanabw^(talk) 03:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You alerted me when you say "I'm hoping that you do agree that the Spanish Jennet was the premier gaited horse of the Middle Ages" and it certainly shows a favoritism, bias and possible neutrality question. What evidence do you have of this claim...in looking at the Jennet page their is not the quote of Bennet on that page and it is far more applicable. The Bennet quote is not applicable to Peruvian Paso. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.237.161 (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read a pillar of wikipedia, which is Assume Good Faith. I am assuming that you want a good article on the PP that is accurate and that you aren't a shill for the registry trying to write a puff piece! (Grin). The historic, and now-extinct Jennet of Spain WAS the primary source of all gaited bloodlines throughout Europe, that isn't POV, that's documented history. That's why the section on gaited horses is footnoted. And please do not remove that footnote again, it is not the way we handle source disputes on wikipedia. Please read WP:CITE and the verifiability article. Dr. Deb Bennett is one of the leading writers on the history of the horse in the Americans. Conquerers, the source cited, is a very high-quality and well-respected work. As for the rest, the so-called modern "Spanish Jennet Horse" is just a gaited horse with spots, not anything particularly special. On the other hand, virtually all modern gaited horses trace to the historic Jennet (and I am thinking the historical horse needs to just be called "Jennet," as that is the more accurate term and avoids confusion. Please understand that the history of the horse in Spain and the Americas is a far broader topic than just the PP breed. Montanabw^(talk) 06:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

"you aren't a shill for the registry trying to write a puff piece!" First I have nothing to do with the registry and there has never been any puff at any time. You certainly claim a lot about the Jennet but why is that page so weak. If you know your stuff, then that page needs a lot of help. I agree with Jennet being a past part of the PP but its simple mixture cite is only appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.236.70 (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The Jennet page is weak because we have not yet had time to make a concerted effort to do anything more than keep vandalism out of it. There are over 1500 articles in the Equine Wikiproject, and only 5 or so editors regularly edit them. This means that our time, effort and resources are spread over a large base. At some point, we will get around to cleaning up all of the articles, but this will probably take a while, as all of us do have real lives outside of Wikipedia. Just because the Jennet page is weak does not mean that we shouldn't link to it and include reliable, verifiable, sourced material about them in this article.

I have put the sourced material on Jennets that Montana provided back into the article, and reworded slightly to show the progression from the ambling horses of the Middle Ages through the Jennets to the Peruvian Paso.

This article still needs significant work and cleanup, although many of the edits over the past couple of weeks have definitely been in the right direction. My suggestion would be to first start by sourcing what's there, removing obviously false material, and adding to parts that are still light on content. At that point, then we should discuss if anything that is true, but that you do not feel is relevant to the article, should come out. Dana boomer (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It also need to be noted that the original Jennet article thought Jennets were "Jennys," i.e. female donkeys. Just cleaned out another chunk of that. It is important to understand the historical context of horse breeds in as broad a manner as possible. A lot of breed registries and aficionados sort of get caught up in their own mythos: so far, I have run across several breeds that claim roots pure from prehistoric times, even though some have DNA clearly proving otherwise and none kept written pedigrees until about the 13th century AD! LOL! Also, at least five different breeds claim to be the breed of Bucephalus, even though NONE existed at the time of Alexander! I've been going pretty easy on this article as far as insisting on sources goes, but Dana is right, sooner or later, someone is going to show up here and start demanding footnotes. If you aren't comfortable doing footnotes (some days I feel like editing wiki is like writing a Master's thesis every week!) it may be helpful to at least add some more external links we can use later to get footnotes...and if there are good books out there, perhaps add them in a "Further reading" section. Anyway, I know I'm not as diplomatic as Dana is, but please try not to get too hot under the collar over this stuff and understand that wikipedia is a collaborative process. We'll spat like cats and dogs, but at the end there will be a darn good article come out of it! Montanabw^(talk) 04:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Dana, you can not just come in and make changes that have been worked on for a long period of time. The barb, jennet and andulusian mixture needs to be together as that mixture makes the breed. The jennet is only one facet and likely not even verifiable. The reality is the Peruvian Paso's verifiable history starts in Peru. Its important that people with knowledge of the breed edit this page. Do you have a knowledge base about the breed? Do you own a Peruvian Paso? How many years have you been in the breed? You may know wiki but do you know Peruvian Paso. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.146.110 (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Please, Mr 70.253.146.110 (you might want to sign up and get a screen name, by the way), do not attack Dana. I fully support her position on this matter. I have had this article watchlisted longer than anyone and have seen a number of editors come and go. Your work has been very valuable, but it still benefits from collaboration. Nonetheless, it is one thing to be an expert on your breed, but Wikipedia requires SOURCES. We can't just take your word for it, even if you are an expert. (And we've had a lot of "experts" pop up who cannot support their claims) Please read WP:V and WIkipedia:No Original Research. We are not in any way downgrading the bloodline influences on the PP, we are simply pointing out that the Jennet is the source of the gaited trait -- Andalusians are not encouraged to have gaited abilities, and the Barb isn't particularly noted for being a gaited breed, either. The Palfrey wasn't a "breed" as we know breeds today, the term referred to a light horse that usually had an ambling gait, but it could be of many different sources of breeding. The historical record describes the Jennet as the finest of the light ambling breeds, and Spanish horses in general as the best in Europe. Thus, when I added the Bennett cite, I was placing the breed in a wider historical context. We can tweak the way it's worded, but we can't change what the source actually says. I do not know if you have read the many wikipedia articles on writing and sourcing that I have provided here, or if you've looked over the sample breed articles I have suggested, but I hope you have because they DO put everything into better context. Now if you don't agree with what's written, please provide source material, don't just keep reverting. We can evaluate evidence you have and, believe it or not, have been known to change our position if confronted by high-quality evidence! Montanabw^(talk) 06:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added a source that shows that PP's are a mix of Jennet, Andalusian, Barb and Friesian bloodlines. If you, Mr. (or Ms.) 70.253.146.110, have another source verifiable, reliable source that contradicts this, please point it out to Montana and I. I completely agree with Montana when she says that we are always willing to look at other sources when they are provided. However, you have not been providing sources to back up you POV...you have simply been deleting sourced contributions. Until you provide the source of your information, it is not information, it is simply your opinion. Unfortunately, Wikipedia discourages original research, and so saying that you are an expert on the matter is not enough. This is not a jab at you - because of the inherent characteristics of the Internet, anyone can claim to be an expert, with no way to verify their claims.

If you want to improve as a wiki editor, I beg you to please read the information pages that Montana continues to provide for you. We are always happy to have someone who is interested in and knowledgeable about horses helping us in WP: Equine. However, you must follow the guidelines of Wikipedia. I know it's not always easy, and you may not always want to, but playing well with others will help you to get farther ahead. Dana boomer (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Methinks there's a missing word there...

The article presently states that:

Peruvian Pasos trace their ancestry to these ambling Jennets from the, as well as Barb, Andalusian and Friesian bloodlines.

From the what? I'd fix it myself, if I had any idea... Tomer^talk 23:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah. From the source cited, we have the following:

The Spanish horses brought to Peru blended the Barb, the Friesian, the Spanish Jennet, and the Andalusian.

This makes me guess that what's missing is just a letter, not an entire word. Examining the history of the article, however, leads me to believe that a whole "Kingdom of Castile in what today is Spain" was accidentally deleted when the citation was given. I've therefore reinserted the deleted text... If its removal was intentional, please re-remove it...but make sure the sentence still makes sense. :-) Tomer^talk 23:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that was completely my bad. The source cited doesn't back up the fact that they all came from Castile, so I removed it. Apparently I didn't read the sentence thoroughly afterwards, though! Thank you for catching this :) I've removed that section of text and made sure that the sentence reads correctly now. Dana boomer (talk) 11:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Okie state says the FRIESIAN is an ancestor? I have to really question that one, the Friesian was a breed developed in northern Europe, and this is the first I have heard of them crossing the Atlantic with the Spanish. If you don't mind, I'm going to cut that little factoid until we can verify off a second source, that just does not compute. (Am beginning to seriously wonder about the Okie state site...sigh). Montanabw^(talk) 03:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. I was just trying to find something that cites the fact that the Jennet is indeed an ancestor of the PP, in order to stop this little edit war we have going on. Would you have a better source that backs this up? I know that Bennett describes ambling horses of the Middle Ages, but does she say anything about the breeds that developed from them? Just a thought... Dana boomer (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Note I added source material from the International Museum of the Horse to back up Bennett. That should cover it. The IMH site also explained the characteristics added by the Andalusian and Barb too, which was nice and I think clarifies things further. This work for you? Montanabw^(talk) 04:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, looks gorgeous. Dana boomer (talk) 12:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

LInks

Someone with a political and self serving agenda (Peruvian Horse World) is making changes on the external links list. The list was put into a specific order based specific criteria...please dont mess with it in such a petty way.(User:Hoierman) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoierman (talk • contribs) 19:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

As a neutral party to PP politics, and after a review of Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, particularly items #5 and #10 on that list, I just did a review of all the links included and threw out a substantial number of them because they are primarily sale and straight PR sites, social networking, or have an unacceptable amount of advertising. I kept the two that primarily contained educational material, I kept all the breed registries, and only threw out one magazine that appears to be a Peruvian culture magazine, not limited only to the horse breed. I have no horse in this race, so to speak, just trying to keep the list in compliance with wikipedia guidelines. Montanabw^(talk) 22:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You have made some mistakes if you are trying to be neutral. I originally posted all of those links because I felt it best to include any and all resources that might be used to better inform the reader. You speak of "Link Farms" as bad so let me give you an example of a link farm you are oblivious to. The Peruvian Digest magazine is no longer in business and has not published a magazine in a couple of years. The site is used to promote specific breeders so it literally is a "Link to Farm". You took off the Orgullo del Peru magazine site which is a magazine that has some editorial you can read online hence "informing". Since you are not in the breed and are just refereeing/monitoring so to speak its understandable you not knowing details. The bigger question is are the external links used to help guide people so that they can make informed decisions...if so all of the links that I originally posted should be reevaluated. I believe that readers should not be subjected to the nanny state and be allowed to find information and evaluate its usefulness on their own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoierman (talk • contribs) 22:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't be upset, just read the policies of wikipedia, particularly the article I linked above. There's a method to the madness here. See WP:EL: "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." The policy is just the opposite of "include any and all resources." I have no problem tossing the Peruvian digest if it's just a spam site, or you can toss it if you like, all I can say is that in reviewing links, the home page came up, it looked like a magazine, so I didn't toss it in the big dump. But if it's bogus too, toss it, I don't care. (Just don't start an edit war with whoever else it is that keeps adding/deleting links) The point here is that the main thing "External links" are supposed to be for are things like official websites on a topic, and things that for some reason (usually length or copyright restrictions) cannot be included at some point in the article itself. Sometimes as a compromise, people post links to less than perfect sources here on the talk pages with a note that says something like, "if you need research sources for the article, here are some links and why they might help."

Another caution: One thing I see on some breed articles are links being inserted and deleted by different "political" factions within the breed, particularly if there are multiple registries. That seems to be going on here a little, though I've seen worse: For example, there were problems with both the miniature horse and shetland pony articles for a while. I also periodically have to go in and babysit the Paso Fino article because the Columbian Paso Fino crowd and the Puerto Rico Paso Fino crowd don't like to play together in the same sandbox. And please, do NOT get me started on the "this breed can stop bullets and leap tall buildings in a single bound" things that periodically pop up on the Friesian horse and Andalusian horse articles! =:-O

Oh, and remember to sign your posts. Montanabw^(talk) 23:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The First Horses in Peru

" The first Horses to arrive in Peru landed in 1531 with Governor Don Francisco Pizarro. The Spaniards knew that horses were prerequisite to the conquest. Horses in Peru came from Spain, Jamaica, Panama and other areas of Central America. From among them were selected prototypes brought by the viceroys of Spain." book link Arsdelicata (talk) 12:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Now watch it go into the article! Montanabw^(talk) 04:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

References

Genetic stuff

Look for more info on these conditions: DSLD: Degenerative Suspensory Ligament Desmitis/ ESPA: Equine Systemic Proteoglycan Accumulation. Montanabw^(talk) 23:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

"This" Lacks a Clear Antecedent

Article says at start of a paragraph: "This characteristic gait was utilized for the purpose of covering long distances over a short period of time without tiring the horse or rider." The antecedent of the demonstrative "This" is unclear. Please edit by adding a noun or phrase to read like, " This paso llano gait" or "This sobreandando gait. . . " so that one knows which gait the paragraph is talking about. The preceding paragraph spoke of 2 distinct gates. Which one does "This" refer to? The closest antecedent is the sobreandando gait, but the content of the paragraph favors the paso llano gait interpretation. [Emphasis above mine.] (EnochBethany (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC))

Feel free to review the sources and make an edit. Montanabw^(talk) 20:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)