Talk:Jewel's Leo Bars

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

Notability

As far as I can see, this article doesn't even make a claim to Wikipedia-notability, never mind provide the evidence of significant coverage necessary to demonstrate it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dawnleelynn, Andy makes a good point - we need more RS for this article. This might pass for some history. I'm about to leave, and won't be back until tonight. Andy, if you're not doing anything, help us find some sources - they're out there. Atsme 💬 📧 15:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice photo, but not really evidence of notability, in my opinion. What, beyond standing around looking pretty, and getting Gay Jay pregnant, did Freckles actually do? Generally, horse-notability on Wikipedia seems to be based on success in some form of competitive sport, but without some specifics, I'd not know where to look - this is well out of my area of expertise. A quick Google doesn't find anything much, beyond pedigrees. This webpage [1] seems to indicate some sort of NCHA (presumably National Cutting Horse Association) prize-winning, but exactly what for isn't clear to me. And I'm not sure the website is WP:RS anyway. Seems to belong to a ranch "selling outstanding performance quarter horses at reasonable prices", which doesn't inspire confidence... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Had to leave - now I'm back. There are books like Trendsetters, vol. 1: Jewel's Leo Bars, Colonel Freckles, Doc O'Lena.. There is substantial info in that book that satisfies N. He was also the sire of AQHA Hall of Fame inductees Colonel Freckles and Freckles Playboy. Atsme 💬 📧 20:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notability, we are told, isn't inherited as far as Wikipedia is concerned. I'd assume that works the other way, and that siring a notable horse doesn't make a horse notable. We seem to work that way with people, anyway. As for the book, I can't locate a review anywhere, and if either the publisher or the author have any particular recognition for their expertise on the subject, it isn't immediately obvious. Still, if nothing else, presumably the book can answer my initial question: other than siring Hall of Fame inductees, what did Freckles do? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)'[reply]
Ah, but there's a difference between inheriting notability and breeding. I've been watching America's Best Racing almost every weekend for over a year. Here's three names for you. Tapit, Into Mischief, and Curlin. Stud fees for Curlin and Tapit run $175,000. Tapit has been as high as $300,000. Into Mischief runs $250,000. Curlin has an amazing race career and 19 Grade 1 winners in progeny. You could buy a house with the stud fees for one mare. Ads for stallions standing at stud run constantly on television and websites. Breeding is big business. Young horses sell at the annual sale in September for millions of dollars. There are many more articles of horses that are standing at stud and their progeny are listed in their articles. There's an article of outstanding studs. dawnleelynn(talk) 22:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, breeding is big business. Which is why Wikipedia needs to be careful about article content on such matters being properly cited to reliable sources. Clearly, nobody is collecting stud fees for Jewel's Leo Bars, but they may well be for other horses featured in Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about this some more last night. That's why the pedigree is notable and important. Owners, trainers, buyers, etc., all look at the pedigree to determine what horses to buy, i.e., pedigree is an important part of an indicator of performance. And they look far back in the pedigree. Some horses have the same horse in their pedigree several times, i.e., montanabw knows which horses I mean. Do buyers buy Curlin's sons and daughters based solely on Curlin's records? Nope. His pedigree up and down.dawnleelynn(talk) 18:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Well, these are horses and not people, so to satisfy notability, they may have historic significance, or be top producing sires, and/or performers. Historically, Freckles is still a household name among western stock horse professionals and enthusiasts. He was also a race horse (AQHA Race SI-85/AA/ROM), an AQHA performance horse with halter and performance points, and an NCHA cutting horse with some earnings. FYI, competing in 3 different types of events and disciplines as what this stallion did (racing, show halter & performance, and cutting) is pretty remarkable because most horses usually only compete in one event; i.e., they are either a show horse, or a race horse, or a cutting horse. Freckles dates back to the 60s...before the internet as we know it today, so we don't have a lot of online sites to choose from for material, and we won't see the same million dollar figures for Freckles that his progeny have earned in NCHA cutting in the 21st century. As a stallion, he sired 2 stallions that are AQHA Hall of Fame inductees, top money earners and producers of top money earners. For example, his son, Freckles Playboy, ranked 3rd on the list of all-time leading sires, by offspring earnings. His sons and daughters have earned $24.5 million in NCHA competition, and that figure may be closer to $28 million today.
WP:NEXIST, which may help put your concerns to rest. However, if you came here to prove a point based on the discussion I started at Jimbo's page in which you participated, you're wasting your time. Atsme 💬 📧 00:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't consider doing my little bit to encourage people to write better articles a 'waste of time'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources#Reliable sources desperately needs you, for the reasons I explained after closely researching the cited sources, partly in this discussion and other reveals throughtout. Atsme 💬 📧 10:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jewel's Leo Bars has a long write up in Legends 6
ISBN 0911647732 Ealdgyth (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
So, is anyone actually going to add anything to the article explaining to readers what exactly the horse did to merit an article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have at it! I don't have access to the 2 books I mentioned, and Bonaire doesn't have that kind of library. Atsme 💬 📧 15:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you haven't actually read the book you claimed contained 'substantial info'? What a surprise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added a 'notability' template to the article, since it fails to make any substantive claims towards meeting Wikipedia notability guidelines. If more sources exist, and contributors are able to read them and add citations for verifiable content which make a reasonable claim towards notability of this specific horse, I won't object to the removal of the template. If, however, the template is removed without adding content which makes a better claim to notability than the horse being related to other horses, I will pursue the matter further, and may consider nominating the article for deletion. Wikipedia is not a horse-pedigree database. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of an N tag you should have placed a more RS needed tag (or one like it). What you did doesn't really help because editors/readers don't quite understand what you mean, especially those who are versed in what makes a stallion notable. It tends to make this encyclopedia inadequate by not knowing such basic information in a topic area. It is embarrassing. I welcome you to take a
WP:NPPSCHOOL course because I believe it will do you a world of good. Atsme 💬 📧 22:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Given your continued refusal to provide evidence in the article that this horse is actually notable, my next action is very likely to be nomination for deletion. If the horse has done anything, put it in the damned article, citing sources you have actually read. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, there is no question this horse is notable. Any Quarter Horse appearing in the sources that @Ealdgyth: noted is more than sufficient indicia of notability. This is an article under construction and let's not burn down the house while it's being built. We are all longtime editors here, a fight over something like this is just absurd. I'm moving it to mainspace, it's more than ready for primetime. Montanabw(talk) 21:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is an 'article under construction' now. After being in article space for almost three years, while failing to explain to readers why. 'Longtime editors' should know better than that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. It’s getting improved now, I’ve created more than a couple hundred articles. I’m sure there’s something out there from 2008 that might still be start class. The idea is that anyone can edit Wikipedia and most stuff anyone cares about is eventually improved. My suggestion is simply
WP:SOFIXIT Montanabw(talk) 04:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi everyone. I wanted to get here sooner, but I had problems with my login for a few days. I'd like to point out
WP:NEXIST regarding the state of sources in articles and notability. Basically, "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable." It also points out that sources do not have to be immediately in an article to be considered. Please have a read of this paragraph, thanks. dawnleelynn(talk) 21:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Genetics etc

The article as it stands cites several scientific papers on horse breeding and genetics. Given that none of them seem to refer specifically to Jewel's Leo Bars, this material appears to me to be synthesis, or just plain off-topic. Any comments? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article specifically cites Legends. Volume 6, which has the "biography" of this horse. Any Quarter Horse appearing in the "Legends" series of books published by Western Horseman are deemed notable (ask
WP:NEQUESTRIAN which discusses the general criteria for when and how sport horses are deemed notable. Being a sire of significance is notable. Montanabw(talk) 22:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Please reply to the point I actually made above, which has nothing to do with notability of the article subject. None of the papers refer specifically to Jewel's Leo Bars. Citing such material appears to be syntheses. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I’m glad you are no longer questioning the notability issue. Looks to me that there are three cites for one sentence and one scientific paper cited in the preceding paragraph. I fail to see what your concern is here— I’m not seeing a WP:SYNTH violation, just some awkward writing. Sometimes it helps to explain an underlying scientific concept, the question was raised about why the horse was notable, and in part it was his genetic prepotency. So I guess the editors working on that bit are trying to clarify how the genetic side works. I’m going to give them a few days to finish up this round and see how it all shakes out. Patience, and we shall see. Montanabw(talk) 04:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unless sources exist stating that 'genetic prepotency' is specifically relevant to the subject of this article, citing papers on the concept is synthesis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't entirely agree, but the one thing you tagged I agree was overkill. Montanabw(talk) 23:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So if the remainder of the section (starting at "A 2013 genomic study...") really belongs in this article, does it not also belong in every other Quarter Horse article? That would seem to follow the logic of arguments here. And isn't the last paragraph of the section applicable to more or less every horse bred for competition? I still think that including general statements about horse genetics in an article on one specific horse is inappropriate. If I saw something similar in an article on a horse still being used for breeding, I'd delete it as promotional fluff. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Give the lack of a clear explanation as to why this article is including generalist material on horse genetics which makes no mention of the actual article subject, I'm going to remove it in the next few days, unless I see a substantive response. If we then can't agree, I'd suggest we try some sort of dispute resolution, or maybe start a thread at
WP:NORN. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
No, Andy, it doesn't belong in every QH horse article but it does belong in this one, and your lack of knowledge in this topic area is beginning to cause a problem. Montanabw already explained to you the reason for the science articles. We should not have to keep repeating it. Your threats to remove that material are disruptive, especially in light of the fact that the article now has the attention of WikiProject Equine editors and horse topic experts, as well as editors who have promoted/reviewed FA/GA horse related articles. The little bit of wiki-gnoming you did - re: date of death - was helpful, and we now have that feature added to the horse info box, so thank you for that but calling cited scientific articles "promotional fluff" was over the top. There are relatively few legendary foundation stallions/mares (out of millions of QH around the world) that have passed their genetics to generations of descendants in such a significant way that it influenced the entire Quarter Horse performance industry. The cited articles explain the science of genetics in the selective breeding of sport horses, the genome sigs & selection footprints which are important in understanding the selective breeding process (foundation breeding) and how & why genetics matter when breeding sport horses for cutting, reining or working cow horse events where exhibitors can earn millions of dollars showing horses. The titles of those cited articles alone speak volumes to the relevancy of inclusion, such as Morphological and Genomic Differences Between Cutting and Racing Lines of Quarter Horses. Freckles was an accomplished cutting horse, but didn't have what was needed to excel as a racehorse. The Freckles line is found in cutting and reining performance horses all over the world. See this article, and notice that the #2 top sire in the industry today (out of millions) is the AQHA Hall of Fame son of Jewel's Leo Bars: Today, Smart Little Lena is the unassailable #1 all-time leading broodmare sire with $66,709,305 in earnings, followed by Freckles Playboy with $45,602,640,... Jewel's Leo Bars (Freckles) is the sire of Freckles Playboy (died 2003), and notability is not temporary. Freckles being the foundation sire of Freckles Playboy is the start of that legacy. Take a look at Smart Little Lena's pedigree (died 2010) - his lineage traces back to Three Bars (the paternal grandsire of Freckles), and Leo (the maternal grandsire of Freckles). Genetics matter, it is all about the science, and it is not promotional fluff. Atsme 💬 📧 04:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, which is it to be? An RfC, or a thread at
WP:NORN? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Hmmm, seems to me that to spend this much bandwidth over about two sentences is really quite a waste of time. The genetic prepotency of major breeding stock is a core concept in pedigreed animal breeding projects in general. Explaining how a particular stallion’s genetic traits have passed on is really a pretty standard discussion to have (for the dark side, see, e.g.

WP:BOOMERANG, as at this point in time I do not see a concern with notability or sourcing. I merely see one editor who cannot let go of a general sense of grievance and is attempting to attack an article with death by a thousand cuts. Montanabw(talk) 19:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

You seem to be under the impression I give a damn about your opinion of my editing habits. I don't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still alive? Seems unlikely, but article doesn't say

The article tells us that Jewel's Leo Bars was born in 1962. What it doesn't say, however, is whether he is still alive. Which, from my admittedly limited knowledge of the subject seems fairly unlikely, and if it were true, possibly worthy of comment in its own right. Do we have a source, either way? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see this has been done. Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While it is appropriate to mention that a death date should be added, your tone suggests to me that you are no longer interested in making positive contributions to this article, but simply searching for more things to pick apart. Time to drop the stick. Montanabw(talk) 19:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that this seems to be the case, no longer looking to contribute.dawnleelynn(talk) 19:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jewel%27s_Leo_Bars&oldid=1218780408"