Talk:Bitless bridle/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

POV

Although I don't doubt the usefulness of bitless bridles (and have ridden with them), the reference (or at least its title) is anti-bit rather than pro-bitless. How about some references on the use of bitless bridles?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Curtis Clark (talk • contribs) 03:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Response by Author

I disagree completely. How is the title "anti-bit"? This article is strictly a definition of what a bitless bridle is. No where in the article does it say "Do not use a bit." I have found this reaction is typical of people who, for one reason or another, are defensive of their use of a bit.

The reason most people ride bitless is because they do not like the harm the bit can cause to the horse. Also, most horses are much calmer when ridden in a bitless bridle. There is much anecdotal evidence of this which is not included as I felt it was not sufficiently 'reference-able.' There are, however, many references to the physical and psychological side-effects of using a bit, even when in the mildest of hands... (please see reference for more info). Shall I include them?

Bitless riding is an alternative for those who do not want to risk the possible harmful effects, but the article is simply a definition of what bitless means. I think you are reading too much into what was written.

And finally, this from Wikipedia on disputing neutrality: "Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." AeronM (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC) The Author

Please do not make personal attacks, even when veiled: "I have found this reaction is typical of people who, for one reason or another, are defensive of their use of a bit."
Honestly, Metal in the Mouth. The Abusive Effects of Bitted Bridles seems "anti-bit" to me. Please explain how I have misconstrued it.--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, mechanical hackamores and traditional hackamores can be just as abusive as bits. It all boils down to common sense and using the bit/bridle/hackamore correctly. Ealdgyth | Talk 00:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Curtis, I am sorry you do not like the title of the book I referenced. I cannot do much about that. PS I agree that "mechanical hackamores can be just as abusive as bits." AeronM (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Curtis was saying you can't just present ONE side of the argument. You can't only say that bits can cause problems without also saying that bitless bridles, in the wrong hands, can cause problems. The trick to writing on Wikipedia is to find the middle ground and present both sides as evenly as possible. I added some references and more information to the article. PLEASE always always always add references to everything you write. I know that horse-people have problems with that, because a lot of times we just "know" things, mainly from observation. Unfortunately, Wikipedia wants third party sources, and nothing is worse than going BACK to an article someone else wrote and trying to find references for it. Been there, done that, and it's so much easier for your fellow editors if you do the references first time around. And in the full-disclosure department, many years ago, I ran a summer camp riding program for a number of years. We used mechanical hackamores exclusively, so I'm hardly "anti-bitless bridle" but in my current riding, I use snaffles almost exclusively, mainly because I'm doing beginning dressage. Ealdgyth | Talk 00:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Okidoki. I will find refs supporting "bits cause problems" and you go ahead and rustle up some refs that say bitless bridles cause problems. Ready? GO! --AeronM (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing CITED information is not a cool thing to do. Not at all. The information on the roping is accurate as is the show jumping (the reference has a picture of at least one show jumper with a mechanical hackamore.) Note that the about collection said it was more difficult, if not impossible. You can removed the "If not impossible" if you really insist, but the quoted source (which is by a well-respected European writer on equestrain matters) does in fact say that collection is more difficult in bitless bridles. Kindly replace the information. Taking it out is against Wikipedia norms. Ealdgyth | Talk 00:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Just because one includes a photo does not make it relevant to the article. Also, I'm sorry you think removing cited material is "uncool." Again, just because it is cited does not make it relevant.
I really DO NOT want this to turn into a "Bits vs. Bitless" discussion. There is plenty of that going on in the chatrooms.
I would like very much for this article to remain short and neutral.
Because many types of bitless bridles are new, I am having trouble finding adequate source material. I will persevere.AeronM (talk) 01:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
You are the one who from the very beginning made it a "Bits vs. Bitless" article by prominently featuring an anti-bit book as your only reference. You appear to be the one with the cause, and, believe me, your pushing it on Wikipedia won't make you any allies, even among editors who may agree with you.--Curtis Clark (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
WHAT cause??? I don't have a cause at all, except adding information that is cited to Wikipedia. If the article is about bitless bridles, then information about the uses of said bridles is relevant. The current article lists information on bits, is THAT relevant to a bitless bridle?Ealdgyth | Talk 01:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are some articles to support the growing popularity of bitless bridles: http://www.bitlesshorse.co.uk/Files/Developments%20in%20Design.pdf

http://www.equestrianmag.com/news/certified-horsemanship-association-bitless-bridle-2-07.html

http://www.equestrianmag.com/news/stacy-westfall-slide-zone-8-06.html

http://www.nurturalhorse.com/Better_Bridles.html

http://www.naturalmatters.net/natural-horse-equipment.asp

http://www.hauteecole.ru/en/alexander_nevzorov.php

and, if you're still with me, check out these two videos:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHaEzGz0HeE

www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXR_SW_soII

Again, these are only FYI, and not 'strong' enough to be used as references for the article.AeronM (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Scope

Let's not define "bitless bridle" as a "cross-under" bridle. That is too narrow. I would define it as any headgear used for riding or driving, that has no bit.

  • Bitless bridles that progressively squeeze the muzzle: crossover, crossunder, mechanical hackamore, ...
  • Bitless bridles that squeeze the muzzle (or at least keep the mouth closed): sidepull, jumping cavesson, ...
  • Bitless bridles that do not squeeze, or that apply pressure to the bridge of the nose or to a point on the jaw: bosal, hackamore, jaquima, halter with reins, ...

--Una Smith (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Una, I agree 100%. AeronM (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect. The hackamore predates the "bitless bridle" by, oh, several hundred years; the word jaquima goes back to the Islamic invasions of Spain around the 8th century. "Bitless bridle" is a new term, mostly coined with the invention of the cross under and related designs. In fact, I think the word "bitless bridle" was even copyrighted by someone for a specific design. I also know someone jumped down my throat with both feet for lumping mechanical hackamores in with bitless bridles. True hackamore aficionados are mildly offended by lumping in this classic piece of equipment with various modern gadgets.
Sidepulls and jumping cavessons are sort of in a gray area. I have seen them listed as both hackamore variations and bitless bridles. They work more or less on hackamore principles in that they do not squeeze, and, actually no, they do NOT squeeze the muzzle, if properly adjusted, they cannot be so tight as to keep the mouth closed, they horse must be able to flex and move its jaw--if you adjust either too tight, it will cause pain to the horse, the English jumping cavessons have a cable core, most sidepulls have either nylon rope or rawhide nosebands and all are stiff. Tighten them down and they can't flex their jaw at all, and they make rub points.
However, the bitless aficionado crowd is not into bosals nor really makes much use of the true sidepull. Seems most of the "movement" web pages are promoting various squeezing devises or rope "riding halters." (A true sidepull is a lot different from that riding halter that was pictured, that is not a sidepull... these are sidepulls. (And note they range from a mild flat leather one to one with a steel noseband! =:-O Oh yeah, those are gentle!  :-P )
These days I have seen the word "bitless headgear" incorporate both "bitless bridles" (bitless bridles ARE crossovers, basically) and the classic bosal style hackamores (along with assorted other stuff). IMHO, as far as I am concerned "mechanical hackamores," especially stuff like this and even these are just hybrid junk that crosses the most severe elements of both hackamores and bits.
Sorry to rant a bit about this matter. I am so frustrated by lack of historical understanding of these things. 30 or so years ago, there was no such thing as a "bitless bridle," there were bridles and hackamores, that was it. (Hence why that torture device got named a "mechanical hackamore" instead of something more logical) I feel like an old fuddy-duddy and I'm not even all that old. Sigh... Montanabw(talk) 08:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Montanabw, I think part of what has happened is that, yes "Bitless Bridle" was coined by one particular manufacturer, but has now become a generic term including all types of bitless aparati, much the same way "Kleenex" (a brand name) is now used to mean tissue in general, "Ketchup" for catsup, etc. AeronM (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Halter "risky"

The assertion that a halter is risky for riding/driving presumes that more control requires more pressure, and is belied by the similar very low-pressure mechanism of a bosal. Both bosal and halter put pressure on the bridge of the nose when the reins are pulled. Mechanical hackamores put extreme pressure on the horse's nose and jaw but I have never seen one produce extreme control. --Una Smith (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Tell that to the kids I have seen injured by riding around bareback with a stable halter and a lead rope on one side at a horse show, someone's truck backfires, the horse bolts, the kid can't stop it... If a horse panics and bolts, you need something to enhance pressure, an ordinary stable halter cannot to it. I know people who have been killed. Maybe some kind of special "riding halter" can add the leverage needed when disaster strikes, but all the control you have in a stable halter is the goodwill of the horse. A riding teacher would be exposing themselves to immediate and certain liability for negligence if they let kids ride horses around in just a halter. Yes, people do it all the time (even I have), that doesn't mean it isn't risky. As for a bosal, if you haven't seen the head of a horse bloodied by abusive use of a bosal, well, I have. It is only a low-pressure mechanism in the right hands, in the wrong hands, it can be very severe, especially the heavy breaking ones. Or the illegal ones with a cable core... don't get me started. The point about halters is that, basically, proper riding headgear has a "panic" capability that a competent rider can use in case all hell breaks loose. And I have seen people dumped and known people severely injured by riding around in halters (add bareback and barefoot to the mix and I am just going to close my eyes and cringe!!) Montanabw(talk) 07:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw: Had these kids/horses been trained to ride in a riding halter? Would you allow them to drive a car without first teaching them how to do it? There is specific proir training involved in riding in a halter. You don't just get on and go, any more than you put a kid behind the wheel of a car, and say "drive." AeronM (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Any type of effective headgear requires training. Duh. If there is any significant difference between the pressure and release method used with a bosal and the way you ride with a halter, do share. I've taught riding lessons on and off since the 1970s. I start all my beginners in private lessons on a longe line and I don't give beginners the reins until they have enough of a seat that they aren't going to use the reins to hang on. Even after they get the reins, they don't get to canter off the longe until they can do what folks now call a "7-7-7 trot" (sitting, posting, two-point, seven strides each, without loss of balance) with the reins to my satisfaction. I teach good hands from day one. Montanabw(talk) 05:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


Montanabw, that is great and I am glad you teach such a good foundation. (Side note: your "duh" was a bit of unecessary sarcasm)... But a good seat does not equal training the rider and horse to be ridden in a halter. The horse must undergo a training period as well, and yes, riding in a bosal and riding in a riding halter are very different. Don't get me wrong, I'm pro bitless riding in whatever form it takes, but there is some additional knowledge/training required to do it. I have foxhunted, trail ridden, evented and shown in a halter for many many years, given clinics on the subject, etc..., so there is really no limit to what you can do with 'prior proper preparation,' as one trainer would say. AeronM (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Patent pending

"My invention is patent pending and I would appreciate fellow editors not removing the correct title." (from edit summary)

Okay, this explains a lot. You're using this article to push your own commercial interests. Now I'm going to have to investigate your external links, and probably have to find out whatever I can about "The Aeron Riding Halter" in order to cleanse the article of your commercialization. AFAICT, none of the rest of us who have edited this article are selling or inventing tack. You've basically proved that everything you write is POV, since you are pushing the stuff you sell.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Curtis, I'm afraid you are wrong. Before I stumbled into this mess, there WAS no page defining what a bitless bridle was. Should I apologize for being the one to start it? Notice that I am not whining because my page has been hijacked by some with an agenda.... I realize that is what happens here on Widipedia, and there is little one can do to remedy the situation.

Once again, you are the one with the agenda. Your blindness to this (or perhaps intentional prevarication) doesn't change the fact. You are the person who is selling bitless bridles; not me, not Montanabw, not Ealdgyth, not Una Smith. You are the problem here.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

My goal is, and always was, to provide readers with a simple, clear definition of what a bitless bridle is. I did not want it to devolve in to long discussion about which is better, or who causes the most harm to their horses, etc. etc etc. I am sick of removing people's personal opinions about which is better, etc. This is not the place for that.

You are the one who adds your own opinions, and removes those of others. The edit history shows that clearly, and your claiming that you don't is not supported by the evidence.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If no one is allowed to put a photo of an item that someone has invented, then we will have to remove all the photos.... bosal, hackamore, and cross-under as well.

It's not that anyone did, it's that you the inventor of a bitless bridle, which he sells, creates an article on bitless bridles that pushes a POV
I did not invent a bitless bridle. Therefore, there is no COI. It might have been argued on the Riding halter page, but not this one. I am also not pushing a POV. --AeronM (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

("bits are bad"; I read your blog, and it's no different from the way you started out here) and casts his product in a favorable light. That's okay for your own web site, but it's not okay at Wikipedia. Perhaps you never read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. And in addition to POV, you are also writing original research, another Wikipedia no-no.

I plead guilty to biting the newcomer, but it's hard not to when a newcomer pointedly ignores the rules even when they are pointed out.
I'm still not an opponent of bitless bridles, but I'll wrap a rawhide rope around my horse's lower jaw Native American style before I ever buy one of yours.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Nice! Now that's what I call civil!! --AeronM (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So feel free to try to "cleanse the article of [my] commercialization" of which there is none. This has become quite an unpleasant experience. AeronM (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The rest of us are trying to build an encyclopedia, not sell our tack. If you find that unpleasant, so be it.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
By the way, there ARE indeed many other manufacturers of products with pages on wiki... for example: Bates, Devoucoux, McClellan, Neatsfoot, Wintec, etc. And that's just in one small category. Have you issued the same threats to them as well? AeronM (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

AeronM, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. --Una Smith (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


Okay, Curtis, so be it. All references to bitless bridles invented by anyone will be removed. Have it your way. I see that you have removed the photo I put up when I wrote the page. So then, all photos of bitless bridles shall be removed? Or is it just me you are punishing? I think it's clear this has become personal.

Thanks for letting this become a negative, ugly exchange, instead of an enlightened, educational one. I find your personal attacks unprofessoinal, nor are they helpful or appreciated. I'm quite certain there's some sort of Wikipedia protocol regarding insulting and attacking other editors, but I do not have the time nor the inclination to go track it down. This is exactly why Wikipedia remains so full of errors and incorrect information. Too many cooks in the kitchen. It is too bad, because there were those of us who were trying to make this a fair, balanced article. I asked early on that it not devolve into nastiness and mud-slinging, but I guess some people just can't help themselves. If I am "the problem," than I certainly won't continue to bother you. I leave you and wish you luck. AeronM (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say too few cooks in the kitchen. Anyway, naming brands and asserting "patent pending" are commercial marketing activities that have no place here. --Una Smith (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I did not state "patent pending" on the article page. It is patent pending, that is simple fact. Some of the others are already patented, some are also patent pending. What difference does this make to the definition of "bitless bridle"??AeronM (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

War bridle

Does the string go over or under the horse's tongue? --Una Smith (talk) 06:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A "war bridle" is a severe leverage device with a pulley or hondo that usually runs over the poll and under the upper lip. You are thinking of an "Indian" bridle? The rope/thong/cord goes over the tongue just like a bit. Under the tongue would be cruel. Montanabw(talk) 08:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to do some research here re usage of "war bridle". AFAIK, all war bridles involve slip knots, but there are multiple arrangements of the war bridle on the horse's head. The "over the poll and under the lip" variant is extremely harsh. Here are some relevant photos with "war bridle" in the caption:

--Una Smith (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Cruel, like, say, a bit under the tongue? AeronM (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Cruel? Maybe, maybe not. Some horses habitually put their tongue over the bit. --Una Smith (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, not "cruel" with a solid bit, perhaps, when the tongue goes over the bit, a) the bit is improperly adjusted or doesn't fit properly in the first place, or b) the rider is misusing it, and c) the horse does it to take the pressure off the tongue, but a rope war bridle is going to cut worse into the bars without the tongue to support it, and the rope will also irritate the underside of the tongue....a horse with its tongue over the bit almost always is going around with its mouth gaping open, in some discomfort, at the very least. Montanabw(talk) 05:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw, again you are incorrect on facts regarding tongue over the bit. Please see this article: http://www.horsecity.com/stories/122903/efe_mouthpt2_HB.shtml AeronM (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Cross-under image

That's a bad image. It looks like both reins are clipped to one ring, and the horse appears to be tied by its bridle, tied low, and tied with low strength clips. All bad horsemanship. Doesn't anyone have a better image of this style of bridle? --Una Smith (talk) 06:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree Una. I had a better image of one of Dr. Cook's bridles that I had permission to put up, but I am bowing out, so someone else will have to take up the cause.AeronM (talk) 14:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree the photo isn't great, but I don't think the horse is tied. No evidence of reins wrapped around anything. If anyone can find a FREE image that is legal in wikipedia, we can sure look at it. Montanabw(talk) 08:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The reins are under tension. Either the horse is tied low, or someone out of frame is holding it low. Either way, it is strange. --Una Smith (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Could we use a different photo? AeronM (talk) 02:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Find one, I'm groovy with something better, but free images are hard to find, sometimes Flickr has cc-licensed images with no commercial restrictions. Montanabw(talk) 05:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Cook has given me permission to use one of his photos. Does anyone object? I think it is the best photo to illustrate a cross-under. AeronM (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A Few Facts

And finally, I would like to point out a few facts which keep getting obscured for some reason. Starting with the first sentence, which now implies that a bitless bridle is used only on a horse. This is incorrect. Bitless bridles are also used on donkeys, mules, zebras, camels and even cows (I have seen this in person!). I therefore would argue that something along these lines would be more succinct: "A bitless bridle is a type of headgear used to control an animal when ridden that does not include a bit."

Point #2: There are many types of bitless bridle. A bosal is a type of bitless bridle. A hackamore is a type of bitless bridle. A side-pull is a type of bitless bridle. A riding halter is a type of bitless bridle. Simple! There should be a photo of each, a brief description of each, and that's it. We should not include why or how one might be better than another. It mainly boils down to personal preference, so let's leave the personal opinions out.

Point #3: For those who keep adding that riding in a bitless bridle is more "risky" than riding in a bitted bridle... this is a common misconception about bitless riding. One could argue that all types of riding are risky, but to say that bitless riding is more risky shows an unfamiliarity with this style of riding. Watch a bitless or bridle-less demonstration by a pro and you will see what I mean. Also, anyone is welcome to come watch me foxhunt in a riding halter. You will be amazed to see how many bitted horses are careening about out of control, while my mare is in perfect control at all times. It is a matter of training, not bitting, that controls the horse.

Which brings me to my last point, Curtis, which is this: if the experts in the subject are not allowed to write the article, then who should? If you discount everyone who has invented or promoted a bitless bridle, then we cannot hear from any of the experts, including Dr. Cook, the Nurtural folks, the LG folks, etc. So, with all of the experts eliminated, who is left to write the article? And yes, of course I write from my own point of view. If this is disagreeable to you, I would ask you this: from who's point of view should I write? AeronM (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No original research. --Una Smith (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that my external link was deleted, but not that of another bitless bridle manufacturer. Why the discrepancy here?AeronM (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


And see my comment above in a different section. The bosal hackamore may be headgear without a bit, it is NOT a "bitless bridle." Montanabw(talk) 08:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Montanabw, you are incorrect. Whoever re-wrote the first paragraph is also incorrect. A bitless bridle is any bridle without a bit. A bosal and all types of hackamores are therefore bitless bridles by definition. Also, whoever re-wrote the section on riding halters is very much mistaken as well. If you think you do not have control of a horse in a bitless bridle, you have completely missed the entire natural horsemanship style of riding, as well as proven you know very very little about bitless riding in general. I suggest you go look it up. But not on Wikipedia. As evidenced herein, the entries can be written by those who do not know what they are talking about. Sorry to be grouchy, but afraid CC and all the nice public humiliation has soured me on this topic. AeronM (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we need to change the title of this article to Bridle without a bit? That is how I use the term. I bet the general term bitless bridle predates the brand name "bitless bridle". --Una Smith (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Question to all the Editors

Would it not be beneficial to have a photograph of each type of bitless bridle on the page? AeronM (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, unless anyone objects, I will try to track down/upload one photo of each type. The example of the hackamore page is a good one, showing a photo of each type. AeronM (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Good, ok, I have added two photos.... we still need a hackamore pic (can we use the same one from the hackamore page?) and maybe an Indian/War one. AeronM (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Arguments

Look, folks, when you read something that throws up a "what?? no way!" flag with you, rather than deleting, reverting, or wholesale rewriting, with a snarky edit comment to boot, please (1) calm down, (2) think about what the text might be intended to say, (3) do some research, and (4) discuss it here on the talk page. There is far too much "is too!" "is not!" edit warring on these horse pages, and that is a waste of everyone's time. It has been my experience that wherever there is argument, there is too little knowledge and, more often than not, some research will produce highly interesting content. --Una Smith (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Una, I couldn't agree more. When I originally created this page, my mission was simply to define the term bitless bridle and show a few examples, and not to get into a debate about it's pros and cons, who likes it and who doesn't, etc., etc. I think if we can keep it simple and keep out the negative stuff and personal opinions, it would benefit everyone reading it. PS I apologize for any snarkiness on this end... I was attacked and got defensive. I will endeavor to be more patient. AeronM (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
AeronM, there are no special points for creating a page. Sorry. --Una Smith (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Special points? Points for what??? Is that meant to be sarcasm? AeronM (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Riding with a halter

here (top set of photos) is someone riding with a rope halter and reins. They call it a hackamore (jaquima) but it is not because there is no fiador and reins adjusted to allow the rider the option of applying pressure to the jaw. here are several photos of a guy riding indoors with an ordinary halter plus reins. I routinely ride very technical "Class 1" mountain trails using a similar halter plus reins (or a lead rope, hence one rein). I like my horse to think and figure out where to put her feet without my telling her. My telling her would be micro-managing, which may be rewarded in AQHA horse show "trail" classes", but is a fault in a real-world trail horse. I like and often need to be doing something else while riding, such as searching for a lost person or taking notes or talking. here is a newsletter style website discussion of riding in a rope halter. here is an Australian "riding halter" on eBay. here is a discussion of riding in a halter with one rein. here is a site selling "hackamores/bitless riding halters." here is an endurance rider's blog about using a "Boz riding halter" (product name). Bored yet? There are loads of products called "riding halters", and many discussions of riding in an ordinary halter with reins attached. --Una Smith (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I have missed your point here. Was there one? AeronM (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Revert wars and such

Rather than make scattered replies, I am consolidating. May I recommend "bitless headgear?" I have seen that in some neutral articles in places like Equisearch and such. I wrote the material on the bosal hackamore, which predates the "bitless bridle" by centuries and is a respected classic tool that is centuries old. I can provide sources, but may take a trip to hardcopy offsite, so patience is requested.) "You may use the "fact" tag on things with which you disagree, but don't blank things. I'll source material that you tag, but it may take a few days.

If the term "bitless bridle" is becoming generic, then, like "Kleenex," it still is actually incorrect (note "Velcro" is called "hook and loop fastener", and the manufacturer won that one here in the US). Also remember the wikipedia pillar Assume good faith. I am glad people are enthusiastic about new ideas, but I am deeply concerned about the lack of understanding - and historical background - that comes with the enthusiasm. I can look terms up and see if it can be sourced to an actual date of first use. (Also have a friend with a copy of the OED, that may settle it).

On the note of we are all in this together, you needn't lecture me on natural horsemanship, though ALL of us should be relying on neutral third party sources per WP:NOR. That said, as my wiki handle suggests, I live in the heart of NH country, I am a fourth generation horse person, and also knew of some of these people live and for real "back when" they were just a bunch of broke cowboys with neither fame nor fortune, trying to get a start. I have experimented with various bitless designs because bitted bridles can be a PITA on some trail rides, and especially riding, even in a ring, when its below zero outside. Over the course of about 40-some years of riding, I know assorted show and training skills, including dressage. And, yes, in fact I DO understand that different techniques are used at different times. I am trying very hard not to be offended by the tone of some of the remarks here.

I am a bit cynical about the NH movement because I have watched it come out of this country over the last 20 years and turn into show business. The old guys like Hunt and the Dorrance brothers admitted they were either borrowing classical dressage principles or concepts from the vaquero tradition (and basically, both had roots in 15th-16th century Spain, so the two traditions are closer than people think), but many of the new ones claim it's their new thing and really have quite a scam going. But read Miller and Lamb's Revolution in Horsemanship, they review the history.

And please, in most books on training, a "war bridle" goes through the mouth or under the lip, occasionally around the nose, it does not refer to the (also misnamed) "Indian bridle" that loops around the chin. Actually, "war bridle" and "Indian bridle are both a misnomer for the jaw loop, some American Indian cultures used simple headgear for hunting and travel, not just war, likewise, many tribes used standard headstall-style, simple bridles when they could get them, particularly for war-they didn't fall off as easily. It is a fine point, but living in a state with 7 reservations, well, I can verify that lot of Indian people are a bit touchy about the "wild red Indian" stereotype. (They are also mildly annoyed by the term "Native American" though it beats some of the racial slurs out there)

The "war bridle" term when used for pressure device has a different meaning and can be considered a term of art. Just because someone took a photo of a man on a horse and called the gear a war bridle doesn't mean the photo caption is correct (for example, look at all the wiki commons photos of gray horses labeled "white" horses!) Just use fact tags and give me a week or two, many fish to fry...

As for the riding with a halter thing, sure, many people, including myself, occasionally ride in just a halter, sometimes even with one rein (I also live in the heart of neck-reining country, by the way). Nonetheless It is still NOT SAFE.

"Nonetheless It is still NOT SAFE." Again, this is not correct and shows a personal bias/unfamiliarity with bitless riding. Riding in a rope halter or riding halter, if done correctly, is perfectly safe, and may in fact eliminate some dangerous behaviors by horses who bolt/rear etc. due to pain from a bit. AeronM (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, bits don't cause pain, riders with bad hands cause pain. Your own anti-bit bias is now showing. I've seen people use a halter in a way that skins a horse's jaw raw, I've seen a bosal bloody the face of a horse, I've seen horses bolt and rear (and fall) due to pain from a mechanical hackamore.

Shall we compare the abuses you have "witnessed" with bitless riding with the abuses I have witnessed with bitted???? Trust me, montana, that is one arguement you do not want to get into!!! AeronM (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(Trust me, board your horse at a barn with a bunch of roping/barrel racing folks and you see stuff that sets your hair on end!) Oh please, don't give me the "bits are cruel" argument. And no matter which side you are on, a horse is NEVER "perfectly safe," that's horse safety rule #1. They are prey animals with a well-developed flight or fight instinct and they outweigh us by 800 or more pounds. Montanabw(talk) 06:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"Actually, bits don't cause pain, riders with bad hands cause pain." Again, montanabw, you are woefully short of facts. Please do some research on the subjust before making proclamations such as this, an idea long disproven. Have you even read any of the scientific studies? I have. After you do, come back and we'll chat. AeronM (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Any of the "bitless" designs are at least somewhat better than a web stable halter. If someone wants to discuss specific control techniques they use and how they differ, if at all, from the pressure and release techniques used with a bosal, which have been around for centuries, as opposed to a bit (and as opposed to techniques used with bits in western riding, particularly the vaquero tradition of the bosal-to-spade bit method which is also a pressure and release method), it's all good. As far as I can tell, however, riding with a halter far too often means "no refinement and minimal control." And usually it's an excuse for not learning to ride with good hands.

Again, unfamiliarity with bitless riding/riding in a halter. See above AeronM (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
See answer way above in earlier section. Montanabw(talk) 06:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course there are exceptions, but if you want to get on a green horse that is wearing only a halter and take them out in the open, or, for that matter, ride even an experienced horse with a halter in rattlesnake or grizzly bear country (snakes and bears are enough of a risk with a real bridle), well, I don't. I call it suicide.

That is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. It does not belong on wikipedia, however. AeronM (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Wrong. Viewpoints in conflict can be discussed on wikipedia if each side is presented in a fair and balanced manner, as in (to oversimplify) "some people think riding with a halter is suicidally dangerous; others claim that it is perfectly safe in every way." IN education, this is called "teaching the controversy."

OK, thats more than enough for now. I am going to re-edit the article and use the fact tag on myself where I anticipate a dispute. Montanabw(talk) 03:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw.... ok! ok! We get it, the bosal has been around a long time! No need to beat the proverbial dead horse! It is still considered a bitless bridle under the general definition, regardless of how long it has been used, how, and by whom. AeronM (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Um, no, actually, see below. Full of inaccuracies and contradictory as dictionaries can be with terms of art, they all agree that there is such a thing as a hackamoe and they have no clue what a "bitless bridle" is. Hackamores do not have bits, bridles do. "Bitless bridle" is in some ways an oxymoron, but I can live with that much. Montanabw(talk) 06:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Dictionaries appear to be of little help

OK, I have a call out to my friend with the OED to look up some terms, and I will dig out hardcopy texts tomorrow, but in the meantime, other than that Hackamore has been around as a distinct word since the mid-1800s (and the concept is older than that), plus the bitless bridle IS a modern term, mostly for one person's invention, online sources give me this total disaster:

Dictionary.com and reference.com: No entry for bitless bridle, most links go to Dr. Cook's model

Hackamore: multiple definitions, the oldest dating to 1840 or 1850 (hence, Mexican war period when many Spanish words for riding equipment entered the English language), origin Sp. jaquima, meaning "headstall." Depending on the sources, a hackamore is a " a simple looped bridle, by means of which controlling pressure is exerted on the nose of a horse, used chiefly in breaking colts[sic]." (COLTS?!? Arrgh! Those are boy horses! You can start fillies in one too! Even the dictionary can't get horse terms correct! ARRGH! ARRGH! ARRGH!!) (Sorry, had a moment there) (LOL). And I loved the second example: "A rope or rawhide halter with a wide band that can be lowered over a horse's eyes, used in breaking horses to a bridle." Um, the blindfold method is sort of an offshoot of the Texas tradition, not many folks use that method any more, and the "wide band" is the browband, not necessarily used as a blindfold because it can't be easily removed...? No one here will argue that a hackamore has to have a blindfold! (Who writes these things? Not horse people). Or, "rope or canvas headgear for a horse, with a rope for leading" gee, can't ride in it?

Online dictionary at Datasegment.com Hackamore: "A halter consisting of a long leather or rope strap and headstall, -- used for leading or tieing a pack animal. [Western U. S.] [1913 Webster] or " rope or canvas headgear for a horse, with a rope for leading [syn: halter, hackamore] http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/hackamore (Um, no, I don't really think so. We ALL agree here that you ride in them)

No entries found for "bitless bridle"

Other dictionary defintions: Allwords.com Bitless bridle No entries Hackamore : "A kind of bridle with no bit" (hmm, yet other definitions call it a "halter." Arrgh!)

Interestingly, in light of the slipknot/war bridle discussion, I found this:

Merriam-webster "noun Etymology: by folk etymology from Spanish jáquima bridle Date: 1850: a bridle with a loop capable of being tightened about the nose in place of a bit or with a slip noose passed over the lower jaw."

No entries for bitless bridle (Bosal defined, but only if you pay for a subscription)

Saw another definition that said a hackamore had one rein. (actually, more like three, sigh...)

If nothing else, being careful to say "bosal hackamore" is a good idea.

Conclusion: Other than providing links to the patented product called a "bitless bridle," the term is not defined in most dictionaries, but hackmore is. So, there is n argument that a bitless bridle might be a hackamore, but a hackamore is not really a "bitless bridle" unless you want to mess with Doc Cook's patent. (sigh)

That was fun. Not... Montanabw(talk) 05:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you went to all that trouble for nothing! AeronM (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
General dictionaries are not much use for technical jargon. Most medical terms are not in OED or any similar dictionary. But there are many, many medical dictionaries, most out of print. Some are on Google Books now, and very useful to us over in WP:MED. Aren't there any good horse-specific dictionaries? --Una Smith (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw, please read two articles from my site if you have time. I think they will be helpful: http://www.naturalhorsemanship.biz/ "What Does 'Bitless' Really Mean?" and "Why Bitles Is Better." You don't have to agree with them, but I think it would be helpful to have more facts before you make a judgement. AeronM (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Cross-under

"A bitless bridle ... most directly references a style of headgear also known as the cross-under". Well, no, not unless you are in the business of selling The Bitless Bridle(TM). --Una Smith (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that is why I altered the wording there. AeronM (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

AeronM, it appears that in Montanabw's corner of the world the only thing called a bitless bridle is Robert Cook's product, and the only thing called a war bridle is the variant illustrated in Dr. Beery's colt training book. Please stop labeling other editors' knowledge as incorrect or wrong; in most cases it is simply limited. --Una Smith (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Una, I agree. AeronM (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm

The reason I am getting sarcastic is because people who are zealous advocates of anything are so sadly similar. You assume everyone else is stupid and that you and your cult [!!]AeronM (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)alone has seen the light and if we just check out your book/magazine/DVD/website we too will eagerly join the cult. Sorry, but your assumption that I don't understand this material is offensive; I understand it and the point is simple: "Bitless bridles" are a new fad. [wrong] AeronM (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Hackamores are headgear without a bit that date to antiquity. [beating dead horse again]AeronM (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Bits, hackamores, "bitless bridles" and any other piece of gear can be abusive if the person uses it in an abusive manner. [i think that's stating the obvious]AeronM (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC) (Which is why my only real POV, if any, is the cause of a solid seat and good hands. You can ride in anything if you know how to ride properly). The term "bitless bridle" is in fact patented and there is an argument to be made that this entire article should be deleted as commercial promotion. I won't make that argument,[I think you just did!]AeronM (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC) but I am tired of this whole discussion. And please stop blanking my contributions. [Then discuss your contributions before adding them, as is wiki policy]AeronM (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Tag them and request sources if you wish [already did]AeronM (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC) (and when you tag, you need to give the editor more than a day to fix it if requested, as I have) Please learn the wikipedia rules, starting with Wikipedia is not a soapbox[Ditto!!]AeronM (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC). Montanabw(talk) 04:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw, I think you have just proved my point! AeronM (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(from montanabw)

(Do not blank good faith edits and especially sourced edits, that could be construed as edit warring and vandalism.

I couldn't agree more. Please dicsuss your "edits" prior to adding them. AeronM (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

PS monatanbw, It is clear you are very interested and knowledgeable about the bosal hackamore. However, the definition paragraph (first introductory paragraph) of the page entitled Bitless Bridles is not the right place for your information. I am not arguing with the validity of your contribution, just the placement/relevance. Let's keep it in the bosal section of the article, and you are free to go to town on the bosal page! AeronM (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Cross Under

I am wondering if this section: "Another example connects each rein to a strap that passes through a ring on one side of a noseband, under the jaw, and attaches to the opposite ring" is really considered a cross-under? Or is it something different? AeronM (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Una wrote that part, not sure. Montanabw(talk) 20:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't you all check the article history, and examine diffs, before you start rewriting??? Yes, I wrote the bit about the German cross-under bridle. I am trying to group all these bitless bridles into categories, regardless of name. As our debates here illustrate, the names are diverse and unstable. --Una Smith (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The article currently reads:

The Cross-Under is a relatively new design of bitless bridle, invented in the 20th century.[1]

The ref is to one brand of cross-under bridle, which has a patent claim date. That is not proof of no earlier invention. There is at least one other brand of cross-under bridle on the market. I am removing this sentence from the description; I suggest reserving such details for a future History section. --Una Smith (talk) 04:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Photos

Montanabw, please do not remove photos without discussing it first. I had previously asked if there were any objections to putting in a photo of each type of bitless gear. No one objected. For you to delete one picture (and I think I know why... can you say 'personal vendetta??') without even discussing it is against wiki policy. If you are going to delete one picture and not the others, you need to explain why. You are not, however judge and jury, but part of a discussion. Please try to remember that. AeronM (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: Monty, While I appreciate that you know your way around Wikipedia, I would ask that a person who has demonstrated such an obvious bias against bitless riding and natural horsemanship (on your own talk page) not add content without first discussing it with the group. PS Laughing at me/talking about me behind my back (with ealdgyth on your talk page) is both unprofessional and just plain immature. You two sound like a couple of highschoolers giggling in the girl's bathroom. : ) It begins to undermine your credibility. AeronM (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove photos, I moved one a bit. If a photo was deleted, it was by the wikipedia admins. Don't blame me for that one.

And dear, no personal vendetta is involved. You are simply not that important. Montanabw(talk) 20:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Montanabw, according to the history here, you DID delete the photo. --AeronM (talk) 02:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice! I think you just proved my point!  : ) AeronM (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the jumping cavesson is gone. Hmm. I don't recall removing it deliberately, I thought I fixed a formatting glitch. Amusing if that's the one you are upset about because I was the one who originally put it in there, and it happens to be MY jumping cavesson and I uploaded the photo, actually. LOL! (And I don't use it much because it is heavy and the cable makes it a bit harsh on the nose.) Montanabw(talk) 20:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Please, folks, instead of guessing who did what, read the article history. --Una Smith (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
LOL! Article history? Skip a day on this article and you have to page back 10 zillion edits! LOL! Note "truce" below. If we stop blanking each other, the article may be bloated for a while, but we may also get to consensus that way. Montanabw(talk) 22:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, several images at hackamore, as you may have noticed, and here are some free images I know of on assorted bitless headgear, may be more out there, these are all in commons: Montanabw(talk) 22:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Side Pull

Should we add anything specific (or a photo) about a side-pull? This is the only good def I can find so far[1] but I'll keep looking. AeronM (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a photo of a western-style sidepull in the hackamore article, you can certainly add it here. Montanabw(talk) 20:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Read the rules

Please read WP:CITE and re-read WP:NPOV. The proper thing to do is to put in the {{fact}} tag on disputed items and only depete them after the editor in question has had a reasonable amount of time to find a source. (Some of us have jobs and can't just run over to borrow the book right away). Also read WP:NPA and WP:AGF. I do not think it is appropriate to attack people for a dedication to the truth. I am restoring deleted material, again, but with "fact" tags where I think you will have issues and request five days in which to locate hardcopy source material. (By the way, you blanked other people's edits, not just mine. Montanabw(talk) 20:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Temporary truce proposal

I think the only way to tame down this spat is to NOT BLANK ANYONE'S edits for awhile, even if they may be a little redundant. (For example, Una had one explanation of the cross-under, Aeron has another, I have a third, I think I kept one paragraph of Aeron's and one paragraph of Una's in my last edit, maybe Una wants to put in all of hers, OK, even if we say the same thing two different ways.) Rather, let's make use of wikipedia tools and tags (such as the "fact" tag that I am so fond of). What can be cited and verified should be cited and verified. We can also edit or remove our OWN language (believe it or not, yes, I do occasionally realize that I am incorrect and modify my edits), but perhaps we could agree simply to not change that of other people? Una is correct that there are a lot of words for different things (halter and headcollar, anyone??) and this too should be explained. (As in, "this item is called X in the USA, but it is known as Y in Australia and is called Z in the United Kingdom"). Might I suggest that we correct each other's typos and add "fact" tags to things where we think a source is needed? Beyond that, I suggest that if we want to rephrase an edit, that we put the proposal HERE (as in, "may I rephrase the phrase XYZ' to read, 'ABC?'") I also think that avoiding personal attacks is wise. Montanabw(talk) 22:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

YEY! I agree!!!! Does that include this: "You are simply not that important. Montanabw(talk) 20:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)" ???AeronM (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Cool! Don't blank my stuff, I don't blank yours. In a few weeks, we will see what shakes out. Montanabw(talk) 22:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Let it go, I was too snarky, I've now cooled down a bit. I really don't know you from a hole in the wall, and truly, I have over 800 article on my watchlist, I really, truly do not have time for personal vendettas. ( I really want to create an article on the Babolna Stud, it's been on my "to do" list for almost a year...) Between toning down POV 10 zillion breed articles (OK, about 350), half of which contain claims that the Walkaloosavanner has ESP and can jump tall buildings in a single bound, the fringe animal rights folks claiming that any kind of horseback riding is cruel, the kids who get on the computer, blank whole articles and replace them with "ILIKEBOOOOOBS" ...gawd, my patience is down to zero. Welcome to my world. Let's just edit the article per the truce. Montanabw(talk) 23:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

Aeron, Hiltrud Strasser is a highly controversial source and best not to be cited as the ONLY authority.

I don't believe I did cite her. AeronM (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Dr. Cook also has a considerable profit motive involved in commercial promotion of his product, (and I also noticed this- $32.99 on eBay, eh?). You really must read and understand Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. It is OK for you to write about Strasser and Cook's ideas, though WP:NPOV applies there, regardless, but for you to write about your own product is a concern.

please see WP:COI specifically "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies." and also: "using COI allegations to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is frowned upon." AeronM (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Please see WP:NOR specifically: " This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia..." Which brings us back, again, to the point that, if any input from me, or Dr. Cook, or any of the other people who are at the forefront of the bitless industry are not allowed to contribute here, who is going to? By trying to eliminate those who have expertise in this area, what are you left with? You have already expressed an strong bias against bitless riding, so I think to exclude the people who do know and use this way of riding would be unfair and unbalanced... and it is against wiki policy to do so.AeronM (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Una, my concern here on terminology here is not "narrow," (though obviously I do not always know every last terminology difference between UK and USA useage, and sometimes the same term means two different things, as in your use of 'war bridle,' which would be considered a bit of a racist term here by some today, which is why I got a little touchy on that one--and actually, it wasn't just Beery who came up with the design or uses the term, I've also seen it called a "come-along" - talk about euphemism...) It is a question of separating out what is correct (including genuine UK/US language variations) from what has been an incorrect colloquialism.

A classic, non-horse example is schitzophrenia, which is colloquially used in a sense that actually references multiple personality disorder, and even if 99% of the English-speaking world says "schitzophrenia" when they mean "multiple personality," that still doesn't mean it is correct. Likewise, the etymology materials I have looked at so far support the concept that "hackamore" is the correct term for general riding headgear that uses a noseband for control instead of a bit, while "bitless bridle" is a patented term for a certain type of cross-under design that is patented by Dr. Cook and appears in no regular dictionary and because mainstream dictionaries are of only minimal help (especially when the call hackamores "halters for leading a packhorse") I think I can trace cross-unders via different editions of Price's "Whole Horse Catalog" to about 20-25 years ago, but it will take some digging. (Truth is, therefore, a "riding halter" with reins is, most likely, actually a hackamore.) I will voluntarily let go of saying that a bosal is the only "real" hackamore, as I do accept the "noseband for control" definition, though the bosal jaquima is still a classic tool that has been around for centuries (jaquima most closely seems to translate "headstall"). The very word "bridle" implies a bit, I will have to source via hardcopy, but a "bridle" encompasses a headstall with a bit for control, while the thing that goes over the head behind the ears, holding either a noseband or bit, is correctly termed "headstall," and consists of a crownpiece and cheeks, usually including a throatlatch and sometimes other parts, such as a browband. Anyway, I doubt anyone cares all that much about etymology and the history and meaning of words, it's sort of interesting to look into, though. Montanabw(talk) 22:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we're just getting into semantics here. AeronM (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

COI stuff

The best approach to any conflict of interest issue is to cite neutral, third party material. For example, if Equus Magazine or TheHorse.com does an article on Strasser or Cook, that would be an acceptable source and also proves WP:NOTABILITY to boot. People's own web sites are always a danger of self-promotion. For example, if some mainstream magazine has reviewed your riding halter invention, that is a legitimate source and I suggest you cite to that. Your own web page is not. Seriously, read the bit on fringe theories that I linked above. That explains it.

For example, the "bitless bridle" concept is sufficiently mainstream that I am not proposing it for deletion, even though Dr. Cook has patented the term. When I first spotted it, I saw it needed cleanup and had POV problems, but no "prod" tag was placed on it. In fact, if it were proposed for deletion, I would vehemently argue against it.

One example of where someone with expertise and, probably some direct research, nonetheless contributed in an acceptable way were the edits that User:Gohs made to domestication of the horse. If s/he was the author of any of the cited references, no one has any way of knowing. Montanabw(talk) 23:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"Dr. Cook has patented the term"

Ah, now I understand. Montanabw, no one has patented the term "bitless bridle", and you need not and probably should not reserve the term for Dr. Cook's product. Dr. Cook claims a patent for a bridle design, and markets a bridle apparently of that design under a claimed but unregistered trademark "Bitless Bridle". Please read Patent and Trademark. --Una Smith (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, several months ago some other bitless bridle fan jumped all over my butt for calling just any old cross-under a "Bitless bridle," crying bloody murder about the patented design, and maybe there is no patent in Australia (I think that's where you are, correct?), but there appears to be one in the USA. Truly, I think we need to figure out what things are universal, what things are regional and dialect language issues and what is just plain incorrect use. I just had someone did up a bunch of stuff in the OED. Hackamore dates to 1850, and is identified as derived from jaquima. "Bitless Bridle" is not in the OED. And "bridle" is defined in part as, inherently, something with a headstall and a bit. Close enough for me. If you can't trust the OED, who CAN you trust??? Sigh... Montanabw(talk) 05:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Again: Bitless Bridle(TM) is a claimed but not registered trade mark. The existence of this trade mark, and the associated patent application, have no bearing on anyone's use of the generic term "bitless bridle", which has a written history since at least 1867. --Una Smith (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Truce?

Lordy! What happened to the truce??? My pic (and none of the others) is gone again!! Please explain. Now we have two photos of Dr. Cook's bridle, and nothing else. AeronM (talk) 03:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

AeronM, don't be so helpless. Use the history tab at the top of the article, and use the diff selector (those circles are buttons) to work your way through the edit history to find out exactly who did what. --Una Smith (talk) 04:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not as concerned with who did but why. I will look.... AeronM (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's another quote which is just making me feel warm and fuzzy all over: "I just had it out with AeronM and reverted his recent edits. I'd much rather train a mule or a basset hound." --Curtis Clark (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
PS, (laughing!) Hey Curtis! I'm a girl!! AeronM (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Concerning why, check those edit diffs and cut folks some slack. Sometimes the Wikipedia edit interface does bizarre stuff and that often results in inadvertent deletion of chunks of text. It looks like vandalism, but is accidental. --Una Smith (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I realize that sometimes it is inadvertent... but after 6 reverts involving only one photo... one starts to get a little suspiscious! AeronM (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, I am not even sure what photo we are talking about here, the halter? Heck, I think I was the one who ADDED the thing to the halter article (Maybe Una did, I can't remember). I think I took the photo of the jumping cavesson in and out a couple of times, when I edit, I have trouble reading the edit window (having to get reading glasses for the first time sucks, the prescription isn't right) and I'm on slow dialup that occasionally hangs up on me in the middle of an edit, so I save frequently even if I have to make changes later, so only pay attention to whatever the final edit I make looks like, OK? I can f-up a single wikilink that many times! Frankly, just let this go. I cannot recall being so stupid as to violate the WP:3RR rule, I move things around a lot. I don't even remember what all I did yesterday, this whole thing has really gone on long enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 06:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Verified, reliable sources of "bitless bridle"

  • Essential Horse: The Ultimate Guide to Caring for And Riding Your Horse, by Susan McBane, 2006, Sterling Publishing Company, Inc., 192 pages.
    • p. 87: "Bitless bridles. The earliest bridles were just ropes passed around the horse's head and there were no bits. Later on, riders threaded strips of rawhide or jute rope through the horse's mouth, for extra control. Bitless bridles are still popular today, particularly among showjumpers and some endurance riders.
    • p. 95: "Bitless bridles have always been used ... There are several different kinds ... Some bitless bridles are very strong in their action while others are extremely mild. The Western hackamore bridle ... Another very mild bitless bridle is the side-pull ... A similar bridle is the Scawbrig ... One of the strongest bitless bridles ... is the Blair, often incorrectly called a hackamore"
    • My comment: This is a very clearly UK-centric book. It does not mention the mechanical hackamore but from its description the Blair is one of that class. So is the Gluecksrad, for that matter.
  • The Revolution in Horsemanship: And What It Means to Mankind, by Robert M. Miller and Rick Lamb, Globe Pequot 2005, 368 pages
    • p. 227-229: "The mechanical hackamore is not really a hackamore at all, but simply another form of bitless bridle. ... If you removed the shanks from a mechanical hackamore and replaced them with rings, you would have the essence of the sidepull. It is also very similar to a simple halter with rings on the sides for attachment of reins. ... Another form of bitless bridle is the Bitless Bridle ... Finally comes the rope halter and reins"
    • My comment: p.229 includes a 1955 photo of Dr. Miller riding a horse in a Johnson rope halter (rope halter with some metal hardware) with reins.
  • The Training and Breaking of Horses, by Merritt Wesley Harper, 1918, 387 pages
    • p.94: "If the horse is a lugger ... some even go so far as to recommend the bitless bridle."
    • p.233: "If the horse fights the bit, do not use a severe one, as is the usual practice, but try a bitless bridle for a time."
  • The Encyclopedia Americana, by Grolier Incorporated, 1988.
    • p 429: "The hackamore, a bitless bridle, controls the horse by ..."
  • In to the Yukon, by William Seymour Edwards , 1905, 335 pages
    • p.288:

"... passed a rope halter over its head, which he made cleverly into a bitless bridle ..."

  • Before Barbed Wire, by Mark Herbert Brown and William Reid Felton, 1956, 256 pages
    • p.219: "A hackamore is the bitless bridle, so to speak, which is put on a wild horse as his first introduction to the bridle"
  • The Horseman's Encyclopedia, by Margaret Cabell Self, A.S. Barnes and Company, 1946, 519 pages
    • p.85: "The hackamore, which is a bitless bridle, controls the horse by ..."
  • Once a Week, by Eneas Sweetland Dallas, 1867
    • p.702: "standing ... by the head of a little white horse of Mexican type, which had been hastily arrayed in bitless bridle of twisted thong ..."

et cetera. --Una Smith (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Una. These are excellent. AeronM (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I can top this. You are confusing descriptions with definitions. While hackamore can be called a bitless bridle, the word hackamore itself did come first, and my source is the Oxford English Dictionary. Thus, a hackamore is the earlier and more correct term. It is useful to explain it as a "bitless bridle," but understand the difference between a description and a title. Bridles have bits. Hackamores have nosebands. A "bitless bridle" is, therefore, a usefule descriptor for someone who has never heard of a hackamore, but in truth, an oxymoron. (Just like my example of schitzophenia and multiple personality disorder). I have copied the OED definitions in full as they were provided to me. See below. Montanabw(talk) 01:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

hackamore: U.S.

Etymology: corruption of Sp. jaquima, formerly xaquima, halter, headstall of a horse (Minsheu).

Definition: A halter of horsehair or raw hide having a nose-piece fitted to serve as the head piece of a bridle. Also, a headstall.

Quotations: 1850 W. R. RYAN Upper & Lower California I. 152: "He overtook me, mounted on a well saddled horse, and leading another by the hackamore." 1889 Farmer, John S. Americanisms, old and new: a dictionary, "Hackamore, a plaited bridle in use on the plains, made of horse-hair, and used for breaking-in purposes". 1926 D. BRANCH Cowboy & his Interpreters 39 "But having the 'hackimore' rope fastened to my belt I held to him until help arrived". 1971 A. P. MCINNES Dunlevy 86 "Her only riding equipment was a rawhide hackamore already on the horse's head."

bridle: (n)

etymology: OE. brídel for earlier *bridel (cf. brigdils Erf. Gl. 127, O.E. Texts 44) has various corresp. forms in WGer.: cf. OFris. bridel, MLG., MDu. breidel (bredel), Du. breidel, OHG., MHG. brittel; formed with instrumental suffix like hand-le, saddle, etc., from root of bregd-an to pull, twitch cf. Ger. zügel from ziehen to draw.]

defs: 1. a. The head-gear of the harness of a horse or other beast of burden, consisting of a head-stall, bit, and rein, by which the animal is controlled and guided. to give a horse the bridle: to abandon control of him; so to lay the bridle on his neck. to keep a horse up into his bridle: to keep him up to the full speed allowed by the degree of restraint in which he is held by the bridle. to go up well to his bridle: to be a free goer, not to hang back at the pressure applied.

a1000 Rune Poem xxi. (Gr.) Se brimhengest bridles ne yme. a1225 Ancr. R. 74 Bridel nis nout one ie horses mue. 1362 Langl P. Pl. A. IV. 20 Hong on him an heui Bridel to bere his hed lowe. c1385 Chaucer L.G.W. 1208 The fomy brydil with the bit of gold Governyth he. c1450 Merlin xxii. 407 He hilde the reyne of his bridill in his lefte arme. 1526 Pilgr. Perf. (W. de W. 1531) 160 Whether he sholde haue also the sadell and brydell with the horse. 1601 BP. BARLOW Serm. Paules Crosse 59 A bridle hath raines and a bit. 1674 Ch. & Court of Rome 8 It being proverbial, That 'tis a greater shame to bring home the Bridle than steal the Horse. 1882 Illust. Sporting News 4 Feb. 502/2 Come on at a good canternot too fast, but keep them well up into their bridles. 1884 E. ANDERSON Mod. Horsemanship I. v. 17 In the double bridle we have the curb bit and the snaffle. b. Occas. applied to the bit alone; also fig.

c1400 Rom. Rose 3299 Take with thy teeth the bridel faste. 1579 Fulke Confut. Sanders 657 She commaunded his bridle to be made of one nayle. 1602 Warner Alb. Eng. IX. xlvii. 222 More eagerly than earst I on the brydell byte. c. fig. with conscious reference to a horse.

1401 Pol. Poems (1859) II. 85 Who wil not amenden him, eue him the brydil. 1580 North Plutarch (1676) 362 Giving the bridle to a desperate man. 1583 Golding Calvin on Deut. ii. 8 Gods deliuering of the Children out of the Bondage of Egypt was not to lay the brydle in their necke that they might go when they listed. 1796 Burke Let. Noble L. 41 Calais the key of France, and the bridle in the mouth of that power. 1833 Wordsworth. Warning, O for a bridle bitted with remorse To stop your leaders in their headstrong course. 2. fig. A restraint, curb, check. Mil. A fortress keeping an enemy in check

3. = A scold's bridle; an instrument of punishment used in the case of scolds, etc., consisting of a kind of iron framework to enclose the head, having a sharp metal gag or bit which entered the mouth and restrained the tongue. .

4. The gesture described under Bridle v. 3.

5. Applied technically or descriptively to various things resembling a horse's bridle in their form or use: esp. a. Naut. A stout cable, or 'fast', by which a vessel is secured to moorings; also, the short piece of rope by which the bowline is attached to the leech or edge of the sail.

b. Phys. A ligament or membrane serving to check the motion of a part, or bind one part to another; a frænum; 'a narrow slip of living structure interposed between two orifices or the opposing walls of an abscess; a band stretching across a cicatrix' (Syd. Soc. Lex.); the septum of the nose (obs.).

c. Mech. A metal strip or band uniting two parts of a machine, or limiting their motion; also, the flanges which keep a slide-valve in position.

d. Agric. A bent piece of iron on the end of a plough-beam, to which the draught-tackle is attached; a clevis.

e. The cord or other work which strengthens or tightens the sides of a net.

f. Fire-arms. A small plate of metal in the interior of a gunlock, which holds the sear and tumbler in position.

. g. a cord attached to a kite that holds the latter at the proper angle in the wind; the kite-cord is attached to the bridle

6. Comb., as bridle-maker; also bridle-arm (cf. bridle-hand); bridle-bridge, a bridge fit for the passage of a horse, but not for vehicles; bridle-cable (see quot.); bridle-chain (Mining), one of the 'safety-chains to support a cage if the link between the cage and rope should break' (Raymond Mining Gloss.); bridle-cull (Thieves' cant), a highwayman; bridle-cutter, a bridle-maker; bridle-gate, a gate leading into a bridle-path; bridle-hand, the hand which holds the bridle in riding, the left hand; bridle-path, -road, -way, a path fit for the passage of a horse, but not of vehicles; bridle-pin, the pin which helps to secure the bridle of a gunlock; bridle-port, a port or port-hole in a ship's bow through which 'bridles' (see 5) may be run, or chase-guns fired. Also BRIDLE-BIT, -REIN

bridle (v):

1. a. trans. To put a bridle on (a horse), to furnish with a bridle; also (obs.), to guide or control with a bridle.

1393 Gower Conf. I. 110 Som prick her horse aside, And bridlen hem now in now oute. c1440 Promp. Parv. 50 Brydelyn, freno. 1530 Palsgr 939 To bridel, brider. 1833 Regul. Instr. Cavalry I. 42 The Recruits are to be taught to saddle and bridle. b. To furnish with a bridle in other senses.

1758 J.S. Le Dran's Observ. Surg. (1771) 332 The Membranes which cover the Muscles, and might bridle that Part of the Wound. c1838 C. BATHURST Nets 34 A net is bridled at its four outer margins when it is desirable to keep the meshes square. 1858 BRUSHFIELD Obsol. Punishm. 13 She [a scold] was ordered to be bridled and to be led through the town. c. (See BRIDLE n. 5g.)

2. fig. a. To curb, check, restrain, hold in.

c888 Aelfled Boeth. xxi, Bridla e he a esceafta nu mid ebridlode hæf. c1200 Ormin11664 Sone iss e bodi bridledd. a1225 Ancr. R. 74 if eni..ne bridle nout his tunge. 1382 Wyclif Isa. xlviii. 9 In my preissing I shal bridele thee, lest thou die. 1548 Udall Erasm. Par. Pref. 6 Also to bridle the insolencie. 1634 Milton Comus 887 Rise, rise..And bridle in thy headlong wave. 1713 Young Last Day I. 274 He bridles in the monsters of the deep. 1725 De Foe Voy. round World (1840) 41, I bridled my passion with all my power. 1756 C Lucas Ess. Waters II. 145 How is the action of iron bridled by sulphur? 1827 Hallam Const. Hist. (1876) III. 64 To bridle the clergy. 1878 R B Smith Carthage 397 Scipio bridled his indignation. b. In military sense: To hold in check, control.

3. To throw up the head and draw in the chin, (as a horse does when reined in), expressing pride, vanity, or resentment; to assume a dignified or offended air or manner: a. trans. and refl.

c1480 Ragman Roll 129 in Hazl. E.P.P. 75 Ful feire brydelyn ye your cowntenaunce, And propirly unto the brest adowne. 1606 Day Ile of Gulls II. iv. (1881) 52 Then doe I bridle my head like a malt-horse. 1752 Fielding Amelia Wks. (1775) X. 303 'Is she,' said my aunt, bridling herself, 'fit to decide between us?' 1848 A Bronte Tenant of Wildfell Hall I. iv. 71 She bridled her long neck and smiled. b. intr. see Bridling

c. Formerly also to bridle it. Obs.

d. Now commonly to bridle up (occas. back).

e. to bridle upon (a thing).

1748 RICHARDSON Clarissa (1811) II. xviii. 119, I can not indeed but say, bridling upon it, that I have heard famous scholars often and often say very silly things. 1754 Grandison IV. xv. 110 She took to herself, and bridled upon it, the praises and graces this adroit manager gave her. 4. intr. of a horse: to rise to or answer the bridle.

1929 Daily Express 5 Jan. 7/5 Mr. Wroughton's horse never bridled well at the fence... It slipped and brushed through the fence, hardly rising.


bitless bridle: "There are no results" although there is:

bitless: Not having a bit. 1605 Sylvester: Du Bartas (1621) 102 "The..bit-less Horse I ride." 1859 Blackw. Mag. Sept. 270/1 "With his bitless halter". Ibid. 271/1 "The Anazeh, bitless, and almost reinless." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 00:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hackamore vs bitless bridle

If Montanabw contends that "hackamore" has priority over "bitless bridle" because the OED lists "hackamore" but not "bitless bridle", then Montanabw will have to cite the relevant Wikipedia policy. Else, the contention would appear to be irrelevant. By the way, I am surprised the earliest instance of "hackamore" in the OED is 1850, not far earlier. --Una Smith (talk) 06:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... "hackamore" along with words like "chaps" and "Buckaroo" all trace to around 1850 because that's when the Mexican-American War occurred, and hence, when the US took over much of what had been Northern Mexico, incorporating the words like jaquima, vaquero and chaparajos into the English language. That is one thing dictionaries are good for, word history, and if you correlate them to world history, it all makes sense. The whole world owes a great deal to the Spanish vaquero as well as the Spanish knightly tradition, both stock horse training and dressage share roots in the la jineta and la brida traditions of Spain. (Another article on my "Gotta write this someday" list).Montanabw(talk) 09:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup attempt

I have made an attempt at cleaning up the article. Instead of doing it "live" and creating issues with editors that have been active on the page I have placed it here: User:Gtstricky/Sandbox. I tried to remove items that seemed to have POV issues as well as some comments that were missing citations. I also tried to simplify it a bit. I know nothing about horses but I do not think I changed the heart of the article. I would appreciate some feedback. Thanks GtstrickyTalk or C 21:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If no one else hollers, I would accept your edit as NPOV and a good base to expand from per the terms of the "truce." Montanabw(talk) 01:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Thanks, G. AeronM (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Grammatical issue

This sentence: "A snugly-adjusted rope halter, with knots on the cheeks and noseband that are tied so as to be placed over pressure points of the face, and used two reins is somewhat similar to a sidepull." from the halter section is grammatically incorrect. I would fix it myself, but I'm just not up for being accused of violating every wiki policy in the book. Can someone else fix, please? AeronM (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing, Curtis, although IMO, the sentence is still a bit ungainly. Can we simplify, for example: "A rope halter is sometimes used in place of a bridle, and operates in a similar manner to a sidepull."
This part: "with knots on the cheeks and noseband that are tied so as to be placed over pressure points of the face," is not entirely accurate as some types of riding halters do not have knots. I would also like to see some refs about the pressure points. One could argue that all parts of the face have pressure points as all parts have nerve endings.
This part: "used with two reins," is also not entirely accurate as sometimes a rope halter is used with one rein. I will be happy to provide some refs here if needed. AeronM (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Circular link

Una, I don't suppose I could talk you into replacing the circular link with the link to Riding Halter? AeronM (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Riding Halter is proposed for deletion, and it looks likely that the outcome will be deletion. Note the lead here now includes riding halter; does that do the trick? I did a thorough search today for "riding halter"; it has very few uses, far fewer than "bitless bridle", but they apply almost as broadly. The earliest use I found is pre-1900 but the limited context available online is insufficient to say exactly what it refers to. Wikipedia editors often are tempted to dictate usage, as in a training book (the one true meaning and all that), but such is not the role of an encyclopedia. The role of an encyclopedia is to report in a neutral manner on actual usage. --Una Smith (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Photo

I am still not happy with the top photo. It is redundant, as there is already a photo of a cross under next to that section, and it is a bad photo in that it appears the rein rings have been clipped together. AeronM (talk) 03:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Image:Bridle without bit.jpg has a lot of extraneous information in it. I would remove it from the article. (To link to an image without causing it to display, put a colon between the open square brackets and "Image".) --Una Smith (talk) 04:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. AeronM (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Styles

As an experiment, I removed the heading Cross-under and changed the style of the two paragraphs. I think it reads better. I'd like to do the same to the rest of the styles; if we don't use headings then we don't have to settle on one "correct" name for each style. --Una Smith (talk) 04:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I reworked "mechanical hackamore"; I suggest reworking all the others before sorting them into groups. Below is my working list of styles, in no particular order. --Una Smith (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  • mechanical hackamore
  • hackamore — I suggest make Hackamore a redirect and put its text about the jaquima/bosal hackamore/California hackamore in Jaquima.
  • sidepull/cavesson
  • riding halter
  • halter

Sidepull, cavesson, and "riding halter" are somewhat related, and I still don't know what to do about that Wheel of Fortune. More looking at pictures seems in order. Also, I am pretty sure the list is not complete. --Una Smith (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit/riding halter

Una, checking your edit here, even I would have to admit this might be giving too much importance to the term 'riding halter.' (I know! I can't believe I just said that!) Could we add the term to the Halters with Reins section instead, or maybe even name that section "Riding halters?" AeronM (talk) 04:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the diff! Okay... Give me a moment to try another approach. --Una Smith (talk) 04:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Try this. --Una Smith (talk) 05:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I like the addition under "Halter with Reins." I'm still not sure about saying a bitless bridle is sometimes called a riding halter. But I think it is accurate to say a riding halter is sometimes called a bitless bridle. Don't know if that makes sense or not....

on another topic....

Intro

At the risk of incurring the wrath of a certain editor, I am wondering if we need the introductory sentence: "This article is about about [sic] specific modern designs of bridles that do not use a bit. For details on the classic training hackamore and related designs, see hackamore." Is it needed here? --AeronM (talk) 05:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I would delete it. --Una Smith (talk) 05:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I would also skip snarky references to other editors. --Una Smith (talk) 05:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a place for disambiguation statements so that people are led to the articles they actually want to find. If, as everyone says, people might type "bitless bridle" when looking for a hackamore, then disambig is appropriate. And as far as "snarky" goes, there has been too much of that all around, I do suggest everyone rereads WP:NPA, hmmm??? I would certainly hope that certain editors good faith edits are not being reverted solely because people are beginning to take things personally. That would be just sad, wouldn't it??? Montanabw(talk) 08:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
So do we have a consensus on deleting the sentence? --AeronM (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not even sure which "sentence" you are talking about. If the disambiguation statement, no, if something else, maybe, but remind me what we are even talking about here? Montanabw(talk) 05:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
See above in this very section. --AeronM (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Mechanical hackamore

I think breaking it out in this way will be confusing to readers. I think the name should take priority over the construction, and therefore it should be kept with hackamore section. AeronM (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The names are rather confused; trying to rationalize the names is one source of much of our arguing here. The types of construction may provide more stable organization, and has the added virtue of serving as an anchor for text explaining the variations in names. --Una Smith (talk) 05:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that construction is a better organizing principle. As I pointed out on the Hackamore talk page, most of the folks I know use the term for a mechanical hackamore. Nomenclature is just too confusing without some connection to actual construction. And I'm not familiar enough with some of the names I've heard to have any clue as to how they work.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Sigh...as I am also going to explain at the hackamore article, the mechanical hackamore appears to have been invented somewhere around the 1950's or so (Can't find any references to it prior to 1951, the book I have from the 1930's makes no mention of it) and probably just needs its own article. And yes, we DO need a disambiguation link at the top to the hackamore article. "Bitless bridle" is the newer term, and until 20 years ago or so, was merely descriptive -- "a hackamore is a type of bitless bridle," just as the automobile was once described as a "horseless carriage." But I'll save the details for sourcing at the hackamore article (Bennett's work traces the origins to the ancient Persians)
At present, Bitless bridle is used in the "merely descriptive" sense, and I think that is how it should be used on Wikipedia. As for it being a "newer term", newer than what? How proven? OED dates "hackamore" from 1850; a few seconds (!) research via Google dates "bitless bridle" from 1867. It is far from proven which term is older. In any case, the word "hackamore" is a neologism compared to the concept. And, conceptually, the hackamore is a kind of bitless bridle. --Una Smith (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I hardly think "hackamore" can be called a neologism. Certainly the word is used with imprecision. I would agree that it is a type of bitless headgear, but I first learned "bridle" as comprising the headstall and the bit, so writing of "bitless bridle" without clarification is really no better than writing "hackamore".--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC) (sig applied by Una Smith)
"Hackamore" is a neologism compared to the concept, or compared to "jaquima"; how old is that word? Did "jaquima" originate in Spain, or is it a Colonial Spanish term, or is it newer than that? --Una Smith (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Speaking as a professional taxonomist, it's important for us to separate questions of nomenclature (what it's called) from questions of circumscription (what it is). Inasmuch as there is no authoritative source for the nomenclature (there are apparently multiple "authoritative" sources), I agree with Una that this article should be arranged functionally, and I suggest that the synonymous names be included with each description. We've had similar fights in WP:PLANT over common names (some people want to use only the "official" common name of their country, and others, including me, prefer including every documented common name used in English text). I've said there, and I'll say here, Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive.--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Curtis, Nomenclature is a stub and Circumscription is about something else (looks like a disambiguation is needed there); can you point us to clear explanations of these terms? --Una Smith (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
There's so much to do on the taxonomy articles. Nomenclature is a dab page; Binomial nomenclature is more what I mean, although the important point is that for organisms, there are rules for assigning names. I certainly didn't know of that meaning of "circumscription"; in the biological taxonomy sense, it refers to the decision of what individuals belong to a species or some other group. A more direct analogy for this would be to take a traditional jaquima to a horse show and ask people what it is. Some would say it's a hackamore, some would say it's a bitless bridle, some would say it's a jaquima, and I wouldn't be surprised for someone to say that it's a cavesson. If one had a box full of bitless headgear, one could sort them by their apparent structure and function, irrespective of the names. One could apply a name to each one, based on some criterion or another. Those are independent activities, and the example with the single piece of equipment called by four different names is in my opinion the best reason for grouping by structure and function.--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

As for the rest, I am sitting down with about 10 books, a screaming headache (thanks, all) and will be doing a bunch of footnoting work on the article to hopefully put this issue to rest. I don't know if I will get it all done tonight, this whole edit spat is making me quite literally sick, I just dreaded going online tonight because of this whole thing. I have no agenda but accuracy and the truth. Again, like I have said before, just because "lots of people" or "everyone says" certain things (Like the common error of describing schizophrenia as multiple personality disorder, or, my favorite, the people who call Alzheimer's disease "Oldtimer's disease") does not make them correct. Wikipedia is to be a neutral, referenced, verifiable source of information, and as such, I would appreciate it if you would quit blanking my material until I have had a chance to source it (my god, I was up until after midnight last night, don't the rest of you EVER sleep? ) Montanabw(talk) 07:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw, please do not add material you know to be contentious without sources; source it first, then add it to the article. --Una Smith (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw has changed Mechanical hackamore from a redirect here to an article; I have tagged both Mechanical hackamore and Bitless bridle with a merge proposal, to return the content of Mechanical hackamore to here, under Styles. --Una Smith (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—if any bitless headgear deserves its own article, it's the mechanical hackamore, since it is used more like a curb bit. Before we start merging at this level, what about the separate articles for all the parts of a bit and all the different bit types?--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Just catching up here... I don't believe Mechanical Hackamore merits its own article. It should either be a subcategory of hackamore, or bitless bridle, or both, and should be redirected as such. --AeronM (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I propose keeping mechanical hackamore in this article, at least until its scope (circumscription) is clearer. Eg, would you include the Gluecksrad (jpg)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Una Smith (talk • contribs) 00:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I wouldn't include it, because it doesn't have leverage arms.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I am persuaded. --Una Smith (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, and also agree with adding the LG. --AeronM (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I meant add LG bridle to bitless bridles. It certainly qualifies. --AeronM (talk) 03:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, if I say the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, do I need a source too?
Yes, if you want to put it on Wikipedia! --AeronM (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know what is going to be "contentious" around here any more, I suspect that at this point, it's any edit with my name on it solely because it has my name on it. I broke out the mechanical hackmore material from the hackamore article, not this one. It is sufficiently neither fish nor fowl that it can go be all by itself. We have shorter articles on other gadgets, as Curtis says, this thing works completely different from either your bitless bridles or from a true hackamore. If you go read the stuff I added yesterday to the hackamore article, the roots of the word (however corrupted by the cowboys of the Amerian west) go back to the "Hakma," invented in the time of Darius of Persia, only 2500 years ago or so. Neologism, my ear! And as far as "bitless bridle" as a generic term, I am still just laughing because it was about a year ago that the last Dr.Cook fan nailed my butt to the wall for daring to call any cross-under other than Dr. Cook's invention a "bitless bridle." LOL. Montanabw(talk) 06:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Better too many sources than too few. --Una Smith (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

End of this issue, please?

I expanded and extensively sourced the mechanical hackamore article, I really don't think there is any need to merge it now, so removing the tag. Montanabw(talk) 08:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Did I miss a consensus vote? --AeronM (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy, we don't "vote," we argue endlessly (within reason) until there is some sort of meeting of the minds. But more to the point here, there is no need to merge the articles, as the other article has been properly expanded out per wikipedia guidelines. That's all. Montanabw(talk) 05:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Aeron, the above is Montanabw's opinion. My opinion at this time is that a separate article on mechanical hackamores is okay, provided it does not become a POV fork. Maybe not just okay, but necessary. POV forking can be fixed; everything in Wikipedia can be fixed. --Una Smith (talk) 06:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.bitlessbridle.com/dbID/298.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bitless_bridle/Archive_1&oldid=1142754286"