Talk:Cleveland Bay

Cleveland Bay is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 4, 2015.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 28, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
November 24, 2009	Peer review	Reviewed
December 19, 2009	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Equine Mid‑importance

	Horses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.EquineWikipedia:WikiProject EquineTemplate:WikiProject Equineequine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Horse breeds task force.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cleveland Bay/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Righto, I will make some straightforward prose changes as I go (please revert anywhere I inadvertently change the meaning), and note queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd clarify it was Cleveland in England in the lede - I kept thinking of Cleveland, Ohio....

and has experienced ups and downs in popularity in that country - hmmm, doesn't sound encyclopedic, I'd try something like "The popularity of the Cleveland Bay has greatly fluctuated since it was first imported to the United States in the early 1800s"

In summary, neither of these are deal-breakers though. So it passes GA standards :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you very much for the fast review and the pass! I'll fix these two things in the next few days - RL just dumped on me, and I've been working lots of hot, dirty, profitable overtime :) Thanks again! Dana boomer (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Towards FA[edit]

Some discussion of genetics and hypothesis on ancestry/origins/relations pre middle ages.

Copyedit further. Prose flows okay but more eyes'd be good too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments as well. Horse genetics tend to be pretty much the same among breeds - hence the reason they aren't really discussed in breed articles, but I will see what I can find to add further to the early history section. Copyediting tends to be my downfall, and I've got a few editors I call on when I decide to take an article to FA. This article isn't on the top of my priority list, but it's close, so the suggestions are helpful! Dana boomer (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One comment to all is that if one does decide to get into Middle Ages Origins, it will be very important to source carefully, and it may be a challenge, as there is a lot of historically inaccurate info out there, (i.e. the draft horse as destrier thing, just for starters) and I recommend we bring in our resident medievalist, Gwinva, to help! (While at it, we may want to look at some of the extinct breed articles, which may be able to be simultaneously improved)... Montanabw^(talk) 01:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the unreliability of much of the historical info out there would definitely be the downfall to this type of research. When I get to this point, I'll definitely drop Gwinva a line. I've also found three apparently fairly rare books on the Cleveland Bay that I'm going to try to get through ILL when I get back home. That's only about a month away, so I'll probably just let the article simmer until then. Dana boomer (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had to clean up some of the history. Clearly the ANCESTRY of the Cleveland bay date to the middle ages, but the actual breed seems to have solidified in the 1600s. Technically, the "Middle Ages" though a pretty broad term, were not the 1600s, except by the broadest standards. (Grrr, Bogdianni source for saying that!) "Pre-middle ages" was the Roman Empire! LOL! Hence the 17th century (1600s) marks the dates that the Cleveland Bay settled in as a true-breeding population without need for more admixture of outside blood, but not before. (As I noted in hidden text, even the Andalusian did not have recorded pedigrees as such until the 1300s). I'd personally also like to see some clarification of the non-standard color terminology, the "bright bay" and "ordinary bay" thing. (The photos to me are classic "blood bay" horses). I doubt you can prove it, but the "bright" bays, especially if they have light hairs in their manes and possibly even the red going down the legs to suppress point coloration more than standard are all from a type of rabicano genetics -- it's sometime seen in Arabians...example here of a bay Arab with MAJOR rabicano stuff going on. I put some comments in hidden text in the article for your benefit, feel free to toss when read. Montanabw^(talk) 05:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bay terminology came directly out of a source that seems pretty solid, and I added another ref right after the wording. It's possible that it is some kind of rabicano, but no source I've found says anything about it, and so I can't add it in. As it says in the history section, there were a few chestnut Thoroughbreds that snuck into the line in the 1700s, as well as all of the Yorkshire Coach Horses that non-English breeders mistook for purebreds and registered as such. I've tweaked where necessary in the article and tossed the hidden comments - thanks for your help! Dana boomer (talk) 13:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Changes look good to me. I don't think you mention anything about chestnuts in the mix in the article text, that might help, as it is, the "red legs" thing otherwise sounds just weird. There is a thing called "Wild bay" also, where the points are suppressed a touch more than in regular bays, but, like Rabicano, I doubt you can source it. (Breed registries and societies are way behind the curve on color genetics unless it's a breed with spots, I think...arrgh). I have heard of "bright bay" , but usually to describe a blood bay, and likewise, I hear people say "ordinary" or "regular" bay when speaking of a blood bay...does the source have sample images of the color variations? Montanabw^(talk) 05:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) The chestnut thing is in the History section, the last sentence before the 19th century to today subsection header. Should I add a bit about the chestnut thing to the Characteristics section also? The source has lovely pictures...in black and white. So useful... Dana boomer (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd do a quick recap. Don't cha just love the B&W era? Darn! Montanabw^(talk) 04:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinarily minor nitpick[edit]

I suppose technically Yorkshire is in England, but in the time period in which the breed developed the overall nation WAS "Great Britain". See Kingdom of Great Britain (ie I think you had it right the first time). I don't know if we do nationality or geography, and I suspect that either one will result in someone changing it to the other. Maybe see if Richard New Forest can shed some light on the matter, he's both our resident brit expert as well as our resident harness expert... Montanabw^(talk) 00:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but per England#Etymology, this part of GB has been referred to as England since way-pre Cleveland Bay. Plus, Jimfbleak (the user who commented on this in the FAC) is a Brit, so I'd say he probably knows what he's talking about. I'm just going to leave it as is, and if it comes up further in the FAC I'll deal with it then. I'd say I'm proud of how far the article has come if that is the only thing wrong with it :) Thanks for the comment. Dana boomer (talk) 02:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IF the Brits say "England," I'm jiggy with it. I always think geopolitically as a default. I think you've done a dandy job with this one, and I'm not even going to glom onto your glory! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 02:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

I'm only wondering if the Chapman horse contributed significantly to anything other than the Cleveland Bay, thus warranting its continued independent article. (Thinking of the Narragansett Pacer or Old English Black horse). Other than that, no problem with the merge, content seems similar in both. Montanabw^(talk) 23:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never found a source that references the Chapman horse in relation to any breed other than the Cleveland Bay. All of the sources I combed through for this article seemed to think that the Chapman was basically the earliest incarnation of the Cleveland Bay, rather than a separate breed that they were descended from. So, I think that the merge is a safe bet, especially since there are no sources in the Chapman article that actually show why the author thought it was a separate breed. Dana boomer (talk) 01:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Groovy. Montanabw^(talk) 03:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unverified, and debatable?[edit]

"It is the oldest established horse breed in England, and the only non-draught horse developed in Great Britain. " Neither of these claims are verified. The Thoroughbred article says it too was developed in England, and surely breeds such as Exmoor are thousands of years older than the Cleveland Bay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.199.50 (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are verified, by multiple sources, in the first sentences of the History section. I have tweaked the lead, however, to more closely follow what is in the History section. References are generally not put in the lead, as it is a summary of what is found in the body of the article, with no new information. The Exmoor is a pony breed, not a horse breed. As for the Thoroughbred, I think the distinction might be the "native to" portion of the history section, which is now reflected in the lead. The Thoroughbred was developed almost as much in the US and other countries as it was in England (although that is where the first breeding happened). The Cleveland Bay developed much more gradually from stock that had been in England since the first horses were brought to that country, and it is almost solely bred in England (although some horses are exported elsewhere), hence "native to". Dana boomer (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. While I think the sourcing is solid and the text accurately reflects the source, I restored your original wording. I think the lead was fine, as "native" indicates a landrace and the Cleveland Bay clearly is more selectively bred. It has many non-"Native" elements-- Andalusians, etc. (as does the TB with Arabian breeding). "Developed" clearly fits a bit better. I'd actually toss "native" where it appears in the text as well. May also want to, in the body text, note the "full sized horse" aspect, as it's true that ponies are still equus caballus and they are truly "native" in the landrace sense. I also would not make the argument about the TB in America, as articles like Jersey Act clearly suggest that the UK and the US beg to differ on that point! (grin) -- and the TB appears to have developed about the same time, though with less ancient ancestors. I guess what I picked up is a need to refine the nuance a bit, emphasizing the Chapman horse origins, that "established' means having a stud book (presumably the "oldest breed" bit means their studbook predates the Jockey Club one??). I stuck in some hidden text where I think a tweak is needed. Just my opinion though, I don't see any earth-shattering difficulties with what's there. Montanabw^(talk) 19:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good photo?[edit]

I'm a bit distressed at the fact that the only pic here that actually shows a Cleveland Bay as it ought to be is the pic of the carriage horses. The two other examples are both cross-bred, and beautiful as they may be, they ought not be used to illustrate the appearance of a true Cleveland Bay. Don't we have a picture of a single horse? The Royal wedding is likely to generate some interest, particularly as I have linked to that article. Amandajm (talk) 10:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We actually don't. If you have access to one that you can upload, it would be fantastic! I've searched all over for a good picture of a single, purebred Cleveland Bay and haven't been able to find one. There were a couple on Commons before this went through FAC, but they were found to not have the proper licensing, and so were deleted. The last time I checked, there weren't any properly licensed ones on Flickr or through a Google search, but that was a couple of months ago and so things could have changed. I would love to have a proper picture to go in the lead of this article - if you can provide or find one it would be much appreciated. Dana boomer (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great photo![edit]

Look here! [1] at the Queen's horses (and the Queen's men)...... Amandajm (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are some pretty cool pictures. I wonder if there are any free versions of those on Flickr... I'll have to go poke around a bit. Dana boomer (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Horse breeds developed in England.[edit]

This article states that the Cleveland Bay is the only non-draught horse developed in England. What about the Thoroughbred? Maybe others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.51.59.205 (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. We also have all the pony breeds. Dana? Can this be clarified? Montanabw^(talk) 05:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember what the sources' arguments were for this position, and I'm halfway across the country from my sources at the moment. I'll be home the middle of December, and will check then. Dana boomer (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photos...[edit]

Having worked on a Cleveland Bay breeding farm, I'm sure I can get some photos of purebreds. I have a few, but the horses are not properly set up. Shall I contact the breeder? Thanks. Soltera (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images have to be released under a free license, so we can’t use images taken by a professional photographer unless ‘’the photographer’’ releases them. (If the farm owns a copy of a photo of their horse, they still don’t “own” the copyright unless they bought that with the image, which seldom occurs) But if you can do so, or can get the farm to let you take some nice photos, that would be very cool! Good luck! Montanabw^(talk) 20:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cleveland Bay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090324123655/http://www.rbst.org.uk/watch-list/main to http://www.rbst.org.uk/watch-list/main

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cleveland Bay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good resource[edit]

This book has a 20-page chapter on Cleveland Bay history with many historic photos, followed by a chapter on the Yorkshire Coach Horse.

Richardson, Charles (1911). The New Book of the Horse. Cassell and Co. pp. 265–284. OL 23321461M.

▶ I am Grorp ◀ 13:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And this one has some information:

Moore-Colyer, Richard (1995). "Aspects of Horse Breeding and the Supply of Horses in Victorian Britain". The Agricultural History Review. 43 (1): 47–60. ISSN 0002-1490. JSTOR 40275381. Retrieved 2024-01-30.

▶ I am Grorp ◀ 13:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few more I found:

This one (http://horses.pris.ca/cb/cbwebpgs/thecb.htm) might explain how some of the content got into this wiki article. Not saying it is or isn't a reliable source, but there's quite a bit of similarity going on, so it's worth checking this against the History section. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed tag re "oldest"[edit]

I am removing the {{disputed}} tag as the content is well-cited by reliable sources, specifically:

The Hendricks source says "oldest of the established British breeds".
The International Museum of the Horse source: "The Cleveland Bay originated in Britain, in the Cleveland area of Northern Yorkshire, and is the oldest of the indigenous breed of English horses."
Edwards source (2008 version/print): "Apart from the native ponies, the Cleveland Bay is the oldest indigenous horse breed in the UK."
Edwards source (1985 version): "One of the oldest English breeds, the Cleveland Bay was used as a pack horse in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries..."
Edward/Geddes: "The Cleveland Bay is another British native to be found in the north of England. The Cleveland is the only native horse—as opposed to pony—that does not belong to the heavy horse group. It has been known since mediaeval times in the part of Yorkshire from which it takes its name. ... Probably the oldest established English horse breed..."

The tag was placed in 2022 and re-inserted in 2023 referring to the "oldest breed" statement, according to the edit summary. There was no discussion started on the talk page at the time. An earlier discussion from 2011 at § Unverified, and debatable? seems to have come to the opposite conclusion, so I do not know why the {{disputed}} tag was added. If anyone feels the content is still in dispute, please discuss before re-tagging. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 10:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]