text:
Talk:American Paint Horse

Please note that this page is not a soapbox or forum, it is for discussing changes to this article. Tanyia 20:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sabino or Overo?
For those who care, what is your take on the animal pictured below? I'd like to put this photo into the proper wikipedia article, but I can't decide if this fellow is an overo or a sabino. In favor of overo is horizontal spotting, bald face, dark legs and tail--but his white isn't irregularly edged, and there's not a lot of it. In favor of Sabino are rounded belly spots, white on gaskins and he is somewhat roaned out. Those who know, what's your assessment?

I left my opinion on the Sabino Horse discussion page - but in a nutshell, I see more sabino traits on this horse than any other overo marking. Lmocr 20:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I would also say this horse is a sabino. An overo usually has more markings from shoulder to neck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.182.9 (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

 * Um, this post was 8 years ago... The horse has both, actually.  Montanabw (talk)  18:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested moves

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. The consensus is that "Horse" and "Pony" are actually part of the breed name and not simply tacked on for disambiguation. And there is no consensus that these articles should deviate from the current norm of capitalising every word in the name of a horse breed. The question of whether they should be fully decapitalised (e.g. to American paint horse) was only covered by a few editors, wasn't the original topic of this RM and is definitely better suited to a RfC anyway. There is one exception to all this however, Indian Half-Bred will be moved to Indian Half-bred as by the end of this RM even the nominator was OK with this and it also the one that seemed to cause most concern to many of the opposers. A couple of minor notes to finish: there is absolutely no need to move articles while they are at RM and indeed I would strongly suggest you not do it again (see Don't move articles at AfD) – in addition, the RM admins are not complete morons and are perfectly able to understand that a result of no consensus would default to the long term status quo, especially when it is pointed out several times in the RM. please don't move articles without an RM when you know that there is very likely to objections. It's all very well to cite WP:BOLD, but the the RM page is quite clear that you should only do so "If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move". Jenks24 (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

– Restore mass moves of articles done without consultation and in defiance of longstanding consensus of page editors. Though normal capitalization in sentence case is appropriate for many horse and pony breeds, (e.g. Arabian horse, etc.) and a few of the mass moves appropriately did this and are not listed here, for some breeds the word "horse" or "Pony" as an inherent part of their proper name, and thus in these limited situations it should be capitalized. The basic guideline is if a name sounds completely ridiculous if "Horse" is dropped, i.e, we don't call an American Quarter Horse a "quarter." Likewise, "Danish Sport" "German Riding" or "Indian Half" makes no sense; "Costa Rican Saddle" can be confused with equipment, and "Florida Cracker" could be a derogatory description for a person. Further guidance can be seen in breed registry web sites where it is clear that the breed has a complete name as opposed to the mere convenience of adding "horse" or "pony". The American Paint Horse is one of those clear-cut examples, where the breed is not referred to as simply a "paint" (save for informal situations) due to confusion between a mere color breed and the specific breed, that includes certain other genetic characteristics. The others listed here have similar issues. there may be some room for a case-by-case discussion, but this lead article is a clear-cut case. Montanabw (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * American Paint horse → American Paint Horse
 * American Walking pony → American Walking Pony
 * Brazilian Sport horse → Brazilian Sport Horse
 * Camarillo White horse → Camarillo White Horse
 * Canadian Rustic pony → Canadian Rustic Pony
 * Costa Rican Saddle horse → Costa Rican Saddle Horse
 * Danish Sport pony → Danish Sport Pony
 * Florida Cracker horse → Florida Cracker Horse
 * Georgian Grande horse → Georgian Grande Horse
 * German Riding pony → German Riding Pony
 * Indian Half-bred → Indian Half-Bred
 * Kentucky Mountain Saddle horse → Kentucky Mountain Saddle Horse

Comment: We must respect the name of the animal per the breed standard. If the word horse or pony is part of the breed name we cannot change that here. To do so is to misrepresent the source. (Littleolive oil (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC))
 * Support as nominator Note that with over 300 horse breed articles, these are a limited set of exceptions. This is not an argument against the general MOS capitalization guidelines for article names.  Montanabw (talk)  17:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - these are the proper names of breeds, I agree with Montana's arguments above. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with Montana. And please discuss and get agreement for this kind of sweeping move. Add: The breed registry is the definitive source for naming and spelling of the breed. We really don't have to look further than that. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC))
 * Oppose. Should breed name really be capitalised? Why nor "American paint horse"? Coreyemotela (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC).
 * Yes. Proper name of a breed. You will never see "American paint horse" in any horse or American publication. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * See here, here, here, here, here from the Lousiana State Government, and others. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This article in Veterinary Pathology uses lowercase as "American paint horse". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, and yes. >;-) Yes, you can find examples of all breed names being lower case except where they contain proper names (try Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Encyclopædia Britannica, Human Society, etc.), and we may go that way eventually, but yes, this is not that debate, this is only about capitalization of the species/type name (horse, pony, donkey)  the breed name ("American Paint", etc.).  Proposing decapitalization of all breed names except where they contain proper names would be a much broader discussion, a site-wide RfC on the scale of the recent one about lower-casing species common names.  And it would actually raise some different issues.  Please don't confuse the two debates.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Britannica also has American Quarter Horse and American Saddlebred horse....... The Humane Society might use lowercase, but newspapers use uppercase when reporting their activities (Usa Today, CNN, CBS)........ The New York Times uses sometimes Tennessee Walking Horse, sometimes Tennessee Walking Horses, sometimes Tennessee walking horses (maybe an abuse of a breed name that happens to sound like a regular description?)..... --Enric Naval (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We are not going down the road of the ongoing debate on that topic here, this is about 12 exceptions. Montanabw (talk)  19:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand the purpose of the request but it is a good occasion to think about the correct way to name all of them. Coreyemotela (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC).
 * Oppose, and instead move American Paint horse → American paint horse, etc. I don't see why Walking, Sport, Paint etc are capitalized but not horse; that style seems novel, but I might be misunderstanding something. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, it seems the argument is perhaps along the lines of "American Paint" being the proper name and then "horse" is just there as a natural disambiguator. Hmm.  I'm not sure I buy it; everybody seems to either write it "American Paint Horse" or "American paint horse"; i.e. horse is part of the name, it seems. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose in particular "Indian Half-Bred". Is there a special reason why the B is capitalized?  We don't write hyphenated words in title case that way; why would this be an exception? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose: "Indian Half-Bred" is simply ungrammatical; there is not an English-language style guide anywhere that advises capitalization after a hyphen, and MOS certainly doesn't sanction it. Regardless, it's a different case and has to be considered separately.  In all of the other cases, this is no different from any of the other zillion animal and plant breeds/varieties and their articles (it's a Siamese cat, a Sanguinello orange and an American Paint horse, not a Siamese Cat, a Sanguinello Orange or an American Paint Horse).  Note carefully the result at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 156 – attempts at "WP:LOCALCONSENSUSes" to make up wikiproject-level rules (surprisingly commonly about animals) that conflict with WP:MOS, WP:AT and other site-wide policies and guidelines has not been successful and has caused a lot of problems and strife. It also means that breed names at all are unlikely to remain capitalized other than where they contain proper names (e.g. placenames and adjectives derived from them, like "American" and "Dutch").  While we're still capitalizing them, we're not capitalizing the general type/kind of creature after the breed name; horses are not a magical exception.  Also, argument that "saying 'a Danish Riding' by itself makes no sense" is invalid; in-context, horse breeders and fanciers, just as cat people refer to "a Siamese", etc.; the fact that the base name of the breed is adjectival is not basis on which to capitalize the general type/kind of organism after the breed name.  Finally, what odd conventions may be used in breeder/fancier publications is not terribly important to WP, and can be dispensed with when it conflicts with normal English-language rules or WP's own broader preferences (see the essay WP:Specialist style fallacy for a detailed explanation of the reasoning why).   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is specifically NOT (NOT NOT NOT) about species.   It is about breeds, which are a bit different; the "Alfa-Romero" argument below is actually quite apt.  The examples of "Siamese cat" or Arabian horse" clearly are, as ErikHaugen noted, natural disambiguators. (I noted that above already to prevent that particular red herring from swimming!)  But on a case by case basis which is what is under discussion here; there are exceptions, and the items listed above are those exceptions. WP:PROPERNAME offers substantial guidance here.  We are talking about 12 to 15 exceptions out of the 300 or 400 breed articles we have on wikipedia.   Montanabw (talk)  23:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no relevant difference between breeds and species when it comes to the question before us.  that these are somehow exceptions to a general rule does not  that they are.  I don't think a redlinked shortcut to nothing offers substantial guidance on anything. ;-) Maybe you were thinking of WP:OFFICIALNAME or MOS:NAMECAPS, but both of them support downcasing horse/pony/donkey in these sorts of cases.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We should consider whether the breed name includes the word "horse" (see my !vote, we can look at lists of breeds in reference works). --Enric Naval (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support restoration of the previous consensus. In each of these cases the breed name includes the word "Horse" or "Pony" and we have only to examine the article sources to see that. There exists a difference between, for example, "American Walking Pony" and "Dartmoor Hill pony": the former is the proper name of a breed (deliberately bred for certain characteristics), not any pony which happens to be born in the USA and walks; the latter is not bred, but is the classification for any pony born on Dartmoor. Reading our article Proper noun may help cast some light on the issue of proper names. Additionally, this is not a WP:Specialist style fallacy - unless someone is suggesting that the capitalisation of the word "Horse", when it is a proper part of a breed name, makes the "naming and styling issues that other editors and readers, unfamiliar with the field, find strange, impenetrable, inappropriate and/or grammatically incorrect." The issue around a horse breed called "Indian Half-Bred" is to my eyes, completely analogous to a car marque called "Alfa-Romeo" or sometimes "Alfa Romeo" (see e.g. Autotrader for the optional hyphen). Have we ever suggested that such cars be Alfa-romeos or even Alfa romeos? --RexxS (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not true. The Dartmoor pony according to our article is a breed, not just some random ponies born in the area; you are engaging in WP:OR at best. The majority of horse/pony breed articles do  have article titles with "horse" or "pony" capitalized, so your point is invalid anyway. Same goes for virtually all other domestic animal breeds; horses are not magical exception.  Reading our article Proper noun is indeed helpful; it's something that members of the horse project badly need to do.  There is no consensus anywhere – not on WP and not in the offline world – that domestic animal breeds are proper names, and most sources on proper naming, both linguistic and philosophical, cannot be bent easily to the view that they are. Horse-specialist sources tend to capitalize breed names for the same reason that specialist sources in every field tend to capitalize things important to them; it's an insider typographic convention for intra-expert communication. But Wikipedia is not a horse-breeding guide.  Finally, the comparison to car models is puerile and absurd.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's complete garbage. If you can't tell the difference between "Dartmoor Hill pony" and "Dartmoor pony", you should be keeping clear of making pronouncements on these issues. Please try to understand what our policy on original research is about: it concerns article content, not the research and analysis that any sensible editor does to gain comprehension. You need to address the point that although the proper name of many horse breeds does not contain the word "horse", there are some that do: it is these exceptions that you carelessly attempted to regularise without understanding the differences. In an exactly analogous manner, you would be suggesting that Fabbrica Italiana Automobili Torino should be capitalised as "Fabbrica Italiana automobili Torino" because we don't capitalise "Ford automobile". You have given no reason why the car analogy doesn't fit, other than to make your pathetic jibe about "puerile and absurd". You're a disgrace to this discussion and need to think carefully about throwing insults at other editors - it is a sign of desperation and does nothing to help your case. --RexxS (talk) 10:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: It should be noted that this RM is a direct response to the unilateral renaming of multiple articles within the scope of WP:EQUINE, who maintain these articles and had achieved a relatively stable consensus for the capitalised versions of the article titles. I know that is not enough. per se, to override WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, but we need to be cognisant of what ArbCom have decided on these issues: "Where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus. However, on subjects where there is no global consensus, a local consensus should be taken into account." - Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes . Should this RM end in no consensus, then I hope that the closer will respect the status quo ante and ArbCom's principle, and accept that the titles should be restored to their previous, stable capitalisation as agreed by WP:EQUINE. --RexxS (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That sure sounds like "my wikiproject WP:OWNs these articles".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Then tell it to ArbCom. They made the decision, not me. You've got the link, knock yourself out complaining. --RexxS (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment, I am restoring status quo ante pending any new consensus. Dreadstar  ☥   22:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And that sure came off as an attempt to moot this WP:RM out of process, especially since you redlinked them (which I've since undone).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose See my repeated interpretation of the MOS here. I do not consider this different than animal species names, and the same conclusions apply. Making exceptions to the general rules of the MOS requires consensus both among the group concerned and the community, and neither of them is  present.  DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * DGG, you fail to understand the issue, we are talking about 12 exceptions out of 300 or 400 articles. Plus, breeds are not species, they are human-developed through selective breeding but they are not new species, all are, clearly, horses (or ponies).  If you don't understand the difference between a breed and a species, may I direct you to WP:BIOLOGY?   Montanabw (talk)  02:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with the differences between species and breeds; it's about English-language usage.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it has everything to do with understanding those sort of differences. In the real world, the English language has developed conventions for naming species and conventions for capitalising proper names. Your attempt to over-simplify how English actually deals with those issues is what has caused these problems; and your refusal to understand that such differences exist is causing this wall-of-text where you feel you have to re-state your own narrow and inaccurate interpretation in response to everyone who has tried to explain to you. --RexxS (talk) 10:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support the existing consensus. These decisions are best left to the article writers who understand the topic. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Erik Haugen. And if it has to stay at "A" "P", then for heaven's sake not the generic word as well. Tony   (talk)  03:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose over-capitalization. Even if breed names are capitalized by some local consensus, extending the caps to non-proper second parts of hyphenated compounds, or to the generic horse or pony, is unnatural and unnecessary.  Given the recently firmed-up consensus around MOS:CAPS, and the commonness of such forms as "Florida Cracker horse" in sources, these particular over-capitalizations of breeds are extreme outliers from WP style, and fixing them was routine and should not have been reverted.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you in breeds that don't include "horse" in the official name. But the official name of this breed is "Florida Cracker Horse", per reliable source . (see my !vote) --Enric Naval (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Erik Haugen. It seems like nonsense and capitalisation for its own sake, like commonly overcapitalised terms such as "chairman" "member of parliament". Or the work of buzz-word creators. I note the inconsistency within the batch – "Indian Half-Bred", which lacks the trailing descriptor ("horse/pony/dog/dinosaur"). I would say that it seems to me that most people, even insiders, would refer to the breed name without the trailing descriptor. So capitalising the final word is sincerely over-egging the pudding and then adding meringue and pouring crème anglaise on top, IMHO. In addition, I totally oppose the grammatical nonsense of capitalising the letter after the hyphen, as "half" clearly qualifies "bred" and any previous capitalisation (where warranted) would shift to the first letter of the qualifier. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 04:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I inquired elsewhere if "Honda civic" would also be what you are suggesting? No one here seems to notice that I am notnotnotnot(!)(!) raising a general rule, I am looking at a limited number of exceptions where the argument can be made on a case-by case basis? (And maybe one or two of the above don't need to be there?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs)
 * You could bnot have found a more awful, perverse and pointy example. We're arguing about inclusion/capitalisation of the trailing descriptor ("horse/pony/dog/dinosaur"). "Honda Civic Car" might have been a better construction of the example. Anyway, "Civic" is a registered brand name thus a proper noun, so your argument fails on both counts. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 01:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, your point that a brand name is copyrighted proves my point - Most breed registries are corporations and have a registered official name, one that they use for their breed. Just as an example that has nothing to do with capitalization, the Pintabian is a registered trademark, and can legally only be used for horses with both a particular color and a very high percentage of Arabian blood
 * Irrelevant. The breeds themselves are not trademarks; in the rare cases they are, then yes, we would capitalize them as proper names.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that's completely relevant. How on earth did you get the idea that breed names are not trademarks? Of course they are - and I can easily quote for you a newspaper report on a court case: "The Nokota Horse Association contends it owns the legal trademark for the name and says it is not in competition with the conservancy.". Note that 'breed' in this case is used in its broader sense: "... the term is sometimes used in a very broad sense to define landrace animals, or naturally selected horses of a common phenotype located within a limited geographic region", yet is still capable of being a trademark. --RexxS (talk) 11:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Real-world professional standards should trump false Wikipedia standards when it comes to things like this. I firmly believe that accepted titles developed by a professional, governed outside community should be preferred to the mess that is MOS. Intothatdarkness 13:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's just WP:SSF. If you don't agree with what MOS says, work to change it. Ignoring a site-wide guideline because it doesn't agree with your wikiproject is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy problem.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that's called the real world. Wikipedia needs to understand that they will continue to be a joke as long as they make up their own standards while ignoring professional standards. Intothatdarkness 14:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per Intothatdarkness. Nortonius (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's just WP:SSF. If you don't agree with what MOS says, work to change it. Ignoring a site-wide guideline because it doesn't agree with your wikiproject is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy problem.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that's called the real world. Wikipedia needs to understand that they will continue to be a joke as long as they make up their own standards while ignoring professional standards. Intothatdarkness 14:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per Intothatdarkness. Nortonius (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per project consensus and corresponding lack of consensus for the undiscussed moves. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Invalid rationales. The first is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy failure, and the second is a WP:BOLD policy failure.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per Nikkimaria (it seems to have been done, I was made aware of this only now) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, but only when "horse" is part of the breed name. Reference works verify the presence of the word "horse" in some breeds. In International Encyclopedia of Horse Breeds, we have breeds without "horse" (Costeño, American Mustang) and breeds with "horse" (Costa Rican Saddle Horse, American Paint Horse). There is no listing for "Indian Half-Bred", maybe it's not a proper breed name and it shouldn't be capitalized at all? --Enric Naval (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong support for all but Indian Half-bred, where the hyphen precludes a capital "b". This is not rocket science. You can't talk about a Canadian Rustic or a Costa Rican Saddle or a Danish Sport or a Florida Cracker (well, you can, but none of them are horses); those names require the suffix "Horse", which is part of the breed name and thus, like all breed names in Wikipedia and just about everywhere else, capitalised. The same argument does not apply to, say, the Calabrese horse, where the word "horse" is merely disambiguation and the animal would normally be referred to simply as a Calabrese. There may still be some cases among the horse breed articles where the capitalisation fails to follow this basic consensus. There are probably several others that has moved without discussion or understanding (Esperia Pony is one); I suggest to that editor that from now on any move of a breed article that he/she may be contemplating should automatically be regarded as contentious, and be subject to a move request in the normal way. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with JLAN's assessment of Indian Half-bred due to the hyphen thing.  Montanabw (talk)  03:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong support per project consensus, per Nikkimaria, SlimVirgin, Ealdgyth RexxS Alfa romeo, Intothatdarkness, Nortonius and Gerda Arendt . Also per corresponding lack of consensus for the undiscussed moves in dog articles as well. Like Dalmatian (dog) to Dalmatian dog... Some breed names include Horse or Pony or Hound or whatever, and then it is part of the NAME. Than it is OK. Otherwise is just a way of making a distinction betweed similar titles (and it should be (dog)(cat)and so on). The dog breed is called Dalmatian, not Dalmatian dog.  Dalmatian dog could refer to any dog that is in Dalmatia, or born there, no matter what breed. Hafspajen (talk) 12:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
1. The capitalization proposed here is inconsistent with other categories and even other horse articles.  I have to observe that even before I began doing some consistency cleanup in these categories, virtually every single domestic animal article name that contained the species name after the breed name did so in lower case (e.g. Nigora goat, etc.) Virtually all of the rest either incorrectly included a parenthetical disambiguator (e.g. Siamese (cat)), and these have mostly been moved without incident (e.g. to Siamese cat per WP:AT policy to prefer natural disambiguation over parenthetical). Almost no articles had the name of the kind of organism capitalized as some people at the horse project want to do with some but not all of the horse/pony/donkey articles, for no apparent reason on that that they're adjectival breed names. But almost all breed names are, and we're just not doing this to their article names. The horse project haven't made any case for why these names are somehow different from Nigora goat and Siamese cat. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I certainly think that moving Dalmatian (dog) to Dalmatian dog is not a good idea, as I as it is now it Dalmatian dog could refer to any dog that is in Dalmatia, or born there, no matter what breed. Hafspajen (talk) And it is 1 user doing this, Sphilbrick. Without discussion. 12:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

2. MOS:LIFE has been clear on this for years: "English vernacular ("common") names are given in lower case in article prose.... This applies to ... general names for groups or types of organisms". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

3. Sources do not consistently support the idea that "horse" must be included at all, much less capitalized. What this really comes down to is: "Does a breed like American Paint horse always have 'horse' after it, such that we'd perhaps consider the 'horse' part of the breed name in a way that it is not in Calabrese horse, or is the breed sometimes simply called the 'American Paint', whihout 'horse' at all, capitalized or not?" The answer to this question is provably, clearly, unmistakably that, yes, the name of the breed is "American Paint" (and similar short forms for any such breeds), to which we add "horse" (or "pony" or "donkey") only when necessary for disambiguation. My cousins who own a Tennessee Walking horse say it's a "Tennessee Walking" or "Tennessee Walker" (I seem to recall the latter, mostly) when talking to horse people; they only add "horse" when talking to people who won't get it without the disambiguation. Note the "Paint Stallion Breeders Association" (not "Paint Horse Stallion Breeders Association") and their American Paint Classic race (not "American Paint Horse Classic"). It only takes seconds on Google (or Yandex or whatever) to find "Tennessee Walking horse" (lower-case "horse") in mainstream publications, along with "Tennessee Walking breed" in mixed usage with the "Horse" version, and even horse trading sites (i.e. site by and for horse people) not just using but using Tennessee Walker horse" (not -er and lower case "horse).  While there's no question that "horsey" sources  to want to capitalize Horse is not just these but all cases (e.g. Calabrese Horse, and others were even the WP equine wikiproject agrees WP shouldn't be capitalizing), WP does not have to care. Reliable sources for facts on something (horse breed conformation points, for example) are not reliable sources on English language usage for encyclopedic writing. See WP:Specialist style fallacy for a detailed analysis why. But the specialist sources don't even all agree on this. See, e.g. Horse Genetics (Bailey & Brooks, 2nd ed., 2013), which consistently downcases "horse" after the breed name proper, e.g. "the Camarillo White horse". And here's "the Camarillo White breed" in a U. of Oregon published biology thesis. And so on. I can come up with examples liek this for every single breed name on the list up there, and all the rest of them that should be subject to the same discussion. The fact that horse publications mostly want to capitalize "Horse" is not reason for Wikipedia to do it, too. If we followed that sort of reasoning, we'd simply capitalize everything, since some specialist publication somewhere wants to capitalize it, whether it's art books that capitalize color names, auto suppliers and manuals who capitalize the names of car parts, or ornithology journals and field guides that capitalize the common names of birds. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

4. Category:Horse breeds's own contents disprove the notion that such names "must" be followed by "horse"/"pony" much less that they must be categorized: witness Irish Hobby, Soviet Heavy Draft, Russian Heavy Draft, Vladimir Heavy Draft, etc., and Part-Arabian, Murgese, and so on. See also Australian Draught horse (lower case); note lack of even one case of "Something Draft/Draught Horse" with "Horse" capitalized. Note next that the landslide majority of cases of an adjectival proper name (usually geo-cultural) is followed by "horse" or "pony". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

 * I agree with you that lower case should be used. Coreyemotela (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC).

 * I'm tired of these ridiculous red herring and straw man arguments. NOWHERE have I argued that "all" articles names "must" be followed by "horse"/"pony". I'm arguing for several exceptions. Where a RS for information is not an RS, yet no other RS exists, SMc, it is a trip through the looking glass.   Montanabw (talk)  04:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Expanded list of articles that could be affected
Various other articles in Category:Horse breeds will also be directly affected by the outcome of this discussion, but simply weren't moved before the RM launched; they may include: • American Quarter Horse

• Australian Pony

• Australian Riding Pony

• Australian Stock Horse

• Anglo-Arabian

• Bali Pony

• Bashkir Pony

• Black Forest Horse

• Bosnian Pony

• Chincoteague Pony

• Cleveland Bay

• Colorado Ranger

• Curly Horse

• Czechoslovakian Small Riding Pony

• Dutch Heavy Draft

• Eriskay Pony

• Estonian Draft

• French Saddle Pony

• Galician Pony

• Hispano-Bretón

• Indian Country Bred

• Irish Draught

• Irish Hobby

• Irish Sport Horse

• Italian Heavy Draft

• Java Pony

• Kerry Bog Pony

• Lithuanian Heavy Draught

• Mecklenburger

• Murgese

• Namib Desert Horse

• Narym Pony

• National Show Horse

• Nez Perce Horse

• North Swedish Horse

• Old English Black

• Part-Arabian

• Peneia Pony

• Pindos Pony

• Rhenish-German Cold-Blood

• Rocky Mountain Horse

• Russian Heavy Draft

• Sandalwood Pony

• Sardinian Anglo-Arab

• Shagya Arabian

• Skyros Pony

• Soviet Heavy Draft

• Spanish Jennet Horse

• Sumba and Sumbawa Pony

• Tennessee Walking Horse

• Timor Pony

• Ukrainian Riding Horse

• Vladimir Heavy Draft

• Welsh Pony and Cob

• Württemberger

• Yorkshire Coach Horse

• probably several others

Every one of these (only a small percentage of the horse breed articles) has exactly the same kind of adjectival, potentially ambiguous breed name, and is either followed by "Horse"/"Pony" capitalized or by nothing, while the majority of the horse (and other animal, including donkey) breed articles, which usually also have potentially-ambiguous adjectival breed names, are instead at names like Retuerta horse, American Indian horse, Australian Draught horse, and Western Sudan pony. Many of the ones on this expanded list should be uncontroversial to move such that they ended with lower-case "horse" or "pony", while others evidently would raise an issue for some people, in ways that perhaps the nominator can explain. Regardless, they need to be considered in light of the extant discussion, as its outcome will affect them either way. Counting non-horse articles, e.g. on breeds of cats, dogs, goats, sheep, pigs, cattle, chickens, ducks, turkeys, pigeons, etc., etc., many hundreds of articles could end up having the species/type name capitalized along with the breed name; most of them presently are lower case (and always have been; most of my recent moves have been to fix parenthetical disambiguations to use natural disambiguation, per WP:AT). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

 * I guess this doesn't make any sense to me. Some breed names include Horse or Pony some do not. We don't get to homogenize the breed name to suit Wikipedia. We need to note the definitive source for the breed name, probably the breed standard site and that is what we go with. Unless I misunderstand, you are trying to create some consistency on Wikipedia with horse breed names. That is not what we have license to do. We use the source and this case there is for many horse breeds, a definitive source.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC))
 * See this previous debate which relied on the same argument you are making and resolved to use lower case. Reliable sources on facts about breed traits and history are not reliable sources on how WP should title articles and style them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That was a sad "debate" with a sad outcome, leaving many people unhappy ad some even leaving, - we don't need more of the kind, it's possibly the worst example you could find, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Can we not overwhelm the discussion with acres of talk page posts, please? There is no need to reply to every single post with the same information over and over again. You've made the points, others have made their points, belaboring the points isn't helpful to other readers who might want to weigh in. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's entirely normal for RMs and RfCs to have "Discussion" sections below the !voting for longer material; the entire point is to keep the longer material out of the !votes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've collapsed these long sections, which are red herrings that take us off track.  This discussion should focus on what's here, the point I think that SMcCandlish is promoting (correct me if I'm wrong), is basically that SMcCandlish wants a hard and fast rule that "horse" or "pony" must always be lower case, regardless of any other rule, no matter what, and possibly that sentence case should be used for absolutely every single animal breed articles on Wikipedia, regardless of any other rule or tradition.  If that's the argument, I oppose it. (If it's not, then are there some exceptions?)  Our article titles already demonstrate that we mostly go along with sentence case, but that there are a few exceptions.  Montanabw (talk)  16:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't get to repeat your argument while preventing me from allegedly repeating my argument (I actually presented four different arguments all of which can be separately addressed; if you and the rest of the equine project would rather hide them than address them, that looks a lot like conceding). I've uncollapsed the discussion points. No one will discuss them if they're hidden, and at least one other editor has been trying, so you're censoring others besides me.  The article titles do  demonstrate that the horse articles are mostly following sentence case; the list you're trying to hide proves that this is far from the case, and the entire category is a confused mess.  Finally, I never said there could be no exceptions; I'm arguing that you're not making any kind of clear case that these are exceptions.  If you are convinced that few if any of the longer list of articles would be effected by the outcome of this debate, then let's move all of them to lower-case "horse" and "pony" right now.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * SMc, I'm arguing for the exceptions here, to the ones you moved. The rest of this discussion needs to move to WikiProject Equine.  Montanabw (talk)  04:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem not to understand that you have to wait for the discussion to be closed, and until the discussion is closed, article names have to be the way they were before it started. You should never have moved without a discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sooo, indeed. Well. Bolonese...dog, Armant dog... Hm, same editor, no consensus. And one more, Akbash dog Akita dog, Barbet dog, Billy dog????  this sounds plain silly - and no consensus just somebody acting. The breed is called Akita, not Akita dog, Bolonese, not Bolonese dog, Akbash and not Akbash dog... This is just silly. Billy dog, right... I certainly didn't see any discussion about re-naming. This will be a matter for Dog task forces, asap. You should never have moved without a discussion. Hafspajen (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I just saw the changes to dog breeds and am quite alarmed by these changes which besides lacking consensus as you point out is just inaccurate. The breed is Akita not Akita dog and so on as you point out. Not sure what to do about this.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC))
 * Sigh. Also cattles, and pigs are mass-moved. Hafspajen (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Cats, ducks, turkeys, pigeons and goats too. The full list is here. Some of those moves are good and for valid reasons; some are not. In my opinion, not one of them should have been made without discussion. I'd suggest notifying the other various WikiProjects of this discussion as a first step to sorting this out (Agriculture, Birds, Cats, Dogs, which others?). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Things are getting out of hands. AND, there is no such thing as Billy dog. Is that a dog called Billy or Bill what? Just look at the article, the BREED is called Billy. Hafspajen (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Gosh, this is a real nightmare, this list. Like move Przewalski's Horse to Przewalski's horse... What Przewalski's horse?? His own horse he use to ride, Lucky, Cocoa, Duke or Misty or what? Przewalski's Horse is CALLED Przewalski's Horse. Man, what a mess. Hafspajen (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

OH DEAR GOD IN HEAVEN DON'T BRING THAT ISSUE HERE!!!!' The standard is really very simple:  If there is no other WP:PRIMARY, then use the official name (i.e. Appaloosa). Where there is another primary use or no clear use, then use WP:NATURAL disambiguation. (i.e. Andalusian horse, Andalusian donkey). Where there is a naming issue, use parentheses (i.e. Secretariat (horse). Where there is a capitalization or other naming dispute, as here, then go to the talk page of the article in question argue about it for six months, get a couple people banned for edit-warring, and whoever is still standing at the end gets to do it their way. At least, that seems to be how it works. :-P  Montanabw (talk)  21:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

 * Przewalski's Horse to Przewalski's horse? It is hardly appropiate. We will se what we will do with the others - Justlettersandnumbers is QUITE right, notifying the other various WikiProjects of this discussion as a first step to sorting this out ... I think that was a very good suggestion. Hafspajen (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

 * Hafspajen, one crisis at a time please. Title case versus sentence case capitalization of breed names is way bigger than the issue here; I am merely trying to preserve a few names that unambiguously (I thought) need title case.    Montanabw (talk)  22:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

 * Yes. You are a horse editor. I am a member of the WikiProject Dogs/Dog breeds task force. This is crisis enought for me. Hafspajen (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Understand your reluctance. However, McCandlish moved something like 400 articles. Many more than those listed above were mistaken moves for exactly the same reason. I've already mentioned Esperia Pony (not currently at that title) above, and I'm sure there are many others; and I agree with that Przewalski's Horse falls into the same category - you can't talk about a "Przewalski's", so the word "Horse" is part of the name, exactly as argued for the APH. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree, it's just that the problem is SMC is taking the opposite extreme, is absolutely vicious to anyone who disagrees with him (in spite of an Arbcom decision telling him not to) and has apparently already destroyed the birds project, running off multiple editors. Until the broader issue of Sentence case capitalization in article titles versus Title Case capitalization is dealt with wiki-wide, (as well as the fate of tendentious bullies) this issue will never go away. I'm just trying to keep my foot wedged in the door to keep it from being slammed shut completely (ouch!).  It's going to take an army to deal with the Title Case capitalization issue across all the animal articles and I for one cannot do it alone. And Hafspajen's issue is actually parenthetical disambiguation versus natural disambiguation and that isn't the issue on this page.  Montanabw (talk)  18:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, too late now. Anyway, move that issue too Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs. And thanks for all good advices, everybody who gave some. Very useful. Hafspajen (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Related RM
I started Talk:Przewalski's_horse, since "horse" is also part of that breed name. There is a very small percentage of horse breeds with "horse" in the name, there should be only a few breeds left to move. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a species not a breed. Not even relevant.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's discuss that over there, not over here.  Montanabw (talk)  19:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's right. My mistake. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

"Painted pony"
The term painted pony is very common. While it generally refers to American Paint Horse, it has additional connotations. Should there be a redirect: Painted pony → American Paint Horse ? --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:150C:B1E3:96E3:3390 (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on American Paint Horse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080906232801/http://www.apha.com/breed/colorreq.html to http://www.apha.com/breed/colorreq.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090122072123/http://www.apha.com/breed/coatcolors.html to http://www.apha.com/breed/coatcolors.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081026125923/http://www.apha.com/breed/lethalwhites03.html to http://www.apha.com/breed/lethalwhites03.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:American Paint Horse


text:
National Foundation Day (Korea)

Gaecheonjeol is a public holiday in South Korea on 3 October. Also known by the English name National Foundation Day, this holiday celebrates the legendary formation of the first Korean state of Gojoseon in 2333 BC. This date has traditionally been regarded by Koreans as the date for the founding of the Korean race.

Gaecheonjeol is also recognized in North Korea, although not as a public holiday, with an annual ceremony at the Mausoleum of Tangun, the founder of Gojoseon.

Origin
Gae-cheon ("Opening of Heaven") refers to 3 October 2457 BCE, the date when Hwanung (환웅) descended from heaven to live with mankind.

The harvest ceremony was celebrated in the Korean realms; Yeonggo (영고, 迎鼓) of Buyeo; Mucheon (무천, 舞天) of Yemaek; Gyeeum (계음, 契飮) of Mahan and Byeonhan; Dongmaeng (동맹, 東盟) of Goguryeo; and Palgwanhoe (팔관회, 八關會) of Silla.

In 1909, Gaecheonjeol was established as a national holiday. At first, the holiday was observed on the third day of the 10th month on the lunar calendar, but it has been fixed on 3 October of the solar Gregorian calendar since 1949.

History
On 15 January 1909, when Daejongism reopened its gate with Nachul at the center, it was established as a celebration day and celebrated every year. Events like this contributed to fostering the spirit of the Korean people under the pressure of Japanese colonial rule.

When the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea was established in 1919, the provisional government established 3 October of the lunar calendar as a national holiday. This is based on the universal perception of history, which saw Dangun as the founder of the Hankyoreh at the time and Gojoseon as the first nation of the Korean people.

Following the establishment of the Republic of Korea after Korea's liberation from Japanese colonial rule, the Dangungiwon (단군기원, 檀君紀元), or dan-gi (단기, 檀紀), was enacted as the official calendar of the nation in the "Act on official calendars" on 25 September 1948. On 1 October 1949, the "Act on National Day of celebration" was enacted and the date of the third lunar month was designated as the Gaecheonjeol. Since it was originally a lunar calendar, it had been used as a lunar calendar even after the establishment of the Korean government, but after the deliberation of the "Deliberation Council regarding the change of celebrations of gaecheonjeol from the lunar calendar to the solar calendar," which was appointed by the Culture and Education Ministry in 1949, it changed the lunar calendar into a solar calendar and became a great practice as it was said that the records of 3 October were precious.

On the other hand, Daejongism believes that the original meaning of the word "Gaecheon" is not Dangun's founding day, but the third day of the lunar month of October 2457 BC, when Hwanung opened the sky gate and came down below Sin Dansu, Taebaek Mountain, and began the great work of 'Hongikingan' (弘益人間, translated as "to widely benefit the humans") and 'Yihwasegye' (理化世界, translated as "ruling the word with reason").

National Foundation Day Song
The song was originally sung by people who were believers of Daejongism. After the National Foundation Day becomes as a national holiday, the lyrics were changed as it is sung nowadays.

The lyrics are as follows.

Section 1

우리가 물이라면 새암이 있고 If we are water, we would have a fountain that we originated from.

우리가 나무라면 뿌리가 있다. If we are a tree, there must be our roots that we originate from.

이 나라 한아버님은 단군이시니 The great father of this country is dangun (implying their root and fountain is dangun).

이 나라 한아버님은 단군이시니 The great father of this country is dangun.

Section 2

백두산 높은 터에 부자요 부부 In the high place of Mountain Paekdu a father (hwanin) gave mysterious thing to his son (hwanung).

성인의 자취 따라 하늘이 텄다. Following the traces of a saint,the heaven has opened.

이날이 시월 상달에 초사홀이니 Since this is the first three days of October that is a harvest month.

이날이 시월 상달에 초사홀이니 Since this is the first three days of October that is a harvest month.

Section 3

오래다 멀다해도 줄기는 하나 The stem is still one, even though it was a long time ago.

다시 필 단쪽잎에 삼천리 곱다 The sandalwood leaves that will bloom again would be beautiful from 3000 li.

잘 받아 빛내오리다 맹세하노니 I swear i would receive it (the stem or the beauty of dangun) and make you (probs dangun) shine.

잘 받아 빛내오리다 맹세하노니 I swear i would receive it (the stem or the beauty of dangun) and make you (probs dangun) shine.

Summarize
Gaecheonjeol is a public holiday in South and North Korea on 3 October. Also known by the English name National Foundation Day, this holiday celebrates the legendary formation of the first Korean state of Gojoseon in 2333 BC. This date has traditionally been regarded as the date for the founding of the Korean people. Although not as a public holiday, with an annual ceremony at the Mausoleum of Tangun, the founder of Gojoseon. The word “개천절” has a specific meaning which widely benefits humans and ruling the world with reason. National holidays can be defined as those commemorations that a nation's government has deemed important enough to warrant inclusion in the list of official public holidays. They tend to honor a person or event that has been critical in the development of the nation and its identity. Such people and events usually reflect values and traditions shared by a large portion of the citizenry.

When the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea was established in 1919, the provisional government established 3 October of the lunar calendar as a national holiday. After the deliberation of the "Deliberation Council regarding the change of celebrations of gaecheonjeol (개천절) from the lunar calendar to the solar calendar," which was appointed by the Culture and Education Ministry in 1949, it changed the lunar calendar into a solar calendar and became a great practice as it was said that the records of 3 October were precious. There is also a song that was originally sung by people who were believers of Daejongism. After National Foundation Day became a national holiday, the lyrics were changed as it is sung nowadays. Also, the holiday is similar to many holidays around the world in that it is celebrated with huge displays of fireworks. In Seoul, it always takes place in Yeouido Han River Park, and crowds of people will gather there to watch the fireworks on that day. Each year of the day, a ceremony to honor Tangun is held at the Chamseongdan altar at the summit of Mt. Manisan. This altar is said to have been built by Tangun and is a legendary place of worship and sacrifice favored by ancient kings during Korean history.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: National Foundation Day (Korea)


text:
Talk:Omurtag of Bulgaria

Untitled
According to a recent academic argument, Omortag or Omurtag (in Bulgarian) was not necessarily someone persecuting the Christian faith but particular forms of it. It is also worth mentioning that some of the stone inscriptions from his rule bear crosses surrounding his name...

Kavkhan
From the text it looks like special title and I was unable to decide on right dab on Khan page. Please, could somebody with good knowledge of the subject take care about that? --Ruziklan (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The Title of Omurtag
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omurtag_of_Bulgaria#/media/File:Omurtag10_svik.jpg

Here is clearly written his title and name, even a little distorted "kanas bigom" - "Knyaz s Bogom" (from a person, who does not knows Bulgarian, it sounds exactly like this. The meaning is "A Ruler from Bog" and it is clearly understood even today. --212.5.158.246 (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. On six inscriptions by the khan Omurtag is clearly written, more or less distorted, title kana sybigi (in modern writing kanasubigi). Etymologically it has nothing to do with Slavic title "Knyaz" and Slavic term for deity "Bog", however, one of the theories does consider similar Indo-European interpretation of sybigi from su- and baga meaning "(ruler) from God".--Crovata (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Omurtag of Bulgaria. 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/20111004090202/http://www.history.kemsu.ru/oldversion/ISV/1bolg.htm to http://www.history.kemsu.ru/oldversion/ISV/1bolg.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Omurtag of Bulgaria


text:
Fontana dei Quattro Fiumi

Fontana dei Quattro Fiumi (Fountain of the Four Rivers) is a fountain in the Piazza Navona in Rome, Italy. It was designed in 1651 by Gian Lorenzo Bernini for Pope Innocent X whose family palace, the Palazzo Pamphili, faced onto the piazza as did the church of Sant'Agnese in Agone of which Innocent was the sponsor.

Description
The base of the fountain is a basin from the centre of which travertine rocks rise to support four river gods and above them, a copy of an Egyptian obelisk surmounted with the Pamphili family emblem of a dove with an olive twig. Collectively, they represent four major rivers of the four continents through which papal authority had spread: the Nile representing Africa, the Danube representing Europe, the Ganges representing Asia, and the Río de la Plata representing the Americas.

Design
Bernini's design was selected in competition. The circumstances of his victory are described as follows in Filippo Baldinucci's The life of Cavaliere Bernini (1682): "So strong was the sinister influence of the rivals of Bernini on the mind of Innocent that when he planned to set up in Piazza Navona the great obelisk brought to Rome by the Emperor Caracalla, which had been buried for a long time at Capo di Bove for the adornment of a magnificent fountain, the Pope had designs made by the leading architects of Rome without an order for one to Bernini. Prince Niccolò Ludovisi, whose wife was niece to the pope, persuaded Bernini to prepare a model, and arrange for it to be secretly installed in a room in the Palazzo Pamphili that the Pope had to pass. When the meal was finished, seeing such a noble creation, he stopped almost in ecstasy. Being prince of the keenest judgment and the loftiest ideas, after admiring it, said: "This is a trick … It will be necessary to employ Bernini in spite of those who do not wish it, for he who desires not to use Bernini’s designs, must take care not to see them.""

Public fountains in Rome served multiple purposes: first, they were highly needed sources of water for neighbors in the centuries prior to home plumbing. Second, they were monuments to the papal patrons. Earlier Bernini fountains had been the Fountain of the Triton in Piazza Barberini, the Fountain of the Moor in the southern end of Piazza Navona erected during the Barberini papacy, and the Neptune and Triton for Villa Peretti Montalto, whose statuary now resides at Victoria and Albert Museum in London.

Each has animals and plants that further carry forth identification, and each carries a certain number of allegories and metaphors with it. The Ganges carries a long oar, representing the river's navigability. The Nile's head is draped with a loose piece of cloth, meaning that no one at that time knew exactly where the Nile's source was. The Danube touches the Pope's personal coat of arms, since it is the large river closest to Rome. And the Río de la Plata is sitting on a pile of coins, a symbol of the riches America could offer to Europe (the word plata means "silver" in Spanish). Also, the Río de la Plata looks scared by a snake, showing rich men's fear that their money could be stolen. Each is a river god, semi-prostrate, in awe of the central tower, epitomized by the slender Egyptian obelisk, symbolizing Papal power surmounted by the Pamphili symbol (dove). In addition, the fountain is a theater in the round, a spectacle of action, that can be strolled around. Water flows and splashes from a jagged and pierced mountainous disorder of travertine marble. A legend, common with tour-guides, is that Bernini covered the head of the Nile as if the sculpture couldn't bear to look at the facade of the church of Sant'Agnese by his rival Borromini; in reality, the fountain was completed several years before Borromini began work on the church.

The obelisk, made of Aswan granite, has an interesting history. It is connected with the emperor Domitian, and was originally thought to have come from the Serapeum, which the emperor rebuilt in A.D. 80. However, it is equally plausible that the obelisk might have originated from the Temple of the Gens Flavia on the Quirinal Hill, built by Domitian dedicated to his family cult. The hieroglyphic inscriptions on the obelisk were of Roman authorship, offering a hymn to Domitian, and the deified emperors Vespasian and Titus, possibly on the occasion of something being restored. In the fourth century, the obelisk was relocated to the Circus of the emperor Maxentius, located between the Church of St. Sebastian and the tomb of Cecilia Metella along the Appian Way, where it was found and moved to the Fountain. The circus – as well as the nearby villa and mausoleum – was first believed to be attributed to the emperor Caracalla, until excavations carried out by Antonio Nibby in 1825, in which an inscription identifying the ownership of the site was found. At each of the four sites of the obelisk is a tablet, containing Athanasius Kircher's translation into Latin of its hieroglyphs.

Bernini's design was influenced by the design of the Monument of the Four Moors (Monumento dei Quattro mori) and it may have also been influenced by a fountain in Marino, Lazio which was constructed to commemorate the defeat of the Ottomans at Lepanto in 1571. This fountain was the inspiration to Francesco Robba (1698–1757) for the Robba fountain, which stands (since 2006 as a replica) at Town Square in Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia. It is one of the city's most recognisable symbols.

The dynamic fusion of architecture and sculpture made this fountain revolutionary when compared to prior Roman projects, such as the stilted designs Acqua Felice and Paola by Domenico Fontana in Piazza San Bernardo (1585–87) or the customary embellished geometric floral-shaped basin below a jet of water such as the Fontanina in Piazza Campitelli (1589) by Giacomo della Porta. According to Simon Schama, "At that time it was surely the greatest water spectacle in any urban space in Europe."

Unveiling
The Fontana dei Quattro Fiumi was unveiled to the populace of Rome on 12 June 1651. According to a report from the time, an event was organised to draw people to the Piazza Navona. Beforehand, wooden scaffolding, overlaid with curtains, had hidden the fountain, though probably not the obelisk, which would have given people an idea that something was being built, but the precise details were unknown. Once unveiled, the full majesty of the fountain would be apparent, which the celebrations were designed to advertise. The festival was paid for by the Pamphili family, to be specific, Innocent X, who had sponsored the erection of the fountain. The most conspicuous item on the Pamphili coat of arms, an olive branch, was brandished by the performers who took part in the event.

The author of the report, Antonio Bernal, takes his readers through the hours leading up to the unveiling. The celebrations were announced by a woman, dressed as the allegorical character of Fame, being paraded around the streets of Rome on a carriage or float. She was sumptuously dressed, with wings attached to her back and a long trumpet in her hand. Bernal notes that "she went gracefully through all the streets and all the districts that are found among the seven hills of Rome, often blowing the round bronze [the trumpet], and urging everyone to make their way to that famous Piazza." A second carriage followed her; this time another woman was dressed as the allegorical figure of Curiosity. According to the report, she continued exhorting the people to go towards the piazza. Bernal describes the clamour and noise of the people as they discussed the upcoming event.

The report is actually less detailed about the process of publicly unveiling the fountain. However, it does give ample descriptions of the responses of the spectators who had gathered in the Piazza. Once there, Bernal notes, the citizens of the city were overwhelmed by the massive fountain, with its huge lifelike figures. The report mentions the "enraptured souls" of the population, the fountain, which "gushes out a wealth of silvery treasures" causing "no little wonder" in the onlookers. Bernal then continues to describe the fountain, making continuous reference to the seeming naturalism of the figures and its astonishing effect on those in the piazza. The making of the fountain was met by opposition by the people of Rome for several reasons. First, Innocent X had the fountain built at public expense during the intense famine of 1646–48. Throughout the construction of the fountain, the city murmured and talk of riot was in the air. Pasquinade writers protested against the construction of the fountain in September 1648 by attaching hand-written invectives on the stone blocks used to make the obelisk. These pasquinades read, "We do not want Obelisks and Fountains, it is bread that we want. Bread, Bread, Bread!" Innocent quickly had the authors arrested, and disguised spies patrol the Pasquino statue and Piazza Navona.

The street vendors of the market also opposed the construction of the fountain, as Innocent X expelled them from the piazza. The Pamphili pope believed they detracted from the magnificence of the square. The vendors refused to move, and the papal police had to chase them from the piazza. Roman Jews, in particular, lamented the closing of the Navona, since they had been allowed to sell used articles of clothing there at the Wednesday market.

title: Fontana dei Quattro Fiumi


text:
Alexander Anderson McHardy

Major-General Alexander Anderson McHardy, 9 November 1868 – 11 November 1958) was a British Army officer and Scout.

Career
McHardy was the son of Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Alexander Burness McHardy and Elsie Norrie Anderson. He was married to Lilian Amy McHardy in 1904.

He was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Royal Artillery on 17 February 1888, and promoted to lieutenant on 17 February 1891. Serving in the campaign on the North West Frontier of India in 1897–98, he was with the Malakand Field Force and was present in the engagement at Landakai and in the operations in Bajaur and in the Mamund Country; then with the Buner Field Force including the capture of the Tanga pass; for which he received the medal with clasp. Promotion to captain followed on 17 August 1898. He served in the Second Boer War in South Africa 1899–1900 as a Divisional Signalling Officer 5th Infantry Division, and was later appointed Deputy Assistant Adjutant General for intelligence for South Africa. He was mentioned in despatches (including the final despatch by Lord Kitchener dated 23 June 1902 ), and received the Distinguished Service Order (DSO) for his service. Following the end of the war in South Africa, he returned to the Royal Garrison Artillery in July 1902.

McHardy was the first Colony Commissioner of the Boy Scout Association, Hong Kong Branch in 1914 and 1915. He then went to France and participated in World War I. He was made a Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George (CMG).

Honours and awards

 * Companion of the Order of the Bath (CB) London Gazette 1 January 1918 page 2 King's New Year's Honours List for Distinguished service in France.
 * Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George (CMG) London Gazette 3 June 1916 page 5559 King's Birthday Honours List for Distinguished Service in France.
 * Distinguished Service Order (DSO) for Distinguished Services in South Africa.
 * Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE) London Gazette 9 January 1946 page 298 (“Lt General Alexander Anderson McHardy, CB, CMG, DSO, lately Air Raid Precautions Area Sub Controller, Norfolk”.)

 * Mentioned in Despatches

 * London Gazette 8 February 1901 page 978 (South Africa)
 * London Gazette 8 February 1901 page 381 (South Africa)
 * London Gazette 29 July 1902 page 4840 (South Africa)
 * London Gazette 22 February 1915 page 5978 (French, France)
 * London Gazette 15 June 1916 page 5921 (Haig, France)
 * London Gazette 4 January 1917 page 199 (Haig, France)
 * London Gazette 15 May 1917 page 4750 (Haig, France)
 * London Gazette 11 December 1917 page 12917 (Haig, France)
 * London Gazette 20 December 1918 page 14931 (Haig, France)
 * London Gazette 5 July 1919 page 8496 (Haig, France)

 * Foreign Decorations

 * Belgium Order of Leopold 4th Class London Gazette 7 February 1921 page 1037
 * France Croix De Guerre London Gazette 7 June 1919 page 7398
 * France Order of Agricultural Merit Commander London Gazette 7 October 1919 page 12408

title: Alexander Anderson McHardy


text: User talk:70.189.107.126

title: User talk:70.189.107.126


text:
Talk:Bertil Wedin

Biography assessment rating comment
WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 20:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
On the edit history page, User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters suggests—perfectly reasonably—from reading the TRC decision, that the ANC bombing was aimed at property destruction. However, this is not the case: see Craig_Williamson. The target was ANC president Oliver Tambo. Phase1 17:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, I admit that I really hope Category:Terrorists goes away altogether, since it's inherently POV (it's a pejorative, not a description). Still, as long as it does exist, we have a couple evidentiary requirements for inclusion:
 * The intent to kill Tambo should be evidenced on the Wedil page itself, not merely be something that someone might know from other places. Category membership needs to flow out of the page content, not be some unstated background knowledge.
 * An attempt to assassinate Tambo is obviously a bad thing. But an assassination (which Wedil is guilty of either way) is not really the same thing as "terrorism".  Targetting a specific political leader is certainly deplorable, but it's not the same as instilling a general background fear in a civilian population.
 * Is there a Category:Assassins? That would seem much more fitting for Wedin. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Wedin's boss, Craig Williamson, has admitted assassinations and bombings so he is categorized "assassin" and "terrorist". Wedin has been acquitted of burglarizing the PAC office in London. He has not even been charged with murder (of Olof Palme) or attempted murder (of Oliver Tambo) so it is not correct to describe him as an assassin. I know you have problems with the Category:Terrorists (vide Categories for deletion page) but I have no such hang-ups: therefore Wedin is a terrorist.Phase1 21:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The category page says:
 * ...individuals included in this category should have admitted to, or endorsed, violence against civilians in a terrorist logic, or at least the use of terrorist tactics should be well-documented and undisputed.
 * From what I can see in the article, Wedin has not admitted to the acts you would characterize as terrorist, nor is his involvement "undisputed." And the London bombing is alleged to be an attempted assassination, which is not quite "terrorism." Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

 * "Undisputed" implies Wedin has been accused/charged and has declined to dispute the accusation/charge. The fact is that he is a "suspected" terrorist. That should be enough to qualify him for the accolade.Phase1 22:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

 * But in the interview in the article itself, it says that Wedin "disputes" the allegations. And he hasn't been convicted of anything.  My hunch, from the limited info I have, is that Wedin is probably guilty of some pretty terrible things.  But an editor's hunch that someone is a terrorist shouldn't be enough to classify them so.  And even there, "assassin" (attempted or successful) is much closer to the hunch anyway.

 * FWIW, looking at your edit history, I'm sure you know a lot more about this topic than I do. The truth is that I was only attracted to the page to try to eliminate over-categorized people (but not generically; even though I think the category is pejorative rather than factual, I did not remove names where the article seemed to support the category criteria, even though I'd rather have a less POV category name).  I just haven't seen the supporting evidence that Wedin fits the category criteria (in a way that meets WP:V, not WP:Hunch. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * OK. So, let me see, what evidence fits seamlessly into the category criteria for Osama bin Laden?Phase1 01:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Frankly, I want to remove that membership too. But there will be a lot more proponents of "commentary by categorization" over at the more famous figure.  Not to say I won't check that more thoroughly later.  Still, some of the names in the category describe the person in the lead as "well-known terrorist" or the like.  While that characterization may not stand up to WP:NPOV and/or WP:V, it has persumably survived some rounds of editing, so has a certain presumption in favor (and no, just adding the word retroactively to the Wedin article doesn't do the same thing).

 * All that said, the case for bin Laden categorization is far better than for Wedin. bin Laden has made quite public statements saying "I support these acts of violence".  Wedin, on the other hand, has publicly said "I had nothing to do with those acts".  Sure, Wedin is probably lying, but that's the difference between undisputed and disputed. For that matter, I haven't attempted to uncat Williamson either; the evidence there is much better. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I very much agree with this analysis of the problem, which seems to be generally applicable. Suggest Wedin is revisited once the result of the current CfD debate is known.Phase1 09:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The CfD on the Terrorist category is going to fail, to my disappointment. But that's irrelevant to anything I wrote on this talk page.  All my objections here are premised on the category existing; given that it exists, Wedin does not fit the stated criteria based on what is in evidence in the article.  Whether bin Laden does or not is a matter to be discussed on the corresponding talk page. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 15:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Unsourced
Seek and ye shall find, Arre!Phase1 22:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Seek what, sources? There is no single source now, so of course it is "unsourced"? About the intro, it should be noted that blaming Wedin for the Palme assassination is not common. True or not, it is a fringe opinion that is almost universally considered a conspiracy theory in Sweden. Arre 02:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this response. The three "External links" for the article sourced the accusation against Wedin. I accept what you say about a "single source" however and have revised the intro to identify Wedin's accuser, Peter Caselton, as well as to provide a link specifically for this accusation. As for Sweden considering it a conspiracy theory, so does the Olof Palme article – Conspiracy theories: South Africa connection.Phase1 13:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * okay. the new intro is fine with me. Arre 03:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Bertil Wedin. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.anc.org.za/anc/newsbrief/1996/news1005
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060107113439/http://www.contrast.org:80/truth/html/olof_palme.html to http://www.contrast.org/truth/html/olof_palme.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bertil Wedin


text: User talk:68.37.231.29

title: User talk:68.37.231.29


text:
Larmor formula

In electrodynamics, the Larmor formula is used to calculate the total power radiated by a nonrelativistic point charge as it accelerates. It was first derived by J. J. Larmor in 1897, in the context of the wave theory of light.

When any charged particle (such as an electron, a proton, or an ion) accelerates, energy is radiated in the form of electromagnetic waves. For a particle whose velocity is small relative to the speed of light (i.e., nonrelativistic), the total power that the particle radiates (when considered as a point charge) can be calculated by the Larmor formula: $$ P = \frac{2}{3} \frac{q^2}{ 4 \pi \varepsilon_0 c} \left(\frac{\dot v}{c}\right)^2 = {2 \over 3} \frac{q^2 a^2}{ 4 \pi \varepsilon_0 c^3}= \frac{q^2 a^2}{6 \pi \varepsilon_0 c^3} = \mu_0 \frac{q^2 a^2}{6 \pi c} \text{ (SI units)} $$ $$ P = \frac{2}{3} \frac{q^2 a^2}{ c^3} \text{ (cgs units)} $$ where $$ \dot v $$ or $$ a $$ is the proper acceleration, $$ q $$ is the charge, and $$ c $$ is the speed of light. A relativistic generalization is given by the Liénard–Wiechert potentials.

In either unit system, the power radiated by a single electron can be expressed in terms of the classical electron radius and electron mass as: $$ P = \frac{2}{3} \frac{m_e r_e a^2}{c} $$

One implication is that an electron orbiting around a nucleus, as in the Bohr model, should lose energy, fall to the nucleus and the atom should collapse. This puzzle was not solved until quantum theory was introduced.

Derivation 1: Mathematical approach (using CGS units)
We first need to find the form of the electric and magnetic fields. The fields can be written (for a fuller derivation see Liénard–Wiechert potential) $$\mathbf{E}(\mathbf{r},t) = q\left(\frac{\mathbf{n}-\boldsymbol{\beta}}{\gamma^2(1 - \boldsymbol{\beta} \cdot \mathbf{n})^3 R^2}\right)_{\text{ret}} + \frac{q}{c}\left(\frac{\mathbf{n}\times[(\mathbf{n}-\boldsymbol{\beta})\times\dot{\boldsymbol{\beta}}]}{(1-\boldsymbol{\beta}\cdot\mathbf{n})^3R}\right)_{\text{ret}}$$ and $$ \mathbf{B} = \mathbf{n}\times\mathbf{E}, $$ where $$\boldsymbol{\beta}$$ is the charge's velocity divided by $$c$$, $$\dot{\boldsymbol{\beta}}$$ is the charge's acceleration divided by $c$, $$\mathbf{n}$$ is a unit vector in the $$ \mathbf{r} - \mathbf{r}_0 $$ direction, $$R$$ is the magnitude of $$\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{r}_0$$, $$\mathbf{r}_0$$ is the charge's location, and $$ \gamma = (1 - \beta^2 )^{-1/2} $$. The terms on the right are evaluated at the retarded time $$t_\text{r} = t - R/c$$.

The right-hand side is the sum of the electric fields associated with the velocity and the acceleration of the charged particle. The velocity field depends only upon $$\boldsymbol{\beta}$$ while the acceleration field depends on both $$\boldsymbol{\beta}$$ and $$\dot{\boldsymbol{\beta}}$$ and the angular relationship between the two. Since the velocity field is proportional to $$1/R^2$$, it falls off very quickly with distance. On the other hand, the acceleration field is proportional to $$1/R$$, which means that it falls off more slowly with distance. Because of this, the acceleration field is representative of the radiation field and is responsible for carrying most of the energy away from the charge.

We can find the energy flux density of the radiation field by computing its Poynting vector: $$\mathbf{S} = \frac{c}{4\pi}\mathbf{E}_\text{a}\times\mathbf{B}_\text{a},$$ where the 'a' subscripts emphasize that we are taking only the acceleration field. Substituting in the relation between the magnetic and electric fields and simplifying gives, in the non-relativistic case, $$\mathbf{S} = \frac{q^2}{4\pi c}\left|\frac{\mathbf{n}\times(\mathbf{n}\times\dot{\boldsymbol{\beta}})}{R}\right|^2 \mathbf{n} .$$

If we let the angle between the acceleration and the observation vector be equal to $$\theta$$, and we introduce the acceleration $$\mathbf{a} = \dot{\boldsymbol{\beta}} c$$, then the power radiated per unit solid angle is $$\frac{\mathrm{d}P}{\mathrm{d}\Omega} = \frac{q^2}{4\pi c}\frac{\sin^2(\theta)\, a^2}{c^2}.$$

The total power radiated is found by integrating this quantity over all solid angles (that is, over $$\theta$$ and $$\phi$$). This gives $$P = \frac{2}{3}\frac{q^2 a^2}{c^3},$$ which is the Larmor result for a nonrelativistic accelerated charge. It relates the power radiated by the particle to its acceleration. It clearly shows that the faster the charge accelerates the greater the radiation will be. We would expect this since the radiation field is dependent upon acceleration.

Covariant form
Written in terms of momentum, $p$, the nonrelativistic Larmor formula is (in CGS units) $$ P = \frac{2}{3}\frac{q^2}{m^2 c^3} |\dot {\mathbf p}|^2.$$

The power $P$ can be shown to be Lorentz invariant. Any relativistic generalization of the Larmor formula must therefore relate $P$ to some other Lorentz invariant quantity. The quantity $$|\dot{\mathbf p}|^2$$ appearing in the nonrelativistic formula suggests that the relativistically correct formula should include the Lorentz scalar found by taking the inner product of the four-acceleration $a^{μ} = dp^{μ}/dτ$ with itself [here $p^{μ} = (γmc, γmv)$ is the four-momentum]. The correct relativistic generalization of the Larmor formula is (in CGS units)

$$

It can be shown that this inner product is given by

$$\frac{dp_{\mu}}{d\tau}\frac{dp^{\mu}}{d\tau} = \beta^2\left(\frac{dp}{d\tau}\right)^2 - \left(\frac{d{\mathbf p}}{d\tau}\right)^2,$$

and so in the limit $β ≪ 1$, it reduces to $$-|\dot{\mathbf p}|^2$$, thus reproducing the nonrelativistic case. Expressed in terms of the Lorentz invariant proper acceleration, the relativistic Larmor power is (in CGS still)

$$

Non-covariant form
The above inner product can also be written in terms of $β$ and its time derivative. Then the relativistic generalization of the Larmor formula is (in CGS units)

$$

This is the Liénard result, which was first obtained in 1898. As $$\beta \rightarrow 1$$ the radiation grows like $$\gamma^6$$, and the particle loses its energy in the form of EM waves. When the acceleration and velocity are orthogonal the power is reduced by a factor of $$1-\beta^2=1/\gamma^2$$.

However, writing the Liénard formula in terms of the velocity gives a misleading implication. In terms of momentum instead of velocity, the Liénard formula for acceleration parallel to the velocity becomes

$$

For acceleration perpendicular to the velocity, the radiated power is $$ This shows that the power emitted for acceleration perpendicular to the velocity is larger by a factor of $$\gamma^2$$ than the power for acceleration parallel to the velocity.

Angular distribution
The angular distribution of radiated power is given by a general formula, applicable whether or not the particle is relativistic. In CGS units, this formula is $$\frac{\mathrm{d}P}{\mathrm{d}\Omega} = \frac{q^2}{4\pi c} \frac{\left|\mathbf{\hat{n}} \times \left[ (\mathbf{\hat{n}} - \boldsymbol{\beta}) \times \dot{\boldsymbol{\beta}} \right] \right|^2}{(1-\mathbf{\hat{n}}\cdot\boldsymbol{\beta})^5},$$ where $$\mathbf{\hat{n}}$$ is a unit vector pointing from the particle towards the observer. In the case of linear motion (velocity parallel to acceleration), this simplifies to $$\frac{\mathrm{d}P}{\mathrm{d}\Omega} = \frac{q^2a^2}{4\pi c^3}\frac{\sin^2 \theta}{(1-\beta \cos\theta)^5},$$ where $$\theta$$ is the angle between the observer and the particle's motion.

Radiation at the present time
In the formulations of Larmor's formula given above, the acceleration is given at the retarded time. This means that any acceleration in the earlier motion of the charged particle could be used in the formula, which makes it essentially undetermined. This difficulty has been resolved by a recent derivation that gives the acceleration in all of the formulas above at the present time.

Radiation reaction
The radiation from a charged particle carries energy and momentum. In order to satisfy energy and momentum conservation, the charged particle must experience a recoil at the time of emission. The radiation must exert an additional force on the charged particle. This force is known as Abraham-Lorentz force while its non-relativistic limit is known as the Lorentz self-force and relativistic forms are known as Lorentz-Dirac force or Abraham-Lorentz-Dirac force. The radiation reaction phenomenon is one of the key problems and consequences of the Larmor formula. According to classical electrodynamics, a charged particle produces electromagnetic radiation as it accelerates. The particle loses momentum and energy as a result of the radiation, which is carrying it away from it. The radiation response force, on the other hand, also acts on the charged particle as a result of the radiation.

The dynamics of charged particles are significantly impacted by the existence of this force. In particular, it causes a change in their motion that may be accounted for by the Larmor formula, a factor in the Lorentz-Dirac equation.

According to the Lorentz-Dirac equation, a charged particle's velocity will be influenced by a "self-force" resulting from its own radiation. Such non-physical behavior as runaway solutions, when the particle's velocity or energy become infinite in a finite amount of time, might result from this self-force.

The Lorentz-Dirac equation's self-force problem has generated a great deal of discussion and study in theoretical physics. Even though the equation has occasionally proved successful in describing the motion of charged particles, it is still a subject of current research.

Atomic physics
The invention of quantum physics, notably the Bohr model of the atom, was able to explain this gap between the classical prediction and the actual reality. The Bohr model proposed that transitions between distinct energy levels, which electrons could only inhabit, might account for the observed spectral lines of atoms. The wave-like properties of electrons and the idea of energy quantization were used to explain the stability of these electron orbits.

The Larmor formula can only be used for non-relativistic particles, which limits its usefulness. The Liénard-Wiechert potential is a more comprehensive formula that must be employed for particles travelling at relativistic speeds. In certain situations, more intricate calculations including numerical techniques or perturbation theory could be necessary to precisely compute the radiation the charged particle emits.

title: Larmor formula


text:
Tin bounds

Tin bounds were an ancient legal arrangement used in the counties of Devon and Cornwall in South West England to encourage the exploitation of land for the extraction of tin.

Tin bounds were created by the miner (or 'bounder') pitching stones or turves at the four corners of the land he intended to work. The bounder was required to declare his bounds to the stannary court and to renew them annually by re-pitching the stones or turves. During the early history of mining, the bounder was also required to actually work the land for tin in order for the bounds to remain valid, although this requirement was diluted over time.

Tin bounds did not confer any rights of ownership over the land, only protection against others mining for tin in the same plot of land. The arrangement applied only to tin, not to other metals or minerals.

The bounder was required to pay the freeholder of the land a portion of the tin extracted. This portion was known as toll tin.

Although tin bounding has never been abolished, the use of tin bounds as the mechanism for permitting and regulating the right to work for tin was later superseded by the use of mining setts.

title: Tin bounds


text:
User talk:Phatsphere

Welcome, but... I've added the "prod" template to the article Double shift key paradoxon, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Double shift key paradoxon. If you remove the dated prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Fram 09:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

 * well yes, i understand your arguments and i thought the same. well maybe i know more about this later --phatsphere 13:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Phatsphere