Talk:Jockey

A potential source for the "needs expansion" tag in the section "Early history of African American jockeys" is this exhibit and book from the Keeneland Library.^[1]   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:12, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

To say it is not undue emphasis is odd, as there is no mention of the history of jockeys in the USA, or for that manner any individual country or ethnic group. My familiarity with horse racing is primarily based in European flat racing, but there doesn't seem to be a reason why this is so notable as to warrant inclusion. Not everything needs to be included in an article. Most articles for other sports don't mention this kind of content either, and the only other sportpersons article I could find doesn't seem to have similar subsections for ethnic groups either. It would probably warrant inclusion on an American jockey article or the article for the Kentucky Derby but on this article seems to be a bit too America-centric. Originalcola (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@Balance person Originalcola (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

It seems like you added extra citations from above without actually adding any content to the section. Originalcola (talk) 10:45, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. The page is about the job of jockey but also about those who do the job. It includes a section on one group who were previously marginalised but now are a little less so, i.e. women jockeys. It is also good to include mention of another group who were quite prominent but who were suddenly marginalised due to segregation law i.e. African American jockeys. I can agree with you about the word 'history' and so will remove that from the sub heading as the point is about representation, or the lack of it, rather than history. I do not care for America-centricism either. But I do care about the inclusion of marginalised groups. Balance person (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I did lay out what i think the core of my argument was in another reply below, but if you wanted to include content on marginalised groups perhaps it would be better to move this content over to the Kentucky Derby article as that would seem a more appropriate place given the sources and the discussion of Kentucky Derby winners being the metric used. Originalcola (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I think it would fit the notability and relevance criteria on that article, but not here. Originalcola (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

To move material on marginalised groups to a page about the Kentucky Derby would be to marginalise the content, by sticking it in a page about one particular horse race. The point of including it here is to build a more accurate picture of jockeys, who they might be thought to be, who they actually are. Balance person (talk) 09:17, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't see the argument that moving the content would marginalize it, at worst it would just be moving it to a different part of an encyclopedia. The Kentucky Derby article is considerably more viewed than this article as well (), so it's not like it's a less prominent article. The argument that [t]he point of including it here is to build a more accurate picture of jockeys seems odd given that African-Americans are underrepresented in US horse racing, and that horse racing in general is quite an international sport. Originalcola (talk) 02:31, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

The topic itself could also probably warrant it's own article; an African-American Jockeys article seems to be likely to pass the general notabilty guidelines as an independent topic.^[1][2][3] Originalcola (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@Originalcola: The USA has a deeply entrenched history of racial discrimination... far more extensive than what most of Europe experienced, so viewing through a European lens could easily obscure its significance in the history of jockeys. What makes this history extraordinary is that Black jockeys didn't just participate in early American racing, they dominated it. Their later exclusion and erasure of their history is, sadly, not surprising. I'd hardly call this bit of jockey history obscure or UNDUE, and including it here doesn't make the article disproportionately America-centric.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:06, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I do think my choice of "obscure" is a tad bit off, but it's clearly not a proportionate share relative to the share in secondary sources. There are hundreds of major G1 races across dozens of countries with with thousands of winners over centuries, any subsection would be undue. Even restricting to major horse racing nations, you still run into the same problem. Should there be mention of Japan Cup or Arima Kinen winners, Arc winners from France, Champion and Derby Stakes from England or Melbourne Cup and Cox Plate winners from Australia? Since the sources mainly relate to horse racing in Kentucky or the South it seems odd to infer global significance that seems to go far beyond what the sources suggest.

As a seperate aside I understand that there was severe racial discrimination in the states in the 19th century and even today, but it's just distateful to compare human misery. Originalcola (talk) 08:21, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@Originalcola: Your objections have repeatedly shifted (other articles don't → America-centric → disproportionate → marginalised groups → move it → distasteful). These lean towards discomfort-based objections rather than policy-based objections. The content covers demographics in a lengthy historical phase in a major racing region (hence WP:DUE), and per WP:CENSOR we don't omit uncomfortable history. The article already contains extensive historical content, including an entire demographic history section on female jockeys, so history is definitely part of this article's scope. The history of jockeying isn't "even" across all countries, so neither is Wikipedia's coverage of it. The content is sourced—it could even be expanded—but it is hardly UNDUE.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:58, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

The distate was towards your remark that racial discrimination in the USA was far more extensive than what most of Europe experienced, so viewing through a European lens could easily obscure its significance in the history of jockeys. I don't appretiate the insinuation that I'm acting in bad faith with some kind of racist motivation to censor history. Originalcola (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@Originalcola: I understand. Your concern is with how you interpreted my framing on the talk page, not with the article content itself. My point was, and is, that no policy-based reason has been presented for removing a sourced section, while objections raised so far have shifted between non-policy rationales. To return to a content-based discussion... the section is supported by reliable secondary sources. It covers a demographic shift in a major racing region, and it fits within the article's existing scope, which already includes substantial demographic-history material (e.g., the extensive section on female jockeys). That makes it squarely within WP:WEIGHT. Unless there is a specific policy-based argument that has not yet been presented, I don't see any basis for removing the section.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:48, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

The existence of secondary sources does not neccesarily mean that something should be included if something is a minor aspect of the topic. Neccesarily giving an individual ethnicity a section would be giving undue weight if no other ethnic group had one. There are plenty of reliable sources going into detail on jockeys of different ethnicities and nationalities, but it go beyond the scope of an article on jockeys to recount the histories of all such notable groups. You stated that [w]hat makes this history extraordinary is that Black jockeys didn't just participate in early American racing, they dominated it. I don't disagree with the sentiment, but it's primacy in this article is rooted due to it's relevance to US racial history as opposed to from an international perspective. It is also just outside the scope of this article, which is meant to be more generally about jockeys than the history of individuals countries. You raise the point that there is an extensive section on female jockeys, but that should also just be spun off. Originalcola (talk) 07:21, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Earlier you mentioned that [t]history of jockeying isn't "even" across all countries, so neither is Wikipedia's coverage of it, but why would that indicate that America should have the greatest focus? The word jockey originated in Britain, as did the modern profession and flat racing which predates the existence of the USA. Steeplechasing originated in Ireland. The Japanese, Australian, and European racing scenes are also similarly important historically. Originalcola (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

It would indeed be good to have sections on jockeys in Japan, Australia, Hong Kong etc. It would fill out the picture. Maybe people will gradually add these over time as the article continues to be expanded and improved. And the extra references below are great. Can they be added? They would be useful for people who want to learn more about the info in that section. Balance person (talk) 08:50, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I think my intial argument was flawed and the content should stay in the article, although I still think it might also warrant it's own article in a bit more depth. I'm not opposed to adding content from those sources. Originalcola (talk) 08:18, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

It would be good to add some kind of mention of quarter-mile racing that was prevalent in the 18th and 19th centuries. Originalcola (talk) 08:19, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Saw the discussion listed at WP:WikiProject Equine. Here's my take on the points raised so far:

• The content about African-American jockeys is encyclopedic.
• If the content is in any way given WP:UNDUE weight, that's more a result of other coverage being a bit lacking than the current coverage being excessive.
• Both African-American and female jockeys would be valid topics for separate articles for more in-depth coverage.
• The female jockey content in particular overwhelms the rest of the article (amounting to over half the word count). The African-American jockey content does not.
• If we split out separate articles, each would still warrant at least a good-sized paragraph here, with a pointer to the dedicated article. The current size of the African-American Jockeys section would not be excessive in that context.
• There might also be some improvements that could be made to organization. For instance, a level-2 heading about underrepresented groups, with female and African-American jockeys as third-level subheads might help with the overall balance of the article.
• The article could indeed benefit from broader worldwide historical perspectives.
• Any deficit in worldwide perspectives should be fixed by adding more content about other regions, not by deleting content about the regions we do cover.

-- Avocado (talk) 12:29, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

A few more sources.

• Rhoden, William C (2006). $40 Million Slaves : The rise, fall, and redemption of the Black athlete. Three Rivers Press. pp. 6, 60, 67ff. ISBN 978-0-307-35314-6. OL 17247717M. [A]s in the case of the black jockeys who dominated horse racing in the late nineteenth century. [...] Black jockeys were legends—and money earners—in the emerging business of horse racing. [...] Though this was not the norm, many of the best black jockeys, like their professional basketball counterparts a century later, earned salaries and enjoyed notoriety unthinkable to fellow African Americans [...] African American jockeys disappeared because of a confluence of powerful forces—owners and trainers who stopped hiring them, white jockeys who ganged up on them, and the Jockey Club that systematically denied the reenlisting of blacks. Black riders became victims of the Jockey Syndrome, or changing the rules to fit a need—the need to maintain control in the face of a perceived challenge to white supremacy. ... In short, the conspicuous success of black jockeys led to their demise.
• • Rockoff, Hugh; Leeds, Michael (22 February 2021). "Jim Crow in the saddle: The expulsion of African American jockeys from American racing". VoxEU. African American jockeys were once a common feature of horseracing in the US. This column uses historical sources and statistical analysis to document the exclusion of Black jockeys in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, despite their proven talent. While the barriers have been lifted in recent years, Black jockeys have been unable to approach the level of performance that had once been commonplace, and horseracing has become another sad example of the legacy of Jim Crow.
  • Rockoff, Hugh; Leeds, Michael (December 2020). "Jim Crow in the saddle: The expulsion of African American jockeys from American racing". National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 28167 (58 pages). doi:10.3386/w28167.
• Hotaling, Edward (1999). The Great Black Jockeys. Forum. p. front jacket flap. ISBN 0761514376. OL 16939241M. More than a century before Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in major league baseball, black athletes were dominating America's first national sport. The sport was horse racing, and the greatest jockeys of all were slaves and the sons of slaves. Cheered by thousands of Americans in the North and South, they rode to victory in all of the major stakes, including the very first Kentucky Derby. Although their glory days ranged from the early 1700s to the turn of the 20th century, the memory of these great black jockeys was erased from history.

  ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:39, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I made an edit to the article that got immediately reverted, which itself is not an issue. The claim that the edit "introduced falsehoods", and the content I had removed was content that was contradicted by the sources. In that edit I changed North America to Southern United States because that's what the sources said: "Horse racing was another popular sport in the antebellum South and one in which slaves participated."^[1] The present claim that refers to the USA rather than North America and has a source directly attributed to the claim, yet the pages cited don't introduce the claim that this was true outside of the South(with each quote from one of the three pages in ascending order):
"As one early authority noted, “training in the South was for the most part in colored hands.”"
"It must have been similar to setups all across Virginia...usually under African American grooms... As for the trainers, most of them were African Americans, too"
"despite the fact that black athletes and black trainers were providing much of the talent, and black grooms much of the labor, behind the biggest national sports festival yet".

I removed mention of the claim of an abrupt stop that not only does not appear in the bulletin article cited, but is contradicted directly by the Keenland source^[2] stating on pg.11 that [d]espite these formidable challenges, many black jockeys...continued to ride. I had added the following line: Under extreme discrimination, most were either forced to find employment in urban areas or moved to Europe to continue their horse racing careers which is just lifted from pg.11 and 28. The quote from "$40 million slaves : the rise, fall, and redemption of the Black athlete" is misleading as the writer attributes the decline to a systematic "Jockey Syndrome" perpetrated by white owners, trainers and jockeys to humiliate black jockeys and remove them from sport as part of a systematic discrimination campaign. On pg 76ff they state that Only since the 1890s, when white jockeys formed “anti-colored” unions and virtually drove black riders off the tracks, had the jockey profession attained its current respectability. The acknowledgment of the jockey’s importance was the beginning of the end for the reign of black riders. By the turn of the twentieth century, black jockeys were being driven out of the industry faster than the mounts they rode. A headline in a Chicago newspaper in 1900 declared: “Race war is on between jockeys at local tracks.” The story began, “Jealous because of the success of so many colored riders, the white boys have taken to desperate measures to put their rivals out of business. Plessy vs. Ferguson is reffered to as a major part of this, but the cause he attributes is different.

I added the claim referring to the black share of top 25 jockeys in 1892, which had been removed and readded without reference to the share being of the top 25 and instead of "top jockey rankings" with a lack of specificicty. Originalcola (talk) 08:15, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@Grorp Originalcola (talk) 08:20, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

To further explain my reversal of your two edits:

1. You had changed "North America" to "Southern United States", which is incorrect for the duration of the 1800s. This already-cited source^[3]—among others that had been cited in this article, and even more that I have read which aren't cited here—clearly showed that Black jockeys of the 1800s were not solely a "Southern American" phenomenon.

2. You had removed the sourced Plessey content.

3. You had duplicated the Gilmore citation without combining them by using a named reference.

4. You first removed a well-formed CS1 citation, then re-added it as a bare-url.

Wikipedia's culture expects editors to handle reverts without taking them personally, accept factual criticism of their edits, not read emotional meaning into neutral or procedural actions, and stay focused on content, not feelings.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 22:25, 14 March 2026 (UTC)