Actually it seems like you’re the one missing the point. But there’s no need to be rude.
The question is whether it’s deceptive to call these horses KWPN. It’s not. All three types are KWPN.
Dutch warmbloods with papers are in the KWPN registry.
Dutch harness horses with papers are in the KWPN registry.
Gelders with papers are in the KWPN registry.
It is not deceptive to call any of the above a “KWPN papered horse.” For whatever reason you and some others on this thread seem to have decided that the term “KWPN” applies/should apply exclusively to Dutch warmbloods but it doesn’t. They might be more common in the US but all three- Dutch warmbloods, Dutch harness horses, and Dutch gelders are all KWPN horses.
The fact that the books are divvied up by discipline is irrelevant. That would matter if the question was “Is it deceptive to call a “Dutch Harness Horse” a “Dutch Warmblood.” I agree with you. That would be deceptive. Because, as you note, the Dutch have divided the KWPN universe of horses into three types by category. Using the wrong category description would be incorrect. Had she said this was a “KWPN Dutch Warmblood” when it actually was a KWPN Dutch Harness Horse” then I’d agree with you. Because that would be misleading. But it’s not wrong or misleading to say any horse, or any type, with KWPN papers is a “KWPN.” It is.
Taking your reasoning to a logical conclusion… let’s say someone is advertising a Dutch Warmblood with KWPN papers and calls that a “KWPN.” By your logic, that’s deceptive. Because that person is using the term “KWPN” as though it exclusively applies to Dutch Warmbloods when it could also apply to Dutch Harnes Horses or Dutch Gelders. The term “KWPN” just means that the horse is in that registry. It neither states nor suggests the TYPE of horse within that registry. Dutch Warmbloods are not the “default” KWPN horses and you have to say otherwise if you don’t mean Dutch Warmblood when you say “KWPN.” Dutch Warmbloods are probably a lot more COMMON as hunter/jumpers (and more common overall) but it doesn’t mean that they’re the default KWPN horses. I actually would venture to guess that where these horses are located geographically, Dutch Harness Horses are more common than Dutch Warmbloods. That article you posted again and again refers to all three types collectives as a “breed.” That reinforces my point.
No one is disputing that KWPN has three different books or good reasons for those books. Or that horses in those books are different. But that’s NOT THE QUESTION. The question is not “Should a DHH be aimed at a hunter/jumper career?” The question is "is it deceptive or a lie to advertise a DHH with KWPN papers as a “‘KWPN papered horse?’” and the answer is that it’s not. It probably plays to a common assumption (that you clearly have and others may as well) but it’s not a lie and it’s not misleading. That is a KWPN horse with KWPN papers even if it’s not the kind of KWPN horse you’re most familiar with or that you like best.
The fact that AHS splits their horses up by mare books and the KWPN by type is irrelevent. The point is that both registries divide their horses up and issue different papers to different groups of horses. It is neither a lie nor misleading to say “this horse has AHS papers” regardless of what book it is in. Similarly it is not a lie or misleading to say “this horse has KWPN papers” regardless of what book it is in. The representation that is being made is that this horse is in the KWPN registry. And it is. There is no representation as to what part of the registry it’s in but you’re reading that into the very term KWPN. If you read that into the term KWPN/Dutch then you would read it into the term AHS/Hanoverian and clearly we don’t do that. That’s my point. With other registries we don’t call it a lie or misleading when a seller simply represents the memership in a registry with nothing more. Yet for KWPN you seem to feel that sellers need to clarify that the horse is KWPN but with DHH or KWPN with Gelders papers. That assumes Dutch Warmbloods are the default KWPN horses, which is just a prejudice you’re reading in because they’re more common. I’m sure there are places/communities with DHH are the dominant KWPN horses. Including, I suspect, where these particular horses are coming from.
A seller doesn’t need to presume arbitrary buyer prejudices and counteract them to be honest. If I say “half thoroughbred” I’m sure around my area people will assume the other half is WB. Out west the assumption is probably that the other half is QH. But either way if the horse is indeed 50% TB it’s not a lie or misleading to say “half thoroughbred.” It’s not incumbent on the seller to presume what gaps the buyer might fill in and disabuse the buyer of any wrong conclusions. It’s incumbent on the seller to represent the horse honestly. I think saying “KWPN” is a honest, if incomplete, representation. Just like saying “warmblood” can be honest but incomplete. Or “APHA” or “AQHA” can be honest but incomplete. Or heck, even “chestnut” can be honest but incomplete if the horse is chestnut sabino.
Do you go around correcting people who call their horse a “quarter horse” or advertise it as “AQHA” that they’re wrong because it has appendix papers so it’s really an appendix quarter horse? No. Because it’s neither deceptive or a lie to call any horse with AQHA papers an AQHA. And that’s what this person is doing.
Maybe we’ll just have to agree to disagree? Rather than you telling me I just “don’t get it.”
