Talk:Lipizzan

Template:Vital article

Coins

Hm. Was thinking there might be a way to add the "Lipizzan on coins" photos later; not random trivia, but from a cultural/economic inpact view, just as we have some stamps of various breeds in other articles. I think Commons has some tight rules on coin images, and I think we did have the Euro coin in here in the past. What would need to happen to add these back in, I'm thinking something along the lines of national recognition of the cultural impacts of the breed... thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 18:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Secondary sources that discuss the coins as they relate to the breed. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Protection

I've just protected this article due to the ongoing edit war. Please discuss the issue on this talk page and try to gain consensus. You may also wish to pursue dispute resolution (WP:DR). Let me know if there are any questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll open the discussion. As I see it, WP:OVERLINK is clear that there is no need to wikilink every single reference to a nation. I think here, in the text, the geographic locations specific to the breed's origins are linked on their first occurrence. No need for more. Further, I have seen that in articles where nations are wikilinked when not needed, there are editors (or possibly even bots) that periodically go through and take out all the links anyway. So I see this as a simple edit cleanup consistent with guidelines and policy. Montanabw^(talk) 16:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

And as I see it WP:OVERLINK is clearly referring to the content of the article NOT the infobox. If you go to the Help:Infobox you will find an example of how a one should look...and surprise, surprise the country of origin is guess what? Yes, it's linked. Now regarding the infobox on this article in the 'Country of origin' section it contains the copy of a sentence which is already present in the opening paragraph of the 'History' section, with the link and everything. Whether the countries should or should not be linked (I point to the Help:Infobox once again...), everything except the associated countries or places of origin should not be up there. And also a small interesting fact I discovered, I made a small glance at Category:Horse breeds checking out the first three letters at a quick glance and I found that over two-thirds of the articles are following the instructions of Help:Infobox and link the country/place or origin. Shokatz (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I often see when people go through and link all the nations, someone else then goes through an unlinks them all. I am not fond of creating article instability this way. "Help:Infobox" says nothing about linking nations, it only shows a link in the sample. Likewise, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes is silent on the matter, returning us to WP:OVERLINK]]. If you really want to go through 350 horse breed articles and do a thorough anaysis, go for it, but there has never been a discussion on the topic, as far as I know, so we basically are following general MOS rules or guidelines. But my analysis is that our FA-class horse breed articles (ii.e. the best ones, which have survived exhaustive peer review) mostly do not. (Of the highest-ranked, Appaloosa, Thoroughbred, Andalusian horse, Haflinger Percheron, and American Cream Draft do not. Other FA class breed articles are here. To be fair, Cleveland Bay and Icelandic horse do link nations) It's really a non-issue to me, other than how annoying it is to have people going back and forth about this constantly. I disfavor links, as people clicking on a link leave the article they are reading, hence one reason to minimize random linking for no reason. Montanabw^(talk) 17:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, the double standards...

I'm sorry that I have to revisit this talk page, especially since the geopolitical bias of the people behind this article is widely recognized (I'll get to that later), but I'm amused at the persistence of some of the double standards on display here. The lead would certainly be laughable if it weren't so misleading:

The Lipizzan or Lipizzaner (Hungarian: Lipicai, Slovene: Lipicanec, Italian: Lipizzano, Croatian: Lipicanac, Czech: Lipicán), is a breed of horse closely associated :with the Spanish Riding School of Vienna, Austria, where the finest representatives demonstrate the haute école or "high school" movements of classical dressage, including :the highly controlled, stylized jumps and other movements known as the "airs above the ground." The Lipizzan breed dates back to the 16th century, when it was developed :with the support of the Habsburg nobility. The breed takes its name from one of the earliest stud farms established, located near the Kras village of Lipica (spelled :"Lipizza" in Italian), in modern-day Slovenia.

So how does the article describe the emergence of this, ahem, "breed-of-no-specific-origin"?

By the 16th century, when the Habsburgs ruled both Spain and Austria, a powerful but agile horse was desired both for military uses and for use in the fashionable and :rapidly growing riding schools for the nobility of central Europe. Therefore, in 1562, the Habsburg Emperor Maximillian II brought the Spanish Andalusian horse to Austria :and founded the court stud at Kladrub. In 1580, his brother, Archduke Charles II, established a similar stud at Lipizza (now Lipica), located in modern-day Slovenia, from :which the breed obtained its name.[4][6]

Ah, so the Lipizzan and the Kladruber have very similar origins. Hmm, I wonder how the article on the Kladruber describes that breed's origin?

"The Kladruber (Czech Kladrubský kůň) is the oldest Czech horse breed and one of the world's oldest horse breeds." (My italics)

Oh, I see! So the Kladruber is clearly a Czech breed -- unlike the Lipizzan, which obviously doesn't have Slovenian origins at all (despite what virtually every other source states), but is at best a Spanish/Austrian/Croatian/Slovenian/Hungarian breed (or, as the infobox phrases it, a breed "associated with nations of Austria, Hungary, Slovenia and Croatia.") Who cares that Lipica, the breed's recognized stud of origin, is in Slovenia. After all, "Slovenia" didn't exist before 1991, but we all know that the "Czech Republic" has been around for millennia, don't we? (For those who didn't catch my oh-so-subtle sarcasm, the modern-day Czech Republic was also a part of Austria-Hungary.)

I don't attribute these double standards to malice, but rather to a combination of ignorance -- understandable, since I suppose the average Slovenian wouldn't know much about, say, Montana and its horse breeds either -- and a misguided sense of political correctness. I can certainly understand the underlying frame of mind: "The Lipizzan is also seen as an Austrian national symbol, and mentioning its origins -- in a Slovenian village -- could offend some readers, so let's mislead everyone in order to maintain an illusion of objectivity. That's fair. Especially because we wouldn't want such a beautiful breed to be primarily associated with an unglamorous, 'Eastern' European country such as Slovenia."

What I consider disappointing is that these biases, however understandable they seem to be, have been imposed on the readers of this article for years. Each time someone attempts to make the lead or the infobox more consistent with other Wikipedia articles -- or, for that matter -- other sources on the Lipizzan, the edits are immediately reverted. (By the same two people, who have effectively claimed ownership of this article.)

I know that my words are futile -- I offer our previous conversations on this page as evidence --, but I do think this situation is a fantastic learning experience on the potential pitfalls of Wikipedia.--WorldWide Update (talk) 01:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

And a quick P.S.: As others have admitted during our previous conversations, virtually all published sources give "Lipica" as the breed's origin. Since this article contradicts that notion, aren't its creators ipso facto guilty of original research, which Wikipedia rules expressly prohibit? This article is a mess on so many levels. --WorldWide Update (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back, Worldwide. If you want to be taken seriously and not dismissed as someone who has little to offer but a blatant nationalistic bias toward Slovenia over Austria or other nations that have developed from the Habsburg Empire, then provide us some URLs that meet WP:V and WP:RS. Until you want to actually help improve the article instead of whining about it, drop the stick. Montanabw^(talk) 20:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It consider it somewhat amusing that you accuse me of blatant nationalism simply because I agree with the vast majority of published sources on the Lipizzan and disagree with the way the breed's origins are presented in this mess of an article. In fact, I would argue that your accusations say more about your prejudices than they do about mine (especially since you have accused me and other Slovenians of being "nationalists" in the past, but have never leveled that charge at other participants in these discussions). But I suppose the accusation of "blatant nationalism" fits in well with your narrative of how these uppity Slovenians are trying to steal the Lipizzan.

As for giving sources, I find your offer a bit disingenuous. I have provided numerous sources in the past, all giving Lipica as the breed's place of origin. However, you have chosen to dismiss them in favor on your own original research that "proves" that the breed "originated" all over Europe (and I'm only mildly exaggerating here).

And never mind that Lipica is -- indisputably -- a place in Slovenia, much like Kladruby is place in the Czech Republic. By your logic, Lipica used to be a part of the Hapsburg Empire, so modern-day Austria has as much claim to it as Slovenia. (Of course, I could point out that what we know today as Austria is merely the German-speaking rump of the old Hapsburg empire, and is not the sole legal successor of that empire, but I'm frankly tired of repeating the same points over and over again.)

This is your article (you made it that way), so do whatever you want with it. Other Slovenian members who tried to help you by clarifying the lead or the infobox had their contributions reverted within minutes (without any comments on the talk page). And I'm sorry if I was being an uppity, nationalistic Slovenian for having the mendacity to express my displeasure with the article on this talk page.--WorldWide Update (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Would you state that the European Government, who gave the "Right of Origin" to Austria, didn't have the scientific sources you have or at least didn't recognize them? I would recommend three books to read: "Die Lipizzaner der Spanischen Hofreitschule", "Der Lipizzaner im Spiegel der Wissenschaft" and "Lipizzaner Hengststämme", unfortunately only in german.--Andreas Hausberger 21:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conversano Isabella (talk • contribs)

Can you provide a source on the "Right of Origin" decision made by the "European Government"? (Never mind that there is no such body as "the European Government"; I assume you mean the European Union, the European Commission, or the Council of Europe.) I know that prior to Slovenia's EU accession, Italy and Austria made a deal regarding which country would get to maintain the central stud book of origin, without even inviting Slovenia to the talks, much to the consternation of Slovenian observers. --WorldWide Update (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I noticed that only one Wikipedia article on the Lipizzan has a "Good Article" status -- the French version. This is what the lead of that article states:

"Le lipizzan est une race de chevaux originaire de Slovénie et culturellement liée à l'École espagnole de Vienne en Autriche." (my bolding)

In other words, the Lipizzan originates in Slovenia but is also culturally linked to the Spanish Riding School in Vienna.

You see, that's what happens when people care more about the facts than about other concerns. It's no wonder that the French version has been recognized as a "Good Article", while the English version is an embarrassing mess. But I suppose the French Wikipedia -- along with virtually all other sources -- has a "blatant nationalistic bias" in favor of Slovenia. --WorldWide Update (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Worldwide, it's simple. The current article notes the importance of Lipizza/Lipica, but the breed did NOT solely originate at the Lipica stud, the foundation animals clearly came from all over the Habsburg Empire. Slovenia sued in the EU on this issue and lost. So please just get over it and drop the WP:STICK. One reason we haven't taken this article to GA status is because you keep coming around and insisting that fringe material be added - and no, you haven't added a single thing that meets WP:RS here that can claim Lipica as teh "only" source for the breed. I'm open to facts, but you are not providing more than cherrypicked data that meets your own wishes. Montanabw^(talk) 23:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of providing sources, can you provide some sources for your statements, or are you exempt from that requirement? Before Slovenia became a EU member, Italy and Austria made a EU-level deal that allowed Austria to obtain the central stud book of origin, which had been kept by Italy. Slovenia was understandably upset, but could do nothing, since it was not a EU member at the time. It did not lose a "lawsuit"; it was simply told that, as a non-EU member, it was not eligible to take part in EU-level talks. In other words, it was presented with a fait accompli. The decision was not made on the merits of Slovenia's case, but on the basis of the country's non-EU status, so I fail to see how you think it supports your argument. (And, besides, this has little to do with the fact that Lipica is the stud where the breed originated. Even the breed's name should provide you with a clue.)

As for providing sources, I have done that in the past, only to have them dismissed out of hand. Such sources are abundant: Just about any book on horses gives Lipica as the breed's stud of origin. But it seems to me that any source that does no match certain preconceived (revisionist!) notions will always be either ignored or dismissed. I see no reason why I -- or anyone else interested in the facts -- should even touch this article. Virtually any changes that you (or your two or three close associates) don't like are immediately reverted.

Finally, thank you for mentioning that you have considered taking this sorry mess of an article to GA status. I really needed a chuckle. (And you say that I "keep coming to this article insisting that fringe material [i.e., widely recognized facts] be added" -- You haven't heard from me in years until I happened to stumble on this article again a few days ago.) Nasvidenje! --WorldWide Update (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You obviously haven't read much of the article, it's quite extensively footnoted and you make statements about its contents (and the assumptions of the editors) that aren't even in the article. The article does not state the breed is of "no specific origin" - it outlines the origins quite clearly. There is room to add to the material on Lipica, but it has to be reliably sourced. As to the EU controversy, this link explains what I stated in broader terms. "Just any book on horses" usually means assorted breed encyclopedias, which often contain over-simplified material (like the myth that all Arabians have five lumbar vertebrae...). They are "better than nothing" but we always look for more authoritative works. And, obviously, if some foundation stallions didn't ever stand at Lipica, the breed cannot be attributed solely to one source. If you really think you have good, authoritative sources better than what User:Conversano Isabella (who is not a native English speaker, hence minor grammar errors are understandable) noted above. Your tone is not helpful, nor are your tl;dr-style rants above. Montanabw^(talk) 06:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll withdraw from this conversation, since it's not really taking us anywhere, but let me provide just one example -- in addition to the ones I mentioned above -- of the article's bias: its "origin" field. This is what it states:

Developed by the House of Habsburg from Arab, Barb, Spanish and Neapolitan stock.[1] Today associated with nations of Austria, Hungary, Slovenia and Croatia.

The phrasing goes out of its way to avoid any mention of Lipica as the breed's stud of origin, or even as its primary stud. In fact, it only mentions Slovenia in the middle of a list of nations, almost as an afterthought. (I wonder if the country would even be mentioned there if it weren't for the insistence of some editors.) This is unlike any other horse breed article I've seen, and this attitude is reinforced throughout the article.

As for the link you've provided: The reason why the WTO, much like the EU, ultimately did not grant Slovenia rights to the Lipizzan is because it ruled that animal breeds are not a part of the WTO's remit. It never ruled on the facts of the case itself, and there was no "lawsuit". (Slovenia wanted to protect the name Lipizzan in order to prevent Austria from claiming sole rights the breed on the basis of an earlier EU deal from which Slovenia was excluded. The whole thing was more complicated than how you would like to portray it.)--WorldWide Update (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

P.S. And do note that even the article you provided -- an American article, not a Slovenian one -- refers to Lipica as the breed's "ancestral home". One certainly wouldn't know that from reading this Wikipedia article. --WorldWide Update (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

And another thing: This article is included in the "Horse breeds of Italy" category and features the corresponding template at the bottom. However, the text of the article makes it clear that the breed's connection to Italy is an extremely tenuous one: Some Neapolitan stock was used at Lipica. That's it. (Not even the Italian wiki article on the Lipizzan makes any claim that this is, in whole or in part, an Italian breed.) Yet, despite the lack of sourcing for any significant connection of the breed with Italy, it's apparently considered perfectly acceptable for the Lipizzan to be classified as one of the horse breeds of Italy. Meanwhile, the fact that the Lipizzan is a horse breed of Slovenia (the breed's "ancestral home" is there, for one) is avoided or, at best, marginalized. --WorldWide Update (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

On that last one, you and I agree; I have been whining for ages about how stupid it is to ascribe breeds to one modern nation when boundaries -particularly in Europe- have shifted over time. But I lost that battle. As for the rest, Lipica is in the opening paragraph, really, what more do you actually want? Montanabw^(talk) 01:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't "want" anything. After all, you obviously WP:OWN this article, and I have no intention of disputing that. A sense of fairness certainly wouldn't hurt the article, but I know enough from past debates not to expect anything like that here.

Yes, the lead paragraph references Lipica but gives absolutely no indication that it was the breed's primary stud (something that authoritative sources and even most other editors of this article acknowledge). It only mentions Lipica in the difficult-to-deny context of the breed's name ("The breed takes its name from one of the earliest stud farms established..."). In fact, nowhere else in the article is Lipica mentioned as the breed's primary stud. Most mentions of Lipica come in the context of various evacuations. (But why were those evacuations so historically significant to the breed if Lipica wasn't the breed's primary stud, but just one of many equal studs?)

It's this marginalization of Lipica (perhaps because it's in Slovenia and not in Austria?) that ultimately makes the article misleading and in direct conflict with most established sources on the breed. I came to point that out not as a Wikipedia editor (my edits tend to be minor), but as a Wikipedia reader. However, as you have so often told me, it's time for me to move on. --WorldWide Update (talk) 07:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

P.S. This is what Wiki editor Andreas Hausberger, with whom I don't always agree, stated in an earlier discussion:

"The interesting thing is, however, that during all centuries - in spite of this broad diversity, the Imperial court stud of Lippiza always remained the leading stud for the breed. The background of all used breeding stallions in all studs is always leading back to Lippiza."

"About "the origin of the breed" of the Lipizzaner breed, as meant in the Wiki-perspective (see above), we can definitely state that this is The 'former imperial court stud of Lippiza (1580-1915), in those times privately owned by the Habsburg imperial family, and nowadays known as "Lipica", located in the Republic of Slovenia.'"

Yet none of this is stated anywhere in the article. --WorldWide Update (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Sources for article expansion

• https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fscience.orf.at%2Fstories%2F1735312%2F

Montana, I'm not sure where this link is supposed to be going? It's just a blank Google Translate page for me... This would probably be another good B-class article to bring up to GA this year... Dana boomer (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hm, comes up for me, but I haven't cleared cookies for a bit, the original is in German (I think) here: http://science.orf.at/stories/1735312/ And I agree. Incidentally, Andreas and some of his colleagues have directly worked on the version at de.wiki https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipizzaner. I'm going to ping you on fb about some resources we should try to (somehow) tap. Huge issues with WP:RS and WP:OR, but we definitely have expertise in User:Conversano Isabella. Montanabw^(talk) 22:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Article improvement

@Dana boomer: Saw some of your cleanup edits. Want to note that we should do a machine translation of the parallel article in de.wiki. (I'll sandbox it) That one has been directly edited by @Conversano Isabella: and some other actual experts in the field. The sources, though in German and some may be web sites that may not pass en.wiki's WP:RS, the actual content is apt to be accurate. I think we should compare what we have here and anything that contradicts the German version should be carefully researched. I think I mentioned that I have been in contact with this user and can probably get him over here to help... or one of the others. Montanabw^(talk) 02:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

de.wiki article sandboxed at User:Montanabw/deLipizzaner. Montanabw^(talk) 03:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. The major thing I would be interested in bringing over from the German article looks to be the info on branding, but it's not well sourced and what sources are there don't cover the material I want/aren't reliable. In general, our article is already better, I think, especially with regard to sourcing. I would appreciate a look-over by User:Conversano Isabella, though, to let us know if there is anything super important that we're missing here, that I either missed in the German translation or isn't in that version, either. I added more today on referencing organizations and an mtDNA study. I still need to rewrite the lead (and expand it...can't believe this article is almost up to 40kb!), and then I think it should be fairly close to ready for GAN. Dana boomer (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll ping him on Facebook.  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 07:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Need to source and detail these: State Studs:

• Piber (Austria)
• Lipica (Slovenia)
• Topoľčianky (Slovakia)
• Đakovo (Croatia)
• Szilvásvárad (Hungary)
• Monterotondo (Italy)
• Sâmbăta de Jos (Romania, Brașov)
• Karađorđevo (Serbia)
• Vučijak (Bosnia, Prnjavor)
• Lipik (Croatia)
• Beclean pe Someș (Romania, Bistrița-Năsăud)

Added location and population info on most of these. The LIF considers the two Croatian studs as one, and gives just one population number, and I can't find anything on Beclean pe Someș (the second Romanian stud). Perhaps they're considered a sub-stud of the other Romanian one? Also added updated overall population data. Dana boomer (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

And have now expanded the lead and done a bit of other cleanup. Dana boomer (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The list came off the discussion group I mentioned in email, fresh as of 24 hours ago ;-) That said, it all still does need to be sourced!  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 05:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I've done some more ref cleanup today, and nominated for GA. If someone can find a good ref for the second Romanian stud, it can always be added in during the review, but I couldn't find anything... Dana boomer (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Go Phightins! (talk · contribs) 02:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I shall commence my review shortly. Generally, I first read through the article, noting any prose adjustments or items that jump out at me, and then I paste in one of the GA checklists, and go through that. Go Phightins! 02:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• The horses at the Spanish Riding School are trained using traditional methods based on classical dressage that date back hundreds of years. What dates back hundreds of years, the methods or classical dressage? If the latter, then it should be dressage, which dates back ... If the former, then perhaps it could be reworked so it is not ambiguous.
  • Rephrased. Better? --MTBW
• Forgive what is undoubtedly a stupid question, but what exactly is a stud? The term seems to be used in multiple contexts, so inferring is proving a little difficult ...
  • Wikilinked at first use. Beter? and, in this context, a farm where stallions live, or "at stud" in verb form, meaning that the stallion is getting to do, um, the work of being a stallion (as opposed to being in training, and NOT getting to, um, do the stallion stuff....) --MTBW
• In addition to the foundation stallion lines, there were 20 "classic" mare lines, fourteen of which exist today. I believe it should be In addition to the foundation stallion lines, there were 20 "classic" mare lines, 14 of which exist today. per the MOS
  • Fixed--MTBW
• In 1729 Charles VI commissioned the building of the Winter Riding School in Vienna and in 1735, the building was completed that remains the home of the Spanish Riding School today Is this particularly relevant to the breed of horse?
  • Yes, it is the home performance hall for the horses, kind of like Yankee Stadium to the Yankees, if that makes sense. --MTBW
• However, following the Treaty of Schönbrunn in 1809, the horses were evacuated three more times during the unsettled period in Austria, resulting in the loss of many horses and the destruction of the studbooks covering the years prior to 1700. What's a studbook? A recording of "studs"?? Were there any consequences of the book's destruction?
  • Wikilinked, rephrased and clarified. Better? --MTBW
• Thus, the animals were divided up between several different studs in the new postwar nations of Austria, Italy, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania and Yugoslavia. Is the "up" necessary? Would "the animals were divided among several different ..."
  • Fixed --MTBW
• All right; I am down to the characteristics section, and will continue this later. Nice article, so far! Go Phightins! 02:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing this, I have addressed your comments above, and await and answers or further review! Montanabw^(talk) 06:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• OK, resuming the review. I apologize again for the delay. Go Phightins! 18:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
• I assume hands is the standard measurement for horses?
  • Yes. And we spent a lot of time with very good folks in template land creating the convert template that did hands, inches and cm! --MTBW
• Image suggestion - if you are following the L-R-L-R pattern (which I think would look best, there are two consecutive ones on the right in the last section, and at least on my screen, it would look better of those two alternated R-L which would make the one in the characteristics section on the right, which would look better, as the text would no longer be detached from the header. Personal preference, though.
  • I'm not bound to a strict L-R-L-R where it is illogical, but I moved around the images so they are now that way, swapping one that was oriented the "wrong" direction for where it needed to go, does that make it better? --MTBW
• "...become lighter each year as the graying process takes place, with the process being complete at between 6 and 10 years of age" to "lighten each year as the graying occurs, ultimately concluding when the horse is around six to ten years of age
• Remove or rephrase "contrary to popular belief" - it sounds cliche-y, and has little encyclopedic value "a common misconception" might be better
  • OK, fixed --MTBW
• "...Other writers and equestrians who strongly influenced the training methods in place today at the Spanish Riding School include Federico Grisone to Others who have influenced the school's training methods include ... (too many "todays")
  • Rephrased. Better? --MTBW

-- Go Phightins! 18:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   There are still some jargony sections, particularly in the training section and the last two history subsections.

   I'm taking a whack at what I think needs improvement, but ping with hidden text at trouble spots - or here - the areas of concern... as an aficionado, it's sometimes difficult for me to assess what technical language can be figured out from context, where the wikilinking of a word covers it, and where it's total gibberish. We have an extensive glossary of equestrian terms that we keep around to help with linking where there isn't an article otherwise. --MTBW

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   The lead looks all right.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   Assuming good faith on the off-line sources.

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   Yup.

   C. No original research:

   Assuming good faith again ...

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   I wasn't left wondering; seems to have similar content to other featured content on horses. I looked at Arabian horse, for example. There is not a ton on "modern uses" in this article (a fair amount on training, but are there any other important topics? I don't know ...).

   B. Focused:

   Very comfortable length, and little deviation.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Yup.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   No edit wars of which I am aware.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   I reviewed all the images, and they all appear to have valid licensing, assuming good faith on those who said the images were their own work (I checked usernames, and have no reason to believe otherwise).

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   I will say, for what it's worth, that I was told that image captions should never have ending punctuation. That said, I make it a point not to delve too deep into the MOS, so I have no strong opinion. Whatever you want to do.

   I killed caption punctuation. No worries. --MTBW

7. Overall: I just need to do another readthrough for jargon, but otherwise, I think we are OK. Go Phightins! 02:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

   Pass or Fail:

   Will promote after another readthrough for jargon. Go Phightins! 02:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Great thanks, all comments welcome! Montanabw^(talk) 02:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything glaring that inhibits the article from meeting the GA criteria. Passing. Good work to you and Dana boomer. Go Phightins! 00:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Removal of an irrelevant link

I believe that "Lipica, Slovenia" should be removed from the "breed standards" section of the infobox. Right now, it directs to Lipca's English-language homepage, which is a totally irrelevant link. I tried to direct it to Lipca's official breed standards PDF to make it match the other "breed standards" links in the infobox, but both of my edits were reverted for no reason. I believe it's better not to have a "Lipca" link than to have one that points to a generic homepage with no information on breed standards whatsoever. --LJU2ORD (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

We can fix the link if that's a problem. It was everything else that led to the revert. Montanabw^(talk) 22:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Alphabetzing

Oh, and if languages are alphabetized in order to ensure fairness, why aren't stud farms in the infobox? --LJU2ORD (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It can certainly be done... you need to understand that this article is fairly regularly attacked and edited to try to enforce a nationalistic view of the breed only originating in Slovenia. So any edit that puts Slovenia first (and then removes "now" from the sentence starting "Because of the status of Lipizzans as the only breed of horse developed in Slovenia, via the Lipica stud that is now located within its borders..." ... which totally loses all nuance that the time when the breed developed - Lipica was NOT in Slovenia - there was no country of Slovenia at all... which fact needs to be understood or it makes no sense for the breed to be associated with all the other countries that it's associated with) is going to be looked at very askance. Just the facts of a highly politicized subject, unfortunately. (And no - I'm not from Central or Eastern Europe. I visited Slovenia once (not Lipica) and loved it. Very nice country - much nicer than some I've been to, but ... ) and don't have problems with Slovenia or Slovenes - but I don't like to see information distorted either. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Mentioning the controversy

I have neither the patience nor the energy to do this, but since the dispute between Austria and Slovenia has been brought up in edit wars, perhaps it should be mentioned in the article? There appears to be a misconception that Slovenia (in reality a tiny and politically insignificant nation) tried to steal the Lipizzan from Austria, but the truth is very different: It was Austria that wanted to be the sole official keeper of the Lipizzan's registry books in the European Union, despite Slovenia's objections.

There is an old but relatively unbiased Wall Street Journal article about the controversy. To access it free of charge, just Google "Riding Roughshod Over Lipizzaner Rights." --LJU2ORD (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• I found it and here is the link: [1] given thatit is a 1998 article, we'd need some more sourcing to flesh out the details and what the result were, but I'm not opposed to teaching the controversy. Seems like my memory is that there was also a copyright or trademark case brought by Slovenia over use of the word "Lipizzan" which is what I am thinking of. What is also interesting is the bit about the epidemic that killed 50 mares, apparently in the early 1980s, I know the inbreeding issue is of concern to Lipizzan breeders, that is something we could also add. Montanabw^(talk) 22:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• A final note before I recuse myself from everything Lipizzan-related for good: The direct link to the WSJ article won't work for most users because it's behind a paywall. However, it can always be accessed for free by Googling "Riding Roughshod Over Lipizzaner Rights." --LJU2ORD (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for that tip. And here we go on the lawsuit I was thinking of: [ http://www.economist.com/node/3199 ] it was the WTO, not the EU: "The Slovenes are now claiming the right to a geographical indication—like “champagne” from Champagne—in petitions to the World Trade Organisation." Montanabw^(talk) 22:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

---

More source material for future expansion:

• http://www.wsj.com/article_email/SB91429280828233000-lMyQjA5MTE1NDEyNjkxMjY4Wj WSJ article mentioned above (contains some inaccuracies)
• http://www.economist.com/node/3199 The Economist article linked above (also has good stuff on Janow Podlaski
• http://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/11/world/lipizzaner-stallions-dance-into-trade-brawl.html Good article in the New York Times
• http://www.horsesandpeople.com.au/article/the-lipizzaner-australia#.VOJxKTqFarI Good history section
• http://www.drfilomena.com/about-lipizzaner-horses/ blog isn't an RS, but may point to useful info sourced elsewhere
• http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20000114&slug=A20000115010129 More on the lawsuits stuff and the WTO suit
• http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000-01-07/news/0001080002_1_lipizzaner-white-stallions-studbooks Pretty much the same as the Seattle paper, a bit more detail
• http://www.gzs.si/sbw/head.asp?idc=1487 undated press release with intriguing tidbits
• book on Slovenia with paragraph on the horses
• http://www.istrianet.org/istria/fauna/horses/lipizzan-press-releases1.htm Some Slovene press releases
• another book excerpt

• These may not exist online, but:
• http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/41804181?q=Lipizzaner+horses&c=article&versionId=54680375 The 1983 epidemic
• http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/107118129?q=Lipizzaner+horses&c=article&versionId=120555233 Problems for Hungarian Lipizzans.

On the 1983 epidemic:

• http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01317376#page-1 - 10 mares died 30 foals lost to spontaneous abortion, and it was the EHV-1 virus unrelated to "inbreeding."
• book on rare breeds,mnoting epidemic and inbreeding concerns. Also notes other breeding sites in Hungary, etc.
• http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01652176.1990.9694249 Article on vaccination stuff, not real helpful on breed

Breed Registry

When was the first breed registry (or stud book etc.) established and where? Could some knowledgeable person add this information?(talk) 20:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The stud books were originally kept by the individual studs, the idea of standardizing them is sort of 20th century. I know Piber and the SRS keep records and each nation has separate registries. The Lipizzan International Federation coordinates them all, I think. It is difficult to list any single date for a stud book to be established... Montanabw^(talk) 06:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for the information. I think a short paragraph on this would be useful, if you or anyone else properly informed would care to add it. One imagines there must have been quite a lot of information and records of bloodlines kept by breeders for such a valued breed of horse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campolongo (talk • contribs) 06:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Austria's (brief) attempt to claim the Lipizzan

This article may be interesting:

http://www.sloveniatimes.com/austria-backtracks-on-its-claim-to-lipizzan-horse

--213.143.93.199 (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone has access to this, which might provide a more balanced view than a Slovenian source: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article4481123.ece Montanabw^(talk) 23:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

"A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." 104.153.230.33 (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Lipizzan. 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/20080924151156/http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/horses/lipizzan/index.htm to http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/horses/lipizzan/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090410090106/http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/horses/andalusian/index.htm to http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/horses/andalusian/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120329204711/http://www.srs.at/en/tradition/the-school-stallions/ to http://www.srs.at/en/tradition/the-school-stallions/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120318004105/http://www.srs.at/en/tradition/the-spanish-riding-school/ to http://www.srs.at/en/tradition/the-spanish-riding-school/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110105140136/http://www.srs.at/en/tradition/the-history/ to http://www.srs.at/en/tradition/the-history/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090211233017/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2005_May_5/ai_n13672464 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2005_May_5/ai_n13672464
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140429193422/http://www.lipizzan.fr/FEDERATION_FRANCAISE_DU_LIPIZZAN/LIPIZZANER_FRENCH_FEDERATION_Welcome.html to http://www.lipizzan.fr/FEDERATION_FRANCAISE_DU_LIPIZZAN/LIPIZZANER_FRENCH_FEDERATION_Welcome.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120403222716/http://www.piber.com/en/the-stud/ to http://www.piber.com/en/the-stud/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)