Talk:Andalusian horse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Andalusian horse is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 15, 2011.
WikiProject Equine (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Horse breeds task force.
 
WikiProject Spain (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Photos[edit]

We have a minor problem: the overwhelming majority of Andalusians are gray, yet the only gray in there is the animation. Is there anything gray with good licensing and a decent photo? I also don't particularly care for that head shot, the animal is a bit coarse... Montanabw(talk) 00:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was noticing that. I switched the headshot out for a cobra; it's not the clearest shot in the world, but still pretty cool. I've got it set to be 1.5x an editor's preferences, so it shows better. I was unhappy at having to toss the driving shot, as it showed the versatility of the breed, but it looked like the uploader had taken it from a professional, so no good. Not to mention Brasseur (the driver) had a thing for Lusitanos, so I'm not even sure the horses were PREs as claimed. There are really a lot of horrible shots of grays on Commons - they're either coarse horses, blurred photos, dirty horses, unhappy looking horses, etc, etc, etc. Lots of pretty pictures of bays/blacks though... :) Dana boomer (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I hear the frustration about images, though the mare one you added IS pretty cool! I wish the licensing issue on that one you had to toss could be resolved, it's such a lovely shot! I've never heard the term "cobra" used in English to describe a string of horses, though (?) . Not sure we want to keep the term, though rather a cool word, I admit... Montanabw(talk) 00:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Maybe it's just an Andalusian/Lusitano thing? See the USEF rules here, which says a cobra is usually made up of three horses. Other places I've seen that strings being shown are generally three to five horses, but larger strings (such as the one in the photo) are used for exhibition photos. I've not seen any sources though that say it is just an Iberian thing, but if we could find that it would be a cool thing to add in. Dana boomer (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I see! Fascinating. Must be a term mostly used in that realm. Hmmph! Learn something new every day! Fun! Montanabw(talk) 20:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

In the picture titled "An Andalusian performing dressage at the 2007 World Cup Finals" one can see the flag of U.S.A., is it a real Andalusian horse?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dry. (talkcontribs) 07:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

History geek strikes[edit]

Hi Dana, cool new info! I did some rearraging and messing with the new and old stuff, mostly for flow. Hopefully I kept everything with the right cite... Toned down a few statements from the new source, which had an air of leaping tall buildings in a single bound about them. Overall, VERY cool stuff! Slap me if I screwed up anything too much! Montanabw(talk) 05:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh, thanks for the tweaks. Theres a bit more information from the book I want to add tonight, so you should probably be ready for another round of copyediting soon! And if you thought that what I added had the air of leaping tall buildings, you should see what I didn't add :) Dana boomer (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
LOL! And we get after breed registry sites for getting overly romantic! Sigh... Montanabw(talk) 17:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Latest round[edit]

Say, wasn't File:WC07b.JPG the one we were forced to dump from Horse due to inadequate licensing? The one I cried to see go? Did the licensing issues get fixed??? Montanabw(talk) 02:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yup, it's the same, and the licensing issues got fixed. If we want to add it back into the Sport section in horse (I think that's where it was) we can, replacing the dressage image there now. Dana boomer (talk) 12:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Hm. I've grown kind of fond of that grand old Japanese fellow and his lovely horse...maybe take it to the talk page at Horse and see what Ealdgyth thinks. I do love this Andalusian photo, but all of the discussion about adding an actual Olympics photo had merit too. I can't decide. Montanabw(talk) 03:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Lit search[edit]

Here's the results of a lit search, per request. There were 200 hits for "Andalusian horse" in the Web of Knowledge with "all databases" selected. Mostly, these are from vet. med. journals and have technical information not really appropriate for this article. The following list of pubs is recent (past 2000), and may have info worth checking into, based on my brief scan of the title and/or abstract:

Title: Immunophenotypical characterization in Andalusian horse: Variations with age and gender
Author(s): Satue, K.; Hernandez, A.; Lorente, C., et al.
Source: Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology Volume: 133 Issue: 2-4 Pages: 219-227 Published: FEB 15 2010
This looks to be a bit overly technical for inclusion. From what I can see from the abstract, the researchers were less interested in the breed than they were in the immune deficiencies, and possibly only used the Andalusian because it was easily available for a group of Spanish researchers. Dana boomer (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Title: Sire * stud interaction for body measurement traits in Spanish purebred horses.
Author(s): Gomez, M. D.; Goyache, F.; Molina, A., et al.
Source: Journal of Animal Science Volume: 87 Issue: 8 Pages: 2502-2509 Published: 2009
In a quick glance at the abstract, this looks like an interesting article. I have access to the full version, and so will read it more thoroughly and add any information that seems to be useful without being too technical. Dana boomer (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Title: AGE-related differences in the hematological profile of Andalusian broodmares of Carthusian strain
Author(s): Satue, K; Blanco, O; Munoz, A
Source: VETERINARNI MEDICINA Volume: 54 Issue: 4 Pages: 175-182 Published: 2009
By looking through both the abstract and full version, this appears to be a bit technical for inclusion here. Dana boomer (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Title: Assessment of inbreeding depression for body measurements in Spanish Purebred (Andalusian) horses.
Author(s): Gomez, M. D.; Valera, M.; Molina, A., et al.
Source: Livestock Science Volume: 122 Issue: 2/3 Pages: 149-155 Published: 2009
I can only see the abstract of this, but it looks a little technical. Dana boomer (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I think it may be worth a peek, if someone can get it and send it to me, I may be able to decipher. The small numbers in the breed do raise this risk. (You know I am the genetic diseases in horses geek around here. And if I can't read it, Countercanter probably can!) Montanabw(talk) 01:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
My "techical" was meaning that the information is probably too technical for a general interest article like we are writing here, but if the article has information on actual inbreeding numbers within the breed (as opposed to just body measurements), then it may be interesting. Dana boomer (talk) 12:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Title: Genetic parameters of biokinematic variables at walk in the Spanish Purebred (Andalusian) horse using experimental treadmill records
Author(s): Molina, A; Valera, M; Galisteo, AM, et al.
Source: LIVESTOCK SCIENCE Volume: 116 Issue: 1-3 Pages: 137-145 Published: 2008
Although this looks quite technical for the most part, the information on them being selected specifically for dressage could be interesting. I only have access to the abstract, do you have access to the full version? Dana boomer (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, potential interest here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talkcontribs)
Title: Retrospective analysis of exploratory laparotomies in 192 Andalusian horses and 276 horses of other breeds
Author(s): Munoz, E; Argulles, D; Areste, L, et al.
Source: VETERINARY RECORD Volume: 162 Issue: 10 Pages: 303-306 Published: 2008
Although technical, the comparison of Andalusians to other breeds is interesting. I only have access to the abstract, do you have access to the full version? Dana boomer (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Title: An economic valuation of the horse production and utilization in Andalucia (Spain)
Author(s): Rodriguez Alcaide, J. J.; Pardo Sempere, L.; Rodriguez Zapatero, M., et al.
Source: Archivos de Zootecnia Volume: 54 Issue: 206-07 Pages: 157-163 Published: 2005
I can't even get to the abstract of this, but it looks interesting. Do you have access? Dana boomer (talk) 12:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Title: Pedigree analysis in the Andalusian horse: population structure, genetic variability and influence of the Carthusian strain
Author(s): Valera, M; Molina, A; Gutierrez, JP, et al.
Source: LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION SCIENCE Volume: 95 Issue: 1-2 Pages: 57-66 Published: AUG 1 2005
This is already referenced in the article. Is there some information I missed that you think should be included? Dana boomer (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Nope, just missed it. Sasata (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Title: Kinematic characteristics of Andalusian, Arabian and Anglo-Arabian horses: a comparative study
Author(s): Cano, MR; Vivo, J; Miro, F, et al.
Source: RESEARCH IN VETERINARY SCIENCE Volume: 71 Issue: 2 Pages: 147-153 Published: OCT 2001
This one may be worth a peek, again, at least if it looks at propensity of the breed for dressage, etc. (And may be of interest to the other breed articles). Montanabw(talk) 01:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Montana, especially as it compares the breed to others. Dana boomer (talk) 12:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Title: Influence of training on the biokinematics in trotting Andalusian horses
Author(s): Cano, MR; Miro, F; Diz, AM, et al.
Source: VETERINARY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS Volume: 24 Issue: 7 Pages: 477-489 Published: NOV 2000
This looks a little technical for adding here. Dana boomer (talk) 12:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Title: Locomotor, cardiocirculatory and metabolic adaptations to training in Andalusian and Anglo-Arabian horses
Author(s): Munoz, A; Santisteban, R; Rubio, MD, et al.
Source: RESEARCH IN VETERINARY SCIENCE Volume: 66 Issue: 1 Pages: 25-31 Published: FEB 1999
Looks a little technical. Dana boomer (talk) 12:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

from JSTOR:

Van Dyck: Horses and a Landscape
Oliver Millar
The Burlington Magazine, Vol. 144, No. 1188 (Mar., 2002), pp. 161-163
I can't even see the abstract of this article, but the title intrigues me. Do you have access to either the abstract or the full copy? Dana boomer (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
The Origin and Development of the Arabian Horse
Leon B. Blair
The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Vol. 68, No. 3 (Jan., 1965), pp. 303-316
I can only see the first page of this, but I am doubtful of it usefulness. Arabians were used in the breeding of Andalusians at various points, but this is already noted in the article with reliable sourcing. Also, as a 1965 article, any information here has likely been replaced by more recent information backed up by DNA studies. Dana boomer (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Probably too old to be very useful, though may have historical relevance. I'd be interested in seeing it, I can probably tell in two shakes if it's reliable history or simply a romanticized retelling of the unprovable. The interaction between the Arabian and the Andalusian is a big can of worms. Unless there is something new, I don't think they have yet studied DNA to determine if there is an Arab-Andalusian link, they have only assessed the Barb-Andalusian link (there also are no studies on the Arab-Barb link, as far as I know) Be cool if we could find something on that. (Historical pedigree records document Arabian blood being deliberately introduced in the 1800s, but the PRE crowd is also trying vigorously to get rid of it, I believe that may in fact be some of the roots of the "PRE versus Andalusian" thing.) Will take DNA to tell if Arabian blood came into the breed between the arrival of the muslims in the 700 and the tracking of pedigrees by the Carthusian monks in the 1300s, something the PRE folks stoutly deny and something that Arabian breeders equally stoutly are convinced did occur. A no-win to even go there unless we have something in documented historical record or peer-reviewed literature. Montanabw(talk) 01:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Did the First Spanish Horses Landed in Florida and Carolina Leave Progeny?
Thornton Chard
American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 42, No. 1 (Jan. - Mar., 1940), pp. 90-106
I found a version online that I could read in full, and found it an interesting and well-written (although chatty) article. However, it being 70 years old gives me cause for concern. DNA studies that have become possible over the past 10-20 years have completely rewritten huge parts of the "known" history of horses, including the Andalusian and its ancestors/descendents. Also, because of the huge number of breeds that the Andalusian has influenced, either directly or indirectly, I don't really want to start a laundry list of all of them; instead, I would like to provide a brief listing (already in the article) of some of the best known or representative breeds that it has influenced. Dana boomer (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. See some of the sources Yohmom used when she took Banker horse to FA, I think they are better if we want to look at this question. However, though the answer is "yes," the value of this issue in this article needs to be weighed: There is no question that "Spanish" horses came to America ... from the time Cortez landed on the mainland in 1519 until roughly the early-1600s (when the English got serious about settling here), they were just about the ONLY horses that came to America! More to the point is how many of these "Spanish" horses were early Andalusians, how many were of the same ancestral stock as seen in the modern breed, and while some may have been of common ancestral stock to the modern PRE, others most likely were Jennets, (seen clearly in their Paso Fino descendants, etc.) Arabians, assorted crossbreds, and many of the other Iberian horse breeds. We could go way down a rabbit hole here. (I should know, I've run into this on both the Arabian horse and the Friesian horse articles, also old breeds that people want to claim were the ancestor of everything and every ancient horse was one... And I believe both claim Bucephalus! LOL!) Montanabw(talk) 01:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You can probably find abstracts for most of these on the net; let me know if you need assistance in getting any of the articles. Sasata (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Replies to all above, with requests for several of the articles that we cannot access. As I cannot access many of them, if there is information you think would be valuable in any that I said "too technical" on by only seeing the abstracts, please feel free to send them as well! Dana boomer (talk) 12:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
PDFs have been emailed to Dana. Had access to all but one (Blair, 1965), and one of them is in Spanish. Hope you can "Habla Español"! Sasata (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts on articles[edit]

I'm beginning to read through the article, and will place my impressions here: Dana boomer (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Van Dyck: Horses and a Landscape, Millar - A very brief mention of the Andalusian, simply alluding to it as the subject of one of the paintings. We already mention that the Andalusian is used in art and was the favorite breed for kings/emperors to be painted on for several centuries, so I don't think we need to include this. Interesting article, though.
  • An economic valuation of the horse production and utilization in Andalucia (Spain) - I don't speak Spanish and can't figure out how to run it through a translator (it won't let me select the text to copy it into a translator, and I can't directly access the webpage). From reading the English abstract, though, it does not appear to focus on any one breed and is instead just about the province in general.
I suspect that from the title alone, it is about the geographic region more than the breed. That said, if you want to dig more, I know someone who can read Spanish well enough to give me the gist if you want to shoot it my way. Montanabw(talk) 20:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Let me get through all of the articles I have (there are about four more) and list them here, and then let me know which ones you want and I'll forward them to you. Dana boomer (talk) 01:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Genetic parameters of biokinematic variables at walk in the Spanish Purebred (Andalusian) horse using experimental treadmill records - Interesting. I've added a few bits from this that I thought were useful. The actual study is a bit technical for this, but there was some good stuff in the background section. Dana boomer (talk) 01:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Assessment of inbreeding depression for body measurements in Spanish Purebred (Andalusian) horses - Seems too technical for inclusion in a general interest article. Background information adds nothing new. We already explain that the breed went through several bottlenecks that produced inbreeding, and IMO adding more information from this article would just be repetitive and overly technical for the lay reader. Dana boomer (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Kinematic characteristics of Andalusian, Arabian and Anglo-Arabian horses - Interesting article, with some useful findings on the differences at the trot between these three breeds and the implications for various disciplines. Added a bit to the breed characteristic section. Dana boomer (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Retrospective analysis of exploratory laparotomies in 192 Andalusian horses and 276 horses of other breeds - Interesting article, with the first major documented health issue I've found in the breed. Added a bit to the Breed Characteristics section. Dana boomer (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Sire × stud interaction for body measurement traits in Spanish Purebred horses - Interesting from a breeding standpoint, but a little technical for the lay reader of the finished product here on wiki.

OK, that's all of them. Montana, are there any that you want other than the Spanish one? Dana boomer (talk) 11:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, send the inbreeding depression one too, if you can. And the Sire x stud interaction. I'm getting geeky about this genetics stuff and am curious. I'll probably agree with you, (assuming I can even decipher the terminology) but I'm kind of interested in the topic generally; beyond this particular breed...  ;-) One of these days, I may (or may not...) also do up an article on Yeguada Militar and/or other Spanish state studs, might as well accumulate stuff now. Montanabw(talk) 05:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Will do, probably later today/tonight. Dana boomer (talk) 10:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

OK, since there has been some discussion of the recent edits here, I thought I would pull out the sourced information added and list it here, with my comments. Also some general thoughts:

  • Lead. Added a bunch of information that doesn't belong in the lead, as it is overly detailed. This includes:
The PRE Studbook is protected by Trademark Law in the European Union[1] and the Government of Spain considers any American use of the PRE name for a studbook or registry without permission to be unethical.[2]
This is just ongoing breed politics. First, the trademark relates only to the name "PRE Pura Raza Espanola", not the studbook itself. There are a lot of breeds with trademarked names - this is nothing special. Second, the "Government of Spain" considers nothing unethical. The second source is an article written by ANCCE's president, and he's the one calling PRE Mundial unethical - nothing shocking or really all that interesting. I do agree that our section on the ongoing court case in the Pure Spanish Horse section needs updating, and I will work on this shortly.
  • Characteristics - major section on color removed.
  • 19th century section - sourced information removed, replaced with unsourced.
  • Naming and registration - Extensive replacement of sourced info with non-sourced info. Also changing to have an undue focus on ANCCE, to the exclusion of all other registries (IALHA and PRE Mundial specifically) Also added:
(addition in italics)Some sources state that the Andalusian and the Lusitano are genetically the same, and the only difference is the country in which individual horses are born, but this theory is less followed based on new research that traces the European influence on the Lusitano horse.[3]
This is interesting, but I would like to see the direct quote from the book first.
  • Pure Spanish Horse - Removal of all information on ongoing court case. Replacement of sourced information with nonsourced information focused on ANCCE. Also added:
The PRE Mundial Registry is licensed to operate only in the United States and cannot paper horses in Europe where the PRE Horse is protected by Trademark Laws.[4] [5] [6][7]
If I could find a neutral source on this, I would be happy to add it in. However, of these two sources, one is an article by the US branch of ANCCE and the other is a copy of a press release from the Spanish government. Unfortunately, the Spanish government is under fire in the ongoing court case, with PRE Mundial alleging that it was illegal for them to transfer sole control of the PRE studbook to ANCCE. Also, Spain =/= Europe - these articles only cover the lack of ability to paper in Spain, although the trademark (which is on the name only, not anything else) covers all of Europe.
  • Uses - removal of sourced information, addition of unsourced. The fact that a PRE placed 5th is not really all that interesting, especially given the listing of silver and bronze medals that already exists in the article.
  1. ^ "PRE Trademarked". European Trade Commission. www.usprea.com. Retrieved May 2011. 
  2. ^ Conde, Javier. "Conde Denounces Mundial". El Caballo Magazine. ANCCE. Retrieved May/June 2011.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  3. ^ Altamirano, Juan Carlos (2009). The Lusitano Horse (El Caballo Lusitano). Autor-Editor. ASIN B003ZN9EEW. 
  4. ^ Boyer, Kimberly. "Open Letter to Breeders". Retrieved March 2011. 
  5. ^ "Spain Denounces PRE Mundial". Retrieved March 2011. 
  6. ^ "Definition of a PRE". The Foundation for the Pure Spanish Horse. Retrieved 2010-08-25. 
  7. ^ "Registry News". The Foundation for the Pure Spanish Horse. Retrieved 2010-08-25. 

OK, so, this is a summary of the edits that were reverted by Montana and have been under discussion on her talk page. As you can see, there was a lot of replacing sourced information with unsourced information, a couple places were information that didn't jive with ANCCE's party line was removed wholesale (color and court case info), and a few bits of new information presented with sources. There are a couple things that would be nice to have if I can get verified neutral sources, but for the most part, the edits were extremely POV. Because the formatting above is a little tricky, I would prefer that comments be placed below this comment. Dana boomer (talk) 13:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment: Thanks for updating the court case info. The name of breed issue isn't unique to this breed, I think Slovenia had a complaint in the EU against Austria over the name "Lipizzaner," which I think Slovenia was trying (and failing) to copyright for only its own horses. Montanabw(talk) 21:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Stable version[edit]

Hi all, there is a new stable template that I have placed on this talk page. The purpose of this template, as explained in the documentation and in a short discussion at the village pump, is to help against article rot (the deterioration of quality that can occur in articles), and to keep a link to a stable version, which will be reliable, and not so prone to those errors, vandalism, and erroneous information that can crop up at any moment. It has no effect on the actual article, and can be upgraded/changed at any time - ideally to reflect a newer, improved stable version. This being said, if you are against using it on this talk page (some have found it intrusive), feel free to discuss or remove it - I believe that it will benefit some articles more than others, and I accept that not all will see a need for it on each article. Falconusp t c 22:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

If Dana agrees with the latest set of changes, I think we can upgrade the template to today's version. Montanabw(talk) 19:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, updating would be good. I did some cleanup a few days ago, plus whatever edits Malleus ends up making today, so in theory it should be good to go. I'm still so not looking forward to this, though... Dana boomer (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Spoken version[edit]

Hi, I've added a spoken version of the first section in preparation for the article's appearance as a featured article - hope it's OK. Cheers. mrw (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

For some reason I was expecting an American accent, so that was a pleasant surprise. The not so good news though is that listening to the article being read exposed some pretty apparent awkwardness in the prose. Malleus Fatuorum 20:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Ouch! Thanks for the tweaks. We may want to update the stable version sometime tomorrow?? Montanabw(talk) 21:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Just listed to the spoken version (very nice!) and Malleus is correct that it shows awkward places in the prose very well - a definite example of why my English professors always told me to read papers outloud to someone before turning them in... Dana boomer (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Heights[edit]

Did we ever get a template to work that gave heights in hands, inches and centimeters if something other than hands was inputted first? I.e. with the {{hands}} template, you have to input hands first, but it will give you output in all three. Currently, we only have output in hands and cm - we need to have a template that does inches too, or it needs to be switched back to the hands template. When this goes on the main page this needs to be accessible to the greatest number of people and leaving out inches doesn't help any... I thought that maybe someone had been messing around with the convert templates to be able to output hands and inches if cm are inputted, but I can't seem to find the documentation now... Thoughts? Dana boomer (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I thought that there had been agreement that horses were measured in hands in some English-speaking countries. I don't remember anyone suggesting they should be measured in inches. The hand is linked the first time it is used, so anyone unsure of what it means can find out. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? You have been told over and over and over again that measurements need to be given in three sets - hands, inches and centimeters. You were told this in the RfC you started, you were told this in the GAR you started, and you have been told this in numerous other spots by numerous other editors. Hands for horse people in English-speaking countries, centimeters for horse people in countries that use the metric system to measure horses or for non-horsey people in metric countries, and inches for non-horsey people in countries that use imperial measurements. If you really want me to find links to all of the places you have been told this, I will, but really...? Dana boomer (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
and to just be a pain in the butt - the abbreviation to use for hands isn't "h" it's "hh". Ealdgyth - Talk 01:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, I think both are acceptable. At least that's what Michael Brander says. A question, though: the average heights are taken from DAD-IS, which gives them in centimetres; the minimum heights are from the official breed standard, which gives them in metres, e.g., 1.50 metros. Is it preferable to show both lots in cm for consistency, as I did, or to use the specific units given by the source? I believe the MOS supports both. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Both in cm for consistency. However, we have to also show inches. Therefore, I've used the only template that I know of that will give a three-way conversion. If you have another way of doing it that will give cm first, then please, let me know. If not, do not revert - three way conversion is more important than which one comes first. Is there a way to make the convert template output both inches and hands when cm are inputted? If not, we have to input hands first so that we can get the three-way output. I know you don't like it, but it's the way the templates work. Dana boomer (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There's nothing in the MOS that says you have to have three-way conversion or inches, as you perfectly well know. Yes, I do recall someone telling me over and over again that things had to be done in a particular way; that person was you. There might even have been another. Neither of you has ever shown any part of the MOS that supports your assertions. They remain simply your opinion, unsupported by any consensus; as you know, I disagree with that opinion. What you have done to the section on Characteristics is riddled with arithmetical errors: 15½ h is not 60.5 inches but 62, 15¼ h is not 60.25" but 61, and so on. It doesn't conform with WP:UNIT, "All other articles: the main unit is generally an SI unit or a non-SI unit officially accepted for use with the SI". It links the word hand repeatedly instead of only once. It doesn't conform to the sources. And so on. As a compromise, I suggest inserting "(one hand = 4 in.)" after the first occurrence of the word hand, so that it would then read " ... 156 cm (15.1 hands) (one hand = 4 in.) ..." If you agree, I will try to put things back in order when I get up tomorrow. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I do not agree. There are no arithmetical errors - 15 1/2 is 15 hands and 1/2 inch, not 15 and a half hands. The fractions are in there to make it so that the centimeters come out correctly. It's a bit ungainly, but I wanted to make sure the centimeters ended up being exactly what the source specified (and it's actually more correct this way - the convert template was rounding) And you're misremembering the RfC wrong...here are a few quotes from the RfC:
  • Owain Davies - "I would generally go with the EN usage [hands], and disambiguated using the template to SI and metric."
  • Cgoodwin - "Hands should be the first unit used in a horse measurement, as it's the way horses are measured around the world, but conversions should also be made into centimetres and inches."
  • Peter Isotalo - "Not providing a conversion to the two most common units of height used in the world today [centimeters and inches] would exclude too many readers."
  • Ealdgyth - "Three way conversion is fine, in my mind."
  • Intothatdarkness - "I would say that in this case "hands" would be the most used version, followed by other units for conversion/illustration purposes." (note plural "units")
  • Casliber - "Hands...should be the first unit used in a horse measurement - I do think it needs conversion to other units" (again, note plural "units")
In this section (earlier on the same page), you have:
  • Richard New Forest - "I really can't see what's wrong with giving hands/in/cm for all equines...By giving all three we ensure that the heights are meaningful to all readers."
  • ThePeskyCommoner - "The template needs to convert everything, really...Absolutely no benefit to taking the inches option out of it"
Would you like me to continue looking back through archives to find more people who disagree with you? In just a few minutes of searching on one page I found these, plus Montanabw and I who have made our disagreement clear on this page. If you would like me to ping all of these people and ask them to come here and reiterate their comments, I will, but I'm not really seeing the point. Also, on all of the horse articles through FAC over the past few years (and there have been quite a few), three way conversions are used on the majority, if not all, of them. There have never been any questions about the use of three-way conversions. Three way conversions are also frequently seen in other contexts - for example, ship/maritime articles often have three way conversions of metric tons (to long and short tons), nautical miles (to miles and kilometers) and knots (to mph and km/h). Dana boomer (talk) 02:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC) (updated 02:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC))
(ec) And yes, 15 and 1/2 hands is NOT 15 hands and 2 inches, but 15 and 1/2 inch. 15.1 hh is 15 and 1 inch. 15.2 is 15 and 2 inches. There are never ever fractions of a HAND listed, the extraneous numbers in a hh measurement are always in inches. Again, I can provide plenty of references for this. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

For reference - for everyone - the relevant portion of WP:MOSNUM (under MOS:CONVERSIONS) states: "Generally, conversions to and from metric units and US or imperial units should be provided,..." - that has generally been taken at FAC to mean that both SI and imperial measurements are included as WELL as any other measurements (such as hands). Thus, yes, three-way conversion is a good goal here as well as probably required by the MOS. Whether or not it's "required" why is it so freaking difficult to give three units rather than two? Horse people in much of the English speaking world think in terms of hands - we don't think in inches. Yes, I get that some EU countries (as well as elsewhere) use SI units and think in those - but the idea is to allow for the most people to understand a given measurement, which means including hands AND cm AND inches. Hands for horsepeople, cm for those used to SI units who aren't horsepeople, and inches for those used to imperial units who aren't horsepeople. I absolutely reject the idea that ONE usage of hand is good enough - no horseperson I know in the US (or likely in England) would instantly understand that - provide the conversions in all three units. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Time to Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Montanabw(talk) 16:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Heights 2[edit]

A sentence currently reads "The ANCCE requires that in order for animals to be approved as either "qualified" or "élite" breeding stock, stallions must stand at least 155 cm (15.1 h) and mares at least 153 cm (15.0 h)" (or it did a minute ago). However, that simply isn't the case. Spanish law requires that (it is sourced to the Boletin Oficial). The ANCCE has the obligation to maintain the stud-book and so on; but the characteristics of the breed are fixed by law. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Erm, they may be fixed by law in Spain, but that doesn't mean that they are fixed by law in other countries. Would something like "Spanish law requires..." be better? Dana boomer (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm no lawyer; but I suggest that the Spanish law defines the breed standard, which in turn governs registration in the 27 countries where the ANCCE is represented. The wording was probably OK before it was changed; alternatively, why not make it clear that that is the standard of the Pura Raza Española? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
You cannot just state "animals are required to be" something without saying WHO requires it - and wouldn't this information on the specifics of qualified or elite status be better off with the information on the ANCCE later in the article - in the characteristics section we're really interested in the broad characteristics of the breed as a whole - not on the specific registration categories and what it takes to qualify for them - that'd be better covered in the registration section where those qualifications can be set out. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
My suggestion was that it be made clear that it is the Pura Raza Española to which these restrictions apply. That probably covers about 95% of the "Andalusians" worldwide; if the others have different height criteria, why not add them?. But I agree that the details of qualification for reproductor calificado and reproductor de élite should be covered in one section or another. I'll take this opportunity to apologise for messing up the references; I'm afraid I just can't make head or tail of those gobbledegook dates, month of access is normally sufficient in academic circles. IMO, there's no visible value in using a cite template if the result is indistinguishable from doing it manually, which I personally prefer. I'll restore the lost access instructions and quotes tomorrow when I've had some sleep. On capitalisation, IMO writing Ministry of Environment etc suggests that that is an official name. It isn't. I suggest reverting to lower case to make clear that it is merely an approximate translation. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 02:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
If it's an approximate translation ... don't translate - use the official name in Spanish. Also, foreign language citations need to have their language specified - as they now do by stating "Spanish". This IS an FA, it's a royal pain to keep the citations up to snuff, but they have to be spot on, especially as this article goes on the main page in about 24 hours - it's going to get hit with vandalism and the best thing to do is have it in tip top shape going into its appearance on the main page. And the citations must be in the same format for all the citations - which your citations weren't because you didn't give the same accessdate format (You went December 2011 - the rest used YYYY-MM-DD). The reason for the full date accessdate is so that if the link goes dead, you can use the wayback machine or similar to get the exact date of the archived page. Use the "quote" field in the cite web templates for access instructions and quotations - that formats them correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealdgyth (talkcontribs)
Actually, JLAN, remember that this is an article on English WP, and thus English WP rules and guidelines for style and content are used. Further, Ealdgyth happens to have at least a few dozen FAs to her credit and is one of WP's most prolific article creators, so she knows what she is talking about and should be listened to. If you want to actually provide us with a citation, do it here and allow people who do understand the "gobbledegook" to do the formatting. (It's always worked for me). If you wish to continue your endless, tendentious debate, please produce evidence that you've done your research and provide your sources - with live URLs. Montanabw(talk) 16:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Why does this article say "Andalusians stallions and geldings average 100.11⁄2 hands (401.5 inches, 1020 cm) at the withers and 52 kilograms (110 lb) in weight; mares average 151⁄2 hands (60.5 inches, 154 cm) and 42 kilograms (93 lb)." I've never heard of a horse that only weighed 110 lbs, especially not one that was 33 feet tall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.120.29 (talk) 11:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you may have seen the article when there was some vandalism in it - it is back to normal now! Please let us know if you have any additional questions. Dana boomer (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Some questions[edit]

To which maybe I have missed the answers in reading through the article:

  • When was the PRE created?
  • What was the breed called before?
  • Was there a stud-book?
  • Were Alter Reals and (what would become) Lusitanos registered in the same book?

It seems to me that this is basic history and should be in the article; but, as I say, I may have missed it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

JLAN, some of your questions confuse me. What do you mean by "when was the PRE created"? It and the Andalusian are the same thing - there are just different registries arguing about which strains and pedigrees are the purest and which horses are the "true" Andalusian/PRE. We have an entire section on naming and registration (you edited it earlier today), this should help with your questions about what the breed has been called through history. Pedigrees began to be kept as early as the 13th century (Early development section) and the original official Spanish studbook traces back over 100 years (Naming and registration section). Andalusians/PREs have only been able to be exported from Spain in the modern day since the 1960s, so all US/Australian/whatever registries were founded since then. The Lusitano was only officially split off from the Andalusian in the 1960s, so I'm assuming before that they were registered with the same stud book, although I've never seen a source that specifically states this. With some registries they are still registered within the same studbooks (this is discussed in the article). The majority (if not all) of your questions have answers in the article... Dana boomer (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
No, PRE and Andalusian are not the same thing. "Andalusian" is one of the English-language names for the PRE (it is the one used by the FAO for this transnational breed), and I suggest altering the lead to make that quite clear; but it also includes many horses that are not, and never could be, PRE. See e.g., the section on registration in Australia. Anyway, the answer to the first and maybe the second question is 1912, when the Cria Caballar started registering Andalusians as Pura Raza Española. (see es.wikipedia, or Edwards). I don't know where "over a hundred years" comes from, nor can I find "hundred" in the article. The section on registration reads as extremely biased against the Spanish association. Is that intentional? Why do the Australian half-breeds, or indeed the few thousand horses in the USA, get discussed before the Spanish ones? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
My apologies, it was in the Pure Spanish Horse subsection of the Naming and registration section. The specific quote is "trace back to the original stud book maintained by the Cria Caballar, which was a branch of the Spanish Ministry of Defense, for 100 years.". The Naming and registration section is laid out the way it is because this is how the editors involved in the article felt it worked out best. The four paragraphs at the beginning of the section lay out the various names given to the breed in its early history (first two paragraphs), the differences between registration/naming/politics of the Andalusian, the PRE and the Lusitano (third paragraph) and the Australian program (fourth paragraph). The PRE is then given an entire subsection devoted to the politics of this particular set of registries. The Australian registry is before the Spanish stuff because if we put it after it would have to have its own subsection header, which would be giving it undue weight. Dana boomer (talk) 04:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I should apologise, I should have been able to see that; I'm afraid I was tired at 3 a.m.. It isn't actually 100 years since 1912 just yet, but I don't suppose that matters much; I notice the the UCCE is claiming "over 100 years". Whatever the reasons for the layout (which I find quite bizarre), I think it should be made absolutely clear that the vast majority of horses (95%? 98%?) are registered as PRE, and the the other registers constitute a tiny minority. It would be easy to move the Pura Raza Española section up and have a second sub-heading such as "Other registration" below it for the stragglers. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
JLAN, you are simply taking the viewpoint of one party in an ongoing legal spat that has bled into an case before the EU. The PRE folks claim that "Andalusians" are some sort of crossbred mongrels, the rest of the world understands that the PRE vs. Andalusian thing is basically the pedigree spat that many of these older breeds get into. You have not done the research on this issue that everyone else has done, and you need to do so before you try and derail an article that has been stable for months and subject to extensive review on this point already. Montanabw(talk) 00:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Opening sentence[edit]

I suggest rewording the opening sentence to something like this: "The Andalusian horse, in Spanish Pura Raza Española or PRE, is a horse breed from the Iberian Peninsula, where its ancestors have lived for thousands of years. Other English names include Pure Spanish Horse, Purebred Spanish Horse and Spanish Pure Breed." in order to make clear what the topic of this article is supposed to be. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

JLAN. Stop[edit]

JLAN, you pulled this the last time we had a horse article on the main page. You are tendentiously engaging in an ongoing one-person edit war and it is time for you to STOP. NOW. You have lost on this issue again and again and need to go do something more constructive. I am placing a warning on your talk page because you have really gone too far this time in your constant tendentious arguments over the height of horses and your ongoing hostility to the use of the "hands" template. Montanabw(talk) 23:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Montana, I've reverted your revert. By the point of my last edit (earlier this afternoon), I think things were fairly well settled - JLAN had made some decent edits, and Ealdgyth and I had cleaned up the formatting, etc. The hands template is under discussion above - it's now in the article (as it should be, since it's the only three-way conversion method we have) - and if JLAN reverts back to his two-way conversion, that should be reverted, since three-way conversions are necessary, while which unit comes first is just user preference. I really don't care if cm comes first in the article, but I do care that he is removing conversions to inches, which we have to have. So, basically, the way the article is as of this comment is good, IMO (and I'm assuming Ealdgyth's, since she helped with the citation cleanup and wording). However, I also agree that popping up and edit warring on conversion templates the day before the article is going on the main page, as well as asking questions that are obviously answered in the text, is not helpful. If you want to change info, JLAN, provide sources, and please read the article thoroughly before asking for info to be changed. Dana boomer (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
The issue of removing inches was extensively debated at WPEQ just a few months back and it is a settled issue. Removing Imperial measurements is a form of vandalism and should be treated as such. Montanabw(talk) 00:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
JLAN, I have to agree, time for you to stop. Enough. Give it a rest. PumpkinSky talk 00:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

A tale of two quotes[edit]

Somewhere into the article is written

but the public position of the ANCCE is that terms such as "Andalusian" and "Lusitano" refer only to crossbreds, which the ANCCE considers to be horses that lack quality and purity, without official documentation or registration from official Spanish Stud Book.[10]

With the reference to a note of the ANCCE NOWHERE inside the note is Lusitano mentioned, so this statement should be retracted (IIRC it is also on the Lusitano article, in even more violent terms) as is materially FALSE, and -i'd say, when i first read it- highly inflamatory.


On a lighter, but no less intriging side. it is claimed

In the past, most coat colors were found, including spotted patterns.[4] Today, around 80 percent of all Andalusians are gray. Of the remaining horses, approximately 15 percent are bay and 5 percent are black, dun or palomino or chestnut.[8] Other colors, such as buckskin, pearl, and cremello, are rare, but are recognized as allowed colors by registries for the breed.[9][10]

Leaving aside that NO restriction for coat color is put on the PRE standard; i wonder how the US Equestrian Federation got this percentages (probably valid for the population under its responsability) but is in no way representative of the Spanish population. I've found no way to get semiofficial data from the Stud Book, but a quick survey on the selling sites of the UCCE or the ANCCE as a sample (107 and 345 exemplars each), gives today -in gross numbers- around 40% for each gray and bay (a couple of poinst more for these last), from 9-15% for black coat and from 8-2% for chesnut. This values are not significant in any way, but to show that current data in the article are wide off reality. I would leave simply as "grey and bay coat are predominant, all others are posible". --Wllacer (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting here, Wllacer. On the first point: In the past, that reference used to say "Lusitano". It now apparently doesn't, so I have modified both this article and the Lusitano article to conform to this reference. On the second point, a sample of horses for sale on two of the several breed registries for the Andalusian is hardly a scientific representation. I have, however, made it more clear that this is US data. It has been contentious in the past that the diluted colors (buckskin, etc) were recognized by breed registries, so this wording and referencing is the result of several discussions and edit wars on the topic over several years. Also, not all colors are possible - as far as I know, Andalusians may not be pinto, Appaloosa, etc. Dana boomer (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Woudn't have expected it written at the ANCCE, somebody wrote under influence ;-). Leaving aside the long standing issue of the breed name, the accolade against andalusian or iberian reads as against a very concrete target without naming it (not that i'm privy); but against lusitanos makes me totally clueless. Here in Spain at least the lusitanos are in high esteem (the PRE as should have been), many ANCCE breeders own them, and not a few would love seeing the Spanish Stud Book open for a while for portuguese blood, so really it makes no sense ...
I know that my sample is not worth scientifically (and given the fact that grey coats are a bit out of fashion here), just a good counterexample. i had preferred a more conservative and purely qualitative description
I thought it also, but nothing in the standards here as of now forbids such coats, as far as I've been able to check in the last zootecnical specs issued by the spanish government in 2002. I made sure to read that no coating disqualification exists.

--Wllacer (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I've got references to an older breed standard which was very restrictive on coatings (f.i. chestnut coloring was disqualifying), but still haven't had the time to check the legal text if still available --Wllacer (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Something we need to remember is that this is a featured article. This means that not only do new sources that we put in the article have to be reliable, they also have to be of the highest quality. This mean no personal pages, unless the person is a recognized expert, no blogs (again, sometimes an exception is made if the author is an expert in the field under discussion), etc. In a quick look, I found that the Australian registry currently forbids patterned coats. Dana boomer (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Here is the 1970 standard legal order.Explicitly disqualifies only chesnut and spotted (pio in spanish). Couldn't move more backwards. But at least from 1970 till 2002, they were forbidden (clearly it was before the genetics era). Down under, where? at the AAA standard or at PREAA? This last list indeed excludes piebald and skewbald. It's funny because it is the "official" partner down-there. I rechecked again our 2002 standard and there is no disqualifying. So we both are right--Wllacer (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

About the name of the breed and stud book[edit]

Regarding which is the correct/legal name of the breed Whatever the popular name (and I would agree it would be rather andalusian or even cartujano) the denomination Pura Raza Española (PRE) is the official one since the establishment of the Stud Book in Spain in 1912 (for those curious here is the decree setting it up), or put in another words, 100 years ago, and at the setting of the fundational register of the breed.

As the article says export was forbidden till 1962; so any horse exported since then has been with PRE as breed on the papers.

On the other hand, the Stud Book -in Spain- was under strict control of the Army thru the Remonta y Cria Caballar unit, till January 2007. Pace Hendricks, the zootecnical standard has changed significantly more than once in this time, but this is something i still have to check in the spanish legislative database.

Why the unispiring name? All that i have read, the military had always used the term español(spanish) to identify their non-foreing blood stallions; but it seems that the name "andalusian" was avoided in part also to not damage those breeders not fisically in that region (today we would have created 17 different breeds ;-)).It must be noted that the breed standard excluded the vast majority of native horses of Spain, which were under 14.2 hands (58 inches, 147 cm), and had never been of military interest.--Wllacer (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia guidelines, the common name of something is what we use as the article title. In this case, it is Andalusian. It doesn't really matter what the "official" name is in one country, the common name is Andalusian. We have quite a long section detailing the different names of the breed and where they are used, which provides ample coverage of the PRE name. This has been discussed ad nauseum previously. I'm not sure if your last three paragraphs are asking for changes in the article? Dana boomer (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I wrote this AFTER reading the archives, and unless i'm mistaken none of the facts I've written were ever cited, and i think they should have their place in the article. For instance, the whole paragraph about the registration wars is hard to understand without a clear reference to the status change of (all) the Spanish Stud Book(s) in 2007/2008, and it is less than evident in the body of the article. A lot could be written from the fact that the SB was only established in 1912, and initally did not contain a "breed standard", ...
I hate the PRE name as anyone else and am sure that people will find it under andalusian 100 times faster, but the formal name under which the fundational Stud Book works, does have its importance, no matter if your local -derived- SB uses another. --Wllacer (talk) 08:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Hardly "local" -- it's the name used in nearly breed encyclopedia published in the English Language. Both names are in the lead, we have redirects for all search parameters, and it really is a long-done deal. We have beat this one to death. That said, as far as the "registration wars," I think that a separate article on Spanish stud book politics would be a better place to discuss this sort of thing. I've wanted to do an article on various Spanish horse-breeding groups such as the Yeguada Militar for WP, but have not had the time to research the matter. I think it needs to be done, just not here! For example, at Finnhorse, that editor spun off an article on the Crown stallion system, which was a good approach, and one I think would work well for Spain. Montanabw(talk) 22:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Studbook mess. An organized view[edit]

I'm trying to understand the whole registration mess, but I need some external input to flesh some important gaps. Let me state the facts as i have it now (in italic doubts or missing data)

  • In 1912 the Stud Book for spanish pure bred horses is created under the management of the Army. Only restriction then was that the horses had to be spanish born and free of foreing blood
  • In 1943 the Stud Book is formally closed. It means a PRE horse can only be a PRE if their parents are inscribed Stud Book
  • In 1962 export restrictions were lifted and PRE horses could be exported. From then on foreign born horses could be registered in the Spanish Stud Book directly, thru foreing agents or authorized local registrars acording to spanish norms (AFAIK the Lusitano case is exactly the same).
  • At some point, in certain local jurisdictions (USA and Australia, basicly) there appear totally independent registrars for horses of PRE (or Lusitano) origin, side by side of spanish recognized entities. They use their own standards and procedures and don't communicate their registrations to the Spanish Stud Book. Can an horse from independent registered horse pedigree register back in the PRE? Remember the Stud Book is closed. This is not a academic question. Are the IALHA or the AAA such cases? I suspect yes, 'cause there are ANCCE recognized associations in both states. Since when?
  • After the cession of the managment of the StudBook in 2007 to the ANCCE (legally not exclusive, but practically), things have become even more muddied. It seems that the transition hasn't been as smooth and some foreing institutions (PRE mundial) backed by another spanish breeder association (UCCE) have opened (or fought the right to open) an alternate registration manager for the same or compatible Spanish PRE Stud Book

Can anyone of you help with doubts and flesh more data. I don't have any personal interest but one: to make it understandable, as neutral as possible and if incompatible registrars exist make it clear --Wllacer (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Wllacer, I'm still really not sure where you're going with this. First of all, quite a bit of the information you just stated is already included in the article. Second, any information you wish to be included in the article needs to be backed up by high quality reliable sources, which I have yet to see you provide any of. Third, this is a general readership article, so going even deeper into the mess that is the registration of Andalusians/PREs is going to start getting unnecessary. Fourth, I really wish you would just state what changes you wish to see made to the article, backed up by high quality reliable sources, and then we can discuss that. Just stating a bunch of facts and then asking for discussion is rather pointless. Yes, the registration is confusing. If you have a way to make it less confusing, please say so. Dana boomer (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Simply. As an outsider I was unable to understand one iota of the whole affair as it is written now. The question did intriged me so, what i'm trying is to put up a inteligible (and contexted) narrative, and if possible bring it to the article. It's not the lack or the quality of the sources -they are a-plenty in the article, i need at most provide some of the legal basic documents for all to check-, but of redaction and contexting. You can not speak about Stud Books and not say when it was established; nor what it means that someone does not recognizes yours; nor can you say there is a lawsuit after a change and cite the good ole' times and not say what's the change nor explain what they were .... (the you is not personal, but rethorical).
If you want me to help to make a better article, here you'll find me. If you think this is not what the article needs, well, i'll clean up the dust in my soles, and go in peace--Wllacer (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Just passing through ... Hi Wllacer! We have to be extra-specially careful with Featured Articles, to ensure that the sources cited are absolutely impeccable (and as up-to-date as possible unless we're actually discussing the history bit). The registration thing is a nightmare, and I don;t think (personally) that it's possible to go into all the depths of it, in its entirety, without giving it undue weight relative to the rest of the article. It would be so nice if it were easy to explain without bogging readers down ... We can't cover absolutely everything there is to know, in an encyclopedia article (that's not what encyclopedias do). Part of the idea of citing all the really good sources that we do is so that readers can then go and read through all of those to get the more in-depth coverage of the subject. Pesky (talk) 07:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Look at my first entry here as the proposal of an outline of what, and the order, should come in. I'm more interested by now, as i said before, in clarity of exposition than anything else
Neither i think it must go into the gory details, i.e. going very much beyond the volume of the outline (properly sourced, without known material errors and a bit more of explanation, and if interesting footnotes),. I think is far less than the actual volume. IMHO The current "PRE Mundial" vs ANCCE lawsuit does not merit ATM more space- till the dust settles in a couple of years (a second spanish registrar is nowadays "betatesting"). I'm more worried with a clear explanation of the status of IALHA or the AAA. I don't have a definite opinion about them, but my first impression is that they could manage incompatible registries and i think is a vital point which needs to be clarified. I'm even thinking to ask ANCCE directly ...
To be a full section about the Stud Book it could contain a small entry about the changes in the zootecnical standard (1912 none, 1943 the so-called "oriental", 1970/1978 the "subconvexe" and 2002 the actual) In other breeds is not usually an important question; but the '43 was higly controversial (see Hendricks, when she writes about the disastrous "arabmania") and has had a lot of influence . This part can basically be sourced (in spanish, don't think there is any english related source) by one of the articles at the 95 Cordoba Congress I comment below, which is the only published history of the spanish registry, and backed with references to the actual standards (i've got them all on-line at last). Could go elsewhere --Wllacer (talk) 10:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Definitely a topic that needs its own article, IMHO, see, for example not only the Crown stalion system article I wikilinked above, but also American Quarter Horse Association, Arabian Horse Association, or United States Equestrian Federation, places where the club politics can be thoroughly hashed about! ANCCE or Montanabw(talk) 22:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

RFC: an alternate text to the Naming and registration section[edit]

Those interested can find a proposed alternate redaction for the Naming and registration section at Alternate text. It is just a Work In Progress Your comments are welcome.

There are a few points open

  • It lacks a rationale of the 2007 managment transfer of the Stud Book. IIRC it had to do with some EU directive, but given the year it could have been anything. I'll try to dig
  • I Have to check the actual status of the litigation, and the EU involvment in all of this (the text i've excised has more than one bogus argument)
  • Is the whole text about australian half-breds useful ?
  • We could clarify a bit the naming part (at least get rid of the many wrong spellings; yes I know many are already in the OKA.EDU site, but are correctly spelled @Hendricks)

And a couple of posible enhancments

  • Is this the right place to introduce the comments about the standard evolution I said above
  • Where could we put some information about registrable half-breeds (Caballo de Deporte Español,Hispano-Arabe)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wllacer (talkcontribs) 11:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Answers: Your sandbox is a good place to work on things, and that's the best approach. You can invite others to "play" in the sandbox as you did here, and we can continue the discussion there if you wish. As I stated earlier, I think a separate article on the organization and the history of the "stud book wars" and litigation would be the best approach. (Note to all, Montanabw is actually advocating for a spinoff article!). You could start it in a sandbox, as is happening with the US Military remount or here: Remonta y Cria Caballar. As for the rest, we have articles already on some halfbreeds with their own registries, such as the Hispano-Arabe, Anglo-Arabian, National Show Horse, and also articles on groups such as the French AQPS. Do a search of WP and check the List of horse breeds. Montanabw(talk) 22:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
While I agree that some information on the 2007 transfer and the various incarnations of the breed standard would be good (the latter possibly in this history section, since we already have some discussion of the Arab stuff there), we cannot toss all but one sentence on the lawsuit. I'm sorry if you feel the arguments are "bogus", but they are backed up by reliable sources. While a separate article on the Remonta y Cria Caballar and/or ANCCE would be interesting, if you can find enough independent, third-party sources, there also needs to be discussion here of the various facets, including the lawsuit. The Sanchez Malo source you use in your sandbox looks like it would be a good source to use for additional information here about the standard evolution and the 2007 transfer - like I said, I think this would be interesting information to add, now that we have a good source for it. Unfortunately, some of what you have done in your sandbox glosses over some of the negative aspects of the breed politics. For example, "Spanish authorities insist in the sole formal / commercial usage of the term for registered horses" (regarding the term PRE) doesn't tell the reader that ANCCE considers the term "Andalusian" to be essentially a name for crossbred mutts. We cannot just trim everything that might portray the breed (or ANCCE) in a bad light, and that seems to be what your sandbox has done. Dana boomer (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


I'll be offline for a few days, please excuse me, but first some fast comments.
Remonta y Cria Caballar as an organizacion does merit an article, as for good or bad has shaped the horse world in Spain over the last 150 years. The Stud Book as such, i'm not that sure ...
AFAIK there is only a registrable HalfBreed still not on Wikipedia: the Caballo de Deporte Español, which is of recent creation and includes any PRE halfbreed (except Hispano-Arabe) for sport. I haven't paid that much attention to developments in the field, but can keep an eye on it. But I was thinking about a list in the article refering to them
There is a reason there is only one sentence about the PREMundial/ANCCE lawsuit. ATM what I have is a bunch of press releases from the parties. Till i move thru them or get external info i prefer to restrain myself that to put false info . OTOH is always dangerous to talk about an ongoing litigation; they're moving targets and the parties tend to "intoxicate" the media ...
The part I moved under the rug about the EU was for a reason. The source of the citation comes from a spanish trade journal, but seems transposed in a very botched translation. I'd love to see the original. I've contracted for the Public Hand a bit too much to know that virtually anything can be privatized, so the text raised me a big alarm. I prefer NOT to include positively dubious sounding information without a double check, no matter the source. YMMV
Dana, you come around circles about the (unfortunate) ANCCE note. Have you ever heard of FUD (fear, uncertainity or doubt) ? I don't know how long are you exposed to the PRE and its surroundings; but for me this note would only elicit two questions: What was the redactor smoking to be so unfortunate ? and Whom did it wanted to chastize? (clearly IALHA), and move forward. I'm pretty sure there is a conditional or qualifier somewhere ... The disputes about the name of the breed are too old to think that one day ANCCE has decided to make a new twist ...
But there is a sad true in the note. If you find horses with a formal (papers) name of "Andalusian"; be 100% sure, it is not backed by the Spanish Stud Book, and therefore the trust you can have about its blood is at most the trust you have in the registrar and its procedures--Wllacer (talk) 11:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Wilacer, please avoid comments like "what [are they] smoking...?" That's an insult and a personal attack that we don't like to see on wikipedia (see WP:NPA). On wikipedia, we provide a neutral point of view that explains the politics and factions but does not take sides. Obviously, the existence of a lawsuit over all of this shows that there is an unresolved controversy and it is appropriate to discuss it. I think that the point is that the Spanish government and Spanish stud book do not dictate to the rest of the world, even though they apparently want to. So, if you could be so kind as to confine your lengthy arguments to the talk page of your sandbox, or, better yet, work on a new article about this issue that separate from this article, we can focus on what may be needed here to improve the article, and not to turn it into a battleground for horse politics. Montanabw(talk) 21:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I was worring if I was having some communication problems with some contributors. The discovery this morning that a clearly humoristic remark elicited such a response as above, has dispellt all my doubts. We do have, and I know now why
I'm not motivated anymore to enter in an argument. I've grown bored, and I feel there is no way i can come along with you to improve the contents on spanish horses. I wish more luck to the next one who tries ...
Don't stand up, i know my way to the door .

--Wllacer (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

And once again, provide us with neutral, reliable sources. Any time. Montanabw(talk) 19:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

ANCCE standard[edit]

I changed it because it gave me a 404. Now it appears to me in spanish.

A side note, the standard is not ANCCE but Spain's. Legally ANCCE is only the manager/registrar of the Stud Book but the owner (and thus the standard setter) is the Spanish State. This is not trivial matter --Wllacer (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

An extremely useful source. Sadly in spanish[edit]

I've found an open edition of the acts of the 1995 Cordoba Congress on the Spanish Horse. [1] It was a milestone in the studies around the breed. The only trouble is that has not even english abstracts. I'll try to translate at least here the index of communications --Wllacer (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Oooh, that sounds interesting! Us mutts can probably do Google translate to get to the basics of it, but if there's anything in there which is really good, it might be workable with. Pesky (talk) 07:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I stumbled upon an interesting bibliography at the Foundation site. Mostly in Spanish.

Other wonderful discovery: "Juan Carlos Altamirano Macarrón". He is probably one of the most interesting horse historians in Spain (simply look at the list above). I've just found his website, and it is partially translated into English. Worth exploring, and using. --Wllacer (talk) 11:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


Carthusian horse[edit]

Is this a livestock branding of the Carthusian horse? If yes, I would transfer it to Commons. --Kersti Nebelsiek (talk) 11:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Source material[edit]