Talk:Maremmano

message: this should remain as a separate breed from the maremmano, the two look very different nowadays
Altes2009 (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you find pictures to show us this difference?  Even if not  photos can't be uploaded to wikipedia, maybe post some links to examples!  Montanabw(talk) 03:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Gulp! Someone suggested merging the Tolfetano with the Maremmano? They are totally different horses, with totally different breeding traditions and different breed registers maintained by totally separate organisations. They have in common that they are working horses of the Maremma area, and are thus ridden in the same manner (the butteri of Tolfa use the bardella saddle like other working riders in Lazio). It would make a lot more sense to merge the Maremmano with the Thoroughbred, with which after the endless (and IMO misguided) rounds of "improvement" it now has a great deal in common. I can find you pictures of Tolfetani (my own pics) if you still want to see them, though pictures alone are unlikely to be enough to distinguish one breed from another, particularly as they don't show size well (size is the most patent difference between Tolfetano and Maremmano).   Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that one died due to lack of interest.  Montanabw(talk) 21:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge conversation

message: I suggest removing from the article reference 2, , and all information derived exclusively from it, such as the incorrect name Maremmana (the Maremmana is a cow; of course the word may also be used to describe a Maremmano mare, but never the breed). I consider the source unreliable for these reasons:
1) It is a secondary source
2) It cites no primary material of any kind
3) It is near-illiterate and riddled with obvious errors (is it really probable that Italian Jumping Championships were held in 1088?)
Including it as a reference is non-encyclopaedic and academically inadmissible.  Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'll grant it's not a very good source and needs to be replaced with something better, but until that happens, it is "a" source and we have to replace and upgrade, not just toss.  I'm OK if you want to do some cleanup, as long as we upgrade in the process.   Do note, however, that wikipedia sources are SUPPOSED to be secondary sources!  (see WP:CITE and WP:V, but particularly WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARY. I think what you need to do is just go find some better sources, preferably in English, but if you can translate the Italian, you can do so in footnotes.  An example of an article where nearly all the source material is not in English is Finnhorse, the lead editor there did an excellent job of handling non-English source material. Montanabw(talk) 22:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that (the Finnhorse) is a well-written article, superb! I don't see how all primary sources can be excluded, whatever the book says; that would exclude all published breed standards, all official websites, race results, rules and regulations and who-knows-what else; but I'll go slow on them for now. I had already read about NOR, but a reminder doesn't hurt. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that you can't ever use primary sources, it's how they are used.  Breed standards are a good example, we CAN say, "the breed standard according to XYZ association is blah, blah, blah."  But we can't take the breed association's claim and say, "horse breed X is the best horse in the world," for example.  WP:PRIMARY sort of explains what you can and can't do.  Montanabw(talk) 02:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Thank you! Unfortunately I'm over a thousand miles from a decent English-language library likely to hold them. Without having seen either, and perhaps quite wrongly, I rather suspect that they are popular-level publications, which probably cover well-known horse types perfectly adequately, but tend to fall down on rare and regional types. What, would you say, is the chance that the author of either has ever seen, say, a Giara Pony, let alone had a chance to become familiar with the breed? I'm going to see if I can find a competently written Italian book of similar type (the one we have is, predictably, just Hartley Edwards translated). But thanks for the suggestions, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, but as you see, the relevant pages are in Google books, so you can access them online!  (I always do, I won't drop the $$ to actually buy them 'cause I'm cheap).  While your point that their analysis is superficial and sometimes wrong is well-taken, I think it's a question of being able to use them for the things they do get right (coat colors, perhaps) and just find better sources for other things.   I have seen errors in pretty much ALL the "breed encyclopedia" type books in just about any breed (my own expertise, such as it is, is on the Arabian, and the all-breed encyclopedias just seem incapable of getting certain things correct -- they keep repeating the "all" Arabians have 5 lumbar vertebrae thing, for example. [some do, some don't] Drives me nuts.)  The encyclopedias are particularly useful for the stupendously obvious things that seem to be no-brainers, but some idiot will insist on slapping a "fact" tag on  -- like, "this breed was developed in Italy."   Dana boomer's very well researched Cleveland Bay might be a useful example -- she used the encyclopedias for the basic stuff, but found a considerable amount of additional research from specialty sources that bulked out the details and corrected the errors in the encyclopedias.  And I think that one is an FA, not just a GA.  So that's some ideas.  But at any rate, dive in and have fun, whatever else you dp! Montanabw(talk) 02:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable source 

message: The article says: "By the end of the 19th century, the breed's characteristics had become fixed". Is there a reliable source for this extraordinary assertion? IMO, the characteristics of the breed changed radically throughout the 20th century and are still in rapid evolution as the ANAM tries to complete its transformation into an athletic competition horse. This will need further research, but according to , the phrase 'Maremmano migliorato', or 'improved Maremmano', began to be heard in the 30s, while the Stazioni di Monta ('stallion covering stations') were set up in 1925 with the aim of 'refining' the breed by the introduction of fast, lightweight dolicomorphic horses such as English Thoroughbreds. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So find a source and fix it if you think it's wrong.  If it does have a footnote, review the source and see if it is stated accurately.  As I have noted previously, no one else seems to have the time or energy to do all the research needed for this particular article, so go ahead and work on it.  We'll be glad to help you with formatting and phrasing (like not using words like "dolicomorphic" unless wikilinked or piled to plain English, LOL)  Montanabw(talk) 18:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breed characteristics fixed?