Talk:Andalusian horse

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: LOL!  And we get after breed registry sites for getting overly romantic!  Sigh...  Montanabw(talk) 17:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  History geek strikes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Latest round 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: Will do, probably later today/tonight. Dana boomer (talk) 10:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Thoughts on articles

message: 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 and the Government of Spain considers any American use of the PRE name for a studbook or registry without permission to be unethical.
:::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. 
:::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.  
:::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.
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)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Stable version 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ouch!  Thanks for the tweaks.  We may want to update the stable version sometime tomorrow?? Montanabw(talk) 21:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Spoken version

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Some questions

message: 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)
thread_title:  Opening sentence 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: JLAN, I have to agree, time for you to stop. Enough. Give it a rest. PumpkinSky talk 00:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  JLAN.  Stop 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ANCCE standard 

message: I've found an open edition of the acts of the 1995 Cordoba Congress on the Spanish Horse. 
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  An extremely useful source. Sadly in spanish 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Carthusian horse 

message: Hello. I'm translating this article into french. In the fr-version we use this photo : 
Instead of the one in your article actually. I think this one above is better quality, more interesting because it's a grey horse, and a photo taken in Andalusia. Are you agree ? --Tsaag Valren (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, I would not use it here.  First off, per the en.wiki MOS, the horse is facing the "wrong" way - should face "into" the article.  Second, he is very fat and his neck is too short.  Third, technical quality is poor; the image has bad Photoshopping to white out the background, his tail is chopped off in the photo, and his feet are blurry.  Fourth, he has weird grooming, his tail is either shaved at the dock or else it's wrapped, I can't tell which.  Finally, he's just kind of ugly ;-).  JMO, but I wouldn't replace our image in this article. While it is true that a majority of Andalusians are grays, it isn't like the Lipizzan where it's super rare.  Saw stats saying about 80%, maybe.  Gray isn't a breed trait, just a common color.  Montanabw(talk) 23:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wanted to use a gray from Andalusia, crop out the handler on this image: :File:Pure race espagnole gris en longe à Valence.jpg. Better horse, better grooming, no blurriness. This horse is kind of cool, also:  :File:Pas espagnol.jpg.  Just my opinion, of course.  Montanabw(talk) 23:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, it was just a suggestion (I tried to photoshop the one above myself because of the do-it-yourself... but of course i'm not a photoshopper !) --Tsaag Valren (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries, and it's always good to be alerted to new and improved images!  Montanabw(talk) 07:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro photo 

message: Non-notable crossbreed, see .    ▶ I am Grorp ◀  01:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:   "Minor cross-breed"? If it's not notable, then go ahead and redirect to that list.    ▶ I am Grorp ◀  06:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:   Did you read my evaluation at ? After removing all the fluff about the two breeds of this crossbreed, there is only one remaining citation about "Spanish-Norman".    ▶ I am Grorp ◀  06:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and IMO you're POV-pushing; it's easy to remove citations and then say that an article is unsourced. Why is this so important to you? Miniapolis 15:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, I don't know why a Wikpedian would care about such silly things as WP:Notability. Why do you care so much about this article, Miniapolis? Since you seem to think I removed citations (which I didn't) instead of just evaluating them (which I did) means you probably still didn't read my evaluation or the article's edit history before comment here... twice.    ▶ I am Grorp ◀  20:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I can comment as much or as little as I please, and I (not you) know what I read. See WP:TE. Miniapolis 21:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

text: I think recognized horse breeds should have their own pages. As the Spanish Norman progresses as a recognized breed, more historical events surrounding it (dedications, events, notable studs, etc) will flesh out the article. Give it time :) thank you for your proposal. Anvakar (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Apart from a few ancestors, today's Spanish Norman has nothing to do with today's Andalusian horse. Please don not merge. Best Minoo (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

text: *oppose this is a separate designer crossbred, and there are several others.  The Andalusian is a FA class article and as such doesn’t need cruft added of descendant breeds.  A see also link or brief note in a crossbred list (if there is one) will do. Montanabw(talk) 18:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Spanish Norman]] into [[Andalusian horse]] 

message: Two articles, one subject. Purebred Spanish horse has redirected to Andalusian horse since 2007. Wikishovel (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: * Support.  I think boldly redirecting as a duplicate instead of opening a MR would have been appropriate – I haven't read either article in detail but I think it's unlikely that much content will end up being merged. Wham2001 (talk) 08:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Support.  There is zero need for there to be a fork on these two. That said, caution should be used in merging the weaker article into the feature article class article.Montanabw(talk) 18:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Follow up: I just blanked and redirected .  Upon review, it looks like the other article was yet one of the dozens of articles that were incorporated from French Wikipedia, without the editor first checking to see if we already had something similiar with a different title. These have been the bane of wiki project equine for quite some time, and I appreciate folks flagging more of these. Montanabw(talk) 18:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The same editor has recently created Trait du Maine and, while it's not a particularly good article, I don't see that it's an obvious duplicate.  Best, Wham2001 (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Purebred Spanish horse (PRE)]] into [[Andalusian horse]]