Talk:Lipizzan

message: I believe that "Lipica, Slovenia" should be removed from the "breed standards" section of the infobox. Right now, it directs to Lipca's English-language homepage, which is a totally irrelevant link. I tried to direct it to Lipca's official breed standards PDF to make it match the other "breed standards" links in the infobox, but both of my edits were reverted for no reason. I believe it's better not to have a "Lipca" link than to have one that points to a generic homepage with no information on breed standards whatsoever. --LJU2ORD (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We can fix the link if that's a problem.  It was everything else that led to the revert.  Montanabw(talk) 22:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of an irrelevant link 

message: When was the first breed registry (or stud book etc.) established and where? Could some knowledgeable person add this information?(talk) 20:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The stud books were originally kept by the individual studs, the idea of standardizing them is sort of 20th century. I know Piber and the SRS keep records and each nation has separate registries.  The  Lipizzan International Federation coordinates them all, I think.  It is difficult to list any single date for a stud book to be established... Montanabw(talk) 06:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breed Registry 

message: This article may be interesting:
http://www.sloveniatimes.com/austria-backtracks-on-its-claim-to-lipizzan-horse
--213.143.93.199 (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if anyone has access to this, which might provide a more balanced view than a Slovenian source:  http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article4481123.ece  Montanabw(talk) 23:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." 104.153.230.33 (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

text:  And “The initiative will also include Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Hungary, Italy, Romania and Slovakia.” thanks for the update.  Good to know. Montanabw(talk) 22:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Let's stop treating this as a competition and realize that this isn't, or at least shouldn't be, a political issue. There's absolutely no need to marginalize Lipica simply because it happens to be in Slovenia, just as there is no need to marginalize any other country. Austria and Slovenia enjoy great relations; let's carry on that spirit on Wikipedia. Agreed, Montanabw? 84.52.172.213 (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: And there is no need to mention it in every paragraph, either.  Balance and weight.  The breed is Habsburg in origin, there were multiple farms that produced the horses, of which the one at Lipizza/Lipica provided the name that stuck. But now it looks like seven nations now lay claim to the breed, so it's all about due and undue weight. Montanabw(talk) 05:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Multiple stud farms did eventually breed Lipizzaners, but the breed itself originated in Lipica/Lipizza (where Spanish horses were bred with breeds native to the Karst Plateau), so it's not like the name of one random stud farm was chosen by chance when the breed was named. Also, if you read the article above, you'll see that the recent initiative above is not about "laying claim to the breed" (as Austria attempted to do several years ago) but countries with modern-day Lipizzan-breeding stud farms working together to promote and protect the breed in the spirit of international cooperation. As for "undue weight," I think your concern is misplaced, since Slovenia tends to be mentioned in the article only in passing (or when long lists of countries are given). Other countries are mentioned much more prominently in other Wikipedia articles about animal breeds, so I don't see where your concern comes from. But do what you feel is right. 84.52.172.213 (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What is needed are reliable sources on the various stud farms and discussing the contributions of each. Articles about each one would be nice, also (an unrelated example is Marbach Stud). Montanabw(talk) 07:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  UNESCO listing

message: My edit was reverted by User:Ealdgyth for "unclear reliability". I disagree - the cited sources are a Federal Stud Piber document from the website of the LIF, and a letter from a relevant EU official. The current citation for LIF being the "international governing body" of Lippizans is from the LIF themselves, which violates WP:PRIMARY. I have restored the paragraph.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:111E:4400:1CE:8189:11FF:5C43 (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but this is just another round in the drama between Austria and Slovenia. The news article doesn’t support the content added, the squarespace link is to a really poor OCR, and the Piber letter is redundant to other content. If you’ve got something clearer, it can be discussed if the relevant section can be updated, but for now, no.  Montanabw(talk) 06:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph regarding role of LIF in relation to the Lippizan mother studbook 

message: I'm not about to get involved in any specific edit dispute here, but it just blew my mind that after a recent edit, the fact that the user had "Slovenicus" in their user name was used to diminish their credibility. (The full text of the edit was as follows: "An addition by an account named 'viator slovenicus' shoving in more Slovenian details into the lead... none of this is needed.... merely pushing Slovenian nationalism.") Where's the presumption of good faith? Wikipedia users often have their locations as part of their user names, but I've never seen that used against them--until today. Accusations of anti-Slovenian bias have been made in connection with this article before, and this is not a good way to lay those concerns to rest. Revert the edit if you need to, but let's cool it down with the accusations of "nationalism," which never seem to be leveled against, say, Austrians, despite their history of trying to claim ownership of the breed.--31.15.238.217 (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit summary may have been unfortunate, but the problem of Nationalism pushing has been at least a decade-and-a-half long problem on Wikipedia.  The breed developed in the Habsburg Empire, which encompassed  multiple modern nations, and those national borders have shifted several times since as well. (Lipica, for example, was once part of Italy…). All of this has lead to much unnecessary drama, and if memory serves, out in the real world there even was an EU lawsuit—that Solvenia lost. The breed can be claimed by multiple modern nations that once hosted breeding farms (Hungary also has a claim), so the best approach is discussing the big picture.  Sad to say, Individuals claiming Slovenian background have been the most aggressive about POV pushing and in doing so attempt to make claims of sole “ownership” or origin that simply are not supportable. The Austrian farms and the SRS simply get more weight because their programs are the best-known. Montanabw(talk) 08:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's take it down a notch with anti-Slovenian sentiments 

message: Whoever keeps adding text that Lipica was a part of Austria-Hungary when the breed was developed, in the 15th and the 16th centuries, should go out and buy a European history book, since Austria-Hungary wasn't created until the 19th century. The claim is wildly anachronistic, yet it has been reinserted into this article several times. 104.153.228.206 (talk) 03:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The breed was developed from stallions at multiple studs, not just Lipica, a place that which was shuffled between various nations over the years. The point is that the Habsburg empire facilitated the development of the breed, and there’s multiple nations today can claim a stake in its origins. Montanabw(talk) 23:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Austria-Hungary at the time