Talk:Lipizzan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Austria? Not quite...

While Lipizzaners were certainly originally associated with the Austrian Empire, they are nowadays raised and bred all over Europe, the USA, and even South Africa and Thailand. So, it makes no sense to strictly associate them with Austria. It is also not correct that the style of riding them has been developped at the Spanish Riding school; in fact, there is no particular style to this, but instead, the classical art of riding is practiced at this school, like in many other places all over Europe, based on Lipizzaners, Andalusians, Fredericksborger etc.

A lot of Lipizzaners are used as horses for pulling carriages; in particular in countries like Romania, they still serve as means of transportation on a daily basis, at least on bad roads.

This article needs a lot of rectifications, I guess.

Find some good source material to put into the footnotes and add appropriate edits, or place recommended edits here and other editors can work them into the article itself. However, also read the entire article first, as it does state that Libpizzans live all over the world today, and nowhere does it claim that the Spanish Riding School "invented" classical dressage or the airs. There have been some very active editors from Slovenia working on this article as well, so you may find that it is broader than you think. I encourage you to add appropriate sourced, verifiable material. Montanabw^(talk) 17:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

My attempt to correct some of the errors in the article have been reverted, due to being "unsourced" and "poor English". As I am not a native speaker, I consider this reverting unpolite. Furthermore, You won't win experts with this attitude, as they often will simply write down what they know, without spending hours on trying to find some source. Further, since the sources I could cite are neither in the Internet, nor in English, I wonder how they would be verified. As it stands for now, I am affraid that you will have to live with substantial errors in this article. Thyl Engelhardt 213.70.217.172 07:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Just write down the title of the book even is in different language. Everybody who write something in wikipedia is part of it. Who knows: maybe you fixed something in article (this one or another one) who someone just like you wrote something down and was angry on you, just like you are now on somebody else. And how we know who is expert and who not? This is wikipedia. No names to verify professionality of individuals. So the best way for quality is to verify material with sources given. Nice day. --Jonson22 13:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do not simply revert versions I do not like. Small lingual/spelling errors I correct; factual errors I either start discussing in the Discussion Section, or I correct them and provide arguments why I have done so. Reverting is imho totally against the ghist of Wikipedia; it should only be applied in case of vandalism. Crying for sources is also not really helpful; since, as stated above, expert knowlege is something accumulated within a brain. How do you think printed encyclopedias are written? Most often, experts provide the texts from their brain based knowlege. In this case, I did not even have a chance to provide the sources you had asked for, because my changes were undone before I was able to look up the respective books in my library. Thyl Engelhardt 213.70.217.172 14:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't understand what I want to say about experts. In books of encyclopedia you know who stand behind it - the authors are named and checked. But here in wikipedia you don't know who is expert and who not. So when someone writes something in article how do you know that this information is correct? How do we know if this anonymous person is in fact expert? We don't know, so for accuracy of wikipedia the sources are important.
If you want to add something just add again. Actually, somebody else reverted or edit your writings. You may talk with him/her. We are all in position like you. Nice day. --Jonson22 09:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I did the reverting because much of what you wrote was incoherent, some of it contradicted sourced material already in the article, some of it repeated what was already in the article elsewhere, and much of what you added was in fact unsourced. And some of it (like what village a horse was named after, absent any context to explain why anyone should care) was just irrelevant.

No matter who you are, one of the wikipedia standards is, in fact, Wikipedia:No original research. If you have expertise, this sourcing is not easy, I know - I have expertise in some areas and found it hard at first when people asked me to source things I know in my head. However, if the knowledge is correct and well-known, I can go to my books and magazines (or, often, to the internet) and find published sources that support what I say. If I can't find others who agree with me, then I must admit that something is my own theory (or at least an unpublished theory) and as that is original research, it can't (yet) go into wikipedia.

Much of what is in this article comes directly from the Spanish Riding School's web site, I cannot imagine a more authoritative source. Other material comes from sources which appear to be accurate, though there is, of course, room for people to disagree about things. If you don't agree with footnoted sections, then look at them, see if they were misquoted here (that does happen, sometimes), and if you still disagree, explain it here, provide some sources (even if not in Ehglish), and maybe we can add in at least the differences of opinion.

As for language, I certainly don't try to rewrite, say, the German articles -- because I am not fluent in the language. If I see an error in some other language, I use the talk page to comment and let the people who know how to write do the actual edits.

So while I am sorry that you are upset, the edits needed to be reverted for these reasons. I suggest that you create a section at the bottom of this talk page where you propose any additions or corrections you feel the article needs. I can wordsmith what can be verified and maybe add some things back in. Montanabw^(talk) 20:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the Spanish Riding school is a commercial (though state owned) company. On their website, they present marketing information for their services. If you were up to writing an article about ink jet printers, would you take only information from HP's website, as the most authoritative source? And I think it is a good idea to use this section for disucssing additions and corrections; but since I will be vacancing the next two weeks, and can only work on this in my free time, it will take some time; sorry. Thyl 213.70.217.172 13:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

So is every breed registry on the planet. The point is quality and reliability of content. Non-commercial sites are good when they are authoritative and when we can find them, but they need not be the only thing we use. Take your time, add what you can when you can. Note I have created a "sandbox" below for edits. Montanabw^(talk) 19:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no single "breed registry" for the Lipizzan. If any institution may come close, it is the Lipizzan International Federation, in which the Piber stud is one member. Thyl 213.70.217.172 08:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not my point, I know there are multiple registries in different nations. The point is that just because a group tries to make a profit doesn't mean that can't also be a decent source of verifiable information. Sounds to me like you have something against the Spanish Riding School and Piber, which is a POV that just wastes time. Source your data, that's all we ask. Put down things that are considered widely accepted information by all factions, and if there are controversies, we can "teach the controversy" and explain the viewpoints (Been spending waaaaay too much of my time trying to balance PETA and the PRCA over in rodeo, for example). Wikipedia isn't the place for "political" spats between horse factions. (Took me ages to cool down the competing factions over on the miniature horse article, what a pain) It's a place for neutral, educational, informative information that can be verified by legitimate outside sources. Like I say, there is a "sandbox" below for proposed changes. Montanabw^(talk) 17:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Lipizzan sandbox

This is the place to propose or debate various major edits to the article.

"Crimson Tide" reference - Just saw the movie on cable with MovieNotes, and wanted to add the movie discussion of "whether they are born white or black" which is in the movie and mentioned in the existing source. Also removed a "the" which seemed to make Spain and Portugal "the two main powers in the Cold War." 98.232.69.171 (talk) 08:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Doug Cottrill

Any possibility of finding a clip of that film excerpt on YouTube or something? It would be cool to have a bit more context. Montanabw^(talk) 19:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Origin in Lipica

The infobox line "Developed in Central Europe from Spanish and local stock" is too broad and doesn't make much sense. The "local stock" mentioned here in fact refers specifically to horses of the Kras (Karst) region around Lipica, as several sources cited in this article confirm.

Example #1:

In 1580 Archduke Charles II, the son of the Austrian Emperor Ferdinand I was given the task of founding a stud to provide the Austrian Court with the finest horses possible. He chose a derelict village near Trieste, named LIPIZZA (modern spelling Lipica) - hence the breed name - LIPIZZANER!

He originally bought 24 mares and 9 stallions from Spain - hence the name The SPANISH Riding School of Vienna! The Spanish horses were crossed with very carefully selected Karst mares. As with most breeds, pure desert Arab blood was also used.

My bolding. Source: [1]

Example #2:

The Spanish horse, produced during Moorish rule by crossing Berber and Arab stallions with Iberian mares, was considered the most suitable mount because of its exceptional sturdiness, beauty, and intelligence. In 1562, Maximillian II brought the Spanish horse to Austria and founded the court stud at Kladrub. His brother Archduke Charles established a similar private imperial studfarm with Spanish stock in 1580 at Lippiza (nowadays: Lipizza [Italian], or Lipica [Slovenian]) near the Adriatic Sea. Here on the Karst plateau near Triest the type of horse which was bred in Lippiza was called the Lippizaner. Today in Europe the breed is called Lipizzaner or, in America, Lipizzan.

My bolding. Source: [2]

As these and many other sources confirm, the Lipizzan was developed specifically in Lipica when local Kras/Karst horses were bred with Spanish horses. The line "Developed in Central Europe from Spanish and local stock" is therefore needlessly broad and indeed misleading. Lipica is where the breed was developed.

Any opposing arguments? If none are given, I will change that line. --WorldWide Update (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"Lipizza" comes from Slovenian Lipiza (Lipitsa) "Little linden Tree", for all Spanish nationalists. The Lipitsan white horse was mentioned already by roman historian, writing about Venetic and Slovenian Karantanian "white native horses"... Bold text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.196.66.94 (talk) 07:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi WWU. Well, this is a partially-opposing viewpoint and thank you so much for taking this to the talk page. I appreciate your comments and I am sure we can arrive at some sort of reasonable consensus here. But botton line is this: We are working to class up this article for Good Article status. That means we have to follow Wikipedia Verifiability guidelines as closely as possible, and especially WP:NPOV. So, we are all for accurate, verifiable information. And we have to start footnoting EVERYTHING with sources that meet the wikipedia guidelines for verifiable sources.

The big thing here in your case is the NPOV guideline. I know you are a major promoter of the Slovenian roots of the Lipizzan and it is a needed perspective on the article, but, we cannot emphasize one legitimate, sourcable point of view over another, and in this case, Lipica in Slovenia is simply not the only source of the Lipizzan breed. The name was derived from there, and it is fair to acknowledge it as one of the major studs, but it cannot claim sole origin. The Habsburg monarchs set up several studs, the foundation stallions came from many sources, and the "local" mares (yes, that is vague, but it's short) were from Germany, Spain, and Denmark as well as Kras. I agree that the language in the infobox is kind of vague and my version could sure be improved, but it has to be kept very short there, yet accurate, with the detail described in the text. Vague is better than incorrect.

So, as to your sources. Equiworld UK is a general information fallback source when we can't verify things elsewhere, but it's not a real great source and is not always reliable. (Anything using that many exclamation points is obviously not a scholarly reference, for one thing) Lipizzan.org is a bit better, but it's a breed organization, thus has an admitted bias, so it is an OK source, but sometimes may need backup or even may have some things that are romanticized PR more than verifiable research. The source material from the Spanish Riding School and the Piber stud is considered a little more scholarly and reliable due to its long affiliation as a government entity, though if you think we need to consider a biased point of view there, let us know.

From our work on the other breed articles, there is often a need to look at multiple sources to obtain a clear understanding of certain data. As a rule, breed registries in general can be used as sources and are reasonably reliable, but often need backup from more scholarly works, as they do not always have completely accurate information, particularly information that challenges cherished myths. For example, to take a different breed, some Andalusian breed registries claim pure descent from the ancestral horse of Iberia and nothing else, but modern DNA evidence clearly shows that it has some Barb ancestry. But on the other hand, Arabian ancestry is thought to be there, but can only be verified from written records in the 1800s, though not earlier (the DNA study didn't include Arabians).

So, all I'm saying here is that we need to be careful to remember that we are writing an encyclopedia that is dedicated to a neutral point of view. I'm all for getting it "right" and have no particular POV on the issue, so let's continue the conversation and see what we can work out. Montanabw^(talk) 19:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your reasoned reply. It's a reminder to all of us -- certainly myself -- of how Wikipedia debates should be conducted.

However, I hasten to add that I do not feel that considering Lipica as the source of the Lipizzan is an inherently biased or non-neutral position. In fact, I have yet to see a credible English-language resource (an encyclopedia, a book about horses, etc.) that contradicts this claim or considers Lipica merely as an equal to the other studs. I'm not saying such sources don't exist, but I would love to see them in order to evaluate their arguments.

I have not gone through the source material from the Spanish Riding School and the Piber stud, but it is precisely its "long affiliation as a government entity" that could be an issue, given the political nature of the Lipizzan dispute of several years ago [3] (which, BTW, did should probably be mentioned in the article). There are two caveats to my caution: 1.) This same caution would also apply to any documents directly associated with the Slovenian government, and 2.) it is certianly possible that the resources associated with the Austrian government are indeed neutral; I can't automatically assume bias. Still, I would be a lot more comfortable with sources based outside of either Austria or Slovenia. That's one reason why I did not cite any Slovenian sources.

And if we stick to English-language sources, the same facts appear time after time. The International Lipizzan Federation, for instance, emphasizes that "While the breeds we have already mentioned have contributed greatly towards the development of the Lipizzaner, the core of the breed still lay with the native Karst Horse" (my emphasis). In The New Encyclopedia of the Horse, Elwin Hartley Edwards specifically states that Spanish horses taken to Lipica (no other studs mentioned) turned out to be the foundation of the breed. In fact, he specifically refers to Lipica as the place where the breed "originated". I'm seeing this in source after source; none seem to imply that Lipica cannot claim primary or even sole origin of the (new) breed itself or that its role was merely equal to the other Austrian studs. If such sources do exist, please let us know about them.

I'm looking forward to your input and am grateful for your past work with this article.

P.S. I should add that the dispute mentioned above did not involve any claims that the breed was not developed in Lipica.--WorldWide Update (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, first off, we need to start with WP:V. It isn't so much quantity of sources as quality. (Ever notice how often you think you've found a source only to realize it's a mirror site of wikipedia? LOL!) I guess my thinking at present is that based on what our current sources contain, the Habsburgs didn't have a sole state stud, they had multiple ones. Our modern national boundaries encompass many nations that once were all part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and this complicates matters. It's obvious that Lipica was certainly one of the most important studs, maybe even THE most important one, after all, it DID give its name to the breed, but it was not the first nor the sole breeding center, Kladrub was older, and Piber dates to 1798 as a military farm. There were also multiple inputs to the breed: Look at the list of foundation stallions, some of which came from Kladrub (now in the Czech Republic), some from Denmark, one was an Arabian (and the name "Siglavy" suggests he was named at the Babolna stud of Hungary even if he came from Syria), etc...

I guess the main point is that we just need to discuss the full range of input to the breed and not perpetuate errors in any direction. All I can say is footnote, footnote, footnote. Unfortunately, the "Horse Encyclopedia" books are adequate starting sources, but not ending, definitive ones that override more scholarly sources.-- For example, I know most I see have errors in their entries on the Arabian horse, which is the breed I know best. As for Lipizzan history, the Spanish Riding School certainly does have the best access to original source documents, and even with some pro-Austria bias, is apt to be generally reliable. Looks like for some reason there are also primary records in Italy, which may be worth digging into...I may look in Podhajsky's books (I have one, can find a couple more) and see if I can find more info there... As for the WTO issue over Slovenia wanting to claim sole use of the term "Lipizzan," that was in 2000, any idea if there was decision rendered or if it's still being fought over? I can see some logic to including that in the article somewhere, though wouldn't want to give it undue weight Of course, according to the Piber site, the newspaper article isn't quite accurate either-- Lipica was closed in 1915 and Piber declared the official stud in 1920, so the main Lipizzan breeding center left Lipica long before WWII. There is also the situation where the Austrian government has recently ended its subsidy of the Spanish Riding School, which is causing them some problems too, I think. Maybe we need a "modern controversies" section or something. Ah, horse politics! :-P Montanabw^(talk) 20:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Rescue section-- Dana?

Hey Dana, I was wondering why you cut the whole "Rescue of the Lipizzans" section down to half a paragraph. If anyone knows anything about Lipizzans, this is sort of the most famous thing about them. If it's because the source was iffy, I can look for something better, but I disagree with the decision to downplay such a major event. Maybe it was a bit long, but now it's too short. Thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 20:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I'm still working on it. I just got tired last night and decided to go to bed, since I had to work this morning. The source sucked, so that was the main reason the whole thing needed to be replaced. I'm planning on re-expanding the section (tomorrow, probably, this weekend at the very latest) with some more good sources. I promise! Sorry I didn't post here first, didn't think anyone was going to jump this quickly...guess I should have known :) Feel free to toss in more stuff if you have the time, energy and sources. Dana boomer (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL! I wrote the stuff with the "source that sucked" ;-D ...the information was essentially accurate, but yeah, it was a year or so ago that I wrote it and we weren't as picky about sources then ... One good source I know of was Equestrian magazine (official USEF publication) that ran a story in 2005 or whenever it was they did the big tour of the US, but I'd have to see if I still have the back issue or can find it online. If you get to it first, go for it. I've been watching your edits here and commenting little, because they have been top notch! I would suggest that it may be worth pasting some of the removed stuff here that is good content with bad sources, so as to be easier to resurrect once it has better citations. A lot of what you've done was just to toss trivia and clean up sourcing, so really my only kick is throwing out all the stuff on Patton and the gang, which DOES need to go back in, somehow. I do back getting this to GA, and I know how weird that process can be, so overall I applaud your efforts! Montanabw^(talk) 23:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, probably should have been a bit more tactful there... :) Anyway, how's it looking now? Dana boomer (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Not taking it personally. Just consider this further proof that I am not in fact an Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet when you-know-who cranks up again! Montanabw^(talk) 03:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

But to the point, if you consider the material in this diff, you will see that your source is not all that great by itself. Reed rescued mostly the broodmares and some breeding stallions at Hostau, amongst a couple hundred horses of all breeds, including Arabians, Thoroughbreds, Trakehners, Lipizzans, etc. And Patton cannot be de-emphasized. He was a horseman and former Olympian who "got it" about preservation of bloodstock when other army generals may not have. Patton's presence at Podhajsky's presentation of the stallions at St. Martin's in Austria was crucial to the whole operation. There was also the issue that some animals were voluntarily evacuated to St. Martin's by Podhajsky, but those at Hostau were flat-out confiscated by the Nazis. Also, I don't think it was Podhajsky who authorized the "200 horses" to go to the states -- those were the horses captured from the Nazis at Hostau, they came from stud farms all over Europe and thus Podhajsky had no authority over them. They were taken to the US as spoils of war, and included the Arabian Witez II (see"early years" section of that article. Other sources for that article noted that there were not enough trucks and many horses were herded out on foot). So, I'd like to see some of the detail re-added if possible and the facts tweaked. Just because lipizzan.com may not be good enough for WP:V at GAR, doesn't mean the material was wrong, and frankly, the site you found, while technically a good enough source for GAR, actually contains quite a bit of inaccurate material, at least the way it is presented here. While This article is NOT the one I recall seeing in Equestrian, (There's one with more B&W photos of Patton and Podhajsky, I know I've seen it somewhere!) but it does verify some of the Patton and St. Martin's material. And USEF is a sufficiently reliable source for this, I believe. Plus the article may have some useful info for other parts of this article. I know, I'm ranting. What I want someone (you? me? whomever?) to do is just restore some of the old version, add in a little of the new Operation Cowboy content, and if needed, redo the sources from Lipizzan.com to better ones as can be located. Montanabw^(talk) 03:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Allright, added in some more. Let me know what you think. The thing I'm worried about is having this section become unbalanced in comparison to the rest of the article. That's part of the reason I wanted to add in some of the information on the rest of the wartime evacuations, to balance it out a bit. At the moment, the Patton evacuation stuff is at 1.5 paragraphs, and I'd like for it to not get too much longer. Feel free to tweak as you wish, though. Basically, although it is one of the most famous things about the Lipizzans, it isn't the only thing about them, and so having it take up more than a couple of paragraphs is probably getting into undue weight territory. IMO. I really have no idea whether the horses were given to the US Army by Podhajsky or whether the US confiscated them as spoils of war. I guess we've got sources saying two different things. If you want to toss in your source, perhaps with something saying "the horses were either given to the US by grateful Europeans or confiscated as spoils of war, depending on the source" or something like that, it might be good. Dana boomer (talk) 14:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Length is groovy, I'm OK with both the cutting and the addition of other material beyond WWII. You are right about watching undue weight, though the WWII threat was probably the greatest they ever faced. Maybe, if source material backs it, we could link the whole section together with some statement to the effect that the breed was both so precious and so rare that great efforts were periodically taken to protect them in times of war. (That's a synthesis on my part, suppose we need an outside source before we can say it).

As for the 200 horses, I am virtually certain those had to be the Hostau animals, as they were of other breeds, unless Piber was still breeding other breeds besides Lipizzans (but I don't think they did so past 1920)...but my certainty probably stems from some article I read in Arabian Horse World in 1995 or something and I don't have it any more (wry grin). I can cite to a book on Witez II the sense that the Hostau animals were spoils of war, but that won't work here. My GBE book also mentions the Hostau rescue, but not sure if she notes the Lipizzans. I will check. And I hate to be a pain, but check out War of the First Coalition, which may or may not be the First War of Coalition, and was between Austria and France. May be another inaccuracy in the source. Oh, by the way, unfortunately, your link to the Gale source for the Operation Cowboy article is a U Michigan user only site and I cannot access it (may have to cite to article in hardcopy version. I'll see if I can access the article via my college's Gale access (but also subscription only) and assess it overall. But on the face of it, Lipizzan.com is a more verifiable source on this that Sports Illustrated, IMHO... Montanabw^(talk) 03:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC) Follow up: Got the full text of the article (also on a paid subscription site from a college) and while most of it is decent, I think there are a couple errors. I don't think the Hostau herd in its entirety went to St. Martins, and I doubt Podhajsky had the authority to give away horses from any place but his own, such as those taken from Janow in Poland (the reference is clearly to the WWII Patton importation) I also believe that Podhajsky evacuated to St. Martin's long before 1945, but I can verify that against other sources. But for now, given other brushfires, I'll just let you proceed apace. I may dive in and wordsmith later if that's Ok with you. Montanabw^(talk) 04:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Karster

I miss the former name "Karster" for the Lipizzaner! --Andreas Hausberger (talk) 13:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know that this was an earlier name. Can you tell us more or provide a source? Also, can you look over the article as it is and tell us is you see any major errors? Montanabw^(talk) 05:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

My info is from Dr. Heinz Nürnberg "Der Lipizzaner" --Andreas Hausberger (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide enough info on publisher, etc., (Amazon.com or something) so we can do a full footnote cite to the book? Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 18:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.amazon.de/Lipizzaner-einem-Anhang-über-Kladruber/dp/other-editions/389432404X that is what I found on the net --Andreas Hausberger (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

ISBN 3-89432-404-X "Der Lipizzaner" Heinz Nürnberger, Die neue Brehm-Bücherei, Band 613 --Andreas Hausberger (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the german wikipedia Lipizzaner is a spelling error. It used to be spelled Lippizaner. Sorry I hav no other source. Maybe some can help out here. 85.10.32.46 (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Foundation Horses

"The names of mares must be complementary to traditional Lipizzan line names and also have the requirement that they must end with the letter "a".[11]" To name a mare in Piber they you go back in the maternal line in the pedigree and choose a name out of 6th to the 8th generation. The letter "a" at the end of the name is not a must, "e" and "y" is also possible. The names "Gidrane" or "Kitty" are common in Piber. --Andreas Hausberger (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

COOL! Can you provide us any source to that for a footnote? Is it on the Piber web site or anything? (My German is beyond poor, but Google translation and a dictionary I can usually get enough of the basic idea to figure it out...)

By the way, look at the article history, we periodically have people discussing that the Lipizzan is really from Slovenia and attempting to remove the material on Piber and Austria. Can you explain what's up with this other than a political spat between Slovenia and Austria? Montanabw^(talk) 18:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not so into this political stuff. It might trace back to the "right of origin" discussion. --Andreas Hausberger (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Do explain more on the concept of "right of origin." Or is it just national pride? Did you note the lawsuit in the EU where the Slovenians wanted to ban the Austrians from even using the word "Lipizzan?" I guess it was thrown out, but I think this is more of the same. Montanabw^(talk) 00:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Montanabw, judging for the tone of your recent posts, you seem to have made up your mind that the Lipizzaner originates in Austria. After all, how else could one understand your amazement that "we periodically have people discussing that the Lipizzan is really from Slovenia" (no, it's actually from the Pacific island nation of Tonga), not to mention your haughty insinuation that national pride alone is causing Slovenians to claim the horse as their own. Why aren't you surprised, for instance, that some Austrians claim a horse breed named after a town in another country? Why weren't my sources on the origin of the Lipizzaner credible enough, whereas your claims that the horse breed was "developed in Central Europe" (supposedly in various places at the same time) need no credible, multi-source verification whatsoever, just because you "know" it to be true? --WorldWide Update (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Both nations were part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire at the time the breed originated. So for one nation or the other to claim their nation has a superior claim is not appropriate, as clearly there were stud farms set up all over the empire and the horses interchanged from different areas. Further, I took note that the EC lawsuit brought by Slovenia over the issue was dismissed. We can clean up the sourcing, though the lead traditionally has no footnotes, they are placed later in the article. Montanabw^(talk) 02:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The lawsuit is a different issue. At no point did Austria, one of the parties in the dispute, claim that the breed originates anywhere but in Lipica. The lawsuit concerns the present-day use of the breed's name, but the fact that the breed originates in the Slovenian village of Lipica has never been challenged. --WorldWide Update (talk) 11:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the idea of "origin" is a hugely important concept in Europe, whether we are talking about breeds of animals or types of food. It's not something invented in Slovenia.--WorldWide Update (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Which, unfortunately, is probably why everyone over their fought numerous wars over the centuries and still have regions that are surprisingly unstable by the standards of the rest of the First World. I take no position on "origin," I only note geography. Montanabw^(talk) 02:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, origin is a hugely important cultural concept in Europe. It has nothing to do with wars. In the United States, for instance, anyone can label his/her sparkling wine as "champagne", but in Europe, the term is reserved for sparkling wines originating in France's Champaigne region. Why? Because the wine is seen as a crucial aspect of the region's cultural identity. It's up to you to decide whether this attitude makes sense, but this is how Europe views the issue. It's not fair to dismiss it as irrational "nationalism" or single out Slovenia as being unfair. --WorldWide Update (talk) 11:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

And a final irony: Even the German-language Wikipedia, Austria's "home" Wikipedia, gives Lipica, Slovenia, as the place of origin for the breed. In fact, of all the different Wikipedias I've checked, it's only the English Wikipedia that denies this fact (a fact that is confirmed by a multitude of outside sources). Instead of doubting the motives of other Wikipedia users, perhaps the main editors of this article should examine their own prejudices. --WorldWide Update (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikis are not considered verifiable sources for other wikis. That said, indeed, the name clearly derives from Lipica which, ironically, has been "owned" by multiple nations over the course of its history, at the moment, being within the borders of Slovenia. It was obviously a significant center, but a thorough reading of the history of the breed clearly points out that it is not the only one. Montanabw^(talk) 02:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I examined many of those sources and found no other stud that either claims or could claim to be the breed's place of origin. The involvement of other stud's in the breed's history is another matter altogether; just about every breed has connections to places other than its place of origin. --WorldWide Update (talk) 11:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The naming of the mares I know from talking to Obergestütsmeister Weiss (head of stuff and in charge for breeding in Piber beside Dr. Dobretsberger). In this case the source would be "State Stud Piber", right? --Andreas Hausberger (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Technically, it could be noted as "Personal interview with (first name) Weiss, State Stud Piper." BUT, (sigh) welcome to the weird world of wiki. See WP:V. The problem is that until that person (or someone who interviews them) publishes such information in a magazine article, or a book, or at least on the Stud farm's official web site, it's called "original research," and technically is put in the same category as people claiming the earth is flat. You as an individual source have the same problem. You KNOW certain things are true because you deal with them every day, but so much information on horses has not been written down and published. Frankly, even a nobody-special like myself has the same problem when I cannot find a #$%@&! written source to cite something I KNOW to be true (do you know how hard it is to find a source that says, for example, "do not ride your horse in a plain stable halter, because it's dangerous"?). Montanabw^(talk) 00:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the Breed (Some Questions)

First of all, I'm reviving an old discussion. I first expressed my opinions on this past last year, when I discovered that the article's infobox gives "Central Europe" as the place of origin for this breed, instead of "Lipica, Slovenia" given by virtually all other sources. It seemed unusual that Wikipedia, a resource based on existing sources rather than on original research, should propagate such an unusual notion -- the implication that the breed emerged simultaneously in various parts of Central Europe.

I provided several sources that unambiguously state that Lipica is the place of origin for the breed. This is hardly an unusual claim; virtually all foreign-language editions of Wikipedia, including the German Wikipedia, list Lipica as the place of origin.

Yet, my sources were dismissed and I was told that Lipica was not the only stud farm in the Austrian Empire. I fully acknowledge that, but fail to see the relevance. Kladruby was another Austrian stud, and even had some shared breed history with Lipica, yet the breed developed there Kladruber is unambiguously described as originating in the Czech Republic in the infobox of that Wikipedia article.

I was also told that there "were also multiple inputs to the breed." Isn't this true for most breeds? Does this then mean that those breeds have no place of origin?

Despite my concerns, I gave up on this article. I simply don't have the time and patience for such disputes. However, I was recently annoyed by some of the comments on this page made by the same person with whom I debated the matter last year. I had thought that we at least parted on good terms, but was astonished at the dismissive tone of what I read. The user was seemingly amazed that "we periodically have people discussing that the Lipizzan is really from Slovenia" (imagine that!) and that "national pride" alone is causing those silly Slovenians to hold such views.

So I'm back, and here are some questions I'm wondering about:

1.) Why is Lipica, Slovenia, not given as the place of origin for this breed, while virtually all published sources state that it is in fact the place of origin?

2.) Why do other breeds of horses on Wikipedia, such as the Kladruber, include unambiguous mentions of origin ("Country of origin: Czech Republic"), but this article doesn't?

3.) Kladruby was another old-Spanish horse stud farm in the Austrian Empire. Why don't we hear arguments that "it was just one of several Austrian studs" in that case? Why is its claim as the origin of the Kladruber, a breed with similarly varied origins, apparently unproblematic?

4.) Why do foreign-language editions of Wikipedia, including the German Wikipedia, give Lipica, Slovenia, as the origin of the breed? I know that foreign-language Wikipedia articles aren't legitimate sources, but why the discrepancy? Why is the English Wikipedia the odd one out?

5.) Where are any credible outside sources that state that various places can lay equal (or similar) claim to the origin of the Lipizzaner breed? Is this argument even based on sources or just someone's personal knowledge?

6.) Why is someone's unsourced claim that "Lipica in Slovenia is simply not the only source of the Lipizzan breed" considered more credible than the several sources I provided, which state that, yes, Lipica is in fact the place where the breed (as we know it) originated.

7.) How do the revisionists (I apologize if this word is slightly pejorative, but I believe it's accurate in this case) explain the statement, given by a multitude of sources, that "Spanish horses were crossed with Karst mares" to create the Lipizzaner. For the record, Lipica, alone among the Austrian studs, lies in the Karst/Kras region. Yes, I realize that there were other foundation horses involved, but there is no other stud with a similar geographic connection to the breed.

8.) Why does the only other common name for the Lipizzaner, "Karster", also refer to Lipica (or, more accurately, the Karst/Kras region that surrounds it? --WorldWide Update (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi WWU, I apologize for being flippant and dismissive. However, but here are the answers to your questions. 1), 8) If you look at the footnotes for the article, you will see that, clearly, there were several stud farms that contributed to the breed. Lipica was neither the only nor the oldest, just the most famous. The "everybody says" version is, at best superficial and can easily be shown by verifiable sources to be insufficient. Obviously, Lipica is significant. But it is not alone. 2) and 3) I don't edit Kladruber to any significant degree, just did some cleanup of what was there. If someone wants to add research, expand on that article and fix any errors, that would be a good idea. 4) See #1. English wiki seems to spend the most time footnoting and checking sources, more so than others. Just because it's the home language doesn't mean the article was written by an expert. 5), 6), 7) I believe footnotes do explain these matters. Feel free to use the {{fact}} tag if there is a source needed. Montanabw^(talk) 03:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

So yes, the article is sourced, and frankly, after discovering the Slovenia vs Austria lawsuit issue and realizing that there is a big nationalism dispute in all this, I lost considerable respect for the "Slovenia-is-the-only-place-that-can-or-should-claim-the-Lipizzan" view. Frankly, several other nations can also make claims, based either on where a historic stud farm is today or where it was in the past. I could (jokingly) also suggest we could, after all, add Italy to the list.. ? Montanabw^(talk) 03:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Montanabw, thank you for your comments. I checked the sources mentioned in the links and I simply cannot find any that claim that the breed originated elsewhere. Piber's timeline [4], for instance, clearly indicates that that stud farm had no role in creating the Lipizzan. Kladruby received some Spanish horses, but the breed that originates from there is the related but clearly distinct Kladruber, not the Lipizzan. You say that "Lipica was neither the only nor the oldest, just the most famous" stud in the breed's creation. Well, individual horses always come from somewhere else, but does this mean that no horse breed has place of origin? The foundation horses did come from elsewhere, but the breed as we know it emerged in Lipca. I have seen no sources that claim otherwise. For the record, neither Piber nor Kadruby claim that the Lipizzaner originated there. Where are all the verifiable sources that deny Lipica's status as the place of origin?

I should stress that what we're debating here and the European Commission ligitation you mentioned are two separate things. At no point did Austria deny that the horses originate in Lipica; the cases deal with the status of the breed's name and with how it should be used by each country. This has more to do with the fact that Lipica was formerly in Austria and, for a while, in Italy (albeit always inhabited and named by ethnic Slovenes). For the record, it's not a case of mean old Slovenia picking on poor innocent Austria. Before Slovenia joined the European Union, it was effectively excluded from negotiations on the breed's legal status within the EU. But that's an entirely different matter.

I agree that stating "everybody says something" is not a sufficient argument, but when you have a multitude of sources saying one thing, and not a single credible source clearly disputing that claim, one has to wonder why WP is in conflict with the consensus of established sources and whether this discrepancy can be justified. For the reasons I've outlined, I maintain that it cannot. --WorldWide Update (talk) 11:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Dohner's The Encyclopedia of Historic and Endangered Livestock and Poultry Breeds Yale University Press 2001 ISBN 0-300-08880-9 pp. 384-388 discusses the Lipizzan. "The Lipizza stud supplied horses to the royal riding stables while the Kladrub stud bred heavier horses for coach, although breeding stock was occasionally exchanged. Other studs using Lipizzan stock, including Graz in Austria, were developed within the Hapsburg Empire for its military." Later it says "The six major lines of foundation sires that continue today were established in the seventeenth and early eighteenth century in Austria." Since the breed is ancient and the various studs have had their countries changed so often in the past, how about we compromise and say that they were founded by the Hapsburg Empire, which is true, but avoids any nationalistic bias. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This quote doesn't contradict the notion that the Lipizzan originated in Lipica. In fact, it confirms it: "The Lipizza stud supplied horses to the royal riding stables..." This line is about the Lipizzaner (and Lipizza is just another spelling of Lipica, Slovenia). The sentence then goes on to say this: "...while the Kladrub stud bred heavier horses for for coach, although breeding stock was occasionally exchanged." This line appears to be about the Kladruber, another horse of the Austrian empire, which, as I mentioned above, has some common history with the Lipizzaner, but developed into a distinct breed (and which WP defines as originating in Kladruby, Czech Republic).

The rest of the quote is about the 17th and 18th centuries -- well after the breed was developed in the 16th century (as even this article acknowledges).

As for the suggested compromise: Compromises make sense, but not when they contradict with the facts. Besides, is anyone who says that the Icelandic horse originates in Iceland or that the Kladruber originates in the Czech Republic automatically guilty of nationalistic bias? --WorldWide Update (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Slovenia as a country didn't exist when the breed was established, however. A similiar point can be made about the Arabian horse, it predates the formation of most of the countries in the Middle East. You'll note the article on the Arabian horse says originates in the Middle East, not in any specific country. Iceland isn't an exact anology, as the country has been there for a long time (and it's an island country to boot, so no changes in boundaries have occured). I'd be in favor of saying the Kladruber originated in Bohemia, as that was the region that it formed in. Most horse breeds date from modern times (19th and 20th centuries) and thus don't run into the issue of boundary changes. Right now the Lipizzan article says "Developed in Central Europe from Spanish and local stock. Today associated with nations of Austria and Slovenia" in the infobox, which seems a nice compromise. If we say "Slovenia" as the country of origin, we're implying that Slovenia as a country existed when the breed was formed, which is not the case. I'm not sure WHY the current infobox is so contentious. It doesn't say that Austria was the country of origin, nor does it say Slovenia. It associates the breed with both modern countries, which is correct, right? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledge that Slovenia did not exist at the time. (Neither, by the way, did Austria in its present form.) However, we were discussing whether the Lipica is the horse's place of origin. The article's infobox and user montanabw insist that Lipica was just one of the stud farms involved in the breed's creation, while the sources I've seen refer specifically to Lipica as the breed's place of origin. For the record, I would have no problem with the article making it clear that present-day Lipica, Slovenia, was a part of the Austrian Empire at the time. On the other hand, I do think it's important that Lipica is mentioned as the place of origin. Saying that the breed originates in "Central Europe" makes little sense to me, as does the line stating, in essence, that Lipica was just one of the stud farms connected to the breed and nothing more than that.

If we are looking for a compromise, "Lipica, present-day Slovenia" or something similar could be an intelligent solution for the infobox. This way, it doesn't imply that Slovenia existed at the time. Mentioning the Kras/Karst region may also be of use.

But you touched on something that is really bugging me. In the Kladruber article, the breed is specifically mentioned as "Czech breed" and that article's infobox gives the "Czech Republic" as the place of origin, even though the country also didn't exist at the time and was also a part of the Austrian Empire. Why does a different standard apply in that case? --WorldWide Update (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

On the Kladruber, because there are only about five active horse breed article editors, and we haven't really worked on that article. There are a lot of breed articles and we're busy. Also probably because there is a lot less information out there on that breed. It's not that we're trying to slight/etc anyone, just busy in real life. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but my point wasn't that the Kladruber article is wrong, but rather that there is nothing wrong with acknowledging a breed's place of origin if enough sources back up that claim. Just as the Kladruber has a clear origin, so does the Lipizzaner. The same principle applies to both breeds from what was then the Austrian Empire. We can discuss just how to describe Lipica in the article (if you're concerned that people may think that Slovenia existed as a country at the time), but I don't think that pretending that Lipica was just one of many studs with vague connections to the breed is accurate -- and neither is the vague and misleading "Central Europe" in the infobox. --WorldWide Update (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Lay out your sources and we'll see what they are. You can't, however, use other language wikipedia articles as reliable sources, you need to lay out works that say that Lipizza was the only stud (and the Dohmer ref doesn't say that Lipizza was the only stud, just the main one). Ealdgyth - Talk 16:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll begin by mentioning some the sources I brought up last year and you can judge how credible they are or aren't. The emphasis (in bold) in mine:

In 1580 Archduke Charles II, the son of the Austrian Emperor Ferdinand I was given the task of founding a stud to provide the Austrian Court with the finest horses possible. He chose a derelict village near Trieste, named LIPIZZA (modern spelling Lipica) - hence the breed name - LIPIZZANER!

He originally bought 24 mares and 9 stallions from Spain - hence the name The SPANISH Riding School of Vienna! The Spanish horses were crossed with very carefully selected Karst mares. As with most breeds, pure desert Arab blood was also used.

Source: [5]

The Spanish horse, produced during Moorish rule by crossing Berber and Arab stallions with Iberian mares, was considered the most suitable mount because of its exceptional sturdiness, beauty, and intelligence. In 1562, Maximillian II brought the Spanish horse to Austria and founded the court stud at Kladrub. His brother Archduke Charles established a similar private imperial studfarm with Spanish stock in 1580 at Lippiza (nowadays: Lipizza [Italian], or Lipica [Slovenian]) near the Adriatic Sea. Here on the Karst plateau near Triest the type of horse which was bred in Lippiza was called the Lippizaner. Today in Europe the breed is called Lipizzaner or, in America, Lipizzan.

Source: [6]

The Lipizzan International Federation (http://www.lipizzaninternationalfederation.eu.com/) clearly describes the breed's history on its pages. It specifically discusses the crucial importance of Kras/Karst horses (native to the Lipica area) in the creation of the breed: "While the breeds we have already mentioned have contributed greatly towards the development of the Lipizzaner, the core of the breed still lay with the native Karst Horse"

In The New Encyclopedia of the Horse, Elwin Hartley Edwards states that Spanish horses taken to Lipica (no other studs mentioned) turned out to be the foundation of the breed. In fact, he specifically refers to Lipica as the place where the breed "originated". I have a German-lanuage book titled Bildatlas der Haus- und Hoftiere by Jaroslav Hintnaus that also gives Lipica as the place of origin.

In fact, I have never seen a source that lists another stud as the breed's place of origin.--WorldWide Update (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.equiworld.net/uk/horsecare/Breeds/lipizzaner/index.htm isn't going to be considered a reliable source, as it doesn't give its own sources. http://www.lipizzan.org/aboutlipizzans.html is closer to being reliable, but it would be better if it also gave its sources (and it doesn't rule out other studs, just says that in the Karst region the breed was developed.) I went to the LIF site, and cannot get the history page to load. It just keeps returning me to the home page. Simon and Schuster's Guide to Horses and Ponies of the World ISBN0-671-66068-3 (1987) gives the country of origin as Austria "Although now in Yugoslavia, Lipizza belondged to Italy prior to World War II, and even earlier when the breed was being developed, it lay within Autstrian territory. For this reason, Austria is now considered the birthplace of the breed." (section 37). Ensminger's Horses and Horsemanship ISBN 0-8134-2883-1 p. 101 gives "In 1580, 6 stallions and 27 mares were shipped to the village of Lipizza, in what is now Yugoslavia, from which the breed got its name." Susan McBane The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Horse Breeds ISBN 0-7858-0604-0 p. 110-11 gives Lipizza as the geographic region where it was bred, but it implies that Lipizza was the main point of origin, with the addition of many other bloodlines. Oklahoma State's Livestock page basically repeats the United States Lipizzan's information (almost word for word, in fact).

The thing to do is to continue to add more sources and then we can distill down what they say. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the sources. I'll try to look through more sources when I have the time. (Perhaps someone will help me.) However, it's interesting to note that even the source that gives Austria as the country of origin -- highly dubiously, I would say, since today's Austria and the old Austrian Empire that encompassed a large chunk of Europe are two very different entities -- still acknowledges Lipica (and no other stud) as the breed's origin. --WorldWide Update (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Slovenia debate

OK, taking all of the above, here's the point. Tell me if I'm missing something:

1. What is today Lipica has been part of the Austria-Hungarian empire, part of Italy, part of Yugoslavia, and now part of Slovenia, along with probably a few other boundary changes over the centuries. (Must be a nice place, everyone wants to claim it.)
2. Political boundary shifts are typical of many parts of Europe, so when the geographic location matters, it needs to be identified by geography, not political boundary.
3. When horse breeds are developed in a deliberate fashion, as was the Lipizzan, there are usually a number of definable influences. These need to be identified and their relative importance explained.
4. When this article was being cleaned up, it became quite evident from the research, as indicated in multiple footnotes, that the long-held theory of Lipica as the ONLY origin of the breed was not accurate, and that there were other studs that played an influence to some degree. I myself was surprised to learn this, because I too had been taught that "The Lipizzan came from Lipizza" just like everyone else. But it wasn't where the research led.
5. That might not be fun to face, but I've had a few other sacred cows gored on wikipedia in the past. It will all be OK in the end. Montanabw^(talk) 05:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

1. I agree. This, by the way, was true for any place in Slovenia, including the country's capital.
2. I somewhat agree. Both historical and geographical context are important, but we should at least mention what country Lipica is now in, so people can place it geographically. "Lipica" alone doesn't tell most users whether the place is in Slovenia or Inner Mongolia. If we acknowledge that Piber is in Austria, for instance, or that Kladruby is in the Czech Republic, we should also acknowledge that Lipica is in Slovenia.

Um, the lead says, "The breed takes its name from one of the earliest stud farms established, located near the Kras village of Lipica (spelled "Lipizza" in Italian), in modern-day Slovenia." Montanabw^(talk) 17:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The infobox ignores Lipica as the breed's origin. Established sources agree that Lipica contributed far more to the breed than its name. What does "one of the earliest stud farms established" even mean? Does it mean that it was one of the earliest stud farms in Austria (which is correct)? Or that it was merely one of the earliest stud farms to bread the Lipizzaner (which is incorrect)?--WorldWide Update (talk) 07:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

1. I agree that there are several definable influences, as is the case with most breeds.
2. I strogly disagree. Just because there were several influences, that doesn't mean that the breed has no definable origin. By this logic, very few breeds of any animal would have a definable place of origin. The origin of a breed -- where a certain breed as we know it today first emerged -- is distinct from the various inputs of that breed. Again, according to the sources provided, there is no reason to believe that the Lipizzan is an exception. I have yet to see a source that says the breed does not originate in Lipica or that gives another stud as the actual place of origin (or claims that Lipizza's role in the creation of the breed was merely equivalent to that of other studs in what was then the Austrian Empire). Several sources mention the important role played by the Kladruby stud, and its connection to the Lipizzaner, but that horse breed (also with Spanish origins) became the Kladruber, whereas Lipica became the birthplace of the Lipizzan (with the input of local Kras/Karst horses). We shouldn't confuse the two. I have nothing against challenging conventional wisdom, but there should be plenty of evidence to support that challenge. I've yet to see it in this case. Without sufficient evidence, such challenges can quickly turn into original research and even become revisionist crusades. --WorldWide Update (talk) 08:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you actually read the article? The history section states: "Therefore, in 1562, the Habsburg Emperor Maximillian II brought the Spanish Andalusian horse to Austria and founded the court stud at Kladrub. In 1580, his brother, Archduke Charles II, established a similar stud at Lipizza (now Lipica), located in modern-day Slovenia, from which the breed obtained its name...." Montanabw^(talk) 17:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have read the article. Have you? As your quote indicates, the article does indeed state that the breed got its name from Lipica, but it does not identify Lipica as the breed's place of origin (albeit one with diverse influences, as is almost always the case). It implies that Lipica was just one of many equally important studs where the horses were bred, and that its greatest influence was that it gave the breed its name. This contradicts most established sources. --WorldWide Update (talk) 07:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the Lipizzaner Breed

Why is Lipica, Slovenia, not given as the place of origin for this breed, while virtually all published sources state that it is in fact the place of origin?

Explanation:

We can determine two perspectives:

1) the geographical place of origin of the breed

2) the origin(s) of the breed, according to the complete breeding history of the race since 1580.

Ad 1) In 1580 (the official founding year of the stud) the map of Europe was completely different. The region, which now also contains the present republic of Slovenia, was then officially called “Krain” (Carniola), The Krain was ruled from the court of the Habsburg Archduke in Graz, and later by the imperial court in Vienna. “Slovenia” did not exist yet. Therefore, one could state that “the former imperial stud Lipica/Lippiza/Lipizza, nowadays located in Slovenia, is the stud of origin of the Lipizzaner breed”. (It is just a matter of nuance of the description). “Slovenia” indicates a state or region, and with that an state ownership of the stud. Both are not correct in this perspective: the state “Slovenia” did not exist yet in the 16th century. Nor the region of Lipica was called “Slovenia” in those times. The ownership was not a state, but the Habsburg dynasty! The former court stud of Lippiza (1580-1915) was always privately owned by the Habsburg family! [With all respect to the Slovenian people: no, the Lipizzaner horse is not a Slovenian horse. The present Republic of Slovenia is only one of the inheritors of a part of the breed! ]

Ad 2) The development of –what we call now- the Lipizzaner breed, indeed had its origin in the former imperial court stud of Lippiza/Lipica/Lipizza . But during the following centuries the breed was also formed by the exchange between the other (also privately owned) imperial court studs, like Kladrub, Koptschan, Halbturn, Enyed. And further developed by the state and/or military studs of the Austro-Hungarian Empire Mezöhegyes, Radautz and Fogaras. And further developed by some very important private studs of noble families, like Jankovic, Eltz, Esterhazy, and Pallavicini. In the beginning of the 20th century, all those parts of the breed were inherited by the following states after the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian empire in 1918. (The stud, now called Lipizza, became Italian then, by the way – still not Slovenian…). Therefore we can determine that the origin of the Lipizzaner breed in a broad perspective is definitely not exclusively in Lipica/Lippiza/Lipica.

“Slovenia” indicates a state or region, and with that a state ownership of the stud. Both are not correct in this perspective: the state “Slovenia” did not exist yet in the 16th century. Nor the region of Lipica was called “Slovenia” in those times. The ownership of the stud was not a state, but the Habsburg dynasty! The former court stud of Lippiza (1580-1915) was always privately owned by the Habsburg family! Therefore one can determine: the former imperial court stud Lipica/Lippiza/Lipizza (1580-1915), of which the buildings are nowadays located in Slovenia, is the stud of origin of the Lipizzaner breed. However, as the Lipizzaner breed was further developed in the whole area of the Austro-Hungarian empire, one can not state, that the origin of the breed in a wide sense is only the stud of Lipica.

Kladruby was another old-Spanish horse stud farm in the Austrian Empire. Why don't we hear arguments that "it was just one of several Austrian studs" in that case? Why is its claim as the origin of the Kladruber, a breed with similarly varied origins, apparently unproblematic? This only shows the political values, which came upon the Lipizzaner breed since 1990. Several nowadays states claim to be the origin of the race. All are right, depending of the used perspective. Slovenia is right, claiming that the stud of origin of the breed is now located on their territory. Austria is right, claming that all cultural heritage of the Habsburg dynasty, including the Spanish Ridingschool and its specific breed, the Lipizzaner, was brought into their responsibility. Italy is right, claiming that they inherited the main part of the imperial breeding stock. (the rest went to Austria and Slovakia). Hungary is right, because they developed their own specific Lipizzaner breeding since 1785, independent of the imperial Lipizzaners of Lippiza/Lipica/Lipizza. So we can determine, that all present states, who claim to bear the origin of the Lipizzaner breed, have equal rights, depending of the perspective. But no-one can claim the exclusive right.! The Kladruber breed does not have such diversity in the breeding history. Only the nowadays Czech state stud Kladruby nad Labem (“Kladrub a/d Elbe” ) bears the heritage of these old court harness horses, with a second location in Slatinany. So no other international state claims the origin of the race. No further political involvement, but on national level.

Where are any credible sources that state that various places can lay equal (or similar) claim to the origin of the Lipizzaner breed? Is this argument even based on sources or just someone's personal knowledge? The EU-legislation concerning the breeding of traditional European cattle breeds (including horses) is concentrated in the principal of the “Cradle of the Race”. Main rule is that breeds can only be bred within the EU-area according to the principals of the origin of that breed. And there sometimes the discussion starts. There is no discussion where the origin of the Friesian horse lies. Or the Iceland horse. But if the discussion leads across the present territorial border into historical sentiments, the problems start. F.e. the town of “Hafling” is located in Southern Tyrol, which belongs to Italy now. But is the “Haflinger” now an Austrian or Italian breed? When patriotic sentiments explode, the discussion never stops. The Lipizzaner is the best example for this. All candidates have equal rights, depending on their perspective (see above). The EU-legislation does not describe precisely how to interpret the principal of “Cradle of the Race”. Strict geographically or metaphorically? This creates the clearance to be filled in from any desired perspective…. And the discussion about the origin of the Lipizzaner breed will never end.

How do the revisionists (I apologize if this word is slightly pejorative, but I believe it's accurate in this case) explain the statement, given by a multitude of sources, that "Spanish horses were crossed with Karst mares" to create the Lipizzaner. For the record, Lipica, alone among the Austrian studs, lies in the Karst/Kras region. Yes, I realize that there were other foundation horses involved, but there is no other stud with a similar geographic connection to the breed. Why does the only other common name for the Lipizzaner, "Karster", also refer to Lipica (or, more accurately, the Karst/Kras region that surrounds it?

First of all: the “Lipizzaner horse” was not “created”. There is a misunderstanding in our times about the principal of a breed or race in ancient times. In the 16th –18th century, the emperor’s stablemasters did not breed a horse race, but a horse type, based on Iberian blood, which matched to the practical demands of a horse for the highest nobility of the court in those times. The place of birth made a horse a Kladruber, a Karster (not Lipizzaner, this term started to be used since the 19th century!), a Koptschaner, a Halbturner, a Enyeder etcetera. Or a Spanier (Spaniard) So a horse with a pedigree, which we now would mention “Kladruber”, but born in the imperial stud Lippiza, could be simply called as “Karster”. (The idea of a horse breed as we have nowadays, was developed in the 19th century, related to the increasing knowledge of genetics) Secondly: the theory that local “Karst” horses were used in the starting of the breeding in the private studfarm of Archduke Karl is very questionable. Although people from Slovenia with a patriotic heart would like to hear differently, there are no direct sources, which describe the use of local “Karst” horses in the beginning times of the imperial stud of Lippiza. At the other hand, in the imperial archives remained documents which do describe the purchase of stallions and mares in Spain for the stud starting in 1581 (invoices, bookkeeping and a diary of the stablemaster). But definitely no local horses. The archives in Spain also describe a permanent exchange of noble horses between Spain, Austria, and Naples. Out of these noble horses, bred in the court studs of the Habsburgs in all regions, those horse breeds which we know now as “PRE-Pura Raza Espanola”, Lipizzaner, Kladruber, Lusitano and Neapolitaner developed. (Note: The use of local “Karst” horses could be the same historical confusion as the myth around the Carthusian horses in Andalusia. According to the records of the horse-counting around 1500 in Jerez, the monks did not have any horse….nor stable…..) Because the former imperial court stud of Lippiza (1580-1915) was called in German: “das Karster Hofgestüt zu Lippiza” and the horses which were born there were called “Karster” internally, (long before the term “Lippizaner” was used), this might be the reason of the confusion that local “Karster” horses were used in the imperial stud. However: all available records do not show any use of local horses from the Karst/Kras-region, but only horses with a defined Spanish-Neapolitan or oriental background. --Andreas Hausberger (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for your detailed post! Some thoughts:

1. Quote: "one could state that 'the former imperial stud Lipica/Lippiza/Lipizza, nowadays located in Slovenia, is the stud of origin of the Lipizzaner breed'". I agree with this and would accept such phrasing in the actual article. I've been trying to point out that Lipica is te stud of origin and I'm happy to see that you agree with me and with multiple sources that say the same thing. So we agree here.

He said "could state", not "is." Please don't twist the words of other people. Montanabw^(talk) 17:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If the user says that one "could state" this in the article, the implication is that he agrees with or is at least willing accept such a statement. In fact, he goes on to say that Slovenia is right to claim Lipica as the stud of origin, something that the article currently ignores/denies.--WorldWide Update (talk) 08:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Quote: "no, the Lipizzaner horse is not a Slovenian horse." I never really argued that the Lipizzan is a "Slovenian horse"; merely that the breed originates in what is now Slovenia. It's a geographical, rather than a national claim.
2. Quote: "Slovenia is right, claiming that the stud of origin of the breed is now located on their territory." This is a key point and I agree with it.

I think the article already mentions this. Montanabw^(talk) 17:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't identify Lipica as the stud of origin. --WorldWide Update (talk) 08:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Quote: "Austria is right, claming that all cultural heritage of the Habsburg dynasty, including the Spanish Ridingschool and its specific breed, the Lipizzaner, was brought into their responsibility." This is somewhat more questionable in my eyes. Today's Republic of Austria cannot claim to be the sole moral successor of the Habsburg crown lands. When Austria-Hungary collapsed after WWII, various countries emerged from its ruins. The Republic of Austria represents the German-speaking core of the old monarchy/empire, but that does not make it the only inheritor of Habsburg heritage. That heritage is, to varying degrees, spread among all the successor countries. However, this is only tangential to the discussion about whether Lipica is where the breed originates.
2. Quote: "'Slovenia' indicates a state or region, and with that an state ownership of the stud." Instead of "Slovenia", I would be happy to accept "Lipica, present-day Slovenia" as the stated origin of the breed to avoid such misunderstandings.

Um, the article already say this in multiple places. Montanabw^(talk) 17:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't find a single reference where "Lipica, present-day Slovenia" is given as the breed's place of origin.--WorldWide Update (talk) 08:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

1. In my eyes, two of your statements appear to contradict each other: "The development of –what we call now- the Lipizzaner breed, indeed had its origin in the former imperial court stud of Lippiza/Lipica/Lipizza" seems to contradict the sentence "However, as the Lipizzaner breed was further developed in the whole area of the Austro-Hungarian empire, one can not state, that the origin of the breed in a wide sense is only the stud of Lipica." I have only argued that Lipica is the origin of the breed as we know it today. I acknowledge that other studs had connections with the breed, and played some role in its subsequent development, but this is true for many breeds; it does not mean that the breed (as we know it today) has no place of origin.

This is a false argument and not what the article says. Montanabw^(talk) 17:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The article mentions no place of origin, just that Lipica was one of the earliest stud farms, and that the breed's name originates from there. The infobox is even more misleading, giving half of Europe ("Central Europe") as the breed's place of origin.--WorldWide Update (talk) 08:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Quote: "All candidates have equal rights, depending on their perspective (see above). The EU-legislation does not describe precisely how to interpret the principal of “Cradle of the Race”. Strict geographically or metaphorically? This creates the clearance to be filled in from any desired perspective…. And the discussion about the origin of the Lipizzan breed will never end." I see your point, but I think we can try to resolve the problem by emphasizing Lipica (the place) rather than Slovenia (the country). Slovenia should still be mentioned in the article, of course (after all, that's where Lipica is located geographically), but so should the role of the Habsburgs and Lipica's role within the Austrian empire. The role of Wikipedia isn't to make everything as politically correct as possible, but rather to follow established sources in such cases.

My only point in all this is to explain that Lipica isn't the ONLY source. And clearly, the sources of the animals themselves was from quite a few countries, really, Spain has the best claim! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 17:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

In the case of any breed, the animals themselves came from various sources. Breeds don't just spontaneously appear in one place. However, Lipica is the origin of the breed as we know it. That's what the established sources say and that's what the article should reflect in one way or another. If other breeds of horses (and other animals) have places of origin clearly indicated on WP, why not the Lipizzan?--WorldWide Update (talk) 08:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Quote: "the theory that local “Karst” horses were used in the starting of the breeding in the private studfarm of Archduke Karl is very questionable. Although people from Slovenia with a patriotic heart would like to hear differently, there are no direct sources, which describe the use of local “Karst” horses in the beginning times of the imperial stud of Lippiza." OK, but I quoted several sources that specifically mention the input the input of Karst horses. Even some sources mentioned in the footnotes of this article mention this. For the record, none of those sources are Slovenian. If this theory is questionable, and I have no reason to doubt you, please provide sources that dispute it, so we can reject it. You say that "all available records do not show any use of local horses from the Karst/Kras-region, but only horses with a defined Spanish-Neapolitan or oriental background." If you can cite these sources, your correction would be very welcome. Still, it would not disprove the notion that Lipica is the stud of orgin of the Lipizzan (as we know it), something that you have, of course, already acknowledged (see point #1).--WorldWide Update (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, in short, the point I am beating (to death) is what I think Andreas explained above...that Lipica is ONE of the PRIMARY sources for the breed as it is known today, but not the only or exclusive source. To compare, let me take a totally different example: let's take the Thoroughbred breed. There, national origin isn't a big question, but the foundation bloodlines are. Could a person say that the Darley Arabian was the ONLY founder of the breed, just as WWU is claiming is true for Lipica here? (I hope I am not misstating your position, I think that's your argument, that Lipica and only Lipica is the source). No. Now, one could argue that the Darley Arabian appears in something like 95% of all Thoroughbred pedigrees and has the highest rate of representation of any foundation sire, so maybe he should get sole credit. However, there are two other major stallions, the Godolphin Arabian and the Byerley Turk, who also get credit, even though in the case of the BT in particular, he only appears in a much smaller percentage of pedigree lines. Nonetheless, TB historians give credit to all three stallions as practically co-equal founders, and also give credit to a number of other stallions who also made contributions. Likewise here. Lipica is perhaps as significant as a stud farm as the Darley Arabian was as a foundation sire, but the contributions of others were significant and notable, thus need appropriate credit. Montanabw^(talk) 17:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

So at this point, if there are specific rewording to the article, please make suggestions. Otherwise, as far as I can tell, all we are doing here is fighting over the content of an infobox. Montanabw^(talk) 17:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Here are my two suggestions:

1. The article itself should, in one way or another, reflect the fact that most sources mention Lipica as the breed's place of origin (not just a stud that happened to give the breed its name). Of course, there should be sufficient context: The article should still mention where the animals came from, that the stud was a Habsburg stud, and so on. Sufficient credit to other studs that contributed to the breed could and should also be given. By the way, I haven't seen sources that merely give Lipica co-equal credit for the breed; that's why I can't accept this notion. --WorldWide Update (talk) 08:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
2. "Lipica, modern-day Slovenia" or just "Lipica" (with a wikilink to the article about Lipica) seem like acceptable solutions for the infobox, but there are many different ways this could be phrased. The Kladruber's infobox, despite that breed's parallel development history, specifically lists the Czech Republic as its origin, and even describes the breed as a "Czech breed", but for some reason, mentioning Slovenia -- and the breed's origin in modern-day Slovenia -- is considered problematic and even vaguely improper here. (Probably because Czech WP users are more numerous and would not accept such revisionism, whereas little Slovenia is a more convenient target -- and because the Lipizzan is more well-known internationally. In any case, the lack of consistency -- among WP articles, not among WP editors --is disturbing.) Whatever happens, I've presented my views, which I felt I was obliged to do, and won't lose any sleep over this article.--WorldWide Update (talk) 08:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

1)As the source of the fundamental doubt about the influence of the local "Karst"horses in the beginning of the Lipizzaner breed, I would like to indicate the book of Dr.Georg Kugler & Dr. Wolfdieter Bihl (Pichler Verlag, Vienna/2002 - ISBN 978-3854312840). This book is the popular publication of a research project, initiated by the Austrian government, of the background of the Lipizzaner breed and the Spanish Ridingschool. Both historians did a major research in several state archives, and came to different conclusions than the most ealier authors. They are questioning the use of local Karst-horses in the breed explicitly.

2) About "the origin of the breed" of the Lipizzaner breed, as meant in the Wiki-perspective (see above), we can definitely state that this is

The "former imperial court stud of Lippiza (1580-1915), in those times privately owned by the Habsburg imperial family, and nowadays known as "Lipica", located in the Republic of Slovenia."

If you look at the the origin of the Lipizzaner race "in a broad perspective" (as I described it earlier), you can state that the origin of the breed is not exclusively the stud Lippiza/Lipizza/Lipica. But that is a different perspective, in a different frame!

Explanary note: With "in a broad perspective" I meant the historical background, in which way the Lipizzaner breed was built up during the centuries, based on the genealogy of the present living available breeding stock. (i.e. around 6,000 species in the world). The best prove is to look at the present, internationally accepted, conditions of origin of the breed: the accepted stallion dynasties and maternal families. (sources: see below)

For example: at this moment there are within the Lipizzaner breed almost 60 accepted marefamilies, with living progeny in direct line. If we look at the historical and genealogical background of these lines, we can only determine 17 families (!), which were used and/or developed in the former imperial court stud of Lippiza. Only 3 of these lead directly back to a mare, born in Lippiza! All others came from Kladrub, Koptschan, or from Arabian tribes.

The rest of those nowadays recognized marefamilies (more than 40 !) lead back to the alter part of the breeding history of the Lipizzaner horse, as described earlier: the Austro-Hungarian state-studs since 1785, and private studs of the Austro-Hungarian nobility. The interesting thing is, however, that during all centuries - in spite of this broad diversity, the Imperial court stud of Lippiza always remained the leading stud for the breed. The background of all used breeding stallions in all studs is always leading back to Lippiza.

Sources:

• Lipizzan International Federation/Conditions of origin {Atjan Hop, 1994-2009}
• Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture: "Zuchtbuch über den Ursprung der Rasse Lipizzaner" {Act 26.135/30-IIC13/98}
• INCO-Copernicus Project, (IC15CT96-0904): "Biotechnical methods in the maintainance of the genetic diversity of the Lipizzan horse breed" - Caput 4b: "Die Reinrassigkeitskriterien der LIF und die neue Einteilung der Stutenfamilien" Atjan Hop, 2007)

3) My summary of the partial claims of the present states of Slovenia, Austria, Hungary, Italy was just a formulation to show that different perspectives all could lead to a "exclusive claim" of several present states to bear the "Cradle of the Race"-status within the EU. This only indicates the nationalistic sentiments and political chess moves, which flare up regularly in the last decades. (Unfortunately, because those sentiments endanger the international cooperation on practical level in maintaining the breed..). I mentioned all this in order to indicate that a rough statement, as if the origin of the Lipizzaner breed is "Lipica, Slovenia" in Wikipedia, may lighten these sentiments. Please let us formulate carefully! --Andreas Hausberger (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Another great fictional book centered around the facts and history of Lipizzaners is The White Stallion of Lipizza. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.200.150 (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

New header to keep discussion organized

OK, I think there are two core debates here. 1) What to put in the infobox, and 2) How to define the "origin" question. One is easy, the other I'd like Andreas to try and help us get to an answer: Montanabw^(talk) 03:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• The infobox is fairly easy. We don't usually use stud farms in an infobox. An infobox is, like in most wikipedia article areas, a place for simple geographic area or nation of origin or greatest affiliation. Broadly speaking, usually a nation is inserted, or, as in the case of the Arabian and some others, a geographic region (in that case, "Middle East"). Lipica is a town, and if no one wants to agree on which side of a political boundary Lipica was on throughout its history, the definition in the infobox needs to be broad enough to encompass the various nations that could claim Lipica. Hence, "Habsburg Empire" seems the one way to phrase it that no one can deny. Also, given that Lipizzans have now been bred extensively at locations other than Lipica, such as Piber, it is misleading to imply that Lipica was, is and forever will be the only source of "real" LIpizzans. (And I hope that is not your position, WWU.) I am open to ways of rephrasing the article but it's silly to argue over an infobox. Montanabw^(talk) 03:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• The second question is the "origin" issue. This is thornier, and I am at this time reluctant to say "Lipica was the ONLY place Lipizzans originated." But I want to be clear: WWU, is that your position? Now, I am comfortable with, and the sources will support, some variation of saying either "Lipica was very significant" or "Lipica was the most significant" stud farm. In short, if Lipizzaners were ONLY bred at Lipica and nowhere else from the importation of original foundation bloodstock until the phenotype of the breed was set, then arguably that would work. However, it seems that horses came in from all over, and that modern Lipizzans trace to multiple sources.

• So, while we can argue over the infobox here, the article content needs to just be worked on. So, what I am going to do is put the relevant section of the article in a sandbox here: Talk:Lipizzan/Sandbox. If there are other sections you want to add, please do so. Then everyone can "play" with the wording (WITH FOOTNOTES) until we can reach a consensus. How does that sound? Montanabw^(talk) 03:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Montanabw, I've got to run, so I'll be brief. I understand that you did not personally write the article on the Kladruber, but you probably agree that there should be some consistency across various Wikipedia article. As you know, the Kladruber was another Habsburg breed, yet that article identifies the breed as a Czech breed and its country of origin as the Czech Republic (because the stud of origin, Kladruby, is currently in the Czech Republic). Because the histories of these two breeds have many parallels, I would only support a compromise if it is applied equally to both articles. Without such consistency, this article, in effect, deviates from established practice, even within the narrow category of Habsburg breeds, and begs the question: Why is Slovenia (or this breed) being treated differently?

Lipica is a Slovenian village. This is a geographical fact, not a national claim. It has changes hands throughout history, but this is true for just about any place in this part of Europe. It's certainly true for Kladruby, and it doesn't invalidate the notion that either stud is on the territory of its respective modern-day countries. (But speaking of national claims, even if they are irrelevant, the village's name is Slovenian, so its connections to modern-day Slovenia are strong.)

Quote: "Also, given that Lipizzans have now been bred extensively at locations other than Lipica, such as Piber, it is misleading to imply that Lipica was, is and forever will be the only source of "real" LIpizzans." According to various sources, including those used by Andreas, Lipica can be identified as the place of origin of the breed. That doesn't mean that other places cannot breed the Lipizzan; I never wished to imply such a thing.

And, yes, horses did indeed come to Lipica from various places, but how is that different from many other stud farms that are acknowledged as the origin of a particular breed?-WorldWide Update (talk) 10:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That's why I made the sandbox. Go in there and try some rewording if you don't like the current text. We may be able to phrase things so everyone is happy. Do whatever you want to the Kladruber article, I don't give a rat's rear about it other than to keep it in line with wikipedia guidelines. Frankly, though, Andreas is right, no one really fights about where Kladrubers come from. Apparently, if the Czechs want them, no one else is all that interested...? Montanabw^(talk) 05:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Naming of Lipizzans

I would like to add this:

Lipizzan stallions get traditional two names when born. The first name is the line of the sire, the second the name of the dam.

For example: Maestoso Austria = sire: Maestoso Trompeta - dam: Austria

For mares you go back on the maternal line in the pedigree from the sixth to the eighth generation. Out of those two generations the name is chosen. That's why names come back periodically and that there are typically names for each mare-family. --Andreas Hausberger (talk) 07:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll work that into the text. Can you provide me a source for a footnote? Montanabw^(talk) 02:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

What Andreas says is true for European Lipizzaners, however in North America mares are named with the last letter always "a". Most don't follow traditional European naming. Ie: my mare, whom I named "Fionna", is out of Canissa-10 and there is no other Fionna in that line. Roan Art (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Page edits

I hid some of the text that is in dispute. It needs a proper source...the sources cited say one thing, and if they are wrong (which is possible, the "horse breeds of the world" encyclopedias aren't perfect) we need a different source. So I hid disputed text until it can be sourced. Appaloosa Lipizzans? Montanabw^(talk) 18:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that for most of the cites you go to the Registry pages. The height of the Lipizzaner, for instance, is totally off in this article and the information was gleaned from "horse breeds of the world". By the by, Lipizzans run 14.2 to 15.2hh: http://www.lipizzan.org/aboutlipizzans.html http://uslr.org/Breed%20standard.htm The stallions used for Airs movements by the Spanish Riding School are typically 14.3hh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roan Art (talk • contribs) 03:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

On that one, I think you're correct. We have a little internal dispute over the accuracy of breed registry sites because so many of them make outlandish claims for their breed (faster than a speeding bullet, descended from the pure wild horse, and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, gentle as baby kittens, even unbroke yearling stud colts, you know how that goes...grin), but there really is not a more credible site on the breed's desired characteristics than a registry, so I'll fix that one. Montanabw^(talk) 01:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, however insofar as the Lipizzaner is concerned, the breed characteristics are governed by guidelines set down by Piber. There are evaluations done by Dr. Jaromir Oulehla, retired director of the Spanish Riding School, in North America almost every year. The horses are judged based on their guidelines and the two (soon to be one) North American registries (LANA and USLR) use the same ones. As an aside, my mare was scored down by Dr. O because she was 15.3hh and over the size limit. If she had had extraordinary conformation, he would not have scored her so low, but she has a few other faults. Picky picky :D Roan Art (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find a web page with the breed standard on the Piber site. Be nice if there was one. If you find a link, please pop it in here. Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 01:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Andreas would be the person to get an accurate link from. I'll send him a note. Roan Art (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Origin?

I thought the Lippizaners were a breed from Portugal, brought by the Count of Lippe in the 17th Century, not Spanish. I think this article is biased.

Sta. Catarina do Monte Sinai (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. They are far older than the 17th century, and were developed, as the article states, from multiple sources. See also the article citations. You may be confusing this breed with the Portuguese Lusitano, which looks somewhat similar. Montanabw^(talk) 22:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The whole Article does not even mention the origin of "Lipizza" term and "lipicanci" which is pure Slovenian word and means a "little Linden Tree". I see this Article as another good example of rewriting the history...

Provide some sources. But the etymology of the place name probably belongs in the article about the geographic location. Montanabw^(talk) 19:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Books about Lipizzans

I want to add these books to the article:

• Georg Kugler, Wolfdieter Bihl: Die Lipizzaner der Spanischen Hofreitschule. Pichler Verlag, Wien 2002, ISBN 978-3-85431-284-0.
• Gottfried Brem: Der Lipizzaner im Spiegel der Wissenschaft. Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien 2011, ISBN 978-3-7001-6917-8.
• Gertrud Grilz-Seger & Thomas Druml: Lipizzaner: Hengststämme. Vehling Verlag, Graz 2011, ISBN 978-3-85333-199-6.

--Andreas Hausberger 15:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conversano Isabella (talk • contribs)

Sounds cool! As additional sources or as footnoted material? Either way sounds good. However, it is additionally helpful if you can find URLs to online copies or excerpts (like in Google books) and, for the benefit of non-German speakers, if you use them for footnotes especially if no web page to see the original text, cite page number and the German sentence or so of original text from which you obtained the info. To show you what I mean, the editor here who did Finnhorse did an excellent job of using foreign language footnoting with translations (because most of his/her sources were in Finnish and not available in English!) Some of us are half-thinking about trying to improve this article to Good article status, and would also appreciate if you can point out any errors it may contain. (Plus, what is up with the Slovenia versus Austria thing, anyway?)Montanabw^(talk) 18:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Mon dieu! I hope I can find the time to do so! I'll do my best!--Andreas Hausberger 17:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conversano Isabella (talk • contribs)

If any are online and you can shoot us a URL, we can help! There are some German speakers online, and if desperate, there is always Google translate. Montanabw^(talk) 19:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

new and better photo

here's a better photo of a Lipizzan Stallion:

Favory Pallavicina

--Andreas Hausberger 20:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conversano Isabella (talk • contribs)

That is a very nice picture - I wish we had one like it in every breed article! I would have no problem replacing the current lead image with this one. Dana boomer (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Difference between 'classical' and other two lines

I have made changes to the stallion lines accordingly because the previous wording was leaving an impression on the reader that the two additional lines are somehow inferior and not really recognized by all which is completely not true. The difference between 'classical' lines and two other lines is in the fact the 'classical' lines were developed at the Imperial Farm in Lipica while the Hungarian and Croatian line were developed on private farms. However there is no doubt at all that both these lines are as 'pure' as the other 6 'classical' lines. In fact a stallion from the Croatian (Tulipan) line was also used during the 1940s in the Spanish Riding School. Shokatz (talk) 05:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

You may be correct, but it was an alteration of sourced material that was inconsistent to the source cited. So if you want to have this nuance tweaked, then we need additional source material that verifies this. See WP:V and [{WP:RS]] for additional help on that. Montanabw^(talk) 15:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

says next: "Two other stallion lines which did not find favor at the Lipizza stud were perpetuated at other studs within the boundaries of the Austrian empire. The Tulipan (Croatia) and Incitato (Transylvanian-Hungarian) lines are still found in Yugoslavia, Hungary, and other eastern European countries as well as North America." It does not mention anything about recognition, the recognition part is something which is dealt with by the LIF, it states only that they are found in the countries mentioned. And the LIF source clearly says: "The lines described above are what are termed as the Classical Dynasties. There are two other stallion lines to complete the eight accepted dynasties. Tulipan and Incitato. The only difference between these two and the classical lines is, that they do not originate from the Imperial stud of Lipizza, but were formed elsewhere. Nevertheless Tulipan and Incitato are completely part of the Lipizzaner breed. Do not let there be any misunderstandings about that!" The previous wording is in direct contradiction of the sources listed and is making an unfounded claim. Both sources clearly say they are equal to the 6 classical lines and are recognized EVERYWHERE. Shokatz (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't panic. The web site also may have changed its wording since the citation first went in. Montanabw^(talk) 00:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Well it seemed to me more like a misunderstanding of the wording, but you are right it is possible. No biggie, cheerio. Shokatz (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Coins

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

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

Protection

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

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

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

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

Oh, the double standards...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources for article expansion

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

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

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

Article improvement

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

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

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

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

Need to source and detail these: State Studs:

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

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

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

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

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

GA Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

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

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

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

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

   The lead looks all right.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   Assuming good faith on the off-line sources.

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   Yup.

   C. No original research:

   Assuming good faith again ...

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

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

   B. Focused:

   Very comfortable length, and little deviation.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Yup.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   No edit wars of which I am aware.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

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

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

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

   I killed caption punctuation. No worries. --MTBW

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

   Pass or Fail:

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

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

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

Alphabetzing

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

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

Mentioning the controversy

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

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

• I found it and here is the link: [7] given thatit is a 1998 article, we'd need some more sourcing to flesh out the details and what the result were, but I'm not opposed to teaching the controversy. Seems like my memory is that there was also a copyright or trademark case brought by Slovenia over use of the word "Lipizzan" which is what I am thinking of. What is also interesting is the bit about the epidemic that killed 50 mares, apparently in the early 1980s, I know the inbreeding issue is of concern to Lipizzan breeders, that is something we could also add. Montanabw^(talk) 22:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

---

More source material for future expansion:

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

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

On the 1983 epidemic:

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Lipizzan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lipizzan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130119094125/http://www.classicaldressage.com/lipizzans.html to http://www.classicaldressage.com/lipizzans.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710203644/http://www.lif.eu.com/ to http://www.lif.eu.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929041358/http://www.piber.com/en/tradition/history/ to http://www.piber.com/en/tradition/history/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)