![]() | Lusitano has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"They also have a more sloping croup and higher-set tail, as well as straighter shoulders than the Andalusian". I belive a Lusitano with the more sloping croup have a lower-set tail than the P.R.E?
Comment by IMH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.65.228.236 ( talk • contribs)
I included photos to a sample of a bloodless bullfight and the coloring of a buckskin Lusitano --Webmistress Diva 19:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
The link that points to the bullfighting horses is just as important as the other links that are on here already. Also, the other links are more business links. The bloodless bullfighting link shows the different breeds of bullfighting horses, which includes a Lusitano.
Really, why are so many "wiki" users eager to go around removing items that don't pertain to them?--Webmistress Diva 04:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
And if you look at the Rainey Valley site, it straight-up says "Stallion Services". But you know, I am not the type who will go around removing links because I feel like it.--Webmistress Diva 04:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
This page needs to have this external link to Official site for Bloodless Bullfighting Horses in California...Portuguese Style! because (1)it has information, videos, and images to show what a bloodless bullfighting horse is and what they do. The site is in English but can also be translated in other languages too. This site does not have any type of obscene and obvious advertising nor does it "self-promote". It is purely informational.
If this site gets removed, then the other sites should be excluded as well. Removing this site was a "bad edit" and can be considered as "vandalism" made by the users who either removed it and/or had them removed... not just here, but on other articles as well.
It's NOT a "spam" link, because "true spams" are created by nuisance robots automatically generating their codes and would therefore include their "spammed" item on every page on this site.
I am NOT a spammer, I'm only documenting and stating true facts. If nobody on Wikipedia honors this request, then that means Wikipedia is not interested in the truth.
And for all those who "think" that I am promoting myself, why don't you take a good look at the real definition of what "self-promotion" means....
So with that, I am not including, advertising, nor am I publishing myself. I don't recall writing about "me" in any of the articles that I've written or contributed to. The only thing I've done is directed an article to a link that would "benefit" people to get more and read further. Additional information that is not included in the article itself, such as videos and images.
This information will be included in ALL of the articles "Talk Page" that I've either started or contributed to. It will request the particular link related to that article.
Per the " Wikipedia:External_links#Links_to_be_considered" guidelines of Wikipedia, here's a section of what backs up my request, namely what is marked in "bold"
As per the section Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Citing_oneself
One could say that Wikipedia is a "reliable source". But one could also challenge it and say it is NOT. The only difference between this site and ours or any other website is this.... Wikipedia has a ton of rules and guidelines, along with loop holes that everyone must abide by or you get slapped with ridiculous amounts of violations.... from editors that are not "wiki-admins". On individual sites, the rules are set only for outsiders and not for the publisher (unless it's a blog or forum). I know what my rules are and I make sure that I give credit where credit is due. I am anal to the point of copyright violations of my creative work as well as others. But we are also NOT perfect, but we try and will correct mistakes we find (if any).
Yeah, I know, all this just for an external link. But it seems the only way of avoiding conflict from people who are "KIA's" (Know it All's). There are "trolls" who thrive on removing people's item(s) and edit the heck out of an article or an image because they think they know the subject so well when sometimes they don't. They can be referred as "bad edits", which can be translated as "vandalism". These people know who I am talking about. There are also those that are "abusive" to "Wiki-Nubians", or just plain abusive in their mannerisms and can't help but be a pain in the butt. What's funny or ironic is this.... while these so called "experts" that are going around slapping people with citations on what they can or cannot do, along with editing, and most are very rude, they themselves should be slapped back with " Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing" and disruptive behaviours, along with a " vandalism" bot. There is no " Wiki-love" shown with their actions. Remember, a good "newbie" will never attack .... only when provoked or attacked first due to frustration level. Of course, this excludes the obvious nuisances.
Ok, on that note, I am going to leave this on all the "Talk Pages" where I see fit.
I sure hope that better and friendlier attitudes (like Montanabw and MartinDK) are seen in the new year.
Sincerely, Mz. --Webmistress Diva 17:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Reviewer: Tea with toast ( talk) 22:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
As of the March 6, 2010 version
Thanks for the review, Tea with toast! I hope I have addressed the issues above to your satisfaction. Please let me know if you have any further comments! Dana boomer ( talk) 23:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I find that this article meets the Good article criteria -- Tea with toast ( talk) 02:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
In case there is an interest to bring this article to featured status, here are some areas that could be further developed:
Overall, the article is in fine shape. Great job! -- Tea with toast ( talk) 02:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I very much agree with the merge proposal. Based on the sources, the majority of authors agree that this is a strain of the Lusitano that had some outside blood added in, rather than a separate breed. For these references, see the Strains and sub-types section of the Lusitano article. The new Alter Real article has no references, so we cannot see where the creating editor is coming from on this theory. Dana boomer ( talk) 13:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Dana's points:
Montana's points:
BTW, suggest moving this article to Puro Sangue Lusitano, the name of this breed since 1990. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 22:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Since, by a miracle, we do now have an expert on this breed here (hi, Manfred!), I would suggest at the very least asking his opinion, and whether he has any specialist books or other sources that might help decide whether that is the right step to take. Ruy d'Andrade's own book on the Lusitano, for example, since he was the person who rescued/ reconstructed the Alter Real. Bongianni is really hardly a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. What authoritative or scholarly source specifically states the two to be identical? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 22:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
"Actualmente, a Coudelaria de Alter partilha o seu espaço com a Coudelaria Nacional, com a Escola Profissional de Desenvolvimento Rural de Alter do Chão e o Serviço Nacional Coudélico.
As extensas pastagens da Tapada não são de usufruto exclusivo dos cavalos lusitanos Alter Real; existem ainda exemplares da raça autóctone Portuguesa Sorraia, Lusitanos, Puro-sangue Árabe, Português de Desporto e Anglo-árabes, pertença da Coudelaria Nacional."
This was added, and I removed it, but because it raises an interesting historical point, I thought I'd park it here for further refinement and discussion: Montanabw (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
The most influential event when it comes to explain today´s apparent differences between the modern Portuguese and Spanish versions of the ancient Iberian warhorses was the prohibition of mounted bullfighting or Rejoneo in 1723 under Philip V of Spain the first bourbon king that followed 200 years of Hapsburg rule. For hundreds if not thousands of years mounted bullfighting on the peninsula was considered the perfect war preparation for both horses and riders - "the Centaur - man and horse joined in a way that no other equestrian sport can adequately demonstrate". [1] The Spanish prohibition led already in 1726 to the first recorded bullfight on foot using the red cape attributed to Francisco Romero (bullfighter) also referred to as the "plebejan version of bullfighting". [2] As a consequence spanish breeding was deprived of its most essential functional selection criteria. Since the Iberian horses were hardly used on the battlefields anymore (largely due to changes in military strategy related to the advent of long range firearms which in turn gave rise to new horse types like the English Thoroughbred) the mounted bullfighting became the last resort of the ancient war-riding techniques that made the horses famous in first place. In Portugal the Rejoneo tradition continued uninterruptedly and was until recently at the core of the functional selection process (nowadays gradually replaced by FEI sport dressage as a functional objective). With very few exceptions Spanish breeding at large entered into a 300 year period of lacking orientation marked by the pursuit of transient fashions like flatter croups (to provide comfortable seating for flamenco dancers in the ferias), flat profiles, paddling (considered to imitate the hand movements of flamenco dancers with their castanets, and so forth)) Lamenting this situation and the consequential degradation of quality in spanish breeding Álvaro Domecq y Díez convinced General Francisco Franco in 1941 to lift the ban which revived a culture of Rejoneo in Spanish bullfighting arenas alongside the still more popular Corrida (bullfight on foot). Nevertheless no Spanish (nor Portuguese) Rejoneador has so far been able to select a PRE ("Pura Raza Espanola" as the Spanish bred horses have been labelled since the formal split of the stud books in 1966) suitable for mounted bullfighting. As of today only PSL´s (Puro Sangue Lusitano) or sometimes Luso crossbreds with Arabs or English horses can be seen in the arenas. Taking into account that the Lusitano stud book currently contains only 11.000 heads versus the 170.000 heads registered in the Spanish stud book further demonstrates the concentrated functional standard of modern Lusitanos and explains why many experts see Lusitanos as the most authentic embodiment of the fabled ancient Iberian warhorse type.
the rejoneo prohibition of 1723 is a little known fact in spain (and in portugal as well I found) - although it is obvious that it is the original trigger event for what the world today believes to be the "real bullfight" - the spanish corrida - in fact it emerged in the vacuum created by Philip v´s decision as a poor man´s version of the aristocratic sport - kind of like moving from polo to soccer - anyway that should be worked into another article about those topics - with respect to a difference in breeding objectives in the 2 regions of the peninsula it is the most obvious difference you can find - and it explains a lot about the striking differences the two gene pools display today - Sylvia Loch is quite specific about those differences but since she has good friends on both sides of the fence she never goes to the point that clearly although it always swings between the lines - e.g. in her chapter about functional breeding. I am not a scientist and also dont have the time to work all this out to perfection as the two of youseem to be committed to - and "chapeau" for the work that has gone so far into all those contributions you made. so I dont know what´s next ..... by the way - do you get alerts when changes are made to either this forum or to an article you collaborated on ? (I thought so since your reactions were incredibly fast after my respective posts... if you can live with a greenhorn throwing some bits and pieces over the fence I will try my best (by the way I breed lusitanos - so perhaps disqualify in terms of 100% objective reporting - but if you find me a PRE that qualified for rejoneo bullfighting I buy you a drink :-)
So if well understood it is not bashing one breed from another´s viewpoint - it is a more complex case being made for the ancient iberian warhorse that luckily survived to a higher degree in today´s Lusitanos - due to those specific historical conditions. what type of literature or other sources would I have to identify to make this distinction worthy for this article and how detailed do you think it should be. for me this is the essential access point to understand the essence of what Lusitano´s stand for and why they are what they are today - the statistical point I raised at the end of my text just underscores the relevance in my opinion - 11.000 vs. 170.000 > to have an overwhelming superiority in functional qualities given that it is so comparably few horses does at least ask for some kind of logical explanation. sorry for the long post but I wanted to give you both some more background so you can guide me a bit further if you are up for it. User:Manfred Bodner —Preceding undated comment added 15:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC).
Hi Manfred. Basically, what we are up against is WP:V, the wikipedia policy on sources. Everything we put into our higher quality articles (like this one) has to be meticulously sourced to outside, third party sources that can be consulted and verified -- I jokingly say these things are like a Master's thesis! So every statement in an article must be sourced to a specific third party work by page, author, etc. If you want to see an example of how foreign language sources are handled, see Finnhorse, which is an excellent example (almost all sources are in Finnish). Basically, then, what has to happen is that if we were to say, for example (I'm oversimplifying) "Lusitanos were bred for bullfighting," We'd need to cite to page x of book y by author z, where the book says something akin to, "the history of the Lusitano originated in the need to breed better bullfighting horses" And yes, getting into a pissing match between Portugal and Spain over nationalism is not where we want to be! =:-O Does that make sense? Do you own the books you are discussing, or newer books that cite these ancient sources? Also, there are some claims that breed-based books make that are not verified by modern science, so sometimes even a verifiable source doesn't work if it is incorrect. (For example, the PRE crowd loves to argue that their horses have no Barb or Arabian blood, when clearly they carry Barb DNA and IsabelIa II brought some in during the 1800s, for example). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw ( talk • contribs)
Noticed commons has more and better photos of Lusitanos than when we started. Wonder if any of these in particular might be useful to add to or replace existing images. Thoughts? Montanabw (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
José Manuel CH--GE 13:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)"No, captions should be short and sweet. In this case, the location tells the reader nothing about the subject of the article" Bonjour Madame Dana boomer,SVP utilisez la politesse; bonjour, merci etc. cela encourage à continuer de contribuer pour la Wiki! MERCI Madame Dana boomer ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose Manuel ( talk • contribs) 13:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please comment on this: "The revolutions of Portugal's African colonies resulted in the near economic collapse of Portugal. The landed class attracted political agitators, estates were vacated, and stud farms were broken up and their horses sold to Spain. However, the best lines were saved through the efforts of breeders, and breeding soon increased.[17]". I have never heard of such a thing. Does anyone have access to the source and could we know WHO the source is? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 20:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The source is Loch, Sylvia (1986). The Royal Horse of Europe: The Story of the Andalusian and Lusitano. London: J. A. Allen. ISBN 0-85131-422-8. Montanabw (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
There are no ideal photos for the lead image, this one is butt-high, facing the wrong direction and so on. Now stop edit-warring and discuss. Montanabw (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
To follow up on the 3RR discussion at the drama board. this image is not suitable for the lead image because the horse is dirty (manure stains visible on barrel and hindquarters, mane is ragged, tail is unbrushed, feet appear to be drying off mud); because the animal appears to be standing downhill, making it look "butt-high" i.e. hind legs too long, which is a serious conformation flaw in a performance breed such as the Lusitano; because the animal has too-long cannons, another leg conformation flaw, the arched neck and convex profile of the breed is not particularly well-displayed, the horse has a pot belly (looks pregnant, except that it appears to have male genitalia, so I guess it's just fat); there is distortion in the photo (it wasn't shot with a long enough lens for a 3/4 view from behind) and thus the horse appears to have both weak hindquarters and poorly-muscled shoulders; and worst of all, examining the photo at high resolution, the animal appears to have some sort of thin wire device tied around its mouth (looks like a long, heavy twist-tie), which is cruel. The status quo image is of lower resolution and has a messy background, but the horse is at least clean and groomed, the image is facing "into" the text, which is desired in a lead image, the horse has a good topline, it is a bit overweight but better- muscled and not pot-bellied, and exhibits characteristics of the breed. And its feet were trimmed properly. Montanabw (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Hope this helps explain the situation. Montanabw (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | Lusitano has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"They also have a more sloping croup and higher-set tail, as well as straighter shoulders than the Andalusian". I belive a Lusitano with the more sloping croup have a lower-set tail than the P.R.E?
Comment by IMH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.65.228.236 ( talk • contribs)
I included photos to a sample of a bloodless bullfight and the coloring of a buckskin Lusitano --Webmistress Diva 19:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
The link that points to the bullfighting horses is just as important as the other links that are on here already. Also, the other links are more business links. The bloodless bullfighting link shows the different breeds of bullfighting horses, which includes a Lusitano.
Really, why are so many "wiki" users eager to go around removing items that don't pertain to them?--Webmistress Diva 04:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
And if you look at the Rainey Valley site, it straight-up says "Stallion Services". But you know, I am not the type who will go around removing links because I feel like it.--Webmistress Diva 04:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
This page needs to have this external link to Official site for Bloodless Bullfighting Horses in California...Portuguese Style! because (1)it has information, videos, and images to show what a bloodless bullfighting horse is and what they do. The site is in English but can also be translated in other languages too. This site does not have any type of obscene and obvious advertising nor does it "self-promote". It is purely informational.
If this site gets removed, then the other sites should be excluded as well. Removing this site was a "bad edit" and can be considered as "vandalism" made by the users who either removed it and/or had them removed... not just here, but on other articles as well.
It's NOT a "spam" link, because "true spams" are created by nuisance robots automatically generating their codes and would therefore include their "spammed" item on every page on this site.
I am NOT a spammer, I'm only documenting and stating true facts. If nobody on Wikipedia honors this request, then that means Wikipedia is not interested in the truth.
And for all those who "think" that I am promoting myself, why don't you take a good look at the real definition of what "self-promotion" means....
So with that, I am not including, advertising, nor am I publishing myself. I don't recall writing about "me" in any of the articles that I've written or contributed to. The only thing I've done is directed an article to a link that would "benefit" people to get more and read further. Additional information that is not included in the article itself, such as videos and images.
This information will be included in ALL of the articles "Talk Page" that I've either started or contributed to. It will request the particular link related to that article.
Per the " Wikipedia:External_links#Links_to_be_considered" guidelines of Wikipedia, here's a section of what backs up my request, namely what is marked in "bold"
As per the section Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Citing_oneself
One could say that Wikipedia is a "reliable source". But one could also challenge it and say it is NOT. The only difference between this site and ours or any other website is this.... Wikipedia has a ton of rules and guidelines, along with loop holes that everyone must abide by or you get slapped with ridiculous amounts of violations.... from editors that are not "wiki-admins". On individual sites, the rules are set only for outsiders and not for the publisher (unless it's a blog or forum). I know what my rules are and I make sure that I give credit where credit is due. I am anal to the point of copyright violations of my creative work as well as others. But we are also NOT perfect, but we try and will correct mistakes we find (if any).
Yeah, I know, all this just for an external link. But it seems the only way of avoiding conflict from people who are "KIA's" (Know it All's). There are "trolls" who thrive on removing people's item(s) and edit the heck out of an article or an image because they think they know the subject so well when sometimes they don't. They can be referred as "bad edits", which can be translated as "vandalism". These people know who I am talking about. There are also those that are "abusive" to "Wiki-Nubians", or just plain abusive in their mannerisms and can't help but be a pain in the butt. What's funny or ironic is this.... while these so called "experts" that are going around slapping people with citations on what they can or cannot do, along with editing, and most are very rude, they themselves should be slapped back with " Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing" and disruptive behaviours, along with a " vandalism" bot. There is no " Wiki-love" shown with their actions. Remember, a good "newbie" will never attack .... only when provoked or attacked first due to frustration level. Of course, this excludes the obvious nuisances.
Ok, on that note, I am going to leave this on all the "Talk Pages" where I see fit.
I sure hope that better and friendlier attitudes (like Montanabw and MartinDK) are seen in the new year.
Sincerely, Mz. --Webmistress Diva 17:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Reviewer: Tea with toast ( talk) 22:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
As of the March 6, 2010 version
Thanks for the review, Tea with toast! I hope I have addressed the issues above to your satisfaction. Please let me know if you have any further comments! Dana boomer ( talk) 23:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I find that this article meets the Good article criteria -- Tea with toast ( talk) 02:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
In case there is an interest to bring this article to featured status, here are some areas that could be further developed:
Overall, the article is in fine shape. Great job! -- Tea with toast ( talk) 02:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I very much agree with the merge proposal. Based on the sources, the majority of authors agree that this is a strain of the Lusitano that had some outside blood added in, rather than a separate breed. For these references, see the Strains and sub-types section of the Lusitano article. The new Alter Real article has no references, so we cannot see where the creating editor is coming from on this theory. Dana boomer ( talk) 13:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Dana's points:
Montana's points:
BTW, suggest moving this article to Puro Sangue Lusitano, the name of this breed since 1990. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 22:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Since, by a miracle, we do now have an expert on this breed here (hi, Manfred!), I would suggest at the very least asking his opinion, and whether he has any specialist books or other sources that might help decide whether that is the right step to take. Ruy d'Andrade's own book on the Lusitano, for example, since he was the person who rescued/ reconstructed the Alter Real. Bongianni is really hardly a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. What authoritative or scholarly source specifically states the two to be identical? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 22:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
"Actualmente, a Coudelaria de Alter partilha o seu espaço com a Coudelaria Nacional, com a Escola Profissional de Desenvolvimento Rural de Alter do Chão e o Serviço Nacional Coudélico.
As extensas pastagens da Tapada não são de usufruto exclusivo dos cavalos lusitanos Alter Real; existem ainda exemplares da raça autóctone Portuguesa Sorraia, Lusitanos, Puro-sangue Árabe, Português de Desporto e Anglo-árabes, pertença da Coudelaria Nacional."
This was added, and I removed it, but because it raises an interesting historical point, I thought I'd park it here for further refinement and discussion: Montanabw (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
The most influential event when it comes to explain today´s apparent differences between the modern Portuguese and Spanish versions of the ancient Iberian warhorses was the prohibition of mounted bullfighting or Rejoneo in 1723 under Philip V of Spain the first bourbon king that followed 200 years of Hapsburg rule. For hundreds if not thousands of years mounted bullfighting on the peninsula was considered the perfect war preparation for both horses and riders - "the Centaur - man and horse joined in a way that no other equestrian sport can adequately demonstrate". [1] The Spanish prohibition led already in 1726 to the first recorded bullfight on foot using the red cape attributed to Francisco Romero (bullfighter) also referred to as the "plebejan version of bullfighting". [2] As a consequence spanish breeding was deprived of its most essential functional selection criteria. Since the Iberian horses were hardly used on the battlefields anymore (largely due to changes in military strategy related to the advent of long range firearms which in turn gave rise to new horse types like the English Thoroughbred) the mounted bullfighting became the last resort of the ancient war-riding techniques that made the horses famous in first place. In Portugal the Rejoneo tradition continued uninterruptedly and was until recently at the core of the functional selection process (nowadays gradually replaced by FEI sport dressage as a functional objective). With very few exceptions Spanish breeding at large entered into a 300 year period of lacking orientation marked by the pursuit of transient fashions like flatter croups (to provide comfortable seating for flamenco dancers in the ferias), flat profiles, paddling (considered to imitate the hand movements of flamenco dancers with their castanets, and so forth)) Lamenting this situation and the consequential degradation of quality in spanish breeding Álvaro Domecq y Díez convinced General Francisco Franco in 1941 to lift the ban which revived a culture of Rejoneo in Spanish bullfighting arenas alongside the still more popular Corrida (bullfight on foot). Nevertheless no Spanish (nor Portuguese) Rejoneador has so far been able to select a PRE ("Pura Raza Espanola" as the Spanish bred horses have been labelled since the formal split of the stud books in 1966) suitable for mounted bullfighting. As of today only PSL´s (Puro Sangue Lusitano) or sometimes Luso crossbreds with Arabs or English horses can be seen in the arenas. Taking into account that the Lusitano stud book currently contains only 11.000 heads versus the 170.000 heads registered in the Spanish stud book further demonstrates the concentrated functional standard of modern Lusitanos and explains why many experts see Lusitanos as the most authentic embodiment of the fabled ancient Iberian warhorse type.
the rejoneo prohibition of 1723 is a little known fact in spain (and in portugal as well I found) - although it is obvious that it is the original trigger event for what the world today believes to be the "real bullfight" - the spanish corrida - in fact it emerged in the vacuum created by Philip v´s decision as a poor man´s version of the aristocratic sport - kind of like moving from polo to soccer - anyway that should be worked into another article about those topics - with respect to a difference in breeding objectives in the 2 regions of the peninsula it is the most obvious difference you can find - and it explains a lot about the striking differences the two gene pools display today - Sylvia Loch is quite specific about those differences but since she has good friends on both sides of the fence she never goes to the point that clearly although it always swings between the lines - e.g. in her chapter about functional breeding. I am not a scientist and also dont have the time to work all this out to perfection as the two of youseem to be committed to - and "chapeau" for the work that has gone so far into all those contributions you made. so I dont know what´s next ..... by the way - do you get alerts when changes are made to either this forum or to an article you collaborated on ? (I thought so since your reactions were incredibly fast after my respective posts... if you can live with a greenhorn throwing some bits and pieces over the fence I will try my best (by the way I breed lusitanos - so perhaps disqualify in terms of 100% objective reporting - but if you find me a PRE that qualified for rejoneo bullfighting I buy you a drink :-)
So if well understood it is not bashing one breed from another´s viewpoint - it is a more complex case being made for the ancient iberian warhorse that luckily survived to a higher degree in today´s Lusitanos - due to those specific historical conditions. what type of literature or other sources would I have to identify to make this distinction worthy for this article and how detailed do you think it should be. for me this is the essential access point to understand the essence of what Lusitano´s stand for and why they are what they are today - the statistical point I raised at the end of my text just underscores the relevance in my opinion - 11.000 vs. 170.000 > to have an overwhelming superiority in functional qualities given that it is so comparably few horses does at least ask for some kind of logical explanation. sorry for the long post but I wanted to give you both some more background so you can guide me a bit further if you are up for it. User:Manfred Bodner —Preceding undated comment added 15:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC).
Hi Manfred. Basically, what we are up against is WP:V, the wikipedia policy on sources. Everything we put into our higher quality articles (like this one) has to be meticulously sourced to outside, third party sources that can be consulted and verified -- I jokingly say these things are like a Master's thesis! So every statement in an article must be sourced to a specific third party work by page, author, etc. If you want to see an example of how foreign language sources are handled, see Finnhorse, which is an excellent example (almost all sources are in Finnish). Basically, then, what has to happen is that if we were to say, for example (I'm oversimplifying) "Lusitanos were bred for bullfighting," We'd need to cite to page x of book y by author z, where the book says something akin to, "the history of the Lusitano originated in the need to breed better bullfighting horses" And yes, getting into a pissing match between Portugal and Spain over nationalism is not where we want to be! =:-O Does that make sense? Do you own the books you are discussing, or newer books that cite these ancient sources? Also, there are some claims that breed-based books make that are not verified by modern science, so sometimes even a verifiable source doesn't work if it is incorrect. (For example, the PRE crowd loves to argue that their horses have no Barb or Arabian blood, when clearly they carry Barb DNA and IsabelIa II brought some in during the 1800s, for example). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw ( talk • contribs)
Noticed commons has more and better photos of Lusitanos than when we started. Wonder if any of these in particular might be useful to add to or replace existing images. Thoughts? Montanabw (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
José Manuel CH--GE 13:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)"No, captions should be short and sweet. In this case, the location tells the reader nothing about the subject of the article" Bonjour Madame Dana boomer,SVP utilisez la politesse; bonjour, merci etc. cela encourage à continuer de contribuer pour la Wiki! MERCI Madame Dana boomer ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose Manuel ( talk • contribs) 13:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please comment on this: "The revolutions of Portugal's African colonies resulted in the near economic collapse of Portugal. The landed class attracted political agitators, estates were vacated, and stud farms were broken up and their horses sold to Spain. However, the best lines were saved through the efforts of breeders, and breeding soon increased.[17]". I have never heard of such a thing. Does anyone have access to the source and could we know WHO the source is? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 20:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The source is Loch, Sylvia (1986). The Royal Horse of Europe: The Story of the Andalusian and Lusitano. London: J. A. Allen. ISBN 0-85131-422-8. Montanabw (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
There are no ideal photos for the lead image, this one is butt-high, facing the wrong direction and so on. Now stop edit-warring and discuss. Montanabw (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
To follow up on the 3RR discussion at the drama board. this image is not suitable for the lead image because the horse is dirty (manure stains visible on barrel and hindquarters, mane is ragged, tail is unbrushed, feet appear to be drying off mud); because the animal appears to be standing downhill, making it look "butt-high" i.e. hind legs too long, which is a serious conformation flaw in a performance breed such as the Lusitano; because the animal has too-long cannons, another leg conformation flaw, the arched neck and convex profile of the breed is not particularly well-displayed, the horse has a pot belly (looks pregnant, except that it appears to have male genitalia, so I guess it's just fat); there is distortion in the photo (it wasn't shot with a long enough lens for a 3/4 view from behind) and thus the horse appears to have both weak hindquarters and poorly-muscled shoulders; and worst of all, examining the photo at high resolution, the animal appears to have some sort of thin wire device tied around its mouth (looks like a long, heavy twist-tie), which is cruel. The status quo image is of lower resolution and has a messy background, but the horse is at least clean and groomed, the image is facing "into" the text, which is desired in a lead image, the horse has a good topline, it is a bit overweight but better- muscled and not pot-bellied, and exhibits characteristics of the breed. And its feet were trimmed properly. Montanabw (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Hope this helps explain the situation. Montanabw (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)