Talk:Lipizzan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.
B	This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale
	This article is within the scope of the Horse breeds task force.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles of Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] 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)

[edit] Lipizzan sandbox

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