Talk:Andalusian horse/Archive 1

older entries
I removed the statement Anglo-Saxons never developed cavalry in warfare. This is untrue. While Anglo-Saxons never used horses in the same way the Francs use horses (as shock cavlry), they certainly used them. An example being in the 430's when a Teulu of 3 units of 300 cavalry was used by one of the northern British cheiftains. Remember the Anglo-Saxon were Sub-Romans and thus Cavalry were used in a similar fashion to Western Roman armies circular 200AD 124.254.99.18 07:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Spanish, not Andalusian
The National Pure Breed Spanish Horse Asociation says that "Other names such Andalusian horse or Iiberian horse don´t represent our horse.  Often, they are crosses without the quality and purity controls established on  the Spanish Register Book” So, until proving the opposite, and under the lack of sources to support the "andalusian" name, this breed must remain with the "Spanish" name. The "andalusian horse" name has the same value as saying "castillian, vasque, galitian, or valentian" horse (none).--Pinaster (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I reverted your move, for one thing, you should have posted this and waited a couple days and not just up and moved the article. Also, the "Pure Breed" foundation happens to sort of be the more strident group, if you noticed their tone.  There is a "political" spat with in the breed between the various groups.  If you had even checked the other reference link, you would have found that the main breed registry in the United States uses the word "Andalusian," with a separate registry for Lusitanos.   I have reverted the article move and the edits, plus added three more links that show that the more common name for the breed in the English-speaking world is "Andalusian," and that worldwide registries are roughly split about 50-50 on the issue of "PRE" or "Pure Spanish Horse" versus "Andalusian."  Two are from a respected university web site, and the third is from the well-respected International Museum of the Horse.   The bottom line is that the PRE/IALHA fight over "my horse is more "pure" than your horse" spat is one that wikipedia is well to stay out of on WP:NPOV grounds.  There is probably a place to explain the whole spat by starting a "Controversies" section, as has been done in other breed articles (see miniature horse for an example), but that's a project for another day.  Montanabw (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Montanabw: I respect very much any Americam, African or Asian "Spanish horse" breeders, and they can call Spanish horse whatever they want. But Spanish horse is not an lab design, it is one of the oldest pure breeds in the world, and is not African, American, or Asian. It is Spanish, you see?

If I want to start breeding American Quarters in Spain, I might create an asociation calling those horses "mustangs" because I might think that its origin is in the working spanish horse from "la Mesta". I might, but I don´t think you would find that correct. Specially if I upload an article in Wikipedia calling your "American Quorters" "Mixed mestengos". The same way some people and some breeders like to call Spanish Horse "Andalusian Horse". That´s right for me, but please, don´t try to impose your whim to one of the oldest horse breed in the world. The Spanish Horse is Spanish, and Spanish breeders have being breeding Spanish Horses since many houndred years ago. There is a very strict stud book is Spain saying what is an Spanish horse and what is not. And in this stud book, there is an specific name: "Spanish Horse". No Andalusian, Galitian, Castilian, or Vasque. Only Spanish. Literally: Other names such as Andalusian or Iberian horse do not represent this horse. These should generally be regarded along with the cross-breds that lack the quality controls and purity, as well as of the official documentation of the Spanish Stud Book." You might like this or not, you may disagree or not, but any case, that would be your only particular opinion. Maybe many people and breeders would share your opinion. Fair enough, but the Spanish Horse stud book is still there. And I´m affraid that if you want to be respectful whith the Spanish breeders (the most important and more numerous, even those that sometimes like to call Spanish Horse Andalusian, believe me), you must accept the name Spanish Horse. If after this, you still want to breed Spanish and call them Pawnees, its up to you. But don´t force me to call Spanish Pawnee. You tell me that I sould have wait a couple of days before changing the page. OK, what for? in the same line, and in a subtle way, you let me know that you will desagree anyway. Of course that there are many discrepancies between breeders. Strident? well, your words, not mine. If you want to call me strident because I dont want to call Pawnees to the Sapanish, OK, I,m strident. Montanabw, I have the undeserved privilege of being related to some of the best Cartujano breeders in Spain, and every time I find a foerign breeder, I fell pleased and honoured as Spaniard. I know a few Americans breeders that deserve my highest respect and simpathy. But I will never give them the right to call Spanish Horses with a different name. You say that "appear to be some irreconcilable differences of opinion here." OK, but if your name is Montana and many insist in calling you Arizona, will you change your name in your ID card? I can´t find the reason why I sould make another page dedicated to the Spanish Horse, only because some, a few or many breeders don´t like that name. And a last thing... if one day you find an "andalusian" stud book, that will be a new breed. Maybe beautyful, but not Spanish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinaster (talk • contribs) 03:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There IS an "Andalusian" stud book, right here: International Andalusian Lusitano Horse Association. That's the United States Registry. Montana's suggestion that if you do not agree with the fact that at least one registry calls the horse breed Andalusian, you write an article on the Spanish Horse is a good compromise. Since I raise Arabians, and do research on Quarter Horses, I really don't care whether there are one or two articles on the horses from Spain, but recognize that in the United States, at least, the non-Arabian horses from Spain are usually called Andalusian, not "Spanish Horse". One of the principles of Wikipedia is that if someone contests an edit you made, you try to find a compromise, which would be a good thing to do about now. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Spanish, and Andalusian
I have a book that explains things that may be helpful, also since the article is noted for not having enough resources I'll post this here to see if it is of use. "The international image of the Spanish Horse appears almost indefectivelly ( Spanish word: indefectiblemente no online translation available,) united to the Andalusian, to the Grand southerner we referred to in earlier pages." ( I understand the horse must also have been born in Spain. under heading Pura Raza Española: "So that a horse in Spain may be considered a Pura Raza Española, it must be registered with the registry of pure bred horses created in 1912. This registry admits the following breeds. PRE, English Thoroughbred, Arabian, Anglo-Arab. For Saddle horses it admits the Spanish trotter, an for draft breeds it admits the Breton, Postier-Breton, Percheron and Ardanesa. Perhaps in a nutshell, the Andalusian is called PRE when born in Spain ? Arsdelicata (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The PRE registry in Spain seems to have their own standards, they appear to reserve the right to be the sole arbiters of what a "PRE" is worldwide, insinuates that "Andalusian" horses have been crossbred somewhere ( and holds that the American horses are not necessarily pure enough for their registry.) Yet it is interesting that the PRE registry has different sections, though I think they DO keep the breeds apart ... It sounds like mostly a political thing to me. It is, however, also real common for the European stud books to be a lot tighter in their standards than the American ones. I also personally am not that concerned about it. Just as long as they aren't claiming that they PRE is a pure descendant from the horses in the cave paintings -- as, after all, the Sorraia clams the exact same thing! LOL! Montanabw (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well there are two articles on the Spanish wiki and the suggestion they be merged.

I am translating an area from them : Pure Spanish Race is the official denomination in Spain of the equine race (breed) that historical and internationally is known as Andalusian horse. It is a question of a nomenclature created in the XXth century by the National Association of Breeders of Horses of Pure Spanish Race (ANCCE), from the English locution ( wording ) purebred or purebreed. " It also says that the Cartujano is an important strain of the " PRE" Andalusian.Spanish Wiki PRE article and then there is the Andalusian PRE article (they want to merge them). It says under history first lines: " the Andalusian horse ( today called the PRE, Pura Raza Española)it comes from the south of Spain, Andalusia. Caballo andaluz - Andalusian HorseArsdelicata (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, basically the ANCCE English site rants that "Andalusians" aren't PRE horses, that they have "impure" bloodlines. Sigh...horse politics.   Montanabw (talk) 05:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

More sources, and places to look
Here are a few more things that I found today while I was looking for Andalusian sources. Just dropping them here for future reference, if needed:


 * - pictures from Commons that we can use
 * - MSN Encarta entry
 * - Interesting watchdog group
 * - Australasia Andalusian association
 * - National Association of Purebred Spanish Horse Breeders of Spain
 * - US PRE association

None of these are really third party, but some of them could probably be of use in explaining the controversy. Also, there appear to be quite a few scientific articles on Andalusians that are available online but that I can't get access too. Ealdgyth, I know that you have access to some articles through your local university - is there any chance that you can get your hands on any relating to the Andalusian? Dana boomer (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Digitals
Wondering if a digital of an Andalusian would help? I know a friend who makes digitals with a program. She made one of a horse. Would it help? Mhera (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by a digital? A digital photograph? Dana boomer (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The IP was correct...
From the source "It was the Andalusian that served as the foundation for the Lipizzaner of the famed Spanish Riding School in Vienna. It also played a role in the development of most of the German warmbloods, Ireland's Connemara and England's Cleveland Bay, as well as many breeds developed in the New World like the American Quarter Horse and Peruvian Paso." .... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Strike that.. my brain is mush today... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they're trying to add stuff not in the source. I added a bit more from another source, but have to jump offline and won't be back for a while. If you could keep an eye on it I would much appreciate. Dana boomer (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks workable. I am not 100% sure Hendricks is an ideal source, but the breed is old and so has influenced many others, though not always in a direct line.  We should also do some research on the Neapolitan horse and its link to the Andalusian.  The Lipizzan link is rather tenuous in a direct line, though its there.  Am discovering it is very difficult to separate urban legend from fact with some of this breed history stuff.  Montanabw (talk) 06:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

My (oh so large!) contribution...
Tibtis from: Raber, Karen "A Horse of a Different Color: Nation and Race in Early Modern Horsemanship Treatises" The Culture of the Horse: Status, Discipline, and Identity in the Early Modern World edited by Karen Raber and Treva J. Tucker. Palgrave MacMillan, New York 2005 isbn 1-40039-6621-4 pp. 225-243

p. 225 "In his New Method and Extraordinary Invention of Dressing Horses, William Cavenshish reports that when he was asked by an observer which horses he liked best, he replied "there were Good and Bad of all Nations, but that the Barbes were the Gentlemen of the Horse-Kind, and Spanish Horses were the Princes." There are nations of horses, as there are of men, and like nations of men horse breeds have their own national character: Barbs, according to Cavendish, are more docile, whereas Spanish horses are unnervingly intelligent; English horses are lumpish and fit only to pull carts, and Turkish horses, although rare and beautiful, are not so physically suited to the high schooling." (Note that Cavendish's work appeared in 1667). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I've integrated the Spanish horse information into the history section of the article - if you think I should have taken a bigger chunk of the information please let me know or feel free to tweak yourself.
 * Also, I know you do more with the reliability of references than with reference templates, but could you take a look at current refs 9 & 10? The links are working fine, but doing something funky that's making part of the website url show up in the title. I'm basically wondering if this is a template glitch or if I'm just being blond and not noticing something that I'm doing wrong. Thanks again! Dana boomer (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's probably the weird characters in the url that's throwing it off somehow. Not sure how to fix it, ask at the help desk? Does this mean you're back home for good? (We weaned last night, very upset babies today, but the mama's are ALL happy with the world. They went to a friend's stable for the month, and they think they've gone to a spa ... cushy stalls, new friends, and no babies!) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Allright, that's kind of what I figured. I'll drop a note at the help desk and see if anyone there can help. I'm back home for good (saying that now, who knows what will pop up in the next year, honestly). Weaning sounds like it's going well - I've never done it with horses, but my mom does with her goats on a yearly basis, so the squealing of upset little ones is a familiar sound... Dana boomer (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We have neighbors with cows. Weaning time is both noisy and, um. redolent" around here.   Montanabw (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

In sourcing this article, because of the known political issues involved, we will have to tread carefully. Some of the "verifiable" sources are going to be flat-out wrong and some of the "questionable" sources may actually be accurate. And yet other things will be dead-on accurate but cause a you-know-what-storm amongst certain factions. (Like the obvious DNA evidence of Barb breeding in the Andalusian and the strong but hard-to source evidence supporting some Arabian influence too) I don't know how to resolve this, but maybe just judicious use of tags as we go. Montanabw (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * After the re-write that (mainly) I did to this article in late June, everything in it is currently sourced. If there are problems with any of the current references, I will try to replace them, but I did work hard when I originally wrote it to use only high-quality sources. I think I have presented all of the sides of the political argument, if there are some I haven't presented, then please point them out. Since the re-write to the article (which was prompted in part by a minor edit war over breed coat colors, if I remember correctly), there has been some vandalism, but no sustained edit warring, despite the addition of much information that could be seen as "incorrect" by various factions. The presence of references seems to be a deterring influence, and they can be used as a solid base of argument in any edit warring in the future.
 * Montanabw, what I was mainly asking for was if there was any additional history information in your Deb Bennett book? The history section is probably the hardest one to write without specialized sources, and so I was hoping you could check your sources to see if there were any large parts of the breed's history I had missed. As far as the Carthusian goes, if consensus ends up being to merge, that's fine - it will just result in this article being a bit bigger. I didn't start that article, so I have no particular attachment to it, and no particular view on whether it should be merged or not. Dana boomer (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was concerned about future edits. The line between vandalism and edit-warring is one that sometimes is only the level of dedication the same person has to keep coming back over and over again!  LOL!  (Kind of like the "wild/feral horse" thing, seldom the same people, but always the same ideology.. :-P  )  Bennett drives me nuts because she claims that the Andalusian had zero Arabian blood prior to the 1800s, but there clearly was some, but I can't find sources for it, as it may be one of those "lost in the sands of time" things from prior to the 13th century. On Spanish history itself, she's pretty good.  I think I'm just venting my own frustration at trying to find stuff that is neutral AND well-sourced. I will review some things I have and see if I can find anything more that is useful. Montanabw (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Follow up Added material from Bennett, which has the potential to stir up precisely the storm I hoped to avert. (Phooey, but NPOV is NPOV)  In short, she is pretty adamant -- and here I think she is correct-- that the "Andalusian" of today is not precisely the same horse described as the horse of Andalusia in, say, the 16th century.  She also slaps around the "purity" argument pretty hard and has convincing evidence of Spanish Jennet crossbreeding with central European horses creating the modern Andalusian type (though she goes off to follow the development of the Spanish colonial horse in America and doesn't spend much time with the Spanish Andalusian after about 1600 or so).  This does not take away from the quality of the modern breed, but we will probably have to deal with the occasional upset aficionado.  Bennett says (and I think she is correct), "The interest of U.S. breeders in "purity" of breeding is a complex psychological reaction, I think, to our own history...there are no horses of "pure" -- that is, absolutely unadulterated strain -- anywhere, and no amount of scrupulous record-keeping or pedigree study can alter the animals' actual history." (p. 158)   Montanabw (talk) 04:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Bennett additions look really good. I've completed the merge of the Carthusian horse info over here, since that seemed to be the consensus, no-one had spoken up against it, and I didn't really care. I've kept the history info pretty much intact in its own subsection, and dropped the section on the warts and frontal bosses into the characteristics section. Although warts may be a characteristic of many grays, and bosses are present in other breeds, they're both considered special to the breeders of this sub-type, so it's a good thing to mention, IMO. If there's wording directly copied from sourcing, it's my fault, and not done on purpose, so feel free to reword or point it out and I'll change it. Dana boomer (talk) 14:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)