Talk:List of writers on horsemanship

Thoughts on scope
Questions: Do we invite advertising spam and edit wars if we include living people on this list? Should it be confined to Dressage writers only? Is there overlap with anything else?? Montanabw (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Similar thoughts had crossed my mind. Answers: cross bridges when reached, the list can always be split if it gets too big, which I doubt. Notable published works only, so if it's not in, say, worldCat, bnf, bl, loc or dnb then it's not in the list. Horsemanship is bigger than dressage (Weyrother's book is on how to fit a bit), but doesn't include horse medicine, fiction, children's, encylopaedias, anecdotes, genetics, the general stud book, etc. There's already loads of overlap, there'll surely be more. It can't possibly be a complete bibliography, it's just a list of authors with some of the more notable works. Sound OK? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but you get to manage the edit war that will hit if the natural horsemanship crowd discovers this list, OK? ;-)  Montanabw (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What war? There's nothing to war over, this is a list. If it gets out of hand it can be split. Amazon is a truly awful resource for this kind of research, by the way, as it is both direly inaccurate and grossly incomplete. I suggest using worldcat (which tends to give too many results) or the LoC, which can be incomplete for foreign language editions (including British!). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 06:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point on worldcat. I keep forgetting it's an open online resource (worked in a library in the 90s back when only one person in the building could access WorldCat via a proprietary database, habits hard to break).     So far, no edit wars, indeed (whew!).  But about once every six months or so, the NH folks swing by with a bunch of anon IP edits, usually of the "buy MY book" variety.  So far, other than the Money Roberts crowd, we haven't had a lot of trouble, but in blog/message board land there is a lot of drama out there, which I prefer to avoid. You and I spat, but we spat over logical things and generally sincere differences of opinion.  That crowd approaches wearing tinfoil helmets. So they are all yours!  ;-P    Montanabw (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

New thought
Wonder if the "before 1700" section would make more sense if split into two, one titled something like "antiquity" (i.e. anything BCE and maybe through the Roman Empire, should we add something from that period) and "Renaissance" or some date range ("AD 500-1500" or something similar). I don't really care what they are called, but there is some logic to two sections, given the significant time gap between Xenophon and the later writers... Montanabw (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Re-addition of unsuitable entries to list
These are writers you keep re-adding, so the recent edit summary about they qualify for the BLP1E (famous for a specific event) exemption to the typical notability requirement for WP:LISTPEOPLE is nonsensical. Furthermore, WP:LISTPEOPLE is clear that even if somehow these entries did meet the BLP1E exemption, there would still need to be references to independent and reliable sources. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not suitable evidence. You are dealing with primary sources here. I could list all sorts of things that I wrote and were published, but it wouldn't make me notable unless I and the work that I published was somehow evaluated and written about by someone other than myself. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Iron Gargoyle, you are utterly clueless about unaware of which writers are major figures on horsemanship or not. Many are redlinked as they are notable enough to have articles written about them, and your arguments about "primary sources" make no sense.  You have no understanding of this topic and the history behind it. (Wynmalen and Seuing have multiple works listed in WorldCat, for example).  I fail to see what benefit there is to the encyclopedia by this ridiculous edit-warring over a list.   Montanabw (talk)  03:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey, at least I'm not utterly clueless about the most basic Wikipedia policies. WorldCat? You must be joking. Nearly every single item in nearly every single library goes into WorldCat. Not all of those books and not all of those authors are notable. All I am asking for is EVIDENCE of notability. If you are knowledgeable of the topic area and Wikipedia policy, you should be able to easily add independent sources instead of edit-warring yourself to re-add unreferenced information back into the list. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The source you added doesn't address a single one of the redlink entries in the list. I checked. The others still need inline citations to reliable, independent sources. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I fail to see what the crisis is. The standard is "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" ... do you dispute that people such as Seuing or Wynmalen are not major writers on Horsemanship?  There are over 3000 articles tagged for Wikiproject Equine, and I can assure you that  and I cannot possibly fix every redlink on your timetable.  So please chill out and cease the rude personal attacks such as "utterly clueless."  How about you go read the excellent essay WP:DONOTDEMOLISH?  Or, better yet, source some of this material yourself.   Montanabw (talk)  00:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Er,, "utterly clueless" was . I don't see any value in either flinging epithets or edit-warring. , if you are "not utterly clueless about the most basic Wikipedia policies", why have you been WP:Edit warring here? What exactly do you think could possibly be achieved by that? You did the same, though not quite so egregiously, at . If you're not utterly clueless (and you obviously aren't), you will already know that persistent edit-warring can lead to "being blocked or even banned". It's also a pointless bloody waste of everybody's time.
 * That's policy, but WP:LISTPEOPLE is a guideline. It's for guidance. It isn't a rule or law or policy that has to be followed, it's a series of recommendations for good practice. As such, I agree with it, and also recognise that there may be times when it can or should be ignored. Perhaps you could persuade yourself to do the same? You're right that this list needs better references; I've tagged it accordingly. If there's someone listed here who you believe is not verifiably notable, please mention him here (yeah, surprise, they're all men!). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , I've just learnt that you are an administrator on this project. You should be ashamed of yourself. Edit-warring is unacceptable in any case, but edit-warring by an administrator is unspeakable. Admins are expected to adhere to a higher standard of behaviour than other users and to set a good example throughout the project. What on earth were you thinking? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I was the first person to actually engage in discussion on the talk page. Twice, in fact, before anyone else thought to participate in discussion. I didn't violate WP:3RR and had no intention of violating it. I know edit-warring isn't just 3RR and isn't acceptable, but it is likewise unacceptable to ignore policy that reflects a broader consensus. Obviously edit-warring is bad, but at least I tried to start a discussion here first. I think everybody (including myself) needs to get off their high horses—heh—and realize that the page got improved as a result of this discussion, no matter the fact that tempers left the barn (gotta stop with the horse puns). WP:LISTPEOPLE may be a guideline, but it is informed by other policies and guidelines which were being ignored if editors thought a list of entrants' own publications were sufficient evidence for inclusion. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, I apologize for saying "utterly clueless." I'll strike that remark and apologize to the broader wikipedia community for my failure to mask my frustration and allowing to bleed out here.. Nonetheless, I am utterly puzzled why there is an insistence on removing a few redlinked individuals absent some issue being raised that these people are somehow not as represented. Any of these works cited by these people would be deemed reliable sources for the principles they describe, and I fail to see what policy violation crisis exists here; hundreds if not thousands of list articles have redlinks and unsourced entries, the policy is "...whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged..." Here, I see no need to remove material, if you had a serious or sincere question, the tag could have been applied. But random deletions look an awful lot like vandalism, and initially I treated them as such. Montanabw (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your attempts to source this material and ultimately follow the WP:LISTPEOPLE guideline. Guidelines should be followed unless there is a clear reason and strong consensus not to do so. It's a shame this broke down into some nastiness between then and now. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * We have a disagreement over how to interpret WP:LISTPEOPLE; We seem to have reached a compromise until we get to the point that redlinked articles can be created. Montanabw (talk)  05:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of writers on horsemanship. 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/20160229222540/http://lusitanoportal.com/history-dressage-riding-masters/ to http://lusitanoportal.com/history-dressage-riding-masters/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)