Talk:Lusitano

Croup and tail
"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)

Added photo samples
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)

Links
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)


 * In addition, the bloodless bullfight site is a reference to the point made in the article about "bullfighting" horses.

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)

External Link Proposal
'''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....
 * "self-pro·mo·tion  (sělf'prə-mō'shən)
 * n.  Promotion, including advertising and publicity, of oneself effected by oneself: A television talk show is an excellent vehicle for self-promotion."

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 "External_links" guidelines of Wikipedia, here's a section of what backs up my request, namely what is marked in "bold"
 * 3.1 What should be linked
 * 1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.
 * 2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.
 * 3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
 * 4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.
 * 3.2 Links to be considered
 * 1. For albums, movies, books, and other creative works, links to professional reviews.
 * 2. A web directory category, when deemed appropriate by those contributing to the article, with preference to open directories.
 * 3. Very large pages should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Worldwide, many use Wikipedia with a low-speed connection. Unusually large pages should be annotated as such.

As per the section Conflict_of_interest
 * 1.7 Citing oneself
 * You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia.


 * With regards to this, our site is a reliable resource because we include information from sources other than ours, which are very reliable too. And how is one "regarded" as a reliable source?  Wouldn't your peers, or let's say the statistics of a website make it a "reliable" source?

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 "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)

Merge proposal
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)
 * I also have a concern that the material may be a copyvio from someplace. I don't know how to check this, though.  Would this be a job for Moonridden Girl?   Montanabw (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's a copyvio, it's one that's been there for a while, since the majority of the information (and the wording) is from the original version of the Alter Real article before I merged it - see here. I'll do some more digging tonight to check and see if anything was pulled directly from Bongianni, Hendricks, etc., since those seem to be the most commonly copied. Dana boomer (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If it is just the return of what was there before, then I say chop it and re-merge because it's an edit against the previous consensus, which was to merge. That said, I hope the editor swings by to comment before we do so because I hate to discourage a newbie, and I think this is what we have.  Maybe give it 24 hours or so.   Montanabw (talk) 03:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Marked the copyvio. Oppose the merge - it's a different colour, a different size, is the only horse used by one of the top classical dressage schools of Europe, and has approximately 220 years more history than the Lusitano; it is a typical 'razza privata', or private noble/royal breed, like the Lipizzaner, the Sanfratellano and the Persano. Does any reliable, expert source state the two to be indistinguishable? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that I'm pretty sure what you marked is a WP mirror - they got their stuff from us. As I said, the editor just restored what was originally there - they didn't really add anything. Also confused as to your argument - nothing I've found says they're a significantly different size, they're not a different color (Alter Reals are always bay, while Lusitanos may be bay), and not sure where the "220 years more history comes from" - they are both developed from the "Iberian horse" that eventually split into what is today thought of as the Andalusian/PRE, Lusitano, etc. As far as references go, see this World Equestrian Festival article and this Dressage Portugal article, along withe the others currently already in the article (did you take the time to look at them?) which present them as one breed. Do you have sources that say otherwise? Dana boomer (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My position is uniqueness of a bloodline or strain does not mean it's a totally separate breed. As a rule, people are too quick to take a strain and call it a "breed."  I would need to see considerable evidence for the Alter Real being a unique breed from the Lusitano.  As far as I can see, they have a common ancestry, etc. I'm open to considering new source material, but absent solid new evidence, I'm for the merge.  Montanabw (talk) 23:50, 19 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)
 * mirror? yes, you may well be right, I looked at the article history not that of the redirect!
 * Alter Real is, I believe, slightly smaller
 * I find 'always bay' to be different from 'sometimes bay'; the different coat implies different genes and breeding history
 * Alter Real 1748, Lusitano 1966 or 1967, depending on source. I make that about 220 years
 * the refs: IMO the first is neither expert nor reliable; the second appears to consider them separate, though the photo of grey horses is confusing, as is the fact that the registration authority is the Fundaçao Alter Real
 * IMO people are too quick to take different strains and lump them together. Current world opinion seems to be that genetic diversity is precious, at risk, and worth protecting and preserving. I go with that. If the AR had survived uninterrupted until now it would be among the oldest European breeds.
 * Can't argue with common ancestry; don't all horses have that? If we're going to merge something, why not Lusitano with Andalusian, where the difference really does appear (to my inexpert eye) to be only political? What we need here is an expert, someone fluent in Portuguese and totally familiar with Iberian horses. I don't personally believe that anyone here is remotely qualified to make this call, or indeed to evaluate the sources.
 * Do you have sources for the Alter Real being smaller? Also, this could just be a variation of the strain - size and color don't determine breed in most cases. Same for the bay color - a difference in coat color can simply be the result of a specific stud or breeding farm breeding for a long period of time for a specific color - this can happen in any breed, and doesn't necessarily mean that it is a separate breed. The Alter Real was developed from horses brought from Spain to Portugal in 1748. The Lusitano was developed from horses brought to the Iberian peninsula that then developed into the Iberian saddle-type horse and later split into the Lusitano and Andalusian. All of these horses came from the same stock, and when the Portuguese version was split off, the Alter Real was part of the Lusitano. So far, you have yet to provide a reliable source that they should be considered separate, and more reliable sources seem to consider them the same then separate. Perhaps as a compromise we could find a couple of sources that say they aren't the same and add those in with a sentence that states not everyone thinks they are the same? Essentially, as far as I can tell, they don't have their own stud book, and in the majority of sources, they are said to be the same. Do you have sources that say otherwise? As we don't have an Iberian horse expert here, we need to go with what the available sources say, which AFAIK in this case is that they are generally considered to be the same thing. Again, I'm going to ask, do you have sources that say otherwise? So far, all you have provided is opinion, as well as some misplaced facts (although the Lusitano and the Andalusian studbooks in Iberia were split in the 1960s, the Lusitano as a type is actually older than the Alter Real, which just means it was bred at a specific stud). Dana boomer (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that, just as we discussed the nuances of the Carthusian strain in the Andalusian article, we can "teach the controversy" here on the Alter Real another sentence or two with sources may be a good way to handle  it.  I also think we don't want to get into breed politics when it comes to what people want their version of a breed to be called this week in that nation.  The foreign language name issue is one of those areas we've been debating across multiple articles, and where we have to agree to disagree.  I see no reason to rename the article with the "puro sangue" prefix here any more than we use "PRE" as the name of the Andalusian article or "TPR" for Italian Heavy Draft or whatever.  We could add the "Puro Sangue Lusitano" variant to the lead sentence, but that's as far as we should go.  I've previously made my pitch on the interpretation of WP:ENGLISH elsewhere and won't bother repeating it here.  Montanabw (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So, since no expert sources have been provided to say they are different breeds altogether, and since we have more people arguing for a merge than not, I'm going to merge the two back together, probably this evening. I'll try to find a couple of reliable (though not expert) sources that say they are two different breeds (I think I stumbled across that somewhere, maybe Bongianni?) and do a "teaching the controversy" sentence or two in this article. Dana boomer (talk) 19:34, 30 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)
 * Follow-up: For what it is worth, Edwards treats Alter Real (p108 in the UK edition) and Lusitano (p106) as quite separate. So does Hendricks, Alter Real p14, Lusitano p272. So does McFarland in The Fact Book of Horse Breeds, Alter Real on page 9, Lusitano on page 63 or so (start of section not visible on google books). So does Tamsin Pickeral (see page 279). So I think does Caroline Silver, Guide to the horses of the world, though I have a very limited view of this one. So does McBane, Horse & pony breeds, page 169. So does Jane Kidd, The horse: the complete guide to horse breeds and breeding, Alter Real p86, Lusitano p116. So do Baratoux and Simeon, A Celebration of the Horse, p46. So does Richardson, Horses and Ponies, p33. So does Macgregor-Morris, The Book of the Horse, p88. So does Kidd, World of Horses, though I can't see the page number. So does Lerner, Cavalos: guia prático, both breeds shown, separately, on page 51. You know pretty much what I think of this kind of book. Nevertheless, that looks to me like some sort of consensus. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Here are more sources that say they're different, from the governing body of Portuguese horses, one of the largest breeders of Lusitanos in the world, and one of the biggest players in the Iberian equine science world:
 * This is the website of the Alter Real Foundation, the official Portuguese governing body for horses. This is a Google translation of one of their pages on the Portuguese school of Equestrian Art, talking about how it is a testing and selection area for Alter Real Lusitanos. This page (also Google translated) discusses the horses in Portugal and makes no mention of a specific breed called the "Alter Real". However, it does say that Lusitanos from the Alter Real stud are available for breeding - and, as I'm fairly sure that Alter Reals are the only Lusitanos at the Alter Real stud, offering L breeding from the AR stud means that ARs are Ls (if that makes sense.
 * This website is not really reliable in and of itself, but this specific article is written by Hardy Oelke, who's a major player in the Iberian horse world. He says the Alter Real is a branch of the Lusitano breed.
 * Interagro Farm, while commercial, they are one of the largest Lusitano breeders in the world. They says the Alter Real is a branch of the Lusitano.
 * Obviously the sources go both ways. However, I think that the best place to discuss the issue is in the Lusitano article, with all of the information together, rather than spread out to another separate article that can't expand much beyond what's already there. To have all of the information in one place is better, I think, rather than sending the reader to other articles to find information that says it might be all the same breed anyway. Dana boomer (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And I disagree, and continue to oppose the merge as proposed. You wrote earlier "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." That turns out to be quite resoundingly not the the case, so your justification for agreeing with the merge proposal seems to have disappeared. You are also apparently quite wrong that the Alter Real horses are the only ones at the Alter Real stud, which houses both the Coudelaria Alter Real and the Coudelaria Nacional, at which Lusitanos and other horses are bred. From the Dressage Portugal page you cited earlier: ""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.""


 * Please note the small 'l' in the phrase "cavalos lusitanos Alter Real", "Portuguese Alter Real horses", as compared to the capital letters used for the names of the other 'autochthonous' Portuguese breeds including Lusitanos. Hmm, is there an article for the Português de Desporte? In the absence of an expert opinion, or an editor with access to relevant specialist sources, you have no case, no possible justification for merging the two breeds. I will add some references to the Alter Real article over the next couple of days. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * JLAN, as usual, you are splitting hairs that do not need to be split. You have your viewpoint, I acknowledge that you are entitled to your viewpoint, and it is a minority viewpoint that goes against consensus.   You are taking an agenda of using foreign names and foreign units in English wiki across multiple breed articles and passionate as you are on the topic, your views are simply not going to be adopted as the majority view at this point, so you need to move on and do what you do best, which is to write pretty well about a lot of rare breeds.


 * On this issue, clearly, the Alter Real and the Lusitano are closely related and one is a substrain of the other. Similar splits exist within other breeds.  This does not mean that the article should split out an inferior quality stub.   Clearly, the Alter Real bloodlines are worth preserving, just like people want to preserve certain lines within other breeds.  You don't have to make a whole new breed out of it to do this, and in fact, doing so may remove a desired outcross from a breed registry.  What we have noted in editing wikipedia is that a lot of the breed encyclopedias may be verifiable sources, but they are not necessarily the Gospel Truth.  Many simply slavishly adopt whatever various breed registries tell them (sometimes almost verbatim) and thus by taking the propaganda wholesale are subject to the same uncritical lack of analysis as the PR department of the registry.  You have to look at the big picture, and the big picture is that the Alter Real is closely related enough to the Lusitano to be covered within the same article.  We have verifiable sources to back this up, and so far any issues you have raised can simply become expansion points of this article, no need for a split.   Montanabw (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * And JLAN, you're apparently saying that a bunch of breed encyclopedias that even you say you don't trust are more correct than one of the biggest international Lusitano breeders and Hardy Oelke of all people? Or are you just ignoring these links? And that for all of the discussing that the Alter Real Foundation does of Lusitanos and then mentioning Alter Reals as part of this (for example, an Alter Real stallion being mentioned as part of the Lusitano stallion inspections in the foundations most recent newsletter) is just a coincidence? Just because a bunch of breed encyclopedias (who are known for not being the greatest on non-English/American breeds) repeat each other, does mean that they outweigh some of the top breeders/scientists in the business. Dana boomer (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * just went through that quite long discussion - just to clarify some facts. Alter Real (AR) is one of the 4 major blood lines in the Lusitano stud book . the other 3 lines are Coudelaria Nacional (CN) the military stud, Veiga (MV) the line with most bullfighting functionality and by many considered the most important (type preserving) bloodline of the breed and finally Andrade (the line established by Rui Andrade the hippologist who is mentioned in this discussion as saviour of the Alter Real line which is true. he saved 12 mares and rebuilt a stock that he handed back to the portuguese state in the 30ies. Quina (CI) is by many considered a fifth line as one stallion of this brand (Xaquiro) has had a very strong influence across the breed in the past 2 decades with about 200 offspring (keep in mind that the the total breed counts only 10.000 heads today) - xaquiro was particularly also refreshing the Alter Real line during Guilherme Borba´s directorship and generally there is a lot of cross breeding going on between the 4 major lines. it would be great if somebody could weave some additional information about those main blood lines into the Lusitano article - and thereby create a good starting point for the Alter Real content to be enlarged a bit. the standalone article Alter Real is quite poor - but it could retain its own article although that deserves some serious work - as over time Veiga and Andrade could have theirs  - as each of them have an interesting and rich history which all in one Lusitano article would make that very long. as long as we keep clarity that as different blood lines they all belong to the Lusitano breed and are kept in one (closed!) stud book by the APSL.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manfred bodner (talk • contribs) 20:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Manfred, so far we don't do breakout articles on individual bloodlines as a rule (though we have MANY articles on individual horses of significance, and those are always fun -- and welcomed!), so it sounds like we need to incorporate the Alter Real piece into this one for now. Very interesting info on the other foundation bloodlines, and it would be nice to add that if we can get third party verification.  Can you shoot us some sort of source material we can use to cite to, so we may add that to the article?   Montanabw (talk) 19:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Echoing Montana's thanks - it's wonderful to finally get conformation on this. I would also love to have some source material that comes straight out and says that these are the four bloodlines - I haven't been able to find anything that's hard-core reliable so far that does so. At this point, as Montana says, we don't generally split out articles on individual bloodlines. This article is at less than 25 kb, so it's still relatively small and can stand a lot of additions before we look at needing to split. There's also the fact that we're writing for a general audience, so when it comes down to really specific lineage information it's best to just point readers to the best book on the subject and leave it at that. When we were writing the Haflinger article, I found a book that contained over 100 pages of detailed lineage on the breed - way too much information for a wide-audience article, but great to point people to if they're really interested in the subject. Can't wait to see what you come up with on both this subject and the one we are discussing below! Dana boomer (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

More stuff to discuss
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". 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". 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. ---
 * It does raise an interesting point, but needs to be better referenced and probably trimmed before being readded to the article. For example, "As a consequence spanish breeding was deprived of its most essential functional selection criteria." Who says it was the most essential? Lots of unneeded verbiage as well - could probably be trimmed to about half. References first, and if those are added, I'll do the trimming. Dana boomer (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't even know if it's reliable, but I wanted to show respect for the person who put the work into adding it and not just toss it wholesale. If you want to dig into it a bit to see what can be verified, it could be fun.  I know one thing we want to avoid is doing anything that raises any POV issues around bullfighting, that's an edit war looking for a place to happen!  Your call what you think, but I am also sure the bit about how there  is no PRE "suitable for mounted bullfighting" is definitely not something we would keep! =:-O   Montanabw (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping the person that added it will comment here on the talk page and we can work on the referencing. Even if I had access to the book, I couldn't read it, as my Spanish is pretty much limited to asking for the bathroom (I'm sure I've said that before). Dana boomer (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * hi / I am austrian (so some help with my english (dana´s "verbiage" comment) may be needed and appreciated) and I am new to wikipedia contributions (was my first effort the other day and more like a test to see how the whole system of creating articles works...) and here I am finding out how disputing contributions works :-) / I ´ll postthis now just to see wether thats the way (edit and save ...) a simple forum/chat would do the job but I am sure this system has advantages that I dont see yet.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manfred bodner (talk • contribs) 21:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

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 :-)


 * Manfred, if you "watchlist" this article, any changes will appear on your watchlist whenever you log in. (I track about 1500 articles that way, myself):I think it's important to see if some material is appropriate for the bullfighting and rejoneo articles, I know if we go too far down that road we will attract the animal rights activists, wihi could be an unnecessary distraction to this article.  I also don't ever want to get into anything where one breed article "bashes" another breed.  As for the rest, best to give us web links if you can so we can see the material for ourselves (Google books often has some things online).  It's basically figuring out what will enhance this article without causing trouble elsewhere.   Montanabw (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * thanks for feedback - dont believe animal rights activists should be too worried about historical aspects of the "sports" evolution - but in the context of the Lusitano articel we are anyway more interested to shed some light on the breeds evolution - if somebody else wants to incorporate those relevant context infos in corrida or rejoneo articles so be it - the santo-alonso book I referenced to was the just the first source I found that mentions the 1723 prohibitionand is certainly useful for rejoneo articles but there must be more out there.I totally understand your point about not bashing a breed from another breed´s perspective - the issue with the whole Iberian horse history is though that it got mingled up in the national ego struggle between portugal and spain - the actual article does an ok job in pointing out that basically there is a neolithic or older genetic base in that part of the world from which those horses emerged to their antiquity fame (apparently 50 iberian riders were hired by the Spartan´s in the peloponnesian war and had a decisive role...) so long before romans and arabs starting drawing the lines of future nation states in the sand there was already a highly functional warhorse in that part of the world performing a very specific riding style (jineta) . when I came as an austrian to southern andalucia 8 years ago and started researching on the local horses I quickly came to the conclusion that the Lusitanos are the modern version of those ancient warhorses and that the andalusian horses (PRE´s) had a lot of functional problems and were a lot less useful for sport in general -  the reason for the obvious difference (and even spanish breeders have no problem admitting the quality issues) was not so clear to me in the beginning - digging deeper I found this argument as the most logical and valid. spanish literature always (Altamirano and others) is busy blurring the differences by simply saying Lusitanos are spanish horses anyway - which is a purely nationalistic attitude and not relevant if we want to understand why there is such a big difference when only 40 years ago it was one studbook - which theoretically allowed free interchange - but that´s when the socio-cultural difference really comes into play - the majority of spanish breeders for over 250 years had not been looking for bullfighting as a selection criteria anymore because it didnt exist for such a long timeand also had no relevant other functional criteria for centuries (dressage interest came into play only in the past 15-20 years, the Jerez school was only revived in the seventies) - whereas in portugal this was and still is deeply woven into the consciousness and "eye" of all horsepeople - not only professional breeders - its just "the" criteria - and if we understand horses and ridig culture as a whole as a cultural reflection of an area or a segment of society we have here a perfect case of conservation of a certain type of horse due to such cultural conditions - and a couple hundred kilometres to the east (and across a national border which is the key here) the same genetic starting point resulted for all the above mentioned reasons in a visibly different outcome.

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)
 * Agree with Montana, here. Manfred, a good chunk of the information above would be great to have in the article. However, I think that we can add the information on the Lusitano without the need to add the information on how PREs suck at bullfighting (basically, don't say anything if you can't say anything nice!) Would you be willing to go through the section above and add in, either in parentheses or inside of tags, the sources where you got the information after each sentence? This will make it clear to the rest of us where each sentence is coming from, and then we can trim, edit and re-add to the article as applicable. When it goes into the article a reference is not needed for every sentence if multiple sentences come from the same source, but for now it would be nice so that the rest of us can be sure that everything is sourced. Unfortunately, all of the information, as Montanabw says, has to come from verifiable, preferably third-party sources. Even though you appear to have a good amount of first hand knowledge of the breed, unfortunately anything you know personally but can't verify with outside sources is inadmissible, because it is considered original research by Wikipedia. If you would be willing to add the sources in to the above, I think Montana and I would be more than willing to do the prose tweaking and then readd it to the article. It's great to have your input here, as we always like to have opinions from those who actually work with the breed in question! Dana boomer (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * thanks for the feedback. as your versed eyes have noticed immediately my initial contribution was bare of a all rule conformity as I have come to understand it now. it is based on reading over the years, hundreds of conversations on both sides of the fence, observation and intuition - I have to screen my own library now and then expand out to collect the referential backdrop neeeded - this will take me a while though as I cannot devote too much time atthis moment. but I will stay tuned. thanks!


 * No problem Manfred, this is a problem that ALL of us at WPEQ have -- tons of info in our heads, and a big pain in the butt to go to the books and find it, especially when half the books are not entirely correct anyway. (I now sincerely regret throwing out a HUGE pile of my old horse magazines from the 70s and 80s a few years ago...!!)  You are welcome to come over with good source material any time and it will be much appreciated if you can!   Montanabw (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

More pics now
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)


 * Oooh, cool! I switched the first out for that very boring pasture shot, and added in the first with a bit of juggling of another image. I like the head shot, but am not really sure where it would fit, given space/sandwiching/facing the right direction considerations. Any specific thoughts? Dana boomer (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure, but definitely needs a home! Sometimes I put head shots into "characteristics" when they fit, but that's my only thought.   I kind of wish one of these body shots was suitable to replace the lead, but none is quite right.   Montanabw (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

No, captions should be short and sweet.
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)
 * Pardon? First, contributions to the English Wikipedia should be in English, and this includes contributions on talk pages. Second, I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the above. My edit summary was neither impolite nor uncivil. It merely explained why I undid your edit (because yours was ungrammatical and overly descriptive). The picture itself is quite nice, though - thank you for uploading it to WP! Dana boomer (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Portuguese revolution
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 &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; 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)


 * Thanks Montanabw. I have contacted the source. Nothing like hearing it straight fro the horse's mouth. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Photos
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)


 * Too late, Montanabw, I have reported your edit warring here. Please understand that you don't own the article. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, for pete's sake. You are edit warring over your OWN photos. This is ridiculous.  Well, off to waste more bandwidth.    Montanabw (talk)  20:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

To follow up on the 3RR discussion at the drama board. 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)


 * A couple of notes in response to Montanabw arguments:
 * 1) This is an article of a global encyclopedia, not a specialized text of a horse breeding journal. The use of highly technical arguments concerning the length of the cannons, the leg conformation or the shape of the neck, although probably intimidating to some, is only meaningful to very few. Furthermore, why should only the best-breed animals be represented here? Although the horse in my picture is probably overweighed and old, he is still a Lusitano horse;
 * 2) A horse, like a man or a cat, doesn’t have a “right” and a “wrong” side. I don’t see the relevance of the point that the animal should face the text in the article. Even if that is considered desirable, why not using the left side of the page?
 * 3) It is just not true that the animal in my photo had a heavy twist-tie in the mouth. The horse had been eating and that is just a piece of straw! I know, I was there. Please see here (I really did not appreciate this comment and had some difficulty in assuming good faith);
 * 4) It is just not true that the animal in my photo is dirty. It had been cleaned and combed just before the shot, and those stains in the body are not dirt. Montanabw's comment in the 3RR thread about my horrifying image of a thin, muddy, neglected animal speaks for itself about the author's attitude in this discussion;
 * 5) It is just not true that my photo is geometrically distorted. A focal length of 48 mm at this distance is perfectly adequate and the lens has no visible distortion with the present settings;
 * 6) The present leading image is a disaster and the arguments of Montanabw do not justify its permanence.  It is too small (no details can be seen), of poor quality, too tight framed, ill-composed and the attitude of the animal doesn’t look right (facing down, the eye is not visible). Almost any other picture in Commons’ gallery is better than this one and I can’t understand the stubbornness in keeping it as the leading image!
 * 7) I do not insist that my picture should replace the present leading image. It looked like the best of the bunch but I will (naturally) respect consensus. Maybe it is the right time for other editors to join the discussion. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hope this helps explain the situation. Montanabw (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What I wish is that we had a seriously good image, as we have, for example, for Arabian horse. The reality is that a LOT of our breed articles, confined as they are to free images, don't have particularly good images, we deal with the best of a bad lot. Some answers to your questions:
 * 1) The horror shot was this one: File:Estrela Março 2010-40.jpg, even you replaced that one.
 * 2) A 48mm lens is too short for shooting horses, The industry standard starts at about 70mm. When I did horse photography (pre-digital, I used film), I had a 75-150 zoom that I used for most of my farm photo shoots.  See p. 3, and p. 46.
 * 3) I'm not super thrilled with the current lead image as the image IS messy in the background, it's a candid shapshot image, it would be improved if the horse was standing still and had its head raised, but the horse is a quality animal that shows the breed chracteristics, and my arguments for it stand - we debated it at GA at the time and felt it was the best of a mediocre lot.
 * 4) Frankly, is there any way you can go back over there with some guidelines for taking better horse photos?  I'd probably be willing to reconsider a better image of the horse himself. If you shot that same horse with a longer lens to eliminate the distortion, or took a straight side shot instead of an angled one, that would be a start.  (A 3/4 front shot with a longer focal length lens would be another idea, it would hide the pot gut and the ragged mane; the tail dreadlocks would be hidden) If they had bothered to give that horse a bath (the manure stains are really quite noticeable and yes, those yellowish-brownist blotches are manure stains, I've groomed a lot of horses, horses don't naturally have spots that color) and stand him up properly so he doesn't look like he's downhill (it's OK to stand horses with their front ends a little uphill, that is a common trick to hide flaws) - and thank you for the more detailed image, but really, that straw did look like wire in the other image, and at any rate, it's sloppy that they put the halter on over a piece of straw and were too lazy to move it out from under the halter?
 * 5) To give you examples of photos of Lusitano horses that I found out on the web that could work here, except that they are copyrighted, so we can't use them:  this would be ideal as to the horse, though photo resolution could be better,  this one is in motion, but gorgeous,  loose animal facing the "wrong" way and a little back at the knees, but still a good representative, healthy and in good condition, clean, ears up, etc.,  also not too bad, though also too long in the cannons and too upright in the pasterns, but he's had a bath and is stood up attractively)
 * 6) Here are some sites with good advice on taking pictures of horses (you have the camera tech stuff down, look at the animal-specific details): ,
 * 7) The problem with the Luistanos at the commons page is that we have already used most of the decent images elsewhere in the article. (The one of the saddled horse tied to the wall used to be the lead image, but we swapped it out at GA)
 * 8) The horse breeds task force at wikipedia has long had a guideline that the infobox image needs to be, when possible, a horse that's not being ridden, preferably a full body view, preferably side view (that isn't always possible, see Andalusian horse as an example of an FA with an atypical lead image)
 * WP:MOS governs that as a general rule, the infobox is on the right,the table of contents defaults to the left and so in terms of basic graphic design, we do make exceptions for images facing the "wrong" way, but here, there were additional problems.Power big meet chevrolet rolling wreck.jpg
 * 1) "Why should only the best-bred animals be represented?" That is a question so obvious I have a hard time answering! The reason we want images of GOOD, well-bred horses is accuracy, the breeds have different characteristics, we are educating the public as to what they are supposed to look like: The equivalent is "why don't we just declare everyone a winner at the Olympics?"  "Why shouldn't my child's refrigerator art be put up on wikipedia?" "Why can't all the animals at the horse show get a blue ribbon?  I'm sorry if that's bitey, but really, like the stationwagon in the image here, a poor-quality animal should not lead the article.
 * Just a couple of short comments before leaving this thread, I see no point is discussing any further if no other editors participate: i) Never this picture was part of the article; ii) A focal length of 48 mm at large enough distance (which was the case) does not cause significant distortion; you are the horse expert, I am the photographer; iii) A horse is a conscious and senstive living being, not an object. I don't find it appropriate to depict only best-bred animals for the same reason that an article on the homo sapiens species does not depicts top models only. iv) No, I do not intend to go back to that stable any time soon. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You added that image to the infobox in this revision: . Softlavender (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You are quite right and I'm sorry! For some reason I missed up the photos and inserted the wrong one. Sorry again. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * PS - Anyway the offending photo was there for thirty minutes only and the reverts by Montanabw occurred after it was replaced by the correct one. Thus the comment about the horrifying image of a thin, muddy, neglected animal was indeed displaced and misleading. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll let that one go. But seriously, I used to be paid to photograph horse shows and at horse farms too, so really, the "I am THE photographer" nonsense is just arrogant.  You have nice equipment, you composed some technically decent photos, but you did not know your subject very well and made some moderately amateurish mistakes.  I was going to ask if you'd be interested in perhaps tipping the full body photo a few degrees so the horse gives the appearance of standing level instead of downhill, crop it a bit tighter and see if you can photoshop out the manure stains on its belly (the ones on the hindquarters aren't as obvious), but perhaps you have no interest.  I have to explain that when we are talking about these "breed" articles, you don't want to insult the breed by putting up poor quality images if it can be helped - people just then will think that breed is ugly and inferior to another breed.  I agree that horses are living, sentient beings (at least in the Buddhist sense of a sentient being) but unlike people, the horse will not be insulted if it doesn't have its photo in wikipedia.
 * And sorry, OK? You made a mistake and put up the wrong image, OK, I'll drop that part. End of story.  So do you think the image can be remedied in photoshop per my other comments - or not?  Frankly, the "downhill" stance is my biggest issue.  The poop stains are not helping, but less of an issue, particularly if you can blur them out a bit so they aren't so blatently obvious.   I am kind of appalled that people keep a stallion by feeding him straw until he gets a pot belly, use a halter that has rust on the brass, and allow the mane to be so tangled that even brushed out it is ragged and uneven. But that isn't your fault.  And he seems to be a pleasant enough horse in attitude.   Montanabw (talk)  05:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)