User talk:Equine Smarts

Have noticed the eternal edit war over the Friesian Crazy web site. If it is just a for sale site, I agree, it isn't appropriate on wiki, but does it, like a registry site, also have useful educational content? I don't have a Friesian, so have no stake in the outcome, just trying to figure out if this is a spat between factions or if it is a problem with commercial promotion. (If the latter, then perhaps vandalism warnings are appropriate for repeat offenders?) Montanabw (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Friesian Crazy links
Okay.. I'm a bit new to the inner workings of Wikipedia, so if this the wrong place/way to address this issue, let me know ..I've been a bit confused about his whole thing. I am the owner of Friesian Crazy and have been somewhat flummoxed by why my link is constantly being taken down. If this is about spam/advertising, then I certainly don't see any justification for the constant removal of the link. My site is completely educational, and is not in any way commercial (at least for me). My site offers free classified advertising for visitors, as well as links to many Friesian farms, artists and merchants. I am not a horse breeder or dealer, in fact I do not even personally own a Friesian. I am certainly not selling them.

I personally make no money off the site, and my reason for linking it to Wikipedia is to provide a source to those interested in learning more about the breed. Friesian Crazy offers historical, informational and reference material as well as breed discussions, and while it tends to focus more on FPS/FHANA registry matters, that is only because that is where most of the Friesian community news that I recieve comes from. I don't officially support any registry and for all intents and purposes am a neutral party.

It seems to me all of this should be fairly obvious to anyone who has actually visited my website. Is there something else I need to know about Wikipedia policies? Thanks. --Friesiancrazy 14:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It is one thing to link to a specific bit of accurate educational information, it is another to link to the generic home page of a site, particularly when there are already non-commercial or less commercial sites out there as general references (such as, for example, the official breed registry). Anyone specifically promoting their own site is particularly vulnerable to accusations of pushing their own POV. Look at [[Wikipedia:Verifiability and Citing sources for more info.  Montanabw (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the issue with providing an external link to an educational website. The page is not generic. It is exclusively devoted to the Friesian breed, provides news, as well as factual and verifiable information from registry rules as well as collected information from other historical and medical sources, all reputable and sourced. I would argue that the website is even less commercial and more neutral than the registry websites, as the purpose of the site is not to strive to promote one registry/breeding method over another, but to be a collection of information that is both easily accessible and understandable to those who have an interest in the breed. While small-scale and not showy or largely advertised across the web, the site is a reputable source in the Friesian community.

The site is in no way commercial. All services..every single one, from classifieds to advertising (both of which are paid features also found on both the FHANA and FPS sites) are free to visitors in my quest to keep things neutral and accessable to all. Friesian Crazy does not represent any one point of view, that was the point, when I first created the site many years ago.

I am not trying to include the site in the cited/references section, but the external links. I ran across this: External links which I guess would be appropriate to my situation. After reading it I don't see where the site would come across as objectionable, and it seems to fit into the "what to link" category. The list of external links on the Friesian Horse page is not long at all, in fact, the current Wikipedia entry contains a link to the North American Friesian Horse Journal, which has been defunked and out of business for some time, and whose link is broken.

If you believe there are issues with the site itself and it's reputability, please look the site over, e-mail me, and let me know specifically how I can improve it. However, in the meantime, may I please be allowed to post this link without having it deleted as spam a day later? --Friesiancrazy 19:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Friesian Crazy Has other Intentions.
My personal annoyance with this user stems from the fact that I specifically deal with education on a daily basis and do not support outside companies from appearing to mask their true intentions.

The interesting thing about this all is that the individual who put up the link again last time did so anonymously with an IP address of: 12.76.153.150. Then the next two immediate updates were from Frisian Crazy. Personally, I do not feel this a coincidence and there for associate the anonymous addition of the external link to Friesian Crazy. Uncovering this deceitful act only upsets me more and enforces my recommendation that this external link was added for reasons other than for "educational purposes".

Also I believe the Friesian crazy website is simply posting their link on Wiki to increase their google rankings. They have a specific section in Friesian Crazy that asks viewers to 1) link to them and in return they will link back 2) trade website banners all for the purpose of increasing Page Rank. If this website was truly for educational purposes, why are they so concerned with google rank? Perhaps it's because they want to earn a percentage of sales from the horses they sell via their classified ads or they plan to sell horses in the future and are now trying to increase their page rank.

I see no benefits from this link, and the fact that I fell I caught them in the unethical act of self-promoting on an educational website only reinforces my opinion that Friesian Crazy has other intentions.Equine Smarts 21:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Equine Smarts

No ulterior motives.
Firstly.. Friesian Crazy is not a company. It is an individual. There is zero inflow of money from this website, only outflow in what I personally put into it to keep it online. Please let us get that clear. Feel free to contact any of the people who list their horses in the classifieds, or anyone on the forum, and ask them if they have agreed to give me money in any way whatsoever at anytime.

The reason posts were previously annonymous is that I only recently got an account, in order to find out why this was occuring. I am not denying that I am putting my own website up on the Wikipedia page, and do not see the issue as in any way morally repugnant, as I do not make a profit. Yes I trade links with other websites, this is in order for me to let potential visitors who may be interested in reading what is on my site, actually find out that it exists. Anyone who has owned a website for any purpose understands the need for people to actually be able to find it. I am linking my website to Wikipedia because I believe it to be a useful resource. That is all. My true intentions when I created this site, are the same as they are now.. to provide an accessable informational website for Friesian lovers to learn about and discuss all things related to the breed. Not everyone has an ulterior motive.

If you've visted my site, you can find my e-mail. If you consider this personal as you say, and it is something you want to discuss privately, please feel free to contact me. Otherwise, please point out to me exactly how Friesian Crazy is not an appropriate source for visitors to the Wiki page, who would like to know more about the breed. I don't see any wikipedia rules which state that the owner of a website should not be the one to link it to a wiki article, as long as that website is fully relevent to the topic at hand. This currently seems to be the prevailing argument, which I don't see the basis for.

--Friesiancrazy 03:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral artibration?
Tell you what, I am not a Friesian owner, but have been a wikipedian for a while, have sort of become the patroller of the horse articles, and have run across a number of these things before (found myself in the middle of a spat between two competing miniature horse groups, of all things; also am the cop who patrols Tennessee Walking Horse and reverts the blanking of the soring section that periodically occurs). Here's what I am going to do: I will look over the Friesian Crazy site and if I feel there is a suitable educational page that I feel is appropriate for Wikipedia, I will like it properly. If it appears to be primarily a site for people to sell horses and chat, I will delete it. I have no axe to grind on the issue one way or the other than to be a wikifairy and make nice, well-written, well-sourced articles. So hopefully, my edit can stick on this issue, and I won't change the article until I have done a solid review of the site. Montanabw (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, results are in: I added two footnotes to material in Freisian Crazy, one from the history page and one from the "Encyclopedia."  (By the way FC, may want to spell-check that encyclopedia a bit).  Each is an internal page within the web site, containing no ads, with material that appears to be correct and independently verifiable (though that guy's history of the Friesian actually has some questionable claims and is a bit of a "patriotic" history, but almost all breeds have versions of "our breed saved the world" history they promote, so I'm not going to rip it too hard).  However, the home page is loaded with ads, contains links to chat forums and ads, so it is my opinion that a link to the home page in the External links section would be too close to the "no commercial advertising" wikipedia policy.  I'm not an admin, just another wikipedian like you, but I hope what I have done can resolve this issue and we can put this little edit war to rest.  Montanabw (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting Compromise
It's not exactly the results that, I feel, should be reached but it's a start. Having evidence now that my assumptions were accurate is satisfying to know and will be useful to reference if ever the "true intentions" of FC change/update. I still question why the previous anonymous postings by FC (two at least that I see) were solely to add their external link and nothing else, and only after FC "had to figure out why this was happening" did FC actually add content?

I am curious where the line will be drawn in the future? Will there be a limit to how many items are referenced from FC? Perhaps there should be an entire Wiki page dedicated to Friesian Crazy? I'm sure that would help their Page Rank although it would not be good for business (or educational purposes or whatever FC wants to call it) when these specific conversations are referenced.

I was just thinking: If FC doesn't sell or work with these horses, and the website is purely educational, then how do we know the information on their website is accurate? Education is learned by doing or reading information from somewhere else. So since the first isn't true, I would therefore assume that the information came from elsewhere, and if so, then those places should be cited instead of FC. Perhaps, other patrons of the FC website added their 2 cents but unlike Wiki, those patrons are probably not required to back up their statements with references and therefore cannot be assumed to be accurate. If we can't assume that information is accurate, then why are we allowing it to be used on an educational website like Wiki? Equine Smarts 21:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)ES

Montanabw - Comment
Did you notice that on Jul 17th, 2007 there was a revision where you deleted a link to FC's website from yet another "anonymous" posting and then you said you had done so for the "10000th time"? I did not realize it until now, but FC has a track record prior to even my knowledge of self promoting their own website. I have stopped counting how many "anonymous" postings has solely posted an external link to FC.

After reviewing this I almost feel that the opinion I posted a few moment back may have changed to recommend that you not allow any spam at all from FC in order to maintain the integrity of this website.


 * I think that you are correct that the two things from FC that I footnoted can probably be found elsewhere. However, I personally haven't the time nor the motivation to do the digging necessary.  However, per wikipedia guidelines, if a better source can be found, it could easily be substituted and I have no problem with that.  I suspect that a perusal of one of the breed registry sites would verify at least the bit about how Friesian stallions are approved as breeding stock.  Hard to say where that translation of the Friesian history came from.  (And based on some of the research User:Gwinva and I did on medieval horses, it contains some dubious claims, but again, I haven't the motivation at the moment to dig into the issue to verify or refute them)  However, at this point in time, the two pages I linked have no ads on them, and so while they may not be optimal sources, I am willing to let them stay until something better is found.  This isn't the only place where commercial sites with an education page get linked, at least as an interim measure.  The alternative is deleting some of the material in the article as unsourced, which I'd prefer not to do if the claim is at least arguably accurate.


 * As far as the "where does it end?" question, that seems to be one of those ongoing things in wikipedia that ebbs and flows with who is editing. I guess my take is that any source that isn't blatently inaccurate is better than no source, but when better sources can be found, they can and should be used. My take is that this particular article is in far better shape than it was a year ago, when it was so full of peacock words and breathless adminatiion that it was totally useless.  As an interim measure, I guess it's not mine to judge the motives of someone who has a site, and I think that linking internal pages within a web site doesn't boost its page ranking the way that linking to the home page does.  If these internal pages get so loaded with ads that you can't find the article, then there would be a better argument for deletion. But for now, I personally am going to leave it be.  If you find better sources, great, go for it.  Montanabw (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

FC compromise
Sigh. Well, I'm not going to complain and I thank you for the attempt at neutrality and the compromise, though I honestly have a hard time understanding the amount of suspicion involved here. I suppose Wikipedia must get pounded with an extensive amount of spam on a regular basis.

"'I still question why the previous anonymous postings by FC (two at least that I see) were solely to add their external link and nothing else, and only after FC 'had to figure out why this was happening' did FC actually add content?'"

I have been putting my link up on the Wiki site for a long time. Starting a few years ago I would stop by and contribute to the Friesian wiki text if I saw anything that I could add to. I would also add my site link because I noticed it was always dissapearing for whatever reason. I only recently discovered the "history" page which allowed me to read who and why people were deleting it. Otherwise I would have addressed this earlier. Seeing as I only just created an account, my previous contributions to the site also are listed as anonymous. Alas for me, apparently.

"I am curious where the line will be drawn in the future? Will there be a limit to how many items are referenced from FC? Perhaps there should be an entire Wiki page dedicated to Friesian Crazy? I'm sure that would help their Page Rank although it would not be good for business (or educational purposes or whatever FC wants to call it) when these specific conversations are referenced." I have no wish to be top ranked in Google or anything else. I would just like my site to be accessible to those who are interested. I also would rather despise the thought of a wiki devoted to FC. My previous optimisim/idealism about the Wikipedia process is fast dissapearing.

"I was just thinking: If FC doesn't sell or work with these horses, and the website is purely educational, then how do we know the information on their website is accurate?" I have quite alot of personal experience with the Friesian breed, but none of it is commercial. I have studied the breed, I have worked with the breed, worked with trainers and breeders (none of whom are mentioned anywhere on my site or are advertised there) who specialize in the breed, learning as much as I personally could about their history, health, behavior, registration and training methods (and I continue to learn). I cannot afford to buy one....so I have gotten involved in every other way I could. I'm very involved with the breed on a regional level and regularly write Friesian news and informational articles for regional equine magazines (with no compensation). I can honestly say I am quite educated and informed about the breed moreso even than many owners I have encountered, and created my site in order to share the info. to those new to the breed, as particuarly when I started it years ago, there was very, very little information available.

"'Perhaps, other patrons of the FC website added their 2 cents but unlike Wiki, those patrons are probably not required to back up their statements with references and therefore cannot be assumed to be accurate.'" You are making accusations based on assumptions. If you would really like to know about the site, please, I invite you as before to either contact some of FC visitors, or do the research yourself so that you can compare. Any contributions by visitors have either been accounts of personal experiences (and labeled as such), are from people (including myself) with extensive experience in the matter discussed, or excerpted from reputable sources, and cited.

"By the way FC, may want to spell-check that encyclopedia a bit)" Thanks for the heads-up, I will..

"Hard to say where that translation of the Friesian history came from." It is quoted just above the section, the history is a translated excerpt from "Het Friesch Paard" by Petra van den Heuvel. There are very few books about the history of the Friesian horse, and most of them are in Dutch..(one of the reasons it is hard to find reliable information in English). This is one of them.

In regards to the concept of ads. Can you please clarify to me why this is a negative? The FPS website contains quite a healthy number of farm ads, and the FHANA site's "gold sponsor" is certainly the equivalent of an ad. My front page has two text ads. Two. And "below the fold" as they say...(you have to scroll down to see). It also has the little Google-ads banner. Is this the topic of contention? If so, I will gladly remove it.

At this point I am resigned to the fact that there is a deadset opposition to my site, and won't make the mistake of adding my link anymore without the yea or nay of Wikipedia moderators/officials. However, I would like to know what it is that I could do to make it acceptable. What to you is an ideal site to be included in the links of a wiki? (that is not also a directly cited source..but a general reference link). --Friesiancrazy 23:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's nothing personal. I had a debate like this with someone who was even more obsessed with another breed and was even worse about not getting that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, didn't understand The five pillars of wikipedia and the critical importance of neutral point of view.  You really should have read these before you ever started editing here, I advise you do so now.  Please also read the articles on sources and verifiability that I noted above.  In short, Wikipedia is a non-commercial medium and yes, it DOES get flooded with spam.  There are specific prohibitions against linking to discussion forums, sale ads, "link farms" etc.  Your own site is weakened because there is no bibliographic or citation of material on the education pages that allows someone to determine if you are providing accurate info or making it up (or violating someone else's copyright, for that matter), For example, you might state where the Dutch material comes from, but provide no bibliographic citation, like to where the book could be found, who published it, etc--things that would allow someone to get it from a bookstore or via an interlibrary loan.  (There actually WAS a Dutch contributor to the horse articles on wikipedia for awhile who would be able to verify the accuracy of the translation you provided), etc.


 * A breed registry is considered more accurate than other commercial or promotional sites because, while their claims may be promotional, they can also get into a lot of trouble if they say things that cannot be verified. (That said, even "official" sites can be full of overblown baloney) Your site offers no way for the rest of us to verify any of your sources without a lot of independent research, which we don't have time to do (I have over 500 articles on my watchlist, 99% of them horse articles!)  So basically, your site is not verifiable against sources that are scholarly. Throw in a few links to your sources.  It may not get you linked here and more often, but it will make your site more professional.  Montanabw (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's also take this off of poor Equine Smarts' talk page and move over to the Friesian discussion page. Montanabw (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)