Talk:Warlander

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article review

This article has potential to be excellent. However, it presently has a few concerns, too minor to derail a DYK, but problematic in the future if the lead editor wants to eventually get this to Good article status. The first is that the breed supporter's claims of great antiquity are a wee bit exaggerated (nothing new, we run into this a ton, see the talkpage at Sorraia for an example). To be encyclopedic, we can only go as far as actual evidence goes, not dipping into the realm of original research or fringe claims. So here, you bet, there is probably plenty of evidence that people in the 16th century crossed Friesians and Andalusians, but you can't really draw a direct line from those crossbreds to the modern Warlander; all you can really say, if you can find a source, is that modern breeders are trying a selective breeding tactic that was also used 400 years ago. Montanabw(talk) 21:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I am confused as to where the subject came from that anyone was inferring the Warlander of today was anything like the Friesian x Iberians of the past. The global studbook does not support this claim - http://warlanderstudbooksociety.com.au/#/breed-history/4572174443 --Secret Squirrel 101 (talk) 04:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The second concern, and why I hit one paragraph with a bunch of "dubious" tags, is the claims from the book by Maharaj are hard to verify and sound sketchy. The book apparently is offline only. If Google books has it, or if it appears online, it would be great to provide a URL. As it sits, I cannot locate this book even in worldcat, so not sure if it's a self-published work or not. This makes it a very questionable source, particularly with the comments about "cavalry breeders" and such -- the Baroque type has been out of favor since the rise of light cavalry at the end of the Renaissance, when the more warmblood style crosses came onto the scene; the Baroque breeds are truly magnificent, but they became the animals of the nobility, the menage, horsemanship schools, and of classical dressage. It would be good to clarify who these "cavalry breeders" are -- is it the tent-pegging crowd, or military reenactment fans, or what? Is there a government-sponsored military group that actually uses this sort of horse? Take a look at WP:V for the verifiability criteria. I certainly do not personally need to see everything sourced to a peer-reviewed journal, and am willing to consider breed registries and inside sources as solid for certain things (ideal breed criteria, modern breed development, goals of breeders, etc.), but historic claims benefit from non-aficionado sources that are more neutral. Montanabw(talk) 21:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I also have problems with all of this information. To date it is totally unsubstantiated and after 25 years of the Warlander horse being bred to a standard, and much evidence now of F2 and subsequent Warlander to Warlander breedings there has been NO evidence of Atavism occurring in the Warlander. Interestingly, the Friesian breed has a much smaller genetic pool and we are not seeing evidence of it there because low inbreeding coefficients are encouraged by both mother studbooks. --Secret Squirrel 101 (talk) 04:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

A minor concern is with foreign-language sources. They CAN be used, but ideally should be backed up with either a translation in the footnote, or a supporting English source that summarizes the same material. WP's star example of a breed article that had to use extensive foreign language sources, but did so well, is Finnhorse. Montanabw(talk) 21:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

In short, all the outside material I've run across with this new breed suggests that it's primary focus is going to be in Dressage. (In fact, I think the USEF MIGHT be thinking about -- or already has -- allowed a Warlander division, may want to check that out). The references to being an ancient warhorse are a pretty big stretch, and the references to modern cavalry do not appear to line up with any modern exhibition regiments with which I am familiar. I am more than willing to look at source material that explains this better. Montanabw(talk) 21:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

There has been a misunderstanding here. The only references to ancient War Horses have been made in relation to the base breeds - the Friesian and the Iberian. Not the Warlander, and if someone has made these ascertations then they are incorrect. --Secret Squirrel 101 (talk) 04:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination

Reversions

A user reverted some of my changes, asking me to "take issue to talk" without apparently feeling the need to do so herself, making her reversions without discussing them here. I am expanding below upon my explanations for my changes, and will put the changes back unless members of the community see flaws in my arguments:

  1. the statement about the FEI is not supported by the reference and is not true: the FEI page places no restrictions on named breed, and instead talks only about proper physical descriptions
  2. the statement about the UELN foundation is contradicted by the reference: the UELN prefix for the BZKS is 276384
  3. the statement about national equestrian federations is not supported by a reference and is not true: the German federation, among others, certainly recognizes the breed
  4. the term "claims" is loaded and I was certainly taught at journalism school to avoid it where possible and use neutral alternatives like "says" "states" "asserts".

WarlanderHorse (talk) 05:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN the person who seeks to add or change material has the responsibility to justify it. The links used as citations do not back the claims made.
  1. The FEI doesn't list a "Warlander" anywhere, certainly they can compete, so can a grade horse. Please provide a link to support your claims
  2. The BZKS link only lists a breed standard and does not verify the rest of that particular section, so I tweaked it to conform to what the page said.
  3. The UELN cite used for the footnote here makes no mention of the Warlander as a breed. If there is a different citation on the UELN web site that does, please provide it.
  4. "Loaded" only applies when we aren't talking about advertising. The registry's "statement" that the Warlander's foundation breeds were warhorses is mere advertising propaganda; we also have such claims from half the draft horse breeds out there as well, they are all pretty dubious; the best that can be said is that any given breed's ancestors MAY HAVE been war horses in the Middle Ages. While the baroque horse breeds may indeed have ancestors in the medieval destrier, as that was the phenotype, breeds as we understand them today did not exist as such in medieval times, written pedigrees as we know them today (for entire breeds, versus individual breeder's often-sketchy records) were not kept until the Andalusian, which was one of the earliest studbooks, and it didn't come into being until the 13th century at the earliest, which actually corresponds with the decline of the armored knight. The claim of the Friesian as a war horse is even more dubious as that breed as such did not form until the 16th century, long after the mounted knght had disappeared from the battlefield. This has been extensively researched, see, for example, the source material cited at Horses in warfare and especially Horses in the Middle Ages.
In short, it is tough to be neutral about a breed that you have passionate feelings about, but wikipedia cannot be a mouthpiece for breed registry's (often dubious) claims. But the neutral point of view is critical here, we are an encyclopedia, not an advertising service. To see what an excellent breed article looks like, compare Thoroughbred or Appaloosa. For smaller, rarer, newer breeds, observe the process right now at Rocky Mountain Horse, where an editor is prepping it for featured article status. Montanabw(talk) 19:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

On (1), I think you are misrepresenting the issue at hand: the statement you have put back says that the FEI "does not recognize competition horses classed as Warlanders" but the attached reference does not in any way support that assertion. The attached reference says nothing about the FEI recognizing or classifying ANY horses by ANY breed. My intention in removing this statement is not to say that the FEI conclusively recognizes any Warlanders (I don't know if they do); the statement should be removed because the statement is not supported by its own reference. If you want the statement to remain, you should be prepared to replace its current non-sequitur reference with a real reference that says something -- anything -- about FEI recognition of competitions horses by breed. To put it another way, the original inclusion of the statement failed to justify its factual assertion with a relevant reference as per WP:BURDEN, and so should not be retained until and unless a real supporting reference is put forward. Feel free to do so if you can. On (2), I think you are misunderstanding what the UELN foundation does. The UELN that I cited, 276384, is ascribed by the UELN foundation to the BZKS without reservation; you can look this up here -- in other words, 276384 is the UELN prefix that the UELN foundation has granted to the BZKS to use for any horse breed whose books are held by the BZKS, including Warlanders. The fact that there is no UELN-issuing organization that does not solely inscribe Warlanders does not change the fact that there is at least one UELN-issuing organization that is permitted to inscribe Warlanders along with other breeds. As well, I note that you reverted the assertion that Warlanders are not recognized by any national federations, despite the fact that there is no reference supporting that statement, again in violation of the very WP:BURDEN policy that you cited. I know for a fact that several federations do recognize the breed -- including my own federation in Germany -- but I'm getting the impression that you are just making reversions as a sort of reflex without paying very much attention the references attached to the text. I'm sure you know a lot about horses, but no one knows so much that they can just make up their minds without reading the material in question. I would respectfully suggest that you not make reversions to changes until you have the time to read the references to the text in question. WarlanderHorse (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The burden is on you, I'm afraid, please read WP:SYNTH, i.e., that the BZKS holds a Warlander stud book and the BZKS has a code doesn't therefore mean the Warlander has a code; you have to admit that Warlanders are in the same gray area as a lot of other designer crossbreds that people are trying to establish as a "breed" --in another 10-20 years, these issues will be resolved, but they aren't yet. It is tough to prove a negative, indeed, but you can't use that as grounds to make unprovable claims. For example, this link, choosing the saddle horse and pony category, lists dozens, if not hundreds of breeds, but not the Warlander, anywhere. That said, the link about the FEI associates seems to have changed, so you are correct that the link was off, and thus I replaced it with the sport horse list they have. Montanabw(talk) 02:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The line you have inserted about the World Breeding Federation of Sport Horses, while true, is strangely irrelevant to the article: the list that you use as the reference also shows that the WBFSH does not recognize the American Quarter Horse as a sport horse breed. Would you feel the need to insert a similar sentence in the article on the Quarter Horse, stating that it is not recognized by the World Breeding Federation of Sport Horses? It would be no more relevant than inserting a sentence saying that the Quarterhorse and Warlander are not recognized by the American Kennel Club. Furthermore, although I have not been able to find a non-password protected online page for the German equestrian federation, I have found several (one will suffice for this discussion) that the USEF certainly does recognize the Warlander breed and does class competition horses as such, which shows conclusively that the article's existing statement that the breed is not recognized by any national equestrian federation is inaccurate. WarlanderHorse (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You distort the USEF, so one horse has points and the owner calls it a Warlander. That is not "recognition." Where is the breed on the list here? It's not. USEF has NO recognized Warlander affiliates, no "Warlander" section in the USEF rule book. The POINT is that the Warlander isn't really a recognized "breed" by hardly anyone yet, it's a designer crossbred. Maybe in 25, or 10 or even 5 years, that could change. But it isn't the state of things now. The Quarter Horse has been around since 1945, they have registered millions of them, they pulled out of USEF years ago because they had political reasons not to play, and yet - while some may show in some sport horse disciplines, that doesn't make it a "sport horse" as the term is used when defining horses that compete in international level competitions (though that may change with the recognition of reining, who knows?). I'm not trying to be a snot here, I'm just trying to explain that your claims need to be properly sourced and not exaggerated. Everyone is enthusiastic about their breed, but they have to be encyclopedic and neutral on Wikipedia, and so far, we have had so much drama on all these Friesian crossbreds and not a lot of verification. I have no problem if you precisely explain what the German recognition is like, but don't exaggerate it elsewhere. Montanabw(talk) 19:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I am afraid that it appears that you are allowing your views of the breed to taint what you are inserting into this article. Whatever you think of the breed, you have (1) offered up no substantiation of the assertion that the breed is not recognized by "any national equestrian federation"; (2) offered no argument for the relevancy of the phrase about World Breeding Federation of Sport Horses; indeed, your narrative above about the American Quarter Horse indicates that you understand that being a member of the WBFSH is a separate issue from being a bona fide breed or competition horse. I feel this matter has run its course, and I am going to make resoned (and fully referenced) changes to the article. If you continue to object, I suggest that we refer this matter to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. WarlanderHorse (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Article improvements discussion

Round two

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI