Talk:Hispano-Árabe

Propose move to Hispano-Árabe

I propose moving this page to Hispano-Árabe, as this is the official name of the breed in Spain and the USA, and probably elsewhere too.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Show me English language sources. What it's called in Spain is only partially relevant. If the major English language books on horse breeds agree, I won't kick, but we need sources. My overall concern on these moves and name changes is that if a breed is commonly called something else in English, we hurt navigability and searchability by eliminating other references, even with redirects, which are a little confusing to the "drive-by" reader. On the other hand, if the official group wants a particular name, I would agree that it is wise to try and accept it. Montanabw^(talk) 21:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I remember being told that "a redirect is a beautiful thing"; and of course that's what the navboxes are there for. But I agree navigability and accessibility are essential. I can assure you it is just as confusing to come here KNOWING what something is called, and then trying to work out what on earth they might have decided to call it in English (I now search in Italian, then switch languages). Anyway, the offical registry in the USA appears to be this one. It's not a move for move's sake, but part of an attempt to get more in line with what things are called in the place they come from.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

In Finland, the Finnhorse is suomenhevonen and we most certainly translated that to "Finnhorse" here! So I'm not buying the "name in native land" argument, (though an excellent candidate for a redirect) but I'll grant you the breed association! Google says Hispano Arabe = 2,680,000 , Hispano Arab = 1,930,000, Hispano horse= 1,750,000, Hispano Anglo Arab= 1,780,000 Hispano Arabian= 1,550,000 (best not use that, as there are Arabian bloodlines in Spain called "Spanish Arabian" so potential confusion there) Given that the breed association in the US uses the term and all Google refs with "Arab" exceed those with just "horse", I say OK to this one, but it needs a redirect that doesn't contain the diacritical marks, because English speakers don't use them much...I'd also recommend a redirect from "Hispano Arab" and probably do the name without hypnens. There are also links to Hispanic Anglo Arab and Anglo Hispanic Arab. All appear to be basically the same horse. So "knowing what they might have decided to call it in English is, I agree, sometimes a challenge. Hence yes, I like redirects too! Montanabw^(talk) 19:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I made 4 more + fixing an existing double one when I did the move. If anyone finds a combination of with or without hyphen and with or without accent that I have missed, please make more! Now there is the problem of what to do about the article, which will be totally empty if EquineKingdom material is removed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

In this case, tags are your friend. The beauty of tags is that they show up on other pages --we have a whole page devoted to articles in need of cleanup (there's at least 1000 or so of them just in WPEQ), and they all get listed so anyone who cares enough can go take a whack at them. The use of Equine kingdom, which we all agree falls under "it isn't great, it often sucks, but if we must have a source, it's better than nothing, except when it's flat out wrong" (grin) would be treated thusly: If info is blatently incorrect, tag it as "dubious." (This doesn't mean if the height standard is off by an inch, for example, but it's if it's off by a hand or more; similarly, if it says the breed has a convex profile when it's profile is actually concave -- the big stuff, not the nitpicky stuff) If info is more or less correct, at least close but the source still is a poor-quality one, use the "unreliable source" or "verify credibility" tags. If you can immediately REPLACE the material (height, charactristics, etc.) with a better source or otherwise improve its accuracy, do it. If you can't, don't just delete the material, tag it, then give it a bit, like a week or so. In that time, see if you personally can find better sources and just improve things. If you can't, then keep the "unreliable source" material because someone in the future might find useful info-- people aren't disputing its rough accuracy, we just are saying the source is iffy. But it would be OK to dump the dubious tagged stuff if no one is arguing about it being dubious. If there is an argument over the dubious tag, then just replace it with the "verify" tag until things get sorted out. Montanabw^(talk) 01:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The interesting thing about equinekingdom is that the material must have come from somewhere, there's quite often stuff that has not just been swiped off the net; the trick would be to find the sources. I can of course get the characteristics and just about everything else for this horse off the Spanish Ag & Fish ministry site, but I haven't been able at a first quick glance to find any other source for that tres sangres stuff, which definitely sounds like it ought to be true. But it'll be a while till I get to this one anyway, so tags are good for now. Just a thought: some other projects here do not allow any site that has advertisements to be used as a source (dogs might be one, I think). I'm not advocating that, but it does seem to me to be a good starting point, one possible test for reliability. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS and WP:V sort of give us the broad outlines. I would agree that the presence of advertising does call into question the reliability of a lot of sources. However, at least in the USA, even some breed registries add advertising links at times, so my thinking is that while the presence of advertising is a red flag that ought to subject the site to greater scrutiny and indicia of reliability, a flat-out ban might render us without sources at all in some cases. I guess tagging and trying to replace with better stuff is my recommendation/opinion/personal approach. Montanabw^(talk) 16:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Tres Sangres vs Hispano-Árabe

[I'm new to contributing, which is why I'm writing here as opposed to changing the actual article, so please bear with me.]
The Hispano-Árabe (also written as Hispano-Arab and Hispano-Arabe (without accented a), and the hyphens are sometimes dropped) is different from the Tres Sangres. The Hispano-Arabe is a cross between the Andalusian horse and the Arabian horse -- there's no Thoroughbred blood in an Hispano-Arabe. The Andalusian/Arabian/Throughbred cross is known as the Tres Sangres, which is correctly noted as meaning "three blood" (also called Anglo Hispano-Arabe). It seems the article mostly describes the Tres Sangres as opposed to the Hispano-Arabe.
Please see the following web sites for verification:
http://www.ahaa.org.au/hispanoarabe.aspx
http://www.hispano-arabeuk.com/Breed_Profile.html
http://www.hispano-arabeuk.com/Anglo-HispanoArabe_Registry.html
http://angelandalusians.com/HispArab.html
http://www.spanishhorsespecialists.com/index.php?id=57
http://www.andalusians-for-you.com/definitions.html
00samm (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are entirely right: it's a total mess, sourced to a totally unreliable website. The material about the Tres Sangres should probably be split off into a separate article, which would leave still more room to expand this one. But there's a small problem there: the Tres Sangres doesn't seem to be very well documented. It's not recognised by the Ministerio de Agricoltura, and I can find few references to it in books. Can you indicate any reliable sources describing it? And can you point to any reliable printed, rather than internet, sources documenting the Hispano-Árabe? That would be helpful too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to see JLAN is already on this. It can easily be improved with proper sourcing. I'm thinking, though, that the Tres Sangres can be noted here with a redirect created that, if at some time enough reference material comes up, can be redone into a separate article. That said, the "Andalusians for you" site is also not a reliable source, and the Angel Andalusians and Andalusian specialist pages are commercial sites that are also not acceptable. The hispano-arabeuk site looks OK, and the Australasia one is probably OK too. No sense replacing one iffy set with another. Montanabw^(talk) 22:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

My knowledge of the cross has just been accumulated over the years, so I don't know off hand of any reliable print sources. http://caballohispanoarabe.com is a Spanish association for the Hispano-Árabe, but it unfortunately does not appear to have an English translation, and my Spanish isn't anywhere near strong enough to be able to figure out where the registration requirements are located. 00samm (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

JLAN claims to speak Spanish, I think, so that source can still probably be useful. Even if we don't use it directly, it is handy to verify the content of the English sites. Google translate can give you the gist, though it takes a live body with actual fluency to verify the nuance. I'm sure he'll take a peek at it. WP has some guidelines for using non-English language sites, and though they are normally discouraged, they do have their place and there are exceptions to the WP guidelines that explain when and how they are allowed. Montanabw^(talk) 18:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.equinekingdom.com/breeds/light_horses/hispano.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)