Talk:Belgian Warmblood

The edit I put in yesterday did not use the term "breed". I left it out intentionally because in this case, it is misleading. Warmbloods are not considered breeds.

Countercanter 13:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, my misunderstanding. What is a warmblood then? It's not a horse, since there are many of them, is it a classification? I'm trying to write the lead paragraph of the form "Belgium Warmblood is a ...." Rich257 13:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the term is a classification. I know it's convoluted but...Thoroughbred is a breed. The only requirement to be a Thoroughbred is to have a Jockey Club-registered Thoroughbred mom, and a JC-registered Thoroughbred dad. Same with Arabians. Arabians are a breed. Saddlebreds are a breed. Warmbloods are defined less by common ancestry and uniform type (for example, you can tell a Dachshund from a Jack Russell Terrier from a mile away, even though the original purpose of both is to go underground and kill something) and more by the values and visions of the people who breed them, ie the registry. I don't own a Belgian Warmblood and have no stake in the BWP, by the bye. Take the BWP stallion Apple Juice for example. His father Tresor d'Opaline is registered Belgian, but both of HIS parents are Selle Francais (French). Tresor's mother's father is a French-bred Anglo-Arab (mixture of Thoroughbred and Arabian). Apple Juice's mother is a Selle Francais; her father's father is a Thoroughbred, and her own mother is a Hanoverian. So what makes Apple Juice a Belgian Warmblood? Well, his breeder was Belgian and he was bred to jump; then he was given the nod by other people in the registry. So effectively, popular opinion makes him a Belgian Warmblood. That's how it is for all Warmbloods. So as of right now there are many different Warmblood registries: Dutch Warmbloods in the KWPN and NRPS, Swiss Warmbloods, Swedish Warmbloods, Danish Warmbloods, Belgian Warmbloods in the BWP, sBs and Zangersheide (such a tiny country has THREE registries!) French Warmbloods (Selle Francais meaning French Riding Horse), and all the German Warmbloods whether they're under the Hanoverian registry, Oldenburg, Westphalian, Rheinlander, Rhineland-Pfalz-saar (such horses are called Zweibruecken), Wurttembergers, Brandenburgers, Bavarians, and so on. The only Warmblood that comes close to being a "breed" is the Trakehner. Due to globalization, frozen semen transport, and (gradually) increasing transparency in breeding objectives, these regional groups are slowly coming together. One important impetus for change is the unification of European states, and also the rather lackluster performance of eastern Germany's economy. As of right now, the southern regions of Germany have come together, as have Rhineland and Westphalia, as have the eastern regions. Hannover just consumed Hessia. There's more to tell but I have class...

Countercanter 17:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly the types of warmblood linked from warmblood are described in different ways, including breed — which is not to disagree with you, just to point out an inconsistency. Rich257 09:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. Hopefully the inconsistencies will be resolved. The Trakehner may be considered a breed. Countercanter 13:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Gang, you are reinventing the wheel here a bit. Go to list of horse breeds and Wikipedia:WikiProject horse breeds. There is plenty of need for more work on breed articles, but this is not a new issue. And please, oh please, do NOT start the "this isn't a REAL "breed" argument! Oh the edit wars, and I know from my experience so far on wikipedia that the argument WILL be resolved in favor of more, rather than less, inclusion. Personally, I am into Arabians, so I happen to personally think that a lot of so-called "breeds" are bogus, but I am also very committed to the Wikipedia pillar of WP:NPOV, too. Thus, if enough people care to create a registry and call something a breed, it probably will pass the WP:Notability standard, and frankly, the fight just isn't worth it. It's better to work on improving the articles themselves. (I mean, does ANY breed advocate a bad temperament or pig eyes? (LOL))! Montanabw^(talk) 22:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The BWP does not refer to the Belgian Warmblood as a breed. Still to come...how Belgian Warmbloods are named, hopefully more detail on inspection procedures, and a bit on the BWP auctions. Countercanter 18:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You are doing nice work on this article. If you can find some free images (i.e. GDFL or public domain) to add, that would be excellent--hard to find "Legal" images, why so many of the horse pics in wikipedia are so-so at best. If you wanted to add anything to the warmblood article on when warmblood aficionados consider a certain crossbreed to be a breed, and if they aren't a breed, then what are they, that would be useful. Of course, word carefully and diplomatically, with sources, or else we get edit wars (Someone once listed Tennessee Walkers in a laundry list of show jumping breeds, bless 'em--a problem solved by simply throwing out the laundry list!). Montanabw^(talk) 23:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Your edit was very helpful and more concise than mine. Definitely an improvement. In order for images to appear on Wikipedia, they must be public domain, free use, or the owner of the rights must have "donated" it, yes? Countercanter 13:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Late answer but as for the "breed" question, right at the moment, Wikipedia has only two categories, "breeds" and "types." By that standard, generic "warmbloods" or "sport horses" or "stock horse" or whatever form you pick are a type, Trakehner is a breed, but there is no in-between for breeds in development such as the Hanoverian, etc...so basically, the process in wikipedia has been, if there is a registry with some kind of breed standard, call it a breed, particularly if offspring of registered animals also are registerable -- with or without additional screening and testing--I think the Friesians still have a testing and approval process, and no one will claim they aren't a "breed." (conversely, say, the "bay horse" registry is NOT a real breed registry). I guess the distinction is a little too black and white, but I'd be interested in what you call Hanoverians, Oldenbergers, Swedish Warmbloods, etc., if not "breeds." They are more than a "type" -- be interested in hearing your thoughts on the matter. Montanabw^(talk) 05:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Images

Boy, I dare not even start trying to explain image upload policies, best you hit the "help" link over on the left of the page, then read the various (and not always real well written) articles on images and copyright. However, I can tell you a couple of things:

1) It isn't good enough that someone says it's OK to use the image on wikipedia, it has to be a truly free image that people can take and spread all over the net, or, if not a free image, then one that meets the "Fair Use" criteria or some of the other exceptions. (The image I used in White (horse) of the Lone Ranger and Silver is an example of a non-free image that still is OK and so far has not been tossed out by the wikigods)

2) Ideally, free images are to be uploaded over at wikimedia Commons. However, commons is even more fussy than wikipedia. An image must be either public domain or released under a couple of possible "copyleft" licenses, either GDFL or CC (Creative Commons). If I am sure an image is free (like if I took it myself), I upload it at commons. If I am not sure, I upload it just to wikipedia, as there is a broader range of acceptable images here.

When you try to upload, they help walk you through it all. I found it a bit frustrating at first to figure out, but so far I have yet to have an image tossed out (knocking on wood), though I did have to re-upload a couple images with different licenses because I had the wrong tag on them initially. The wikigods will send you a fast alert if you mess up and give you a little time to fix things. Usually...

Basically, what I have done has been to upload photos I took myself under a public domain license if they are really generic and I don't care what happens to them. I have uploaded others under a joint GDFL/CC license if for some reason I want to retain a little control over the image (not a lot of control, but at least make people admit I took the photo), that is about the most control you can keep over an image that you took. I have found images online that have a free license (such as some at Flickr) and uploaded them to illustrate various articles (particularly some of the horse harness articles, for example), and a few things can't go into Commons and have needed a special fair use or other copyright exception tag. (For example, see what I did with the images for Khemosabi or Lady Anne Blunt)

The biggest thing people run into is if they try to upload a photo that was taken by a professional photographer that they happen to possess. It has to be real clear who owns the copyright to the image...some pros keep the photograph copyright and technically even if you bought the photo, all you own is the single copy, not the rights to the image.

Hope that helps. Basically, if you have the patience for about 2 days of frustration, you will get it figured out and then there will be no stopping you! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 05:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage.) Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/20030416235346/http://www.cowboyfrank.net:80/fortvalley/breeds/BelgianWarmblood.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, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing 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) 09:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)