Talk:Retuertas
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
question
[edit]Is this the same breed as the Sorraia, about which we already have an article? Montanabw(talk) 04:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Characteristices
[edit]This article will eventually need a characteristics section, the following material was originally in the article, but unsourced and apparently is a rough translation from Spanish, so might be a base, but isn't readable in its current form and there is some question if it's accurate. Montanabw(talk) 18:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
"The Retuerta horse is of medium height, profile acarenado and rustic, which together with his surly nature was to stop being used as work animals and cargo. Currently the number of pure specimens is very small, and the rest crosses with Andalusian and Marismeños to varying degrees.
- I'll get to it. Please read your talk page again ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Duff links
[edit]Here are 2 duff links I took out of the article:
Free as the wind, old as the hills by: Samantha Kett, Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Press Release CSIC
The first is an incompetently translated version of a Spanish source, possibly an original CSIC press release. Note for example that dear Samantha thinks that there are only 60 horses left; what the El Mundo article says is that 60 horses were investigated in the study. This is obviously not a reliable source, and has no place in the article. This is the second time I have removed it.
The second is a link to the CSIC itself, and should be totally reliable. Except that it is broken, as are apparently many of their other document links. If anyone is able to access that second source, I would very much like to know what it says.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- This would not be the first time the press screws up things. The point is that for non-Spanish readers, it is helpful to verify that the information. If someone raises the issue, we can point to the more precise Spanish form. Hence, tags! Montanabw(talk) 18:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, some misunderstanding here of what a discussion consists of. You wanted a discussion, so discuss. Just saying what you think and sticking the link back in the article is not discussion, it's just damned rude. I remind you again that there is a CLEAR POLICY on this subject. It is Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information. It'd be greatly appreciated if you would take some notice of that policy. Equestrianism might be a good place to start; there's been a WEASEL tag sitting there for a couple of years with nothing done about it, and yet you are wasting your time and mine putting low-quality links back into a stub article I've only just started working on. Please remember that you do not own this wiki or this project.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, some misunderstanding here of what a discussion consists of. You wanted a discussion, so discuss. Just saying what you think and sticking the link back in the article is not discussion, it's just damned rude. I remind you again that there is a CLEAR POLICY on this subject. It is Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information. It'd be greatly appreciated if you would take some notice of that policy. Equestrianism might be a good place to start; there's been a WEASEL tag sitting there for a couple of years with nothing done about it, and yet you are wasting your time and mine putting low-quality links back into a stub article I've only just started working on. Please remember that you do not own this wiki or this project.
- Well frankly, when it comes to "ownership" and "damned rude," all I can say is, "Mr. Pot, Mr. Kettle is on line one." As I do not read Spanish, I have no idea if you are using a weak source to verify a biased POV or if you are using the most authoritative sources available. Hence backups from English-language sources are helpful. The news article, though romantic in tone and thus a little silly-sounding in its opening paragraphs, appears NOT to be horribly "misleading or false." You point out one relatively minor error about population numbers, but overall though it is undoubtably simplified from the original research sources, I find the article quite interesting and it easily passes WP:V. I am observing your work because you have a bad habit of blanking sourced material with claims of your superior knowledge, which you do not back up in any way that any of the rest of us can verify, and when challenged, you resort to insults. You do some good work, but frankly, you ARE under some scrutiny because you still don't understand collaboration and some basic wikipedia policies. I'm just the one willing to take point. Montanabw(talk) 21:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- JLAN, with the greatest of respect, and assuming good faith on your part, it's really important for you to be a bit less confrontational with people, and seriously do take on board the WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA stuff. I really do appreciate that sometimes stuff can get really frustrating - my first 'conversations' with Montana and a couple of others, I was so frustrated about something that I couldn't just put into a couple of articles, (WP:OR and WP:RS applied) but I've honestly now found these people great to work with. We didn't have any major rows or anything, but it took a while for me to get the point. Try to be humorous where possible, rather than snarky. Collaboration will only work if an editor is the kind of person that other editors want to collaborate with. Pesky (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well frankly, when it comes to "ownership" and "damned rude," all I can say is, "Mr. Pot, Mr. Kettle is on line one." As I do not read Spanish, I have no idea if you are using a weak source to verify a biased POV or if you are using the most authoritative sources available. Hence backups from English-language sources are helpful. The news article, though romantic in tone and thus a little silly-sounding in its opening paragraphs, appears NOT to be horribly "misleading or false." You point out one relatively minor error about population numbers, but overall though it is undoubtably simplified from the original research sources, I find the article quite interesting and it easily passes WP:V. I am observing your work because you have a bad habit of blanking sourced material with claims of your superior knowledge, which you do not back up in any way that any of the rest of us can verify, and when challenged, you resort to insults. You do some good work, but frankly, you ARE under some scrutiny because you still don't understand collaboration and some basic wikipedia policies. I'm just the one willing to take point. Montanabw(talk) 21:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
. Some papers: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17121602 www.uco.es/zootecniaygestion/img/pictorex/26_09_39_retuertas.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.211.74.126 (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Released into the "wild"
[edit]Here's a link to an article about Spain releasing these horses into an unfenced nature preserve in order to encourage breeding and the natural roaming behavior that is "in their DNA". I'm not much of a writer though, so someone have at it. http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/01/08/260777584/after-2-000-years-wild-horses-again-roam-western-spain 108.24.53.70 (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)