Talk:Lipizzan

Let's take it down a notch with anti-Slovenian sentiments

I'm not about to get involved in any specific edit dispute here, but it just blew my mind that after a recent edit, the fact that the user had "Slovenicus" in their user name was used to diminish their credibility. (The full text of the edit was as follows: "An addition by an account named 'viator slovenicus' shoving in more Slovenian details into the lead... none of this is needed.... merely pushing Slovenian nationalism.") Where's the presumption of good faith? Wikipedia users often have their locations as part of their user names, but I've never seen that used against them--until today. Accusations of anti-Slovenian bias have been made in connection with this article before, and this is not a good way to lay those concerns to rest. Revert the edit if you need to, but let's cool it down with the accusations of "nationalism," which never seem to be leveled against, say, Austrians, despite their history of trying to claim ownership of the breed.--31.15.238.217 (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The edit summary may have been unfortunate, but the problem of Nationalism pushing has been at least a decade-and-a-half long problem on Wikipedia. The breed developed in the Habsburg Empire, which encompassed multiple modern nations, and those national borders have shifted several times since as well. (Lipica, for example, was once part of Italy…). All of this has lead to much unnecessary drama, and if memory serves, out in the real world there even was an EU lawsuit—that Solvenia lost. The breed can be claimed by multiple modern nations that once hosted breeding farms (Hungary also has a claim), so the best approach is discussing the big picture. Sad to say, Individuals claiming Slovenian background have been the most aggressive about POV pushing and in doing so attempt to make claims of sole “ownership” or origin that simply are not supportable. The Austrian farms and the SRS simply get more weight because their programs are the best-known. Montanabw^(talk) 08:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Not Austria-Hungary at the time

Whoever keeps adding text that Lipica was a part of Austria-Hungary when the breed was developed, in the 15th and the 16th centuries, should go out and buy a European history book, since Austria-Hungary wasn't created until the 19th century. The claim is wildly anachronistic, yet it has been reinserted into this article several times. 104.153.228.206 (talk) 03:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The breed was developed from stallions at multiple studs, not just Lipica, a place that which was shuffled between various nations over the years. The point is that the Habsburg empire facilitated the development of the breed, and there’s multiple nations today can claim a stake in its origins. Montanabw^(talk) 23:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but the Hapsburg Empire wasn't known as "Austria-Hungary" at the time; the Dual Monarchy wasn't created until the mid-19th century. This has nothing to do with the status of Lipica. --87.119.144.203 (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

US-Centric ?

The article Operation Cowboy" tells me [Andrews employed] "many Allied POWs, including British, New Zealanders, French, Poles and Serbs, who were freed from concentration camps in the area. Andrews also gave arms to the German soldiers of the Heer and the Luftwaffe, even if they were formally prisoners of war. He also accepted the help of a Russian anticommunist Cossack, Prince Amassov. Amassov led a small force of Cossack cavalry". German soldiers even fought the SS. Even the Russians played a small part by not interfering, according to that article. So where does it say soldiers of several nations collaborated in the rescue? Yes, it was an American operation, but isn't it misleading to say "saved by the US Army"? The word 'international' should be in there somewhere. Humpster (talk) 00:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Lipizzan relationship to Kladruber breed

I'm wary of editing the page due to its protected status, but I would suggest adding some context about the Lipizzan being related to the Kladruber horse breed due to the National Stud at Kladruby nad Labem in the Czech Republic being mentioned several times in the Lipizzan page. The Lipizzan is also mentioned on the Kladruber page, but the Kladruber isn't mentioned on the Lipizzan page: "Maestoso (1773) and Favory (1779): born in Kladruby, became two of the six founding Lipizzan stallion lineages. Favory returned to Kladruby after World War II, to add new blood to the decimated herd." Obversa (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Obversa: I reverted your edit because the sources say no such thing. European studs are historical institutions that bred horses for military, agriculture, racing, carriage, and other uses of horses, and often bred multiple breeds. You should not assume that all horses owned by or bred at the Kladrub stud were horses of the Kladruber breed or their ancestors or their decendants. Your persistent WP:OR additions to horse breed articles linking all breeds together, across all time—collapsing breed differences into a single genetic slurry and erasing distinctions—is misinformation and is disruptive of the project. Please stop.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

It is also important to remember that WP:NOR and WP:RS. Wikipedia is not a place for pet theories. Montanabw^(talk) 16:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Protected edit request 2026/06/21

Change:

{{See also|Dressage#"Airs" above the ground}}

to:

{{See also|Airs above the ground}}

~2026-34502-67 (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Good idea.  Done -- Avocado (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)