Talk:Neapolitan horse

De-extinction?

Since this breed, or a breed carrying this name, is currently being bred or back-bred (in tiny numbers, and probably all by one person) and registered by an official organisation in its country of origin, I believe it should be removed from the category of extinct breeds Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

We have a conundrum here. On one hand, I see your point. However, the "real" original breed IS extinct and can't be made un-extinct by simply breeding something that looks similar. (And often actually is not!) We have had similar issues with people who want to claim the Konik or the Heck Horse is a Tarpan, when they are just bred-back lookalikes that have no genetic connection to the real Tarpan at all! In the USA, to take a different example, there's something they call the Spanish Jennet Horse that is just a gaited horse with spots, but they are trying to claim it's really a jennet. So I really hesitate to reward a single ranch by giving them free PR. However, with sources, which you have, I guess I see no harm in ADDING a paragraph or two (after the stuff on the extinct type) about how there is a recreated version, and maybe adding additional categories so the article goes into both places. Montanabw^(talk) 16:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The other conundrum is "how official is 'official'?" In the states we also have lots of people who have created some sort of crossbred that they declare is a new breed when it's mostly just the horses of a single breeder and the "breed" is only a couple generations, often less than 30 years old. Sometimes they even get some group to declare that they are a real "breed." Unlike the American breeds, where there really is no official governing body to declare what is or is not a breed, here you do have some sanction, but what DOES "official" recognition actually entail? Is this organization part of the Italian government, so able to confer a legal status, or is it a private group where anyone who gives them enough money and paperwork can be deemed "official?" I ask this in part because I'm extremely cynical about this process in the US, where it's usually just a bunch of advertising to promote crossbreds.

I'm fairly suspicious of it myself; as mentioned before, I find it quite scandalous that a small group of Camargue horses can be registered as an indigenous Italian breed. But that is my opinion, so I can't put it in the article (I can however refrain from mentioning those horses at all, tee-hee!). The Napoletano is approved by Ministerial Decree, which means that it is officially recognised by the equivalent of the Department of Agriculture; the University of Naples seems to be involved too. I have NO idea just how real the current version is, except that it is superficially very convincing; the horse I saw at Verona was fine and quite unusual, quite different from this [1] which is an excessively sheep-faced lipizzano x murgese. If I remember right, the Napoletano guy is called Maresca. I can find no reliable source for the extinction of the breed. It might be worth remembering that the Persano was recovered after being officially, systematically exterminated - farmers had hidden one in a barn and so on. Whatever.

You and I think alike on that note! (tee hee). If you can find info on the studies at U Naples or whatever evidence the government has available, that would be worth a lot. (I found some good stuff on the Indonesian breeds via a FAO site once...) Montanabw^(talk) 20:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

My main difficulty with your revisions of what I wrote is that you have introduced unsourced material and performed original research, both of which I had taken pains to avoid (I didn't touch the History section, though it needs it enough). Unless you can reference sources that state that the breed became completely extinct, that Maresca's animals are back-bred and that he started breeding them in the 21st century, all that has to go. It may all be correct, but maybe his granddad had six or seven of them in an isolated hill farm somewhere and no-one ever heard about them until by chance he read a wikipedia article about an extinct breed etc etc (making this up as I go along, but you take the point - unless properly referenced, it's no more or less speculative than what you have written). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I added anything, I just moved around or restored some stuff that was already there. Pretty tough to prove a negative either way. At this point in my wikipedia editing life, I generally don't add new stuff to a breed article unless I personally can footnote it; however, I tend to favor leaving what's there in until it can be replaced with something better and more reliable. Much of the time, old material was sourced at the time it was written, just that the editor neglected to cite to it. (Or as in that article you found that was almost 100% cribbed from ansi.osu, copied wholesale and not cited!) Your better approach is to use the "citation needed" tag on the stuff you question and we can go see what can be dug up about it. Either {{fact}} or {{cn}} will result in this: Montanabw^(talk) 20:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ancient breed is NOT the unbroken line to the new breed, unless someone has proof otherwise . Trying to incorporate both. Take to talk

The above is one of Montana's edit summaries. So here it is in talk. What is there to say? There is no proof either way. The article was carefully phrased to reflect exactly that in my last revision, where the opening paragraph read as follows:

The Neapolitan Horse (Italian: Napoletano, occasionally [Cavallo Napoletano] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)) is a breed of horse originating in the plains between Naples and Caserta, in the Campania region of Italy. It has been reported that the original Neapolitan horse became extinct, its lines incorporated into other breeds, most notably the Lipizzan. However, the status of the Napoletano was listed in 2007 as critical by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and it is one of the fifteen indigenous horse "breeds of limited distribution" currently recognised by the AIA, the Italian breeders' association, under the terms of Ministerial decree D.M. 24347 dated 5 November 2003. In 2005, a total population of 20 mares and 4 stallions was registered.

This paragraph makes no assumption as to whether the extinction claim is true, expresses no preference for one point of view or another, but states the facts. The word 'however' is open to criticism, as it implies a contrast between the first reference and the later ones.

The subsequent version by Montanabw read as follows (since I don't know how to do red text here, I have emboldened here what is red in the edit history; this does not allow me to indicate what was removed from the previous version, however):

The Neapolitan Horse (historical Italian: Napoletano, modern [Cavallo Napoletano] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)) refers to two different horse breeds. The historic breed originated in the plains between Naples and Caserta, in the Campania region of Italy. While the original Neapolitan horse became extinct, its lines were incorporated into other breeds, most notably the Lipizzan. In the 21st century, a horse of similar phenotype, now called the Napoletano has been developed and is listed as one of the fifteen indigenous horse "breeds of limited distribution" currently recognised by the AIA, the Italian breeders' association.

and later added this text, some of which is newly introduced but unaccountably does not show in red:

==Modern breed==

In the 21st century, a horse of similar phenotype, called the Napoletano was developed and it is one of the fifteen indigenous horse ... (then repeating parts of the same text as before)

My comment: The words modern and historical are both unsourced and incorrect, the names Napoletano and Cavallo Napoletano being commonplace in both times (this statement unreferenced, it's like Paris, everybody knows it, this is one of the most famous horse breeds of Europe); they introduce an error, which I am removing by reverting to the earlier version, the most recent by me.

The phrases

refers to two different horse breeds. The historic breed originated,

In the 21st century, a horse of similar phenotype, now called,

Modern breed and

In the 21st century, a horse of similar phenotype, called the

are not founded in any source but are simply a fanciful invention based on the evident incompatibility of the extinction of the breed and its current Critical conservation status. Of course, Montanabw's conclusion may turn out to be perfectly correct if and when the full history of these horses is traced. But in the absence of such documentation, they constitute ORIGINAL RESEARCH, which I am removing by reverting.

This comment was hidden in the article, I am moving it here for discussion: would be useful to explain origins, pedigrees, and mention that it's only one breeder so far If derived from some ancient Neapolitan ancestors, worth noting

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

My opinion, based in part on what you have said, is that the so-called "Neopolitano" is a) ONE breeding farm that is b) trying to make a lot of money by claiming that they have "found' the ancient breed, just the same as 3) a bunch of people who have been breeding back primitive horses claim to have reinvented the Tarpan. So, absent actual proof that this new breed has anything to do with the old breed, the existing material is what is sourced. I am restoring footnoted material. I found additional sources that say it's extinct, there are three of them now. The highly dubious Equine Kindom site says there are still a few left. All your sources are in Italian, and Google does a rotten job of translating. Per dozens of repeated comments across several articles. DO NOT REMOVE SOURCED MATERIAL. Tag it and discuss the validity of sources. And please read WP:V. At the end of the day, we may have to split this article into "Neapolitan horse" (the historic creature, WIDELY considered extinct) and the "Neapolitano" (the new breed that probably has a wee bit of related breeding) My position is simple: Quit attacking me and start finding better sources. Montanabw^(talk) 20:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a talk page, so your opinion has a place here. Your position, too. Neither has any place in the article. Stating that the Napoletano is two breeds without any source to substantiate the statement, merely extrapolating from conflicting evidence, is original research. Splitting the article would constitute a recognition that the Napoletano of today is not the same as the Napoletano of yesterday, and that, in the absence of proper supporting sources, would constitute original research. Changing the conservation status from critical to extinct in the face of highly authoritative sources cited in the article is unscholarly and, in the circumstances, rather childish. The FAO Critical Breeds List for 2007 is written in English, and quite clear too; but in any case an editor's inability to inderstand a language can hardly be cited as a justification for introducing unsubstantiated opinions into an article. Please do not introduce any further original research, opinion, position or intentional error into this article.

And please do not give me orders, I am neither your servant nor your dog. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Can we tone down the rhetoric a bit? What we have here is a conflict of sources - one (from a academic publication Sino-Platonic Papers) that states the breed became extinct in 1950, and others (the FAO, and others in Italian) that state it did not. The solution here isn't to pick sides, but to state that there is controversy about the issue, and to do more research. There should be English language sources covering this, as well as Italian. this site is a self-published source and not reliable unless the author is a published expert in the field with publications in other publications besides his own web site. Nor is this site reliable unless it meets the above criteria. This would appear to be pertinent, if someone can get ahold of it? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The FAO link is to a list of breeds with names only, no text. The Italian site appears to be a government site, but what is "highly authoritative" about it? The other Italian link is a very brief breeds overview that has the breed standard, no history that I could find. Searching for "Neapolitan horse" brings up mostly the books on Google books that I cited in the intro. The Sino-Platonic Papers source is the one saying the breed became extinct in 1950. I agree that the Equine Kingdom and Cavallodellemurge sites are dubious, but the first was a new citation, to try and bolster JLAN's position, actually, and the other was not challenged material at present. We seem to not dispute the historic roots of the breed, only if the modern "Napoletano" is really the same "Neapolitan horse" of history. FWIW, the original article was created by Countercanter early in her WP editing career, and though she is now inactive, her knowledge of warmblood breeds is the best of any of us, and I found her work generally quite credible. Montanabw^(talk) 22:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

On a point of detail, I don't think the FAO and Italian sources do state that the breed did not become extinct; they merely confirm that it is not, by treating it as alive. Did you see something in Zuccaro et al that made you think it might be relevant? Because from the abstract it looks as if they studied the Sanfratellano, Purosangue Orientale and Siciliano indigeno against the Maremmano, and I'm not clear what relevance that might have here. JLAN's position is that he doesn't have a position; and that no-one else should either, because to do so would be original research. I have no idea whether they are the same horse or not, no opinion either way, and share your scepticism. But you do appear to have an opinion, that is your right; putting it into the article is not.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Just my twopence' worth; it's just as important to remember not to push the Italian Goverment's POV as it is not to push an individual's POV. Governments can have their own agendas, too. Teach the controversy, if there is one. Pesky (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The "government and FAO sources" list a breed called the Napolatano. It may or may not be a purebred descendant of the historic "Neapolitan horse" breed. JLAN's edits seem to be stating that it is. I only am reviewing evidence. I have three sources, one peer-reviewed and two published by major press, that state quite firmly that the breed is extinct. JLAN has three sources that says there is a modern breed with the same Italian form of the name. Two have no history in the source. One makes reference to the historic animal, but because it's in Italian and Google translation is not the greatest, it LOOKS like it gives a brief history of the old breed, then jumps about 100 years and says there are a very few horses of the breed today, but says nothing about if there is any verification via pedigree records, DNA studies, or anything that proves these are actually the same purebred horses and not just some crossbreed horse of a similar phenotype. (The photos on the Italian govt page look a lot like a Kladruber) I also know that there is always some entrepreneur who wants to "revive" an extinct breed by taking animals with some distant ancestry to the great ones and trying to claim they have "found" it again. See, just for one example, Spanish Jennet Horse, or even more to the point, the people who want to promote the bred back Heck horse as a "Tarpan." I've said before and will say again, show me evidence that these animals are the same breed and not just crossbred descendants with the same name. We can then explain what is known. Montanabw^(talk) 20:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point, pesky, agree. Same reservations about academics too, of course, which slightly brings us back to point B. Montana continues to miss the point, though, trying to decide which source is right or better or easier to read or whatever. The point is this: stating that there are two different Napoletano horses without a source to support the statement is original research; original research is not allowed here. End of point.

Oh, the historic "Neapolitan horse" was the Napoletano, too, "Neapolitan horse" being just a translation of the name into English. It was sometimes spelt Neapolitano, as in the case of the Lipizzaner foundation stallion. If you want to know what is in an Italian language source, you have only to ask and I'll tell you; I'm not perfect but I think I can say I'm better than Google. In the case of the Agraria page, if that is what you are talking about, it mentions two books from the first decade of the last century that report the decline of the breed, then a big gap to the modern day. It's still irrelevant to our discussion, of course.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That is the PRECISE point. The "big gap" to the modern day! All we have is "JLAN says it's the same breed." All I see is a horse with the same name. The sources and evidence all point to the breed being EXTINCT. Absent something like a breed registry site for this creature, or some pedigree info on leading sires PROVING that they are descendants of the original, we have nothing but your word (and possibly a government with an agenda to prove that the Italians created every horse breed known to Europe with the most ancient and bestest horses! Which is precisely the same argument you hear from several other nations, including the Spanish, the Brits and the Russians!) to refute the assertion of several reliable texts that the original breed is extinct. The OR here, JLAN, is YOURS. The burden of proof is on YOU. So get to cracking and prove me wrong. You so clearly want to. Do it. Montanabw^(talk) 22:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I find this quite extraordinary. I must have said 20 times already that I do not know whether it is the same breed or not, and that it is in any case quite irrelevant to this dispute. The point here is that by stating without any source that there are two separate horses you are introducing original research, which is why I reverted your edits. What you or I or the man in the moon believes is quite irrelevant to that.

The constant harping on about the defects of various nationalities is tedious in the extreme, and, as already pointed out more than once, might be found offensive by some. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Guys, chill. Simple solution: Put into the article wording to the effect: "Some sources state that the Neapolitan horse went extinct in whatever year [cite one, two and three]. However, other sources describe a breed called the Neapolitano that exists in Italy today [cite four, five and six]. These sources do not state if the modern Neapolitano is the same breed as the 18th (or whatever) century one or if it is a recreated breed.[cite four, five and six again]. Simple. No original research, just stating what the sources say. If someone specifically finds a source that says the are the same breed (which no one has provided yet) or that they are definitely not the same breed (again, which no one has provided yet), then that can be added in at a later time. Dana boomer (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. I thought that what was what I had done. I wrote this:

The Neapolitan Horse (Italian: Napoletano, occasionally [Cavallo Napoletano] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)) is a breed of horse originating in the plains between Naples and Caserta, in the Campania region of Italy. It has been reported that the original Neapolitan horse became extinct, its lines incorporated into other breeds, most notably the Lipizzan. However, the status of the Napoletano was listed in 2007 as critical by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and it is one of the fifteen indigenous horse "breeds of limited distribution" currently recognised by the AIA, the Italian breeders' association ...

(actually montana wrote the second sentence). I don't like the 'however' between the two bits of the history, because it implies a contrast which I'm not sure is justified, but I stuck it in because the transition seemed too abrupt without it. How would you word this better? I don't personally like circumlocutions such as 'it has been reported', would prefer to see "Chamberlin and [ ... ] state that", but I don't believe it's either polite or necessary to mess with other people's way of expressing things just for the sake of it. I would be pleased to see some kind of resolution of this dispersive disagreement.
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed fix

I'm OK with Dana's concept of "Some sources state that the Neapolitan horse went extinct in whatever year [cite one, two and three]. However, other sources describe a breed called the Neapolitano that exists in Italy today [cite four, five and six]. These sources do not state if the modern Neapolitano is the same breed as the 18th (or whatever) century one or if it is a recreated breed.[cite four, five and six again]." We may want to refine it a bit gramatically, but she's got the right approach -- I think it's OR to say it's one breed, JLAN says it's OR to say it's two, and given that we can't find an answer at present, Dana's wording describes the issue. How about the following: Montanabw^(talk) 02:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Sandbox lead

The '''Neapolitan Horse''' ({{lang-it|'''Napoletano'''}}, occasionally {{lang|it|''Cavallo Napoletano''}}) is a breed of horse originating in the plains between [[Naples]] and [[Caserta]], in the [[Campania]] region of Italy.<ref name=napoletano/><ref name="breed standard">[http://www.aia.it/tecnico/equini/a_napoletano.htm "NAPOLETANO STANDARD DI RAZZA"</ref> Some sources state that by 1950,<ref name=Davis/> the original Neapolitan horse was deemed extinct, but its lines were incorporated into other breeds, most notably the [[Lipizzan]].<ref name=Chamberlin>Chamberlin, J. Edward ''Horse: How the Horse has Shaped Civilization'' New York:BlueBridge 2006, p. 164 ISBN 0-9742405-9-1</ref> <ref name=Arthus>Arthus-Bertrand, Yann, Jean-Louis Gouraud. ''Horses''. Artisan books, 2008, p. 201 ISBN 9781579653552</ref> However, other sources describe a breed called the Neapolitano that exists in Italy today, which is recognized by the Italian government<ref name=napoletano>{{cite web|title=Napoletano|url=http://www.agraria.org/equini/napoletano.htm|publisher=AIA (in Italian)|accessdate=Apr 2011}}</ref> and is one of the fifteen indigenous horse "breeds of limited distribution" currently recognised by the AIA, the Italian breeders' association,<ref name=AIA>{{cite web|title=Il Registro Anagrafico delle Razze Popolazioni Equine a Limitata Diffusione|url=http://www.aia.it/tecnico/equini/a_ra.htm|publisher=AIA (in Italian)|accessdate=Apr 2011}}</ref> Its status in 2007 was listed as "critical" by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations<ref name=FAO>{{cite web|title=Critical Breeds List 2007|url=ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/a1250f/annexes/List%20of%20breeds%20at%20risk/critical_%202007.pdf|publisher=FAO|accessdate=Apr 2011}}</ref> These sources are unclear whether the modern Neapolitano is the same breed as the historic Neapolitan horse or if it is a new, recreated breed.

End Sandbox lead

---

I will note that the expanded form of this is continued in the "Modern breed" section, including the bit on the ministerial decree, etc. Per WP MOS, we don't have to put it all in the lead. Everyone feel free to just tweak the above, we can use "history" to view the diffs. Once we reach consensus, we can pop it in. Montanabw^(talk) 02:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Now that the article has had its protection removed, will the above suggestion work as a compromise to become the new lead? I can insert it if it's OK for now. Montanabw^(talk) 22:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Crazymonkey1123, 7 April 2011

{{edit protected}} I have a couple slight improvements for this article. Under the Modern breed section, a period should be added to the sentence: The status of the modern Napoletano was listed in 2007 as critical by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, which is missing a period. Also the Timeline word under the history section should be replaced with ===Timeline=== to make it a level three header.

Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^(Shout!) 23:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done —GFOLEY FOUR— 23:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixes

Made some good faith edits. Good find on the Serbian farmer! So, not a pureblooded descendant, then? Either way, cool! On another note, can the hands template be further tweaked to give both hands (i.e.14.3) and inches (59)? I know that for the articles that ultimately go to GA or other status, the wikigods will ask for conversions. (I know, we Yanks screw up everything) Montanabw^(talk) 21:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neapolitan horse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070610075527/http://www.cavallodellemurge.it/Sulle%20tracce%20del%20Corsiero%20Napolitano-eng.htm to http://www.cavallodellemurge.it/Sulle%20tracce%20del%20Corsiero%20Napolitano-eng.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/a1250f/annexes/List%20of%20breeds%20at%20risk/critical_%202007.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)