Diskussion:Stichelhaariger Bosnischer Laufhund – Barak

aus Wikipedia, der freien Enzyklopädie

Barak

Ist das jetzt ein Illyrischer Laufhund oder ein Keltischer??? (nicht signierter Beitrag von 92.225.44.105 (Diskussion | Beiträge) 12:19, 26. Apr. 2010 (CEST))

Patronat

Grund für das Patronat:

Der Standard ist aus dem Jahr 1973, aber die FCI nicht anerkannt bosnische Gesellschaft für Kynologie und damit stellte die Rasse unter Schirmherrschaft der FCI abgehalten. (Google Translate)


GRUPPE 6
Sektion 1 : Laufhunde CACIB Arbeits-
prüfung
Standard
Datum Sprache
1.2 Mittelgrosse Laufhunde
1. Bosnien (F.C.I.)
Bosanski Ostrodlaki Gonic Barak (155) (Rauhhaariger Bosnischer Laufhund) 15/01/73
FR/EN/DE/SP

In English:

The FCI has not updated the Standard for Bosanski Ostrodlaki Gonic Barak since 15/01/73 (Datum der Publikation des gültigen offiziellen standards: 15. Januar 1973.) but this doesn't mean that the breed has not been allocated from the Yugoslav Cynological Association (Yugoslav Cynology Association) to the Union of the Associations of Cynology of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I hope that you would understand that the FCI has the responsibilities for the protection of the breed even if some local (national level association) doesn't provide such protection. This is why patronage exist, and the FCI has the right to impose patronage.

The FCI published its nomenclature, and within it Bosanski Ostrodlaki Gonic Barak is marked as placed under patronage of the FCI. Similarly – the Shar Pei.

Hope that this is enough Grund. -- Ali Pasha (Diskussion) 16:53, 19. Okt. 2012 (CEST)

There is no Origin Bosnien und Herzegowina published, neither at the website of the FCI nor at the breed standard. The standard was updated since 1973. You always find the date of publication at the top of the standard. So this is wrong as well.
Yes, FCI writes at its website Bosien (FCI). That is because of the termination of the partnership contract with Bosnia-Herzegovina in 2009 there can't be any FCI breed standard in responsibility of Bosnia-Herzegovina. See. Circular : 6/2009 Anka Wau! 18:54, 19. Okt. 2012 (CEST)
Not correct. The file (155d1996_de.doc) is just a translation. It is clearly noted as such by listing that the Übersetzerin war Frau Michèle Schneider. Das Standard ist gültig aus 15. Januar 1973.
٭ Deutscher Übersetzung ist aus 24. Okt. 1996.
٭ Französische Übersetzung: 1. April 1996.
٭ Die englische Übersetzung: 1. April 1996.
٭ Die spanische Übersetzung 12. Mai 1997.
All four are mere translations (!).
The Circular dated 15/01/09 is very good material, but it can't be a valid source for listing the patronage (das Patronat) in the article. Why? Easy! The Circular doesn't mention the breed (rasse), but only the fact that Unija kinoloških saveza Bosne i Hercegovine was a contract partner (of the FCI) from 6 February 2002 to 15 January 2009. Nothing more, nothing less. The Nomenclature can be used as a valid source, and it should be used as such. -- Ali Pasha (Diskussion) 15:54, 20. Okt. 2012 (CEST)
٭ Bosnien is part of Bosnien und Herzegowina, and that fact should be in the article despite of the Standard. -- Ali Pasha (Diskussion) 15:54, 20. Okt. 2012 (CEST)
We write the information for the origin of breeds recognised by FCI only of the standards of FCI. There can't be any other source for the origin stated by FCI than FCI. Anka Wau! 21:46, 20. Okt. 2012 (CEST)

Defekter Weblink

GiftBot (Diskussion) 02:38, 24. Dez. 2015 (CET)