Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:02, 30 March 2009

Equine B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.EquineWikipedia:WikiProject EquineTemplate:WikiProject Equineequine B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

Archives
Archive 1

Unreliable sourcing

There's a considerable amount of unreliable sourcing in the animal controversy section from industry/rodeo/cowboy related spokespersons and publications. Responses to animal cruelty and abuse charges should cite reliable, independent sources from publishers with a reputation for fact checking rather than industry/rodeo/cowboy related publications which cannot help but be biased. Buttermilk1950 (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

True, but please do not just remove the information wholesale. If better sources are needed then please add them - do not just butcher the article. This article has been the subject of numerous edit wars over just this information in the past, so please don't just jump in and destroy what is in some cases a tenuous peace. There are editors in WP Equine who are interested in this article - it's just not at the top of our priority list right now.

I understand. But misinformation, unsourced material, POV, and OR should not be allowed to stand as this compromises Misplaced Pages's credibility and gives novice editors the notion that such slackness is acceptable. The material should be removed from the article and returned only when and if adequate, reliable, independent secondary sources from mainstream publishers with a reputation for fact-checking have been referenced and cited. Buttermilk1950 (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What you have been doing so far is looking good. Basically, you should try to "teach the controversy", showing both sides of the argument. Once you have replaced the information (even if not exactly the same, but the same general idea), please feel free to remove the unreliable sources and information. You are using good sources and seeming to show both sides; if you keep on with that, you should be good. Dana boomer (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

As another statement, I would suggest withdrawing this article's GA nomination. The article is nowhere near ready for GA status. It has huge swaths of uncited information (not counting the sources you consider unreliable that I just reinstated. References are not properly formatted - they need publishers and access dates. There are four different external links and see also sections - these need to be trimmed. The Rodeos worldwide section needs to either be expanded or combined with another section - one sentence does not a section make. The image placement needs work as there are huge whitespaces made by improperly placed photos. The referencing is the biggest problem with this article, and I would not be surprised if it is quick failed at GAN if you do not remove it. I will not review it, due to a small COI as a member of an interested project, but I would seriously suggest that you consider removing this article from consideration.

It is hoped that an experienced reviewer will note the article's merits and demerits in the GAN process -- which is one of the purposes of GAN. Buttermilk1950 (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That is one of the purposes of a GAN review, true. However, I am an experienced GA reviewer, with over 100 reviews completed, and I am pointing out what I would criticize with this article. As I said above, what you are doing so far looks good. However, the other comments that I have made above need to be looked at as well. Another comment that I would put in is that the lead needs to be a summary of the article. As it is, it currently includes original information that is not included in the body (the information on Alberta in the second paragraph). It could also stand to be a bit longer - the last paragraph in particular is very short. I'm really not trying to depress you on this article's chances for GA status - I'm just saying that it needs quite a bit more work before it is of that status. If you are willing to put in that work, then all the better. It is just usually much appreciated by reviewers if the article is brought close to GA status before nomination. Dana boomer (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel that 4-5 hours of focused work on this article will bring it up to GA. Most of the material can be sourced from good, online materials and the "bad" sourcing can be replaced or deleted. The article won't be even touched at GAN for days and in the meantime I can bring it up to GA. Wish me luck! Buttermilk1950 (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It is great to see someone working on this article, but it is still a long way from GA status. I really hope that you are willing to do the work - this article has needed some TLC for a while :) Please post if you have any questions, as I said, there are several editors who are interested in this article. Dana boomer (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

We need some suggestions on improving the "Events" section. It's completely unsourced and contains what appears to be some OR. I'm concerned that if I tackle this section I'll end up in an edit war with someone. WP is not a how-to so detailed descriptions of Events is not necessary. Also the images need to be considered. They've all been forced. I'm in favor of dropping some because I don't believe every event needs an image. Some are obscure anyway. Any thoughts? Buttermilk1950 (talk) 02:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll take the easy issue first :) First, forced images have been deprecated. Instead, they should just use the "thumb" tag to allow user preferences to work properly. Rather than removing some of the images, what about spreading them out through the article? At the moment, the article is top heavy with images, with none in the bottom half of the article. On the other hand, you could remove some of the event-specific images from the top and add images on other things to the bottom - images of bulls/horses with specific equipment on them, etc.

Now the other. There needs to be some description of the events that take place at a rodeo. How are you going to describe what a rodeo is if you don't have some description of the events? IMO, these event descriptions are not a "how-to". They don't describe how to compete in these events, how to put them on, or anything else "how-to". They simply describe what the events are. Without these events there would be no rodeo. Yes, it needs to be sourced. No, it should not be removed. The article would be no where near complete if the description of what takes place at a rodeo was removed. Dana boomer (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

Buttermilk, you've been doing a great job on the article. It's great to see the article get so much attention! A new suggestion, if I may...I noticed you completely removed the sections on gays and women in rodeo. What I would do is add a short section, something like "Minorities in rodeo" or "Gays and women in rodeo", etc that summarizes the information in these articles. Then link to the full "daughter" articles. See the History section for an example of the linking - this section is a good example for the kind of thing I'm thinking of. Dana boomer (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks! I planned to do this but haven't gotten around to it! I realized these sections could be expanded and moved Gays to its own stand alone article. Buttermilk1950 (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

And another suggestion (I know you're still working on the article, I'm just tossing these things out there as I see them!): The paragraph:

Rodeo is presented to the American public as a red-blooded, harmless sport in which the cowboy as the epitome of manly wholesomeness subdues untameable, outlaw animals by virtue of his skill and courage. Yet the spectacle of rodeo turns upon the violent subjugation of living animals, many of which are deliberately provoked to violent behavior by being raked with spurs, wearing a strap that constricts the genital region, and being jabbed in the rectal area with electric prods. Some are maimed, injured, or killed during the course of a rodeo, and some are forced to face the same terrifying ordeal several times a day.

Needs some work. There is so much POV in this paragraph it's almost funny, and the only reason I'm picking on this one out of the article is because I'm fairly sure you wrote it and so it's going to be in the final draft. If this is the opinion of the author of the reference, then please make it known as such. If the author actually uses words such as "violent subjugation", "terrifying ordeal", etc then these need to be in quotes with a reference directly after. Otherwise, they are POV. Currently, what this whole paragraph is saying is basically "Rodeo is misleadingly presented to the public. In reality it is a very bad sport that harms lots of animals". Dana boomer (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, this is strictly the author's words. No POV from me. I've been beginning some paragraphs "So and So says" or "XYZ has stated in his book..." and I'll check the source and format the paragraph the same way. Buttermilk1950 (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Holy criminey! This is what happens when I go off wiki for five days! =:-O I have been the only significant contributor to this article for about two years, and I really do wish someone would have given me a heads up before starting al this. This whole article has been destroyed with horribly POV, inaccurate PETA claims, material by people who have no clue about the sport, removal of sourced material, Oh. My god. I am horrified. I am reverting this article in its entirety back to the last "clean" version and then adding in what material appears to be decent new material. You need to now work on this article in a collaborative fashion. I have nothing against improving the article with good source material and additional viewpoints, but what is here was a carefully crafted compromise that had developed over several years and I will not see it trashed. Sorry if I am harsh, but this was a disaster. Montanabw 04:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Follow up to restoration of original article

I want to note that I just spent over an hour carefully reviewing the previous edits and adding some of them into the original article. However, I have to say that this same review confirmed my initial reaction that the article had been rewritten to be quite inaccurate, cited dated or inaccurate sources itself, (the material on women, "clowns" the cowboy prayer, etc, was largely not correct.) and the rewrite was disproportionately about animal cruelty and lack of minority participation in rodeo Furthermore, in violation of many wikipedia policies, the rewirte removed dozens of citations and what was a balanced perspective.

There are two additional concerns, one of which is that the History of rodeo article is still in need of cleanup and possibly either being merged into this one, or the history section here being cut drastically and merged into the history article. The other is that there might be a need for a separate article on the animal cruelty issues.

In short, I want to re-emphasize that the changes made to this article without any consultation or consensus were not only poorly written, but very poor wikiquette, particularly when they made such a drastic change in the POV of the article and cited material that is outdated and not written by individuals with an understanding of the sport. I welcome constructive changes, and suggestions for collaboration, but please first read or re-read WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. Montanabw 05:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This article had been turned into a heavily biased and in many cases an untruthful representation of rodeos using unreliable sources.Cgoodwin (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, my sources are university press publications and books from respected, mainstream publishers with reputations for fact checking -- the very sources WP prefers and the most reliable sources of all. Buttermilk1950 (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Buttermilk, the sources read like they were written by people who never attended a real rodeo. I have no problem with collaborative efforts, but some of the stuff that was added was just bizarre. I have no OR in there, though I do agree that more footnoting of the article is needed. I am also removing the article from GA review. It is not ready, in either version. Montanabw 07:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

So? Books are written about tuberculosis by people who have never suffered the disease. They base their material on reliable secondary sources. You don't have to suffer tuberculosis to write about it, and you don't need to attend a rodeo to write about it. You write about it through referencing reliable secondary sources. And who are you to judge reliable source material from university presses anyway? Who are you to cast them off as "inaccurate"? Buttermilk1950 (talk) 04:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of source materials

I've reverted the article to the place where I found it when I began working on it. This has been done because Monatanbw has misquoted my sources and used them to validate her OR. My sources do not support her OR. Buttermilk1950 (talk) 08:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to keep some of the material you added, where it was new and useful or interesting. If some of the footnotes no longer fit, then remove the footnotes and add a "fact" tag. I would appreciate that good will be assumed here and not have the article called OR, when most of it is footnoted and what is not yet can be fixed. Montanabw 07:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

When you paraphrase a source, you color it with your OR, thus distorting the source. This compromises WP's credibility. If the source says "calf roping", say "calf roping" ... don't change it to "tie-down roping" if the source does not say "tie-down roping". Buttermilk1950 (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Material not supported in citation

In the lead, this statement: "Professional rodeos generally comprises the following events: tie-down roping, team roping, steer wrestling, saddle bronc riding, bareback bronc riding, bull riding and barrel racing." is not supported by the citation. Sources should be cited exactly, otherwise material is OR and WP's credibility is compromised. Also, 'rodeos' and 'comprises' need to agree. Buttermilk1950 (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

If your source doesn't match the list, then the source is wrong and it can be removed. These are the PRCA events. And citing sources "exactly" can be a copyvio if you quote them word for word without indication it's a direct quotation. Montanabw 07:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You are basing parts of this article on your personal experience and personal observation (OR) – not on reliable secondary sources from university press publications, respected publishers with a reputation for fact checking, and mainstream journals and newspapers such as the NY Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post, and the London Times. For some reason, you prefer unreliable cowboy blogs and websites and label the reliable secondary sources WP prefers as "inaccurate". LOL! IMHO, your scholarship and ethics leave much to be desired. Buttermilk1950 (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Archive

Created an archive and put everything prior to 1/1/09 into it. Clearly, no one is reading the stuff anyway, as we seem to be fighting the same fights on an annual basis. Sigh... Montanabw 07:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the Misplaced Pages reality! On articles such as this, the most dedicated editors usually win the content battles, at least in the short run. By the way, if you'd like to be among other editors who share your pain, you might check out Misplaced Pages Review. Cla68 (talk) 07:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Content battles indeed. Clearly this article needs an {{NPOV}} tag. The archiving was premature, in my opinion, as the issues were stale but not resolved. The article also needs a {{globalize}} tag because per Montanabw the content added about US rodeos was undue weight and now that content properly has been split off into Rodeo in the United States. Overlapping content should be removed from this article, and replaced by more content about rodeo, both historical and current, outside the US. --Una Smith (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Una, given your past with the equestrian articles and with me, it is not appropriate for you to be the one weighing in on this issue. Rodeo is a quintessentially American sport, to the extent it exists in places like Europe, it is on the American model, there is already an article about Mexican rodeos and Chilean rodeos, and frankly, Rodeo in the United States is nothing but a content fork for the animal rights crowd. This article is far from perfect, but the archive was relevant because the same issues keep coming up over and over again, so obviously no one is reading previous discussions anyway. So far, two users have been blocked for getting too worked up about the cruelty issues, I really just want to see people discuss the articles and try for a good faith consensus that describes the whole sport, not a rant about the cruelty in rodeo, much of which is simply not accurate in modern events.Montanabw 01:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Montanabw, please refrain from ad hominem remarks and address the content. --Una Smith (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

An accurate statement of the facts is not an ad hominem attack, and you know it. I archived about two years of chat, mostly resolved, or else just a rehash of the same eternal arguments. I left the current discussion since 1/1/09. You are just out to cause your usual round of mayhem as usual, and I suggest you take it elsewhere. A couple months ago you were getting after me for criticizing your advocacy of fringe, abusive riding methods and bit use, now you're egging on the animal rights crowd. It's clear you have no real interest in this topic other than your usual pattern of stirring the pot and I'm sick of your behavior. Montanabw 03:42, 26

Montanabw, again, please refrain from ad hominem remarks and address the content. --Una Smith (talk) 04:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Severe Pruning Needed

Now that this article is on the road to a worldwide perspective, some sections could be severely cut back about the United States. For example, there is no apparent reason to include a "Minorities" section in this article as it is more than adequately covered in Rodeo in the United States. The animal cruelty section could be cut back as a separate article is underconstruction and the elaborate length of this section in the worldwide Rodeo article overwhelms it. Buttermilk1950 (talk) 05:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That works for me. Something that has always bugged me about this article: it has no section on the incidence of injuries in rodeo riders. It needs one. --Una Smith (talk) 06:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is imperfect and suffers from the usual wikipedia problem of individual sections that may be OK standing alone, but may not be super-well organized. I am good with adding info on injuries to human participants in rodeo, that is much needed. (not just rough stock riders, either, the timed event participants get hurt often as well, though not often in as life-threatening ways) I think there IS a passing reference in their somewhere and may even have some links to get you started. The cruelty section, however, needs to stay as in until or unless the Animal treatment article becomes a lot less biased toward the PETA version. That section WAS edited to an attempt to have a balanced POV and what's there was hard fought. I would be OK if Cgoodwin has some info on Aussie rodeo events if there are adequate parallels, which I think there may be. There is also a desperate need to look at History of rodeo in the context of the history section in this article and elsewhere. The different articles are all like different parts of the elephant and some work coordinating them would be well-taken. Given the circumstances, however, including but not limited to the merge discussion and the general history between some editors here, there is NO consensus to remove the sections on the USA at this point, because the standard events are pretty much used throughout the USA AND Canada, as well as Europe. So if you want consensus, there IS consensus for a section on injuries to human participants, there IS consensus to see if we can add info on Australia. There is a tentative willingness to look at moving some of the material here into the history article and improving the history article. Beyond that, we need to discussMontanabw 00:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

"There IS consensus" etc can only mean "Montanabw agrees", which does not equal consensus; let's wait a bit. --Una Smith (talk) 01:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Una, in light of your past history, which involves single-handedly causing chaos and destruction almost everywhere you go, (which has resulted in more than one AN/I filed on you, in addition to the one you filed on me that backfired and bit you in the backside) I find that remark amusing. Normally you shut down progress on any article you work on until everyone agrees with you. Once again, You and Buttermilk both have your little POV fork to play with that I have utterly given up on having any role in whatsoever. On this article, I would appreciate a true consensus, which means ALL major factions get a chance to weigh in. As to you, Buttermilk and myself, that means yes, if all three of us agree, then we probably have a sufficient consensus of the major viewpoints. Right now I am only able to get online here a couple times a week, and while I am willing to collaborate, I would very much appreciate that major edits be made with consensus. Hence, again, Buttermilk has made massive edits without consensus which I now am reviewing and fixing. See you in a few days. Montanabw 02:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead

Needs pruning and considerable work. The lead is a summary of the article. As lead editor (no pun), I'm going to begin editing this section in order to bring it into compliance with WP. Buttermilk1950 (talk) 09:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Buttermilk1950, I think you are still a bit unclear on what a "lead" editor is. It is NOT about the bare number of edits. The fact that you currently have more edits than Montanabw on this article does not make you the lead. It's an informal term rather than one that is officially recognized but I would say that someone who has been involved in an article for years and who has written a lot of it is more a "lead" than someone who made a big flurry of edits in a hurry. Remember, some edits are a change of one letter. Some edits are many thousands of characters. Don't confuse quantity with quality. ++Lar: t/c 18:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Buttermilk, please just go play with your own article. If you think you have some outstanding work there, PROPOSE it for inclusion here. Some of it is getting to the point where it would be a good addition here and it could be considered. In the meantime, show some respect for those of us who have been in the trenches of wikipedia for a while. I've been on wiki for three years now, I have over 12,000 edits. Leadership is EARNED, not claimed. Montanabw 03:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Lingo

Try to avoid "cowboy and rodeo lingo" like lasso, lariat, and dallies. The general reader will not understand such terms. Either define the word immediately, link it, reword, or find a synonym. Buttermilk1950 (talk) 09:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Not only jargon, but also a level of tangential detail that probably doesn't belong in this article. --Una Smith (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• B-Class equine articles
• Mid-importance equine articles
• WikiProject Equine articles