Misplaced Pages

Talk:Rodeo: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:59, 30 March 2009 editMontanabw (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers105,545 edits →Severe Pruning Needed: Sigh.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:30, 28 November 2024 edit undoLoriendrew (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers61,254 editsm Reverted good faith edits by JoeyShae (talk): Rm talk comments unrelated to article improvementTags: Twinkle Undo 
(195 intermediate revisions by 42 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}} {{Talk header}}
{{WPEQ|class=B|importance=Mid}} {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Rodeo|importance=mid}}
{{WP1.0|v0.7=nom|class=B}}
{{WikiProject Equine|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Sports}}
{{WikiProject United States |importance=Low |USOldwest=Yes |USOldwest-importance=mid}}
}}
{{split article|from=Rodeo|to=Canadian Professional Rodeo Association|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Canadian_Professional_Rodeo_Association&diff=prev&oldid=878628215}}


== Rodeo cattle ==


Proposing that the new article ] be merged into ]. ] (]) 00:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
{| class="infobox" width="270px"
:Is there really any information worth merging? - ] (]) 03:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
::Not much, but there sure isn't enough information for its own article. :-) ] (]) 04:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Couldn't agree more. ;) - ] (]) 04:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Seems there's been a consensus to merge the article, but nothing has been done. I'll go ahead and be bold now... <span style="font-family: Hoefler Text">]</span> 21:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
==File:Barrel-Racing-Szmurlo.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion==
{|
|- |-
| ]
!align="center"|]<br/>]
| An image used in this article, ], has been nominated for speedy deletion at ] for the following reason: ''Other speedy deletions''
----
;What should I do?
|- |-
| |
| Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Misplaced Pages, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (] has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
*]
|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->


''This notification is provided by a Bot'' --] (]) 18:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
|}


== References ==
==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. ] (]) 15:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


Montana, posting here after seeing the post at ANI. References such as http://www.collegerodeo.com/ (NIRA) and Animal Welfare: Animals in Rodeo (among others) are still ] because they provide nothing but a URL and (maybe) a title. In order to allow people to rescue these references in case the reference goes dead, at minimum an access date, date of publication (if available), and publisher/host should be included. I agree with Lisa about the inconsistent citations as well, partially because of the numerous BURLs mixed with well-formatted citation templates, but also because the article mixes SFN with citation in the #References; all books should be in the "Sources" section, in my opinion.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 04:19, 2 January 2014 (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 agree that there are issues and inconsistencies. This is an older article that has had a lot of different people working on it over the years, and it has had periodic problems with being a controversial topic and contains a few carefully crafted compromises that ended some nasty edit wars (It was also the article that busted the ItsLassieTime sock farm). However, this will take a LOT of hours to clean up and mad drive-by tagging and a partial fix of bits and pieces just creates more confusion. I told that editor to take this to talk at least three times in edit summaries and she instead chose to go to ANI, so I'm not in the best mood at the moment. I also am not in the mood to drop all my other projects and work on this article just because someone noticed it needs to be cleaned up. If they want to clean it up, great, I'm all for it if they do it right. But it is not helpful to do it partway, tags at the top aren't going to help, and it's especially problematic to toss out links to google books, as we are still using those online sources as the article gets worked on -- an IAR situation. If a team wants to work on actually fixing this stuff, great; but do it right and do it with consensus... sigh... ]<sup>]</sup> 04:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
::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. ] (]) 01:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
:*Understood. I'll see if I can do a bit later (at least move the books into the Sources section)... but, as you know, this is well outside my normal subject area. Thus, I may make mistakes.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 04:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
::*I'll keep an eyeball on the subject matter, always glad for technical help. I ran reflinks again and it finally decided to fix more of the BURLS. BTW, on the topic, just reread , , and and in the google books listed in this article, so far this article is in flux and it is helpful to have the link to the entire book. I would not want them removed - where multiple pages are cited, it is klunky to ref each page with a url when the book is online and all pages cited are in the scan, at least. And, I think, some of these books haven't yet been worked into the text yet anyway. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
:::*Alright. I'll have to get my ] ready for after lunch.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 05:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
::::*Yee-Haw! ]. LOL! Out here in ], I'm hitting the ], so talk to you later. ]<sup>]</sup> 05:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
:::::*Have nice night's rest... I was seriously expecting a link to "]" there, but maybe my Country knowledge isn't as good as it once once.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 05:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
::::::Well, I got you started .&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 07:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Appreciated, but now it looks like a source or two got unhooked from footnotes when made into a sfn, can someone dig that one out and put it back? This is one of those "every damn things needs to be sourced because some idiot will claim it's controversial" articles. :-P . And your country knowledge is just fine, we still see pickups with that very bumper sticker! I simply choose to avoid ] ... LOL! ]<sup>]</sup> 22:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
:{{Outdent}}
:{{u|Montanabw}}: Here is a couple of problems with your latest revert.
:1. You said above, to {{u|Crisco 1492}} about hooking source in the article. But then, you remove "Move page to footnotes" comments. Make your decision: Do you or do you not want them hooked into the article? Or are you assume I mean "cut the page number and put in some place random"? Well, I don't.
:2. A carriage return between two * characters breaks the list into two lists. That gives you HTML problem on some browsers with source hooking. (Scroll Into View API.) That's why I broke $lt;-- and --&gt; between the two lines and no carriage returns before and after them. (If you have good eyes, you could see the list inflating between edits.) If you are using one the five major web browser, inspect the syntax with Developer Tool.
:3. When I added "incomplete data" note, I do mean that it can be completed to the extent that it exists. I just need to hunt them down. Although it wouldn't help if I instead have to write this message.
:4. Your comment removal was unclean. There are leftovers.


:Oh, and by the way, I am curious: Is there some literary figure in your conversation above that I don't understand, or are you guys just being macho?
:::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. ] (]) 01:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
:] (]) 02:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
:*"Literary figure"? Allusions, I guess. Just references to ] (as this ''is'' rodeo, after all). Humor. I don't think she was trying to be macho.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 02:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
::*Hehe... you're right. <s>Well, I guess trying to be a "she" is humor by itself.</s> Best regards, ] (]) 02:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
::*I am crossing out one of my sentences because it was ambiguous and open to misinterpretation, if good faith was not assumed. Best regards, ] (]) 03:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
*Lisa, I didn't "revert" a damn thing, I edited. Learn the difference. Also watch your own assumptions and assume good faith yourself next time will you? Yes, I am female. And you just pissed me off again with your assumptions, particularly given I am a feminist and have a lot of dedication to the elimination of ] on wiki. Yes, Crisco and I were making some gentle jokes about country music and joking about rodeo stereotypes (I'm a fourth-generation Montanan and at least a fourth-generation horse-person, I can joke about such things) Criminy... and once again, just quit it with the "I am going to tell you what you did wrong in a condescending tone" thing. Just fix it or take a look at the final edit, maybe I fixed it after I commented here. and...
#I removed the ":move page to footnotes" comment where the footnote already contained the page number. It was not needed, as the fix was made. Obvious
#Yes, I left over some hidden text, I figured you needed it for some reason, I deleted the empty comments with nothing in them. Looked fine in my browser, you don't need consensus for futher minor cleanup.
#And just keep shoveling! Do you know how insulting your remark ""If you have good eyes" is to me? GOOD GOD! Actually, GUESS WHAT!!!! YES!!! My eyesight is actually quite poor, I am legally blind and have a surgically repaired detached retina, due to which I am now developing a cataract! THank you SOOOOO Much for pointing that out! Shall I just stop editing wikipedia now and have them trundle me off in a wheelchair? I'm over 50 also, want me declared senile to boot! Please, just keep laying on the insults and bad faith. Or grow up. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
:*Hi


::1. Irrelevant. Re-read my message again.
: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.
::2. That wasn't what I was referring to. You have left < and > at the end of some sentence.
::3. "If you have good eyes" is a very common expression used to attract the attention to a fine detail that requires attention more than good eye sight. Apart from that, I don't have good eyes too. ], corneal transplant on left eye when I was a teen. Can't use glasses; contact lens is the only solution. 80% of human population has eye problems. So, they could very well use a conditional "if you have good eyes".


::Although I do not ] in discussions, this time it is becoming necessary: You are not female. You said it once and I didn't buy it. Women may weaponize their femininity, but never their gender. They do not fail to (or feign failure to) recognize an Orwellian allegory of stale metaphor. They do not feign stupidity, because unlike men, they never consider brute force an option. In addition, all you have done so far in your communications was '']''. From the very beginning, it was obvious that you do not care for a discussion at all. That's why I went to ]. If you don't want my help, fine. I'll stand down, wait till the article go to FAC, then I mention these problems there. Enjoy.
::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. ] (]) 01:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


::Best regards,
:::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. ] (]) 01:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
::] (]) 00:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
::*Everyone, can we ]? The references still need work, and it's a lot easier when we're not at each others throats (lot fewer blocks that way too).&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 00:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
::::Sorry, man. He is on his own. I am separating my way. Unwatching this page. If you need me, you know where you can find me. Best regards, ] (]) 01:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
::::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! ] (]) 02:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
: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. ] (]) 21:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


I have just added archive links to {{plural:11|one external link|11 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
==Suggestions==
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090103015237/http://www.igra.com:80/igrahist.html to http://www.igra.com/igrahist.html
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? ] (]) 02:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120207161949/http://www.familia.cl/ContenedorTmp/Rodeo/rodeo.htm to http://www.familia.cl/ContenedorTmp/Rodeo/rodeo.htm
: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.
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091010153451/http://www.lighthorse.org.au///Pershist/mcleod.htm to http://www.lighthorse.org.au/Pershist/mcleod.htm
: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. ] (]) 02:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091011212609/http://land.vic.gov.au/DPI/nreninf.nsf/childdocs/-89E7A8DAFEA417624A2568B30004C26A-DCF81751F0371063CA256BC700811D1B-8D3FF4AA119099744A256DEA0027A899-5B4B9DFC8A971F72CA256C320020157F?open to http://www.land.vic.gov.au/DPI/nreninf.nsf/childdocs/-89E7A8DAFEA417624A2568B30004C26A-DCF81751F0371063CA256BC700811D1B-8D3FF4AA119099744A256DEA0027A899-5B4B9DFC8A971F72CA256C320020157F?open
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130628124319/http://www.sharkonline.org:80/rodeocrueltyhorsebucking.mv to http://www.sharkonline.org/rodeocrueltyhorsebucking.mv
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120514100438/http://www.sharkonline.org/rodeocrueltytailtwisting.mv to http://www.sharkonline.org/rodeocrueltytailtwisting.mv
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120908050856/http://www.sharkonline.org:80/rodeocrueltycalfdressing.mv to http://www.sharkonline.org/rodeocrueltycalfdressing.mv
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120908045618/http://www.sharkonline.org:80/rodeocrueltycalfroping.mv to http://www.sharkonline.org/rodeocrueltycalfroping.mv
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150418165856/http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/feb00/s020100a.asp to http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/feb00/s020100a.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110726131518/http://www.greeleystampede.org/animal-welfare to http://www.greeleystampede.org/animal-welfare
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150503094604/http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/jan01/s011501tt.asp to http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/jan01/s011501tt.asp


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
== Suggestion ==


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
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. ] (]) 22:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


Cheers. —]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 01:52, 29 August 2015 (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. ] (]) 18:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
: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:
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
: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". ] (]) 10:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
* 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. ] (]) 18:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


I have just added archive links to {{plural:2|one external link|2 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
:::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. ]<sup>]</sup> 04:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110711090743/https://www.getgrowingforbusiness.com/mynews/news-headlines-details.asp?news_id=301869 to https://www.getgrowingforbusiness.com/mynews/news-headlines-details.asp?news_id=301869
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090513025610/http://www.pbrnow.com:80/wwwf_splash.html to http://www.pbrnow.com/wwwf_splash.html


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
== Follow up to restoration of original article ==


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
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.


Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 20:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
There are two additional concerns, one of which is that the ] 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.


== Removal of sourced material ==
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 ] and ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 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.] (]) 23:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC) ], you followed me from a talk page debate to this article and reverted me. Stop stalking me, it's creepy. ] (]) 14:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
:Why did you remove the reference to Dr. Miller's book? The pro rodeo site may not meet RS, but that did. Also, the stuff cited to the pro rodeo site could easily be found in a newspaper or some secondary source. It's better to find an independent source than remove facts. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
:: {{reply to | Spacecowboy420}} When you remove relevant, reliably sourced information from an article, you are guilty of ]. It is normal for editors to review other editor's contributions when they leave the diffs to show them. Accusing me of stalking or hounding is a ] and leaves you open to sanctions. --] (]) 17:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


:::This editor who removed the material appears to be a troll who has never edited this article. ] may be the best approach. Thank you RexxS and WAF for your help. ]] 22:13, 4 May 2016 (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. ] (]) 02:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


:::: ], you're right. I did actually mean to only remove the reference lacking neutrality (pro-rodeo), removing the other reference was my mistake, of course I have no issue with neutral/reliable sources.
:::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. ]<sup>]</sup> 07:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


:::: ] You changed the title of my edit on this talk page. I'm sure I don't have to mention "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." - but I will anyway.
:::: 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"? ] (]) 04:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


:::: ] I'm sorry, but you shouldn't really try to dismiss everyone who does not agree with your content, or messages you ] to request that you stop following them, with silly comments regarding trolling. This discussion wasn't about you, but you had to involve yourself in something regarding me, again. Enough is enough, I don't need a ].
==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. ] (]) 08:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


] (]) 06:40, 6 May 2016 (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. ]<sup>]</sup> 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". ] (]) 04:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC) ] please stop. Basic wikipedia rules, you don't delete or change other's talk page comments. I'm sure you're a nice guy, so please don't push this any further and make my only option to be reporting you at ANI and request that they block you from editing. Just let it go. ] (]) 12:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
:
: Removing ] is a policy-based exception to ], as you are already aware. This page is for the discussion of improvements to the ] article. I'll see you at ANI, where you can explain your repeated removal of reliably sourced content and your repeated personal attacks on me. --] (]) 12:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
==Material not supported in citation==


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
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. ] (]) 00:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
: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. ]<sup>]</sup> 07:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091022180858/http://www.prorodeo.asn.au:80/about.htm to http://www.prorodeo.asn.au/about.htm


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).
:: You are basing parts of this article on your personal experience and personal observation (OR) &ndash; 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. ] (]) 02:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
==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... ]<sup>]</sup> 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 ]. ] (]) 07:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 21:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
::Content battles indeed. Clearly this article needs an {{tl|NPOV}} tag. The archiving was premature, in my opinion, as the issues were stale but not resolved. The article also needs a {{tl|globalize}} tag because per Montanabw the content added about US rodeos was undue weight and now that content properly has been split off into ]. Overlapping content should be removed from this article, and replaced by more content about rodeo, both historical and current, outside the US. --] (]) 17:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
:::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.]<sup>]</sup> 01:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
::::Montanabw, please refrain from ] remarks and address the content. --] (]) 02:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
:::::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. ]<sup>]</sup> 03:42, 26


I have just modified 7 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
::::::Montanabw, again, please refrain from ] remarks and address the content. --] (]) 04:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928103714/http://201.238.246.21/Rodeo/controlador/controlador/control.jsp?ACCION=general%2Fgeneral&SUBACCION=BreveHistoriaDelRodeoChileno to http://201.238.246.21/Rodeo/controlador/controlador/control.jsp?ACCION=general%2Fgeneral&SUBACCION=BreveHistoriaDelRodeoChileno
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090929095646/http://www.abcra.com.au/index.cfm?page_id=1003 to http://www.abcra.com.au/index.cfm?page_id=1003
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080608030150/http://www.prorodeo.com/animal_welfare.aspx?xu=3 to http://www.prorodeo.com/animal_welfare.aspx?xu=3
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081123072049/http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=pp_en_rodeo to http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=pp_en_rodeo
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320084011/http://www.prorodeo.asn.au/animals.htm to http://www.prorodeo.asn.au/animals.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080411122325/http://www.prorodeo.com/pdfs/AnimalWelfare.pdf to http://www.prorodeo.com/pdfs/AnimalWelfare.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080608030150/http://www.prorodeo.com/animal_welfare.aspx?xu=3 to http://www.prorodeo.com/animal_welfare.aspx?xu=3


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


{{sourcecheck|checked=true|needhelp=}}
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 ]. 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. ] (]) 05:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 07:15, 27 July 2017 (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. --] (]) 06:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
::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 ] 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 discuss]<sup>]</sup> 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. --] (]) 01:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
::::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. ]<sup>]</sup> 02:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


I have just modified 5 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
==Lead==
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070222230215/http://www.pbrnow.com/about/PBRInc/ to http://pbrnow.com/about/PBRInc/
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. ] (]) 09:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140102193050/http://www.abril.com.br/noticia/diversao/no_236955.shtml to http://www.abril.com.br/noticia/diversao/no_236955.shtml
: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. ++]: ]/] 18:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090227155232/http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/8/45-8-211.htm to http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/8/45-8-211.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090303055913/http://hsus.org/about_us/statements/animals_in_entertainment.html to http://www.hsus.org/about_us/statements/animals_in_entertainment.html
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.americanhumane.org/site/DocServer/apsstatements.pdf?docID=101
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.americanhumane.org/site/DocServer/GuidelinesPDF.pdf?docID=1821
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.americanhumane.org/site/PageServer?pagename=nr_legis_brief_anticruelty
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071210065352/http://www.longcompany.com/history.htm to http://www.longcompany.com/history.htm


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
==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. ] (]) 09:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
:I agree. Not only jargon, but also a level of tangential detail that probably doesn't belong in this article. --] (]) 17:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 19:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

== Very biased editors of this page...Balanced information drastically needed ==

The claim that "Today, the PRCA and other rodeo sanctioning organizations have stringent regulations to ensure rodeo animals' welfare. Insinuates that these regulations are effective in doing just that - ensuring rodeo animals' welfare. However the published science, the expert opinions as printed in copious media sources, and the very real fact that many animals are injured so badly at rodeos every year that they are actually killed, demonstrates this claim to be completely biased rubbish. I can only imagine the PRCA is gatekeeping this article because it is awfully unbalanced and embarrassingly so. Read Prof. Clive Phillips work on rodeo. The scientific and professional consensus from SPCA's and veterinary associations accross the world is that rodeos cause distress and harm to the animals subject to the events. You can't claim welfare is ensured while animals are dropping dead multiple times per season. Broken backs, broken legs in bulls, another dead horse today at the NZ national champs...Whatever the source is that claims regulations ensure welfare is adequately considered ought to be cited to mean precisely what the author of this article then insinuates it to mean, with their chosen wording. Otherwise word the sentence properly so that it doesn't misrepresent the source, or remove the source and the entire sentence. Something needs to be done with it. ] (]) 07:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

== Rodeo Origin and History ==

Ok, so I tried to add new information and edit out some that was unfounded, but the moderator erased them all.

First I want to take out Spain as having influence in the rodeo, as the rodeo has nothing to do with the cattle herding techniques used in that European country. They never did any roundups because the amount of cattle in Spain was really small compared to Mexico’s. They didn’t need roundups or rodeos, the had transhumance and could move their cattle to a corral. Second there is no roping, bull-riding, trick roping, etc. done in Spain, it is not part of their tradition.

I want to add more information about the history of the rodeo, how and why it started. I want to add the actual first laws of the rodeo in Mexico during the 1500’s. I would also like to add the first description ever of a Rodeo. All my sources are legit, some sources are books dating back to the 17th and 18th centuries.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span>

The first laws regulating a primitive form of rodeo were passed by Viceroy Luis de Velasco on October 16th 1551, just for the valley of Toluca. The law stated: “That the owners of the ranches be counted and be obliged to have with every two thousand cows a Spanish guard and four blacks or Indians, two on horseback and the other two on foot, so that they are careful to collect and surround a day in each week the cattle in the estancia, under penalty of twenty gold pesos for each time they did not do it and find themselves without the said people and guard”

The second law of the rodeo was passed by Viceroy Martin Enriquez, for all cattle ranching regions in the country, on January 25th 1574: “That in each cattle estancia, from the day of San Juan in June until the middle of of November of each year, in each week, in the areas and places that by said justice they are commanded and appointed, they be obliged to do, and do it, a rodeo of the cattle and horses. And all the others from the other regional cattle estancias where it would be convenient to make such a rodeo, are forced to come out, and help do the rodeo, so that each one can take out the cattle that bears their brand and take it back to their estancia. As the said Rodeo is going on, by law, between the estancias, under penalty of doing the opposite: being Spanish or mestizo, ten pesos of common gold, applied according to Mesta ordinances; and being black, mulatto, or quadroon, they shall be given a hundred lashes”

The first description of a Rodeo was done by Don Juan Suarez de Peralta in his book “Libro de Albeitería” written between 1575 and 1580: “to take the cattle, they build false corrals towards the area they have fled and they gather many men on horseback and using this technique they capture them, and, as I have said few, because there are also tamed horses called corraliegos in great quantity; that there are many who have more than a thousand mares, and the ones who seem to have the least has five hundred, two hundred, and that’s nothing, because there is so much cattle, that there are men who have 150,000 cows, and 20,000 is little, and many are cimarronas and the most are rodeo ones, that are so made to it, it is the only way to know who they belong to. And these Rodeos are done this way: that more than three hundred horsemen of all the cattle barons gather for a day that they indicate and that land they call Valles is very flat and depopulated of towns where they have to chase the meek cattle, especially in the San Juan valley in the Chichimecas, who are untamed hostile Indians who have never been conquered, and they do a lot of damage both in killing people and in burning the houses, that over there they call Estancias, where the cowboys live and have their corrals to enclose some cattle to brand” <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span>

I’ve edited and added new information, historical texts, sources, etc. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span>

::Some of your material is useful, some of it is not. The images are excessive and mostly unneeded. Your description of "rodeo" is simply a description of cattle management, not competition. (May be worth discussing the etymology of the word, though) Cattle herding traditions DID come from Spain and rodeo traditions arose from the practices on working ranches. You need to take a look at ] and ] and add material that is properly sourced. ]<sup>]</sup> 05:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:30, 28 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rodeo article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2
This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconRodeo (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Rodeo, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.RodeoWikipedia:WikiProject RodeoTemplate:WikiProject RodeoRodeo
WikiProject iconEquine Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSports
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sport-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SportsWikipedia:WikiProject SportsTemplate:WikiProject Sportssports
To-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconUnited States: Old West Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject American Old West (assessed as Mid-importance).
Material from Rodeo was split to Canadian Professional Rodeo Association. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution.

Rodeo cattle

Proposing that the new article Rodeo cattle be merged into Rodeo. Tim Pierce (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there really any information worth merging? - Josette (talk) 03:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Not much, but there sure isn't enough information for its own article. :-) Tim Pierce (talk) 04:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more. ;) - Josette (talk) 04:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Seems there's been a consensus to merge the article, but nothing has been done. I'll go ahead and be bold now... Steven Walling 21:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Barrel-Racing-Szmurlo.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Barrel-Racing-Szmurlo.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Misplaced Pages, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

References

Montana, posting here after seeing the post at ANI. References such as http://www.collegerodeo.com/ (NIRA) and Animal Welfare: Animals in Rodeo (among others) are still bare URLs because they provide nothing but a URL and (maybe) a title. In order to allow people to rescue these references in case the reference goes dead, at minimum an access date, date of publication (if available), and publisher/host should be included. I agree with Lisa about the inconsistent citations as well, partially because of the numerous BURLs mixed with well-formatted citation templates, but also because the article mixes SFN with citation in the #References; all books should be in the "Sources" section, in my opinion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there are issues and inconsistencies. This is an older article that has had a lot of different people working on it over the years, and it has had periodic problems with being a controversial topic and contains a few carefully crafted compromises that ended some nasty edit wars (It was also the article that busted the ItsLassieTime sock farm). However, this will take a LOT of hours to clean up and mad drive-by tagging and a partial fix of bits and pieces just creates more confusion. I told that editor to take this to talk at least three times in edit summaries and she instead chose to go to ANI, so I'm not in the best mood at the moment. I also am not in the mood to drop all my other projects and work on this article just because someone noticed it needs to be cleaned up. If they want to clean it up, great, I'm all for it if they do it right. But it is not helpful to do it partway, tags at the top aren't going to help, and it's especially problematic to toss out links to google books, as we are still using those online sources as the article gets worked on -- an IAR situation. If a team wants to work on actually fixing this stuff, great; but do it right and do it with consensus... sigh... Montanabw 04:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Understood. I'll see if I can do a bit later (at least move the books into the Sources section)... but, as you know, this is well outside my normal subject area. Thus, I may make mistakes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll keep an eyeball on the subject matter, always glad for technical help. I ran reflinks again and it finally decided to fix more of the BURLS. BTW, on the topic, just reread , , and and in the google books listed in this article, so far this article is in flux and it is helpful to have the link to the entire book. I would not want them removed - where multiple pages are cited, it is klunky to ref each page with a url when the book is online and all pages cited are in the scan, at least. And, I think, some of these books haven't yet been worked into the text yet anyway. Montanabw 04:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, I got you started here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Appreciated, but now it looks like a source or two got unhooked from footnotes when made into a sfn, can someone dig that one out and put it back? This is one of those "every damn things needs to be sourced because some idiot will claim it's controversial" articles.  :-P . And your country knowledge is just fine, we still see pickups with that very bumper sticker! I simply choose to avoid certain topics ... LOL! Montanabw 22:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Montanabw: Here is a couple of problems with your latest revert.
1. You said above, to Crisco 1492 about hooking source in the article. But then, you remove "Move page to footnotes" comments. Make your decision: Do you or do you not want them hooked into the article? Or are you assume I mean "cut the page number and put in some place random"? Well, I don't.
2. A carriage return between two * characters breaks the list into two lists. That gives you HTML problem on some browsers with source hooking. (Scroll Into View API.) That's why I broke $lt;-- and --> between the two lines and no carriage returns before and after them. (If you have good eyes, you could see the list inflating between edits.) If you are using one the five major web browser, inspect the syntax with Developer Tool.
3. When I added "incomplete data" note, I do mean that it can be completed to the extent that it exists. I just need to hunt them down. Although it wouldn't help if I instead have to write this message.
4. Your comment removal was unclean. There are leftovers.
Oh, and by the way, I am curious: Is there some literary figure in your conversation above that I don't understand, or are you guys just being macho?
Codename Lisa (talk) 02:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Lisa, I didn't "revert" a damn thing, I edited. Learn the difference. Also watch your own assumptions and assume good faith yourself next time will you? Yes, I am female. And you just pissed me off again with your assumptions, particularly given I am a feminist and have a lot of dedication to the elimination of systemic bias on wiki. Yes, Crisco and I were making some gentle jokes about country music and joking about rodeo stereotypes (I'm a fourth-generation Montanan and at least a fourth-generation horse-person, I can joke about such things) Criminy... and once again, just quit it with the "I am going to tell you what you did wrong in a condescending tone" thing. Just fix it or take a look at the final edit, maybe I fixed it after I commented here. and...
  1. I removed the ":move page to footnotes" comment where the footnote already contained the page number. It was not needed, as the fix was made. Obvious
  2. Yes, I left over some hidden text, I figured you needed it for some reason, I deleted the empty comments with nothing in them. Looked fine in my browser, you don't need consensus for futher minor cleanup.
  3. And just keep shoveling! Do you know how insulting your remark ""If you have good eyes" is to me? GOOD GOD! Actually, GUESS WHAT!!!! YES!!! My eyesight is actually quite poor, I am legally blind and have a surgically repaired detached retina, due to which I am now developing a cataract! THank you SOOOOO Much for pointing that out! Shall I just stop editing wikipedia now and have them trundle me off in a wheelchair? I'm over 50 also, want me declared senile to boot! Please, just keep laying on the insults and bad faith. Or grow up. Montanabw 21:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi
1. Irrelevant. Re-read my message again.
2. That wasn't what I was referring to. You have left < and > at the end of some sentence.
3. "If you have good eyes" is a very common expression used to attract the attention to a fine detail that requires attention more than good eye sight. Apart from that, I don't have good eyes too. Aberrant astigmatism, corneal transplant on left eye when I was a teen. Can't use glasses; contact lens is the only solution. 80% of human population has eye problems. So, they could very well use a conditional "if you have good eyes".
Although I do not comment on the contributors in discussions, this time it is becoming necessary: You are not female. You said it once and I didn't buy it. Women may weaponize their femininity, but never their gender. They do not fail to (or feign failure to) recognize an Orwellian allegory of stale metaphor. They do not feign stupidity, because unlike men, they never consider brute force an option. In addition, all you have done so far in your communications was argumentum ad hominem. From the very beginning, it was obvious that you do not care for a discussion at all. That's why I went to WP:ANI. If you don't want my help, fine. I'll stand down, wait till the article go to FAC, then I mention these problems there. Enjoy.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, man. He is on his own. I am separating my way. Unwatching this page. If you need me, you know where you can find me. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Rodeo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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. —Talk to my owner:Online 01:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Rodeo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—Talk to my owner:Online 20:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material

RexxS, you followed me from a talk page debate to this article and reverted me. Stop stalking me, it's creepy. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Why did you remove the reference to Dr. Miller's book? The pro rodeo site may not meet RS, but that did. Also, the stuff cited to the pro rodeo site could easily be found in a newspaper or some secondary source. It's better to find an independent source than remove facts. White Arabian Filly 15:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
@Spacecowboy420: When you remove relevant, reliably sourced information from an article, you are guilty of vandalism. It is normal for editors to review other editor's contributions when they leave the diffs to show them. Accusing me of stalking or hounding is a personal attack and leaves you open to sanctions. --RexxS (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
This editor who removed the material appears to be a troll who has never edited this article. WP:DENY may be the best approach. Thank you RexxS and WAF for your help. Montanabw 22:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
User:White Arabian Filly, you're right. I did actually mean to only remove the reference lacking neutrality (pro-rodeo), removing the other reference was my mistake, of course I have no issue with neutral/reliable sources.
User:RexxS You changed the title of my edit on this talk page. I'm sure I don't have to mention "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." - but I will anyway.
User:Montanabw I'm sorry, but you shouldn't really try to dismiss everyone who does not agree with your content, or messages you ] to request that you stop following them, with silly comments regarding trolling. This discussion wasn't about you, but you had to involve yourself in something regarding me, again. Enough is enough, I don't need a fan club.

Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

User:RexxS please stop. Basic wikipedia rules, you don't delete or change other's talk page comments. I'm sure you're a nice guy, so please don't push this any further and make my only option to be reporting you at ANI and request that they block you from editing. Just let it go. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Removing personal attacks is a policy-based exception to refactoring talk page content, as you are already aware. This page is for the discussion of improvements to the Rodeo article. I'll see you at ANI, where you can explain your repeated removal of reliably sourced content and your repeated personal attacks on me. --RexxS (talk) 12:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rodeo. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 21:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Rodeo. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 07:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Rodeo. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Very biased editors of this page...Balanced information drastically needed

The claim that "Today, the PRCA and other rodeo sanctioning organizations have stringent regulations to ensure rodeo animals' welfare. Insinuates that these regulations are effective in doing just that - ensuring rodeo animals' welfare. However the published science, the expert opinions as printed in copious media sources, and the very real fact that many animals are injured so badly at rodeos every year that they are actually killed, demonstrates this claim to be completely biased rubbish. I can only imagine the PRCA is gatekeeping this article because it is awfully unbalanced and embarrassingly so. Read Prof. Clive Phillips work on rodeo. The scientific and professional consensus from SPCA's and veterinary associations accross the world is that rodeos cause distress and harm to the animals subject to the events. You can't claim welfare is ensured while animals are dropping dead multiple times per season. Broken backs, broken legs in bulls, another dead horse today at the NZ national champs...Whatever the source is that claims regulations ensure welfare is adequately considered ought to be cited to mean precisely what the author of this article then insinuates it to mean, with their chosen wording. Otherwise word the sentence properly so that it doesn't misrepresent the source, or remove the source and the entire sentence. Something needs to be done with it. CanisLupisArctus (talk) 07:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Rodeo Origin and History

Ok, so I tried to add new information and edit out some that was unfounded, but the moderator erased them all.

First I want to take out Spain as having influence in the rodeo, as the rodeo has nothing to do with the cattle herding techniques used in that European country. They never did any roundups because the amount of cattle in Spain was really small compared to Mexico’s. They didn’t need roundups or rodeos, the had transhumance and could move their cattle to a corral. Second there is no roping, bull-riding, trick roping, etc. done in Spain, it is not part of their tradition.

I want to add more information about the history of the rodeo, how and why it started. I want to add the actual first laws of the rodeo in Mexico during the 1500’s. I would also like to add the first description ever of a Rodeo. All my sources are legit, some sources are books dating back to the 17th and 18th centuries.— Preceding unsigned comment added by nortekman (talk • contribs)

The first laws regulating a primitive form of rodeo were passed by Viceroy Luis de Velasco on October 16th 1551, just for the valley of Toluca. The law stated: “That the owners of the ranches be counted and be obliged to have with every two thousand cows a Spanish guard and four blacks or Indians, two on horseback and the other two on foot, so that they are careful to collect and surround a day in each week the cattle in the estancia, under penalty of twenty gold pesos for each time they did not do it and find themselves without the said people and guard”

The second law of the rodeo was passed by Viceroy Martin Enriquez, for all cattle ranching regions in the country, on January 25th 1574: “That in each cattle estancia, from the day of San Juan in June until the middle of of November of each year, in each week, in the areas and places that by said justice they are commanded and appointed, they be obliged to do, and do it, a rodeo of the cattle and horses. And all the others from the other regional cattle estancias where it would be convenient to make such a rodeo, are forced to come out, and help do the rodeo, so that each one can take out the cattle that bears their brand and take it back to their estancia. As the said Rodeo is going on, by law, between the estancias, under penalty of doing the opposite: being Spanish or mestizo, ten pesos of common gold, applied according to Mesta ordinances; and being black, mulatto, or quadroon, they shall be given a hundred lashes”

The first description of a Rodeo was done by Don Juan Suarez de Peralta in his book “Libro de Albeitería” written between 1575 and 1580: “to take the cattle, they build false corrals towards the area they have fled and they gather many men on horseback and using this technique they capture them, and, as I have said few, because there are also tamed horses called corraliegos in great quantity; that there are many who have more than a thousand mares, and the ones who seem to have the least has five hundred, two hundred, and that’s nothing, because there is so much cattle, that there are men who have 150,000 cows, and 20,000 is little, and many are cimarronas and the most are rodeo ones, that are so made to it, it is the only way to know who they belong to. And these Rodeos are done this way: that more than three hundred horsemen of all the cattle barons gather for a day that they indicate and that land they call Valles is very flat and depopulated of towns where they have to chase the meek cattle, especially in the San Juan valley in the Chichimecas, who are untamed hostile Indians who have never been conquered, and they do a lot of damage both in killing people and in burning the houses, that over there they call Estancias, where the cowboys live and have their corrals to enclose some cattle to brand” — Preceding unsigned comment added by nortekman (talk • contribs)

I’ve edited and added new information, historical texts, sources, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by nortekman (talk • contribs)

Some of your material is useful, some of it is not. The images are excessive and mostly unneeded. Your description of "rodeo" is simply a description of cattle management, not competition. (May be worth discussing the etymology of the word, though) Cattle herding traditions DID come from Spain and rodeo traditions arose from the practices on working ranches. You need to take a look at WP:RS and WP:V and add material that is properly sourced. Montanabw 05:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Rodeo: Difference between revisions Add topic