→Archive: Answer |
→Archive: address the content |
||
Line 90:
:::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.[[User:Montanabw|<font color="006600">Montanabw</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Montanabw|(talk)]]</sup> 01:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
::::Montanabw, please refrain from [[ad hominem]] remarks and address the content. --[[User:Una Smith|Una Smith]] ([[User talk:Una Smith|talk]]) 02:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
|
Revision as of 02:22, 26 March 2009
Equine B‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Archives |
---|
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 Wikipedia'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(talk) 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(talk) 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(talk) 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(talk) 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.[1]" 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(talk) 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(talk) 07:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Welcome to the Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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(talk) 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)
- 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(talk) 01:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)