Talk:Animal treatment in rodeo

Note

Tagged for NPOV due to excessively emotional tone. Overall, it isn't all that bad, just needs to cut down on the long quotations and the overly emotional language. PRCA section needs to be phrased to not make them sound guilty before being proven innocent. The information on flank straps is inaccurate and there are no statistics for "hundreds" of animals being killed each year. That said, some genuine animal cruelty issues are not mentioned here at all. Montanabw^(talk) 08:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"The information on flank straps is inaccurate." Sez who? I've cited a reliable source on the topic and can cite half a dozen more. Cite your reliable secondary sources from university press publications, repected publishers with a reputation for fact checking, or mainstream newspapers such as the New York Times or the Washington Post about flank straps. Your OR, POV, and assertions that "the material is inaccurate" are not reliable secondary sources. Your saying so doesn't make it so.

This article is sourced from university press publications, respected publishers with a reputation for fact checking, and mainstream powerhouse newspapers. I'm removing the NPOV tag because the article is well sourced and the tag doesn't accurately reflect an article underconstruction anyway.

The rodeo industry has little to say on the issue of animal cruelty. Maybe by keeping their mouth shut they hope the whole thing will go away. Why would the rodeo industry address "Animal cruelty in rodeo" anyway? They have published their rules and guidelines on animal welfare and there it ends. That apparently is their final word on the matter. Buttermilk1950 (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Buttermilk1950: I think you've telegraphed your personal feelings on the topic nicely with the above paragraph. Unfortunately, your personal feelings can't leak through to the article, which they have, making the article have, as Montanabw outlines above, a POV problem. I've added {{NPOV|note|date=March 2009}} back to the article. Hopefully after the clarification you've received at talk:Rodeo in the United States about when placing this template is appropriate, there will be no recurrences of removal until the issue is resolved via a consensus. As to how to sort this... to my way of thinking maybe given that there is some duplication between this and some other Rodeo related articles maybe some merging? Not sure. ++Lar: t/c 15:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The one-sidedness of this article is very serious. One can explain the positions of animal rights and humane organizations with a balance of the perspective of rodeo and its supporters. That does not exist. To say that rodeo organizations have "little to say" is totally inaccurate. The PRCA, the leading organization that sanctions professional rodeo, has an extensive section on their web site on animal welfare issues and their position. Many western states have statutes on animal cruelty that specifically state that events conforming to PRCA standards are not cruel. (For example, MCA 45-8-211(4)(c) online here. Montanabw^(talk) 20:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Rodeo has "little to say" in university press publications, powerhouse national and international newspapers, and material from mainstream publishing houses that have a reputation for fact checking. These are the sources WP prefers. I want them, I seek them, I welcome them. If you have anything about the PRCA from thses sorts of sources direct me to them. As a favoer to you, I'll review the PRCA website. They have a booklet available. However, until PRCA views, rules, etc. are published in high grade, reliable secondary sources such as those preferred by WP mentioned above I am reluctant to use the PRCA website. As an experienced editor, I know you'll appreciate this. Buttermilk1950 (talk) 01:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The PRCA governs only about 30% of the thousands of rodeos held per year. They cannot speak for all rodeos. Those rodeos they do not govern are not obligated to follow their policies on animal welfare. For example, hundreds of rodeos do not have veterinarians on hand. To cite the PRCA as though it were the "spokesperson" for all rodeo would not true, and would not be creating a balanced article. It would mislead the reader into thinking the PRCA governs all rodeo. I would like to remind you that the article is underconstruction and is not expected at this point to be completely balanced, polished, or anywhere near perfection - which it will certainly be some day. Give it time. And you are more than welcomed to contribute to the article! Please take your contributions to the Talk Page first for my review as "lead editor". Thanks! I look forward to your contributions and input! Buttermilk1950 (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You can cut your section back to a brief paragraph with a See Main to this article. No problem. Of course, this article is underconstruction at the moment and you may not want to direct your readers here.

Question

This does seem like an opportunity for someone to grind an axe. It's not suitable for an encyclopedia. It merits a footnote in a more general article. Isle of Lucy (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Animal cruelty in rodeo has been covered by university press publications, respected publishing houses with reputations for fact checking, and mainstream powerhouse newspapers like the New York Times. It passes WP notability with flying colors and is therefore an appropriate subject for a stand alone article at Wikipedia. Thanks for chiming in with your opinion! Buttermilk1950 (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The topic needs coverage. But it is not clear whether it should be a standalone article or included in related articles. If it's standalone that often means it can be removed, other than see also references, and brief summmarizations, from related articles. ++Lar: t/c 18:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Lar, I agree. I think those rodeo articles that include such material should be cut back to a summary with a See "main article". This stand alone article has the potential to develop and update as the years pass. In my opinion it would be a disservice to our users and readers to drop it. The Rodeo article pretty much devotes half the article to the topic. Isn't that undue weight? (I'm not sure). Anyway, the Rodeo article should cut the section back to a summary with a see Main. I've cut the section back in the Rodeo in the United States article and intend to cut it even further. Thanks for your invaluable oversight! Buttermilk1950 (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

There is already a fairly long paragraph on the topic at rodeo, and it has gone through multiple revisions to achieve what was a delicate and carefully crafted compromise that provides both views in as neutral a manner as possible, given the circumstances. However, the animal rights folks hit that article about once a year, regular as the clock can tick, and I am tired of the level of hysteria that occurs when it doesn, so I basically recommended that they go start their own playground over here. I am OK with an article here where everyone can just fight about the topic while leaving the main article alone. So as far as the standalone here, I think the article is biased and fairly hysterical in tone, but, I also really don't care as long as the folks here stew in their own juice and the main article retains its carefully written NPOV section. Montanabw^(talk) 18:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Article name is itself not neutral

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_naming suggests that the most neutral name possible should be selected for an article, one that does not draw conclusions about the subject matter. A careful analysis of that section of policy leads me to suggest that the name of this article is itself not neutral as it presupposes a conclusion. ++Lar: t/c 22:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions? How about "Animal controversies in rodeo"? I'm only 16 and sometimes cannot think up good titles. I have the same problem at school! Thanks for your help! Buttermilk1950 (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a little better. But what this article is about is the treatment of animals in the sport of rodeo. Something that used "treatmemt" (a topical word) rather than either "cruelty" or "kindness" (since there is evidence of both treatments, as well as all sorts of gradations in between) might be best... "cruelty" and "kindness" are both words that express an evaluation. See what you think of "Animal treatment in rodeo" perhaps? ++Lar: t/c 02:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Good title! Buttermilk1950 (talk) 03:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

To be a truly neutral article all aspects of animal cruelty should be presented. I believe there should be a section about animal cruelty by animal rights activists. That section should cover mistreatment by following AR suggestions such as setting all dogs and cats and horses lose in the streets, plains, desert, and park to fend for themselves (as told by executives of these groups). Also we need coverage of ratios of animals killed in rodeos versus animals killed by ALF releases into the wild, etc. A neutral presentation of the facts will open the eyes of many of the misguided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HowesR1 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Totonto

I removed the toronto piece, as it is pretty much verbatin copied from Armstrong: Armstrong, Susan Jean. The Animal Ethics Reader. Routledge. p. 489. Retrieved 2009-03-12. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help). -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss deletions here first. The article is underconstruction and not expected to be letter perfect at this point. The material was paraphrased with an eye to keeping the author's meaning intact. If you have concerns about material being used "pretty much verbatim" in the article, make suggestions here how it can be reworked. We are morally and ethically obligated to preserve a source's meaning, content, and intent so yes, occasionally a passage may appear to be "pretty much verbatim". But that doesn't mean it should wantonly be deleted. It means the material should be reworked ever so slightly. I'm only 16 and still learning. Please be patient and help me with this rather than brushing me off. Thanks! I appreciate your watchful eye! Buttermilk1950 (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of material that is a clear cut copyvio doesn't need to be discussed... (as an experienced editor, Kim is quite good at spotting that sort of thing, you should lean on her judgement rather than reverting her) I see you have reworked that section and put it back, which is better than it was before. However, even while under construction, the direction we need to move the article is away from problem areas like imbalance, or copyright violations. If you want to construct the article without quite so much concern with being in compliance with policy, you (or someone, I'd be happy to) can move it to your userspace and you can work on it there. ++Lar: t/c 02:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

But it was not "clear cut copyvio" it was (according to Kim) "pretty much verbatim". We are obligated to cite sources in a morally and ethically responsible manner. That may sometimes mean that material will appear "pretty much verbatim". The passage will be further worked. I appreciate your offer to move the article but what I would much rather you do is find some high quality reliable secondary sources (such as WP likes) to balance the independent assessment section. Find something from the rodeo industry that "counterviews" the medical officer's findings. You don't have to do keystrokes on the article for me. Just drop a source here that I can locate and use. The school library is closed for the weekend so I won't be able to do anything until Monday or Tuesday. Thanks! Buttermilk1950 (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to find sources to address the imbalance, as I said... try reading WP:ENEMY, it's an excellent essay. That said, are you sure you're only 16? ++Lar: t/c 03:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of material not considered from the best source

As lead editor on this article, I have removed material sourced from a website that does not appear to be of the highest grade. As lead editor, I will accept only high quality reliable secondary sources from university press publications, mainstream publishers with a reputation for fact checking, and powerhouse national and international newspapers such as the NY Times, London Times, and Washington Post. These are the sorts of sources WP virtually insists upon and when such sources are available in profusion on this topic those of lesser grade cannot be accepted. Please note that material not sourced from high grade publications must be taken to the discussion page first for my review, censure, editing, and final approval. The inclusion of materials of low grade must be my responsibility alone. Thanks! Buttermilk1950 (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

While your concern for sources is admirable, you need to focus on balance as well. The material you removed that had been added by Cgoodwin was something that helped balance a very unbalanced article. It was adequately sourced. As long as a source is adequate it doesn't have to be perfect. Therefore I restored it. Balance of the article is very important. Since what you have written has been criticsed as unbalanced, my suggestion, as a way to address that issue, is that you try to find some sources that present the other side, the many things that are positive about the efforts of the various rodeo organizations, and use those to give a balanced picture, not just present material from PETA. The essay Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy may be of great help to you in this work.

Another point that is important. You are a primary contributor to this article. That places a responsibility on you, in that you will be asked by others to fix things, and it is your primary responsibility to do so (within the context that we are all volunteers). However it does not necessarily give you a sweeping ownership of the article, or the right to refuse additions or corrections by others that are well sourced. If you help maintain an article for a long time, there is some deference, yes, but a brand new article does not immediately become owned. Hope that is helpful, you will find that if you welcome input and cooperate with other editors things will go much more smoothly. ++Lar: t/c 02:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The material is copyvio and published here word for word from the source. It is being removed. It is unsourced and unsigned from a sidebar at a "cowboy way" website. IMHO, it messes with WP's credibility. If it is of any value, it will be found in a high grade source. While the article has been criticized as unbalanced, what appears here is sourced from high grade reliable secondary sources such as university press publications, national and international newspapers and mainstream publishers. The article is underconstruction and not expected to be letter perfect at the moment. I am lead editor on the article and I appreciate your advice. I want tip top sources on this article. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to accept that material as a reliable. It is unsigned, it does not tells us where we can access the original survey. It could be fiction and it is not my responsibility to prove it yes or no. This article has established a certain formatting for references which the contributor chose to ignore. You've been snagged on this one Lar ... dumping copyvio material into a WP article! Buttermilk1950 (talk) 03:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Run this query: [1] ... you're going to find essentially that same assertion using those same numeric values, in a lot of places. Including several other WP articles. But you're right, the best source for this would be the original study, not echoes of it. So further digging is needed, I'll ask Cgoodwin about it, or see what I can find. Once it's found, citing one sentence from it verbatim, if surrounded in quotes, and with proper credit given, is fine. Spend some time reviewing the nuances of WP:COPY, it can be confusing when a passage is a copyvio and thus of concern and when it's a proper citation, quoted and correctly sourced, and thus not of concern. Hope that helps.

That said, I'm going to reiterate what I said before... "Lead editor" is not really a helpful term to use... and you don't have ownership or control, nor do you get to manage the discussion... certainly not for a new article or its talk. A lot of contribution to an article, in a short time, gives you a responsibility, because it is your work that may need correcting, but not a right of control. You'll probably alienate the less patient if you continue to use that "lead editor" phrasing. Again, I suggest reviewing WP:OWN, it's very good reading. Hope that helps too. ++Lar: t/c 03:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• I ran it but in appears in no high grade reliable secondary sources -- no university publications, no national or international newspapers, no materials from mainstream publishing houses. Ideally, the original survey should be cited -- which if it actually exists should be easy to find. Goodwin's material appears chiefly in biased rodeo materials.

I've sent Goodwin the following:

Please submit your contributions to the Talk Page first. I need to review it. Your one contribution was recently deleted because it was a blatant copyvio, and its resubmission was deleted as "pretty nearly verbatim" (from a very questionable source), and was improperly formatted. I am 16 and I'm not going to monitor your sloppy scholarship or do your work for you. WP asks a consistent citation style throughout an article. If you cannot or will not "shape up" and properly format your citations, they will simply be removed. This article is my class project and I am not going to have you trash it. All citations are to be high grade reliable secondary sources such as neutral university press publications, unbiased mainstream publishers with a reputation for fact checking, and powerhouse national and international newspapers and newsmagazines such as the NY Times, the London Times, the Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, etc. -- the sources WP prefers. If not, please don't bother sending it to the article. If your material is of any value, it will be found in these sources. I plan on attending college and I need to get into good research habits now and I am not going to have you undermine my goals by engaging in sloppy scholarship and expecting me to accept it. Buttermilk1950 (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Goodwin has not properly formatted her dubious contribution. I'm not going to do his/her work. Part of my project is to learn to use WP correctly and at the end of May I hope to take this article to GA. I don't want her sloppy scholarship undermining a good article. Buttermilk1950 (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Article title

The article title has caused some concern. Alternate titles are being entertained here. Thanks for your cooperation! Buttermilk1950 (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

We already have a heading for this, you don't necessarily have to create a new heading if there is one already, just discuss it at the first place... otherwise it can make it difficult to track progress on all the issues. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 02:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Good title! Discussion closed. Buttermilk1950 (talk) 03:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Please submit your contributions to the Talk Page first. I need to review it. Your one contribution was recently deleted because it was a blatant copyvio, and its resubmission was deleted as "pretty nearly verbatim" (from a very questionable source), and was improperly formatted. I am 16 and I'm not going to monitor your sloppy scholarship or do your work for you. WP asks a consistent citation style throughout an article. If you cannot or will not "shape up" and properly format your citations, they will simply be removed. This article is my class project and I am not going to have you trash it. All citations are to be high grade reliable secondary sources such as neutral university press publications, unbiased mainstream publishers with a reputation for fact checking, and powerhouse national and international newspapers and newsmagazines such as the NY Times, the London Times, the Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, etc. -- the sources WP prefers. If not, please don't bother sending it to the article. If your material is of any value, it will be found in these sources. I plan on attending college and I need to get into good research habits now and I am not going to have you undermine my goals by engaging in sloppy scholarship and expecting me to accept it. Buttermilk1950 (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Your submissions are POV and the sources that you are using are very biased and indicate a blatant lack of knowledge concerning the subject. WP states that the sources be reliable which many of your sources are not.Cgoodwin (talk) 04:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Buttermilk: As I said before, you can't assert ownership this way, This tone needs to be discontinued, it's starting to sound tendentious again. You are not the final arbiter of what is in or out, it's a multi editor process, subject to policy yes, but subject to consensus as well. If you want to be the final arbiter, you should at least work in user space, or, better, seek a different venue entirely (see WP:NOT). Remember the disclaimer "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it."... you agree to it every time you press Save Page. Sorry to come down hard here but you have to let other people work this article too, sans lectures to more experienced editors about how things are to be. You were doing better, please stick to a collegial approach. ++Lar: t/c 04:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Goodwin, you can cite these "sources" from here to the moon but it proves nothing. Only that others have been led into using the same dubious material and citing it as gospel truth. What you need to cite is the original survery -- which you will never be able to do because it doesn't exist. The whole is a fiction. I challenge you to find the original survey. LOL! Buttermilk1950 (talk) 05:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll cover that action, how many donuts did you want to lose? :) ++Lar: t/c 05:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Your on! No, seriously, I will be thrilled if you find the survey or its inclusion in a high grade reliable secondary source. No problem. As it is, my strenuous objection to its inclusion here is the source -- a very questionable "cowboy way" website.

Done. See below. I will expect a picture of a donut, formatted similiarly to how barnstars are done, with an admission that you were incorrect, on my user talk page. ++Lar: t/c 05:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

(since actually mailing me a donut will be problematic, an image will do :) ++Lar: t/c 06:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

As I stated, you need to cite the original survey -- or its appearance in a high grade reliable secondary source such as a university publication, a major newspublication, or material from a major publishing house. The survey has never been mentioned in any of these WP preferred sources. Doesn't that tell you something? It tell me the "survey" is suspect -- otherwise, it would have made the big-time sources. Dollars to donuts, an original "survey" doesn't exist. Buttermilk1950 (talk) 05:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You need to change your approach, as I have been telling you. Please be more collegial and less abrasive. ++Lar: t/c 05:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

How can I be collegial with someone who doesn't understand the word? PS She's added two ex links without community consensus, thus making the section top heavy with pro-rodeo PRCA links. The PRCA does NOT speak for all of rodeo. This is not a PRCA website. I am cutting her additions and bringing them here for discussion and consensus before their inclusion in ex links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttermilk1950 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree with your characterization, although I am not sure what you mean by "ex links" in this context. I've found a cite from a scholarly journal for you. As it turns out, not for the originally cited survey, but instead for a different, newer one, which shows even lower injury percentages. I trust that we are done sparring about this survey, and now that we have the survey firmly nailed down, it's time to discuss whether, based on the figures we are confronted with, whether this entire article is an instance of undue weight and needs to be deleted as a WP:COATRACK. ++Lar: t/c 05:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ex == external. Well, I think a link to the PRCA conduct guide is a fine external link, since the guide is discussed in the article. so that covers one of the additions. The other addition is a link to an Australian rodeo organization and it has yet another survey, this time of Australian rodeos, showing low incidence of injury. So that covers the other addition. We can't well criticise either of those, which are intended, or of the other PRCA link, as long as the PETA link is present. All 4 of these links are valid and I've restored the two you reverted. ++Lar: t/c 06:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm excited about the survey. Sorry, I'm confused about deleting the article. I can't read through the WP material at the moment, I'm too tired. I wish you would give others the chance to to look at the links before reverting such things. As noted, the section is top heavy with pro-rodeo links. The issue is not their merit but their number. Anyway regarding undue weight. It's quite possible, the article is top heavy with the pro-animal argument simply because there is not enough pro-rodeo material in high grade reliable secondary sources to make a case. "I'm Pro 4 Rodeo" seems to be an area academics, philosophers, and others neglect. I haven't been able to find a single piece of "I'm Pro 4 Rodeo" material in any of the sorts of sources WP prefers. Buttermilk1950 (talk) 06:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ex Links

Two links have been added without community consensus, thus making the Ex Links section top heavy with pro-rodeo PRCA. I think it best the community examine and discuss the links before their inclusion. The community should select one, and then the community select an animal welfare/animal rights link to balance the rodeo link, and the process continue with the second suggestion giving us finally 3 animal links and 3 rodeo links. The section should not be top heavy with one sort of link or the other. Here are the two links:

• Animals in Rodeo
• PRCA Animal Welfare Rules: Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association

Buttermilk1950 (talk) 05:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

See above. You raised the issue and I have responded. Try to keep discussion threaded instead of starting new sections excessively, it helps keep things organized. Links restored, both are justified.

Also, we don't do "3 pro and 3 con" ... links get justified based on their relevance to the article. But for you I guess we can do a thought experiment on apportionment of links in relation to some metric. Perhaps use the ratio of injury free rides to rides where the animal is injured.... no, that would be thousands of rodeo links before we get one PETA link. How about the ratio of injuries to humans to injuries to animals?... no, that still puts us at dozens of rodeo (human injuries) to one PETA. ++Lar: t/c 06:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

On reference quality

I've carried out a review of the references used when the article was first created. Buttermilk, you've been making the point that you want to see only references from scholarly journals, national news organizations, and the like, and protesting against references from rodeo associations and the like. What you fail to mention, though, is that in the original set of references you have used cites from HSUS, ASPCA, AHA, and PETA. None of these pass the test that you are asking PRCA and other rodeo organization resources to pass. I think a review of WP:CITE and WP:RS is in order, because in part you are applying too stringent a test, and in part you are being too lenient. Further, you show your bias by being too stringent against PRCA and too lenient with regards to AHA et al.

• The HSUS, AHA, et al have only had their "policy statements" cited. If you want to cite the PRCA's "policy statement". Buttermilk1950 (talk) 07:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

From policy: Material from an organization is always considered reliable when it is about the organization, for example statements about what the goal of the organization is, or what the current bylaws, regulations, and the like are, as well as statements about the organization's position on issues is. The organization is considered the primary reference there.

But statements of fact made by an organization are rather less reliable. For one example you question the PRCA's reporting of injury statistics (a matter of considerable discussion, above) ... rightly so. An external source is a valid request, and one has now been provided. For another example, the statement about how much the US Army spends on advertising via rodeo sponsorship is sourced to PETA (although it is via the book you cited, the book author is crediting PETA so really it's PETA's reliability).

Agreed. Have been looking at this for some time. The amount of dollars the Army spends on rodeo needs another source. Working on this. Buttermilk1950 (talk) 07:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That statement is only as reliable as PETA is... not very. That statement instead should be sourced to a reliable source, not to PETA. Whether it's relevant to this article is a different question. But if you want to apply more stringent standards than policy require, you need a) consensus to do so, which I do not think exists and b) to do so consistently. ++Lar: t/c 06:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you here but the article is underconstruction and subject daily to reworking. I don't have a problem with citing the PRCA's rule book or its animal welfare page. I was just about to do it. I have sent for their booklet. There are several things here that I have either decided to investigate further or simply drop. You are correct. As far as PETA's reliability I question your assertion it is not reliable. What does PETA have to gain by being "unreliable"? Loss of donations from supporters? LOL! Just a joke. Anway, has WP blacklisted PETA as a source? Buttermilk1950 (talk) 07:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

PETA certainly should not be a source. It's an activist organization with shoddy scholarship and a history of distorting the truth to sell their message. 68.46.99.241 (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The PRCA Animal welfare handbook is published on their web site, you don't need a hardcopy to get started. Montanabw^(talk) 23:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Some progress!

Some progress has been made, which is goodness. I will take some time later today to make a pass at the article myself. I think there may be an issue with the article being too US centric. Although Rodeo is primarily a US sport, there are non US activities as well. ++Lar: t/c 20:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Useful info, though hard to find and verify, is stuff on Mexican rodeos, particularly horse-tripping. However, there are already articles on charredas and chilean rodeo out there too, so I wouldn't worry too much about international perspective, as it may be touched on elsewhere, wikilinks will do. Also, I did note at one point in reserching the rodeo article, apparently Germany is becoming a mecca for western-style riding, and rodeos, but they ban tiedown roping. Interesting. The biggest thing I'd like to see in these articles is the debunking of the flank strap hysteria, that is the most bogus accusation out there. Flank straps don't hurt the animal, half of them keep bucking even when it is taken off. It's more a cue. Montanabw^(talk) 05:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect (and correct me if I'm wrong) but I'm not sure WP's job is to "debunk myths". It seems to me WP presents various viewpoints regarding a topic and lets the reader arrive at his or her conclusion. Please enlighten me.

Investigating the prohibition of rodeo in the United Kingdom in 1934 with Parliament's passage of the Animal Protection Act would be an appropriate addition. Australia and New Zealand rodeo could be investigated. There is also a group in Europe that opposes the expansion of rodeo in the EU. All appropriate for this article. Buttermilk1950 (talk) 03:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite right, Buttermilk1950. (I think Rodeo deserves a POV tag, by the way.) The focus of this article appears to be specifically on Rodeo in the United States; you might want to state the scope explicitly in the lead paragraph. If you try for a global scope then you have to deal with some very different forms of rough stock events that don't occur in English-speaking nations and for which the sources are largely non-English and difficult to translate because the vocabulary is so specialized. --Una Smith (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Una, the rodeo article has had multiple dustups over the animal cruelty issue over the years, and what's in there now is an attempt to rigorously balance both sides, something not happening here. I have been attacked for being a PETA-loving bunny-hugger by some mad cowboys, and one user you keep mentioning, was flat-out banned for obsessing over the opposing view. It is a real balancing act and The PRCA in particular has done a lot of work over the years to improve the treatment of animals, to the point where the American Humane Association as well as the statutes of several states use their guidelines as a standard for others. Everyone needs to understand that if you want to discuss the issue, you have to give both sides a fair view and not look for a straw man. Montanabw^(talk) 03:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Montanabw, I know of no banned user. Please name the user you say was "flat-out banned". --Una Smith (talk) 04:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked and never came back, then. Montanabw^(talk) 00:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You would find a lot of information from Canadian sources on rodeo, especially since the Calgary Stampede just wrapped up with the usual arguments and protests against Chuckwagon racing and calf roping. Incidentally, for this article to ever move away from it's ridiculous bias, you will have to write a significant section discussing the viewpoints of rodeo operators, and how they view their treatment of the animals in their events. Resolute 15:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL Resolute! I wish you had been here four months ago when the above debate was hot and heavy! This whole spat was nasty. However, please feel free to go over to rodeo itself and see if you have any suggestions on improving the animal welfare section there -- I have worked very hard on that article to keep a neutral and balanced tone. I haven't bothered at this article other than as you see above because I just am fatigued. Montanabw^(talk) 00:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Fight Against Animal Cruelty in Europe

I'm not convinced that FAACE merits inclusion in the Animal Groups section. The welcome page states "FAACE is totally voluntary and is run by Tony Moore". It seems to be an individual's self-published website.--MoreThings (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed the FAACE and replaced it with the EARC, a larger coalition. See what you think. If this is not a worthy organization then remove it. However, I don't see the problem with any organization just because they are volunteers. Isn't most of the work done by these organizations done by volunteers? Also what is the problem with Tony Moore? I included the FAACE in the article because he is a known animal rights activist and it seemed to fit that section of the article. I would prefer to see it included. - Josette (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that by listing organisations such as FAACE and EARC alongside RSPCA and HSUS we are giving them undue weight. The RSCPA has an income in excess of £100 million and an organisational structure to match; FAACE appears to be run by Tony Moore from his home in Southport.

Perhaps FAACE and EARC could be added to a separate list headed Pressure Groups, but I really don't feel they should included at all. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that they speak for anyone other than the handful of people who set them up.

I've removed the EARC entry pending your thoughts. I have had a look around for other UK information but I haven't found anything substantial. Rodeo has never really had any prominence over here and the relevant organisations appear not to have any policy regarding it. I've emailed the RSPCA asking them if they have an official policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoreThings (talk • contribs) 20:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, and for the extra step it took to email the RSPCA. - Josette (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't done extensive research, but I believe rodeo was outlawed in the UK under the Animal Protection Act of 1934. Buttermilk1950 (talk) 02:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

A while back, I did a simple search looking for evidence that rodeos take place in the UK and all I could find were ads for mechanical bucking bulls! It is very hard to prove a negative. So it may indeed still be banned. Buttermilk, if you can do legal research, finding the actual statute and seeing if it's still on the books would settle the issue once and for all. (To that end, I did locate the actual statute in Rhode Island that bans tiedown roping, but didn't save it at the time). Montanabw^(talk) 22:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it is that one, Buttermilk:

(1) No person shall promote, or cause or knowingly permit to take place any public performance which includes any episode consisting of or involving—

• (a) throwing or casting, with ropes or other appliances, any unbroken horse or untrained bull; or

• (b) wrestling, fighting, or struggling with any untrained bull; or

• (c) riding, or attempting to ride, any horse or bull which by the use of any appliance or treatment involving cruelty is, or has been, stimulated with the intention of making it buck during the performance;

There's also this article here on WP which suggest that the law was indeed enacted specifically in response to concerns about rodeo. All of which probably explains why most of the bulls we see over here are either metal or red! --MoreThings (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)