Talk:Rodeo/Archive 2

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)

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

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

Severe Pruning Needed

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

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

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

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

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

Lead

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

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

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

Follow up: Buttermilk, I want to say that you had a nice addition with the Canadian and Argentinian material. You may be starting to get the hang of things here. Notice that I kept most of what you added, but reworded and rearranged some things. Understand that my edits to your new sections were made for two reasons: 1) flow of the article, and 2) avoiding plagiarism. Even with a footnote, you aren't supposed to copy from a source word for word, and frankly, if the source isn't well-worded, a rephrase that keeps the core information is often appropriate above and beyond any plagiarism concerns. I restored other deleted material for now and tried to reach a compromise on the material and organization of the lists of events. I tossed all the tags in favor of a general cleanup tag, as I think the global perspective is improving and I am generally pleased with the work you are doing there. The merge issue seems to be on hold for now, so I'm not going to push it for now. In general cleanup, I do think that there is a need to split out barrel racing and pole bending into two parts and you won't see me kick if they are split. Pole bending is not seen intercollegiate or pro rodeos, just O-Mok-See (gymkhana) and some high school and other amateur events. (I'd actually like to move pole bending down with steer daubing). Montanabw^(talk) 04:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Montanabw, I cannot ignore your telling Buttermilk1950 to "go play" somewhere else. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Montanabw bites Buttermilk1950. --Una Smith (talk) 04:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine, that was over the top. I apologize for saying "go play somewhere else." My remaining concerns stand. Montanabw^(talk) 05:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Lingo

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

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

The lingo is, for the most part, already wikilinked. General readers need to increase their vocabulary if they want to understand rodeos, so terms need to be included. If the wikilink is insufficient, a very brief definition is certainly OK, if worded smoothly so as not to disturb the flow of the text. Montanabw^(talk) 03:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If the term can be wikilinked, it's ok to use it in the article. Cla68 (talk) 05:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. However, the article has rather a lot of tangents into descriptions of tack. I would rather see the tangents replaced by redlinks, eg to bronc rein. --Una Smith (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No need to incorporate a lot of US rodeo lingo into this article which will be read by others worldwide with no familiarity of such lingo. This article has multiple spinoff articles and the technicalities and lingo can be incorporated there. Keep it simple. Let's work to make this a GAN. Keep it simple. Avoid the jargon. Buttermilk1950 (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Right idea, and bronc rein may be an example where jargon can be avoided. Is it really so different from a halter and lead rope that it needs to be named in the article? Yes, the noseband is broader and flatter than usual so the saddle bronc rider can pull on it to help stay in the saddle, without harming the horse, but that is a detail for the saddle bronc article, not here. Ditto the use of the words "lasso" (used as both noun and verb) and "lariat" in addition to "rope". The section headings and wikilinks refer to roping; the rest of the text should do the same. --Una Smith (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Una on this. There's no reason to fill an article that is a broad overview for a WP general audience with jargon. Buttermilk1950 (talk) 00:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep it simple

This article is offering a global view of rodeo. Keep it simple. Hundreds of thousands of people worldwide will be reading this article (some with minimal English language skills) and the information needs to be immediate, simple, and easily understandable. Lingo should be kept to a minimum. The article is to be divided into "regions": North America, Latin America, Australia, Europe, etc. Please retain these divisions for clarity and quick reference for the reader's sake. As far as the US is concerned, there are adequate and extensive descriptions of events in other articles and there is absolutely no need to provide lengthy descriptions here. Minimal description, please. It is hoped that the article will go to GAN soon. All material is to be sourced and cited. No OR, no POV. It will damage the article's chances of attaining GA. OR and POV will be deleted at once. Buttermilk1950 (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Buttermilk. You must re-read WP:OWN yourself. Your dictates may make some sense, but it is best to try and work collaboratively and respect the long, hard work of others (yes, including me). I have put far more hours into this article than you have and I understand the topic. A lot of very hard work went into keeping this article as neutral as possible. Changes need to be made collaboratively, particularly dramatic ones. Montanabw^(talk) 23:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

There are too many images in the US section. I'm keeping the few best in the section and deleting the rest. The spinoff articles have pics so there's no reasons to include a pic of every event in a US rodeo here. Let's be sensible. Buttermilk1950 (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Buttermilk, for the 10 thousandth time PLEASE discuss these matters. I have brought several articles to GA. Some of the images you have inserted are not as good as ones you have removed. We may not need all of them, but they need to be representative. We really don't need a distance shot of a grand entry when we have a close-up of something else.Montanabw^(talk) 23:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It's true that "Hundreds of thousands of people worldwide will be reading this article (some with minimal English language skills)", but that's also true of every other article in the encyclopaedia. I'm not sure that it's an argument you should adduce in favour of simplifying the language and content of the article.

If it's agreed that this article is intended to be a global overview, then I'd suggest that it's appropriate to define here terms that are used globally, and to define region-specific terminology in region-specific articles.--MoreThings (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

MoreThings, the article is tricky. In one sense, yes, there are rodeos all over the world. But on the other hand, when a person says "rodeo," it immediately conjurs up an image of a western cowboy on a bronc, and hence the American image. As I have said below, it's like baseball. Worldwide, but quintessentially American (even if having Spanish and Mexican roots) Montanabw^(talk) 23:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that my (uninformed) belief before reading the articles was that rodeo is predominantly an American event. Having read the them, I'm still largely of that view, though it is clearly popular in other countries; the Chilean Rodeo article in the Spanish Wiki, in particular, is very substantial.

It seems to me that rodeo is pretty much the same in each of the English-speaking countries, and I'm not sure that it warrants a main article plus one each for, say, Canada, Europe ,Australia, and the US.

But, either way, I think the crux of the problem is that there needs to be, at most, one main article, and at the moment there are two. If you and Buttermilk are able to agree on a form of words (and a set of pictures) for a single main article, regardless of what it's called, then I think drive-by readers, like me, would have an excellent article to view.--MoreThings (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

WP asks us to avoid or explain jargon. It's part of the GAN criteria. Do we need a consensus whether this article should go to GAN or not? It's not ready at the moment, of course, but we could work together to bring it up to GAN. Loading the article with cowboy and rodeo jargon when the same concepts could be related in simple, standard English might be detrimental to such a goal. How do you feel about working towards GAN? Do you have any suggestions toward that goal? How could you contribute? Are you willing to work on a specific section? Buttermilk1950 (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

My post was simply a response to your suggestion that the content and language should be simplified because the article may be read by people with minimal English language skills; I disagree with that suggestion.

There does seem to be a fair level of jargon associated with this subject, and it needs to be explained somewhere. My feeling is that if this is to be the global article, then this is the best place for an explication of terms that pertain globally. I don't believe that would be detrimental to the article; quite the opposite.

Regarding GAN and my contribution: it would be great if the article could be brought to GA standard. I have no specialist knowledge in this subject - I came to it simply as an interested reader - but I'm more than happy to make any small contributions I can, as I did with the Animal Treatment article. You and Montanabw are both clearly knowledgeable, passionate and energetic. The fact that you're coming at it from slightly different angles and need to accommodate one another will hopefully lead to an informative and well-balanced article. Keep up the good work :)--MoreThings (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is far too unstable to be ready for GAN at this point. For one thing, we still have the content fork in the Rodeo in the United States article, which is still loaded with inaccurate information and POV problems. As for the jargon issue, it is one thing to be clear, it is another to dumb down an article to the point that no one learns the vocabulary. We can say a "rope, also known as a lariat or lasso," or whatever, but the vocabulary needs to be included. As for the global issues, the one point that is not yet understood is that modern rodeo is an American sport, like baseball or American football. Yes, there are variations elsewhere in the world, but one cannot give undue weight to things that are of minor significance elsewhere. Unfortunately, what's really going on here is an alliance of an old user with a personal grudge against me along with an over-eager new user who has been doing a lot of research but clearly has never been to a real rodeo, together trying-- not to improve an article, but rather seeking to insert an animal rights POV across the spectrum of rodeo articles, based in part on sources that portray rodeo as a quaint sport for hicks who are cruel to the animals. Of course I have issues with that. Until there is a reasonable meeting of the minds here, this article is in no way ready for GA. Montanabw^(talk) 23:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Please understand MoreThings, you do not need 'specialist knowledge' to write this article. As I have said many times over, you do not need to suffer tuberculosis to write a WP article about tuberculosis. So let's work together to bring this article to GA. Buttermilk1950 (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, absolutely, Buttermilk. It amazes me that WP works at all. But it does because we don't need to be experts; we just need to be able to read the works of experts. And I will chip in where I can. That said, I would have to do heck a lot of reading just to bring myself up to scratch, so I'm probably not going to be able to make any major content contributions. I mainly just wanted to describe where one, random, uninvolved reader might like to see the article end up.--MoreThings (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for developing this article

I suggest this article develop for the general reader in an even manner. Events in each section should have a very brief summary keeping technicalities, jargon, and insider detail to an absolute minimum. These descriptions can be written as prose paragraphs rather than bulleted lists. A description of one event should not be given a lengthy paragraph when the descriptions of other events are given a sentence or two. Your suggestions? Buttermilk1950 (talk) 00:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:UNDUE. Mutton busting is a novelty event that barely warrants a sentence. The rough stock and roping events are at the heart of rodeo and thus deserve a greater weight. Frankly, the stuff on rodeo parades and the grand entry is not worth the amount of time devoted to either. It's all about what is most significant and what is not. Jargon needs to be introduced and defined when it is the correct terminology. Just as in other horse articles, the terms "mare" and "stallion" are used, not "girl horse" and "boy horse," here the terms integral to the sport are appropriate. "Touchdown" is also jargon, but no one suggests we dumb down wikipedia articles for the non-American audience by not saying "touchdown." We do however, define it. Montanabw^(talk) 23:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

All material must be sourced and cited from high grade reliable secondary sources per WP. No excuses will be accepted for dumping material here with the expectation that someone else will track the sources down and create the citations, or one was busy and will return in two years to add the references. This sort of scholarship is unacceptable. Buttermilk1950 (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You need to tone down your wording, Buttermilk1950. ++Lar: t/c 15:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, IButtermilk, most of the sources in here originally were added by me, in fact. The article as I found it two years ago was completely unsourced. So, I brought it from zero to about 50% and doing that much was probably a good 10 or 20 hours of work. So I recommend that you respect what has been done by others and engage in a good faith collaborative effort and look for ways to further verify and source material. No sense rewriting things that only need a Google search and someone with time to do it. Montanabw^(talk) 23:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I also suggest that the issue of the content fork of Rodeo in the United States be cleaned up first and that Buttermilk decide to collaborate with me rather than her current approach of not communicating and pretending I do not exist. I do not have the time to be constantly reviewing this article. When I did an extensive review of this article a couple days ago, I made a good faith attempt to keep most of the new content Buttermilk added, only to find that most of what I did was promptly reverted. This is indicative of the whole situation. Total lack of respect for an experienced editor with a strong background in the content area and a refusal to collaborate with someone who has more actual knowledge and an ability to evaluate the quality of various sources.

So at this point, some of Buttermilk's additions on other countries are appropriate, other of her changes -- and her constant refusal to keep anything I have edited-- are not. Until there is a determination that she will work in collaboration with other editors, yes, including myself, I am tired of banging my head against the wall. I will not engage in an edit war with someone who simply does not "Get" that the issue here is what is actually accurate, not what meets the form of the rules but not the substance. I am immensely frustrated that my currently very busy real life prevents me from taking the time to work on this article, but the truth is that the existing article DID have at least a B-Class level of sourcing and many of the sources were verifiable and correct. . Montanabw^(talk) 23:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If Buttermilk1950 cannot work together with others to at least the level that Montanabw does, Buttermilk1950's changes will need to be be reverted, I'm afraid, and we'll return to where we were before, as refusing to work with others is not the way to get changes to stick. ++Lar: t/c 04:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What we need is sourced and cited material. Basing a WP article upon one's opinions and experiences is OR and POV. For one to say "I've been to several rodeos and have never seen a rodeo parade" and then delete sourced material about rodeo parades is unacceptable. Buttermilk1950 (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for developing this article 2

I suggest that each section develop first with a brief description of events. These can be elaborated once all the sections have been developed to the same level. Then, the sections about the events should be followed by a brief history (when the first was held, associations, etc.), and a discussion of controversies whether animal or other. Your thoughts? Buttermilk1950 (talk) 05:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Firstly I think that Montanabw has done a great job on very many articles inlcuding this one. Secondly Buttermilk1950 cannot work together with others and will continue to push its biased, uninformed, POV to the point of deterring other capable editors.Cgoodwin (talk) 05:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No, Buttermilk works well with others, when others choose to be civil. Buttermilk ignores snarly, sarcastic "collaborators" until they modify their behavior in compliance with WP's civility guidelines. Buttermilk1950 (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Extended discussion of how well Buttermilk works well with others is not appropriate here. There are venues for dispute resolution... user talk pages, user RfCs, mediation, AN/I, arbitration and so forth. Buttermilk has already received considerable cautioning on his/her talk page, and I suggest further counsel be directed there. Or AN/I, there is a current thread. ++Lar: t/c 20:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for developing this article 3

May I ask that we approach this article as a "general survey" sort of thing? Let's try to get a balanced picture of rodeo both pro and amateur. Alert! Please use this thread to discuss the topic at hand -- rather than finger-pointing and personality issues. Thanks! Buttermilk1950 (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest that you learn to work collaboratively with people with whom you disagree and understand that your behavior has gone completely out of control? This IS what this article was prior to March 10. I am not going to put any further time or effort into this article until we get a handle on the personality issues, which are in fact what the problem is, and, sad to say, your behavior all across the rodeo articles and towards the people who also work on them has been completely unexcusable. Montanabw^(talk) 21:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I am more than willing to work with you! But, please! tone down the sarcasm, finger pointing, name calling, bullying, and outrage. Please provide high grade reliable secondary sources per WP:RS for your contributions. Rodeo is a well examined topic and there is an abundance of such sources. No need for anyone at this article to resort to questionable, unsigned "cowboy" websites when university press publications have covered every aspect of rodeo. If it's important and merits inclusion in this article, then it will be found in a university press publication. Check such sources first, and then those of lesser scholarship only as a last resort. Even then, consider whether your material merits inclusion. If it's not found in a university press publication, then it's probably not worth including here. Buttermilk1950 (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Your edit history says it all. You have completely hijacked and dominated this article since the 14th of March in a way that far surpasses "ownership." When I reverted your original work, I made repeated attempts to reach out to you and ask that you collaborate. Had you done so, you might have been surprised that "collaboration" in my book means being open to changing one's mind and listening to the input of others, something I have done on a regular basis. The old article had a number of good sources (particularly the PRCA site, which is not a "cowboy" website, but actually that of the national sanctioning organization of the sport. For that matter, to imply that a "cowboy" website is somehow inherently inferior clearly reveals your bias, which appears to be to portray rodeo as a place where ignorant hicks abuse animals) and some that were dicey, but grounds for improving the citation, not deleting the information and replacing it with information that is not accurate, just written by some idiot who happened to convince a University press to publish their theories. Trust me, publication by a University press is NOT the only way a source is worth including, particularly when few University presses are going to publish things like, for example, the rules of rodeo or any actual "how to" content. You are observing the outward form of WP:V and WP:CITE but absent any true understanding of the spirit of these rules. Montanabw^(talk) 22:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight in Lead

I have removed the addition to the last paragraph in the lead made in this edit, which gives undue weight to this issue in the lead. The lead has been carefully crafted over a long time period, and additions of such a substantial nature to it should be carefully discussed. There is a section where this material can go: Rodeo#Animal treatment in rodeo and I have moved it there. ++Lar: t/c 22:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the addition to the lead be discussed before moving it, or is it solely up to you to decide what shall and shall not be? I'm returning the material to the lead and community consensus shall decide its placement. Buttermilk1950 (talk) 02:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No. Read WP:BRD. SV boldly added something. I reverted it. Now we discuss, while it stays reverted. Please undo your reversion of me so that we are at the status quo ante, that is, where we were before SV added it. And it is no more solely up to me than it is solely up to you... but when I count up the moves, adds, removals, forks and other changes made without discussion either before or after in the Rodeo area recently, you are by far the person who seems to be exhibiting "what I say goes" behaviour. Try not to make it seem that way. ++Lar: t/c 05:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

How can the fact that it's banned in many countries be undue? Notable controversies should be in the lead, per WP:LEAD. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There is an entire section for controversies, that level of detail belongs in that section, it's enough to mention that there is controversy in the lead. Else it's undue weight. ++Lar: t/c 05:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

SV is correct. WP asks us to note controversies in the lead. I can understand your concern about detail, Lar. How about a compromise? See lead and specific section. Buttermilk1950 (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

My 2p:I feel it belongs in the lead. That rodeo is banned in several countries and in parts of the US, and is widely opposed by animal welfare organisations, strikes me as information that clearly warrants inclusion per WP:LEAD. --MoreThings (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for developing this article 4

Sections still needed: Australia, New Zealand, Europe, and Brazil! Buttermilk1950 (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Rodeos were held in Aus long before 1929. You need a better ref. Cgoodwin (talk) 06:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

My source (the University of Nebraska Press) says 1929. I'd call UNP a reliable source per WP:RS. Or am I wrong? If you have a source that indicates otherwise, please pass it along to me! I'd love to see it! BTW, would you like to write the Australia section? I know you'd do a great job! Please don't disappoint us by saying "no". Even if could only devote a few minutes a day to the section, it would be so much appreciated. We could make a collaborative effort of it. Please say "yes!" Thanks so very much! Buttermilk1950 (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, Buttermilk1950, while sources are important, we also have to use them wisely. If we know something to be true from experience, (such as grass being green, or the sun rising in the east, or not all rodeos having parades) but some university researcher has written that grass is red, or the sun rises in the south, or all rodeos have parades, that doesn't mean our experience is wrong. It means the source is. OR that the actual truth is more complex than that particular university researcher thought, or that we thought. You are putting blind faith in particular sources, and when people who are more expert in this topic than you are tell you that these sources are wrong, you need to listen, and then you need to search for more sources, and try to resolve the conflict by using all the sources together, instead of stubbornly sticking to a position that isn't necessarily supportable, just because some book says so. Oddly, some anthropologists happen to be wrong about the things they assert in their books. ++Lar: t/c 12:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ditto to Lar's comment. I have tagged the article for factual accuracy. Just because it's "A" source does not mean the source is correct. CGoodwin has proven, from a long time working on wikipedia, that CG is a knowledgeable editor about matters Australian and is also able to find supporting sources. I take issue with your wholesale hijacking of this article, Buttermilk, but I cannot go online day after day and spend hours fixing all the mistakes you have made. I made several good faith attempts to incorporate the best of your work into the stable parts of what has been done previously, I clearly outlined any number of problems in the other article, and basically have no energy for this fight right now. So let me know when you are ready to listen to advice from other, more experienced editors with actual knowledge in the field. Montanabw^(talk) 22:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Source for "official sport of Alberta" ??

This statement from the Canada section:

"The Legislature of Alberta has considered making rodeo the official sport of that province, however, enabling legislation has yet to be passed.[35]"

I'm not sure the source supports it. Perhaps a check on the source from another editor here could give me some insight. Maybe I missed something. Buttermilk1950 (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wording of the Lead

I'm concerned about the first paragraph in the lead: "Rodeo (IPA: /ˈroʊdioʊ/ or /roʊˈdeɪoʊ/) is a contest in an arena in which participants attempt to control or confront livestock—cattle, horses, sheep, and goats— before an audience. It has its origins in the working practices of vaqueros, cowboys and herdsmen in Spain, Mexico, the United States of America, Canada, South America, and Australia."

I think the first sentence is somewhat stiff. I'm concerned it may "turn off" WP's younger readers. How about:

"Rodeo is a contest that pits humans against cattle, horses, and sometimes other livestock. Rodeo (IPA: /ˈroʊdioʊ/ or /roʊˈdeɪoʊ/) has its origins in the working practices of herdsmen worldwide, and today, contests are staged before audiences in arenas built for the purpose."

I think this is something youngsters may understand immediately. Buttermilk1950 (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The way it is now is more accurate than your proposal. The "pits humans against" wording was removed. Try rewording the sentence without changing any of the key points into different ones. Also, please use more specific headings than "suggestion" or "discussion please 3" ++Lar: t/c 12:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

WP is not a children's encyclopedia; we shouldn't be tuning language specifically to be understandably by younger readers. That said, I prefer the second version; for me, it flows better. I think it's accurate to say that contestants are pitted against animals. In most of the events a contestant is trying to achieve something that an animal is trying prevent. It's true that the event is a contest between humans. It's also true that the humans are pitted against animals.

Does anyone feel that the fact that it is primarily an event in which contestants are mounted on horseback should be stated explicitly somewhere in the lead? --MoreThings (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see the first several sentences immediate, appealing, while still encyclopedic in tone. A paragraph that will appeal to adults as well as children. Instead of "control and confront" how about "rope, ride, and wrestle", (which adequately covers the essence of rodeo worldwide)? Try this:

"Rodeo is a contest bringing humans and animals together in an arena before an audience. In the United States, men, women, and even children attempt to rope, ride, or wrestle cattle, horses, sheep, and goats. Canada and other countries stage rodeos with similar events while Mexican charreada has nine roping and riding events for men and a precision riding event for young women.

"Rodeo (IPA: /ˈroʊdioʊ/ or /roʊˈdeɪoʊ/) has its origins in the working practices of herdsmen worldwide and rodeo contestants are invariably mounted on horseback. In the United States, rodeo calf roping is directly based on the ranch tasks of nineteenth century cowboys and etc. etc. etc."

That's good for me. Makes a nice job of concisely summarising the article.

Perhaps "Canada, Australia and other ..." would include most of the main US-format centres, and a mention of Chile, where it's a national sport would also be good.

A couple of possible minor tweaks: "Rodeo (IPA: /ˈroʊdioʊ/ or /roʊˈdeɪoʊ/) has its origins [roots?] in the working practices of herdsmen worldwide and rodeo contestants are..." - I like roots although it's perhaps more colourful and less encyclopedic. --MoreThings (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the wording that MoreThings has written above, because in some events like barrel racing and campdrafting, also known as cutting, the rider and horse are not "pitted against" each other, but working together as a team. In fact, in campdrafting and cutting, the rider should follow the horses lead and allow the horse to be in control. - Josette (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I also think it should be noted that "With the exception of bull riding, all events in rodeos come directly off everyday ranch work." which can be found here at Ropes, reins, and rawhide By Melody Groves with explanations starting on page 8. - Josette (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Check this:

"Rodeo is a contest bringing humans and animals together in an arena before an audience. In the United States of America, men, women, and even children attempt to rope, ride, or wrestle cattle, horses, sheep, and goats. Canada, Australia, and other countries stage rodeos with similar events while Mexican charreada has nine roping and riding events for men and a precision riding event for young women. Chilean rodeo features two mounted contestants pinning a calf against a wall of the arena.

"Rodeo (IPA: /ˈroʊdioʊ/ or /roʊˈdeɪoʊ/) has its roots in the practices of herdsmen worldwide and most events are directly related to their everyday work. Contestants are usually mounted on horseback. Rodeo calf roping is directly based on the ranch tasks of nineteenth century cowboys and etc. etc. etc."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttermilk1950 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 3 April 2009

This seems good to me. I think the pronunciation should be in the first sentence though. Josette (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Sounds good to me, too. Be interested to hear the views of Montana et al. Here's a possible amendment, just for the sake of discussion:

"Rodeo is a contest bringing humans and animals together in an arena before an audience. A rodeo (IPA: /ˈroʊdioʊ/ or /roʊˈdeɪoʊ/) is a competition held in public arena in which mounted competitors are awarded points for completing tasks based on traditonal ranching skills. In the United States of America, men, women, and even children attempt to rope, ride, or wrestle cattle, horses, sheep, and goats. Canada, Australia, and other countries stage rodeos with similar events while Mexican charreada has nine roping and riding events for men and a precision riding event for young women. Chilean rodeo features two mounted contestants pinning a calf against a wall of the arena.

"Rodeo has its roots in the practices of herdsmen worldwide and most events are directly related to their everyday work. Contestants are usually mounted on horseback. Rodeo calf roping is directly based on the ranch tasks of nineteenth century cowboys and etc. etc. etc." --MoreThings (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the section title from "Discussion Please 2" to "Wording of the Lead" which is much more descriptive. As I said, in future, please choose descriptive section headings so that the Table of Contents reads well. As talk pages get longer this becomes more and more important to aid new readers. That said, I think this new wording is now OK. I'd like to suggest more stuff be bluelinked... things the reader might well want to follow up on. One of the versions I smithed had "cowboys" linked and I do think that sort of thing might be beneficial. ++Lar: t/c 19:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Lar! I'll keep that in mind. Buttermilk1950 (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

A stab at adding in some blue:

A rodeo (IPA: /ˈroʊdioʊ/ or /roʊˈdeɪoʊ/) is a competition held in public arena in which mounted competitors are awarded points for completing tasks based on traditonal ranching skills. In the United States of America, cowboys, cowgirls, and even children attempt to rope, ride, or wrestle cattle, horses, sheep, and goats. Canada, Australia, and other countries stage rodeos with similar events while Mexican charreada has nine roping and riding events for men and a precision riding event for young women. Chilean rodeo features two mounted contestants pinning a calf against a wall of the arena.

"Rodeo has its roots in the practices of herdsmen worldwide and most events are directly related to their everyday work. Rodeo calf roping is directly based on the ranch tasks of nineteenth century cowboys and etc. etc. etc." --MoreThings (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's not reinvent the wheel. The version of this article on March 2, 2009 had a perfectly decent lead that could easily be expanded to add in the international material. Frankly, this article has been so messed up and my comments have been shut down so often that I am just going to take the last decent draft and move it to a sandbox until the dust settles. I have little interest in fighting with Buttermilk any more. If any one wants to recover the proper material and the sources for it, they are free to borrow. But for starters, pretty much all rodeos have cattle and horses, not all rodeos have goat tying, and the only events with sheep are novelty events at the occasional county fair. So "livestock" (which I submitted over a week ago and was immediately reverted) is better than giving undue weight to "goats and sheep." Rodeo itself is NOT a sport derived from "herdsmen worldwide" (Gendered language problem there too), it has specific roots in the Colonial Spanish, and then Mexican traditions that became part of the Western United States (and many early rodeos were actually in the north, not the southwest) Montanabw^(talk) 21:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

---

For historical benefit, here was the old lead as of March 29: Montanabw^(talk) 21:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Rodeo (IPA: /ˈroʊdioʊ/ or /roʊˈdeɪoʊ/) is a sport which arose out of the working practices of cattle herding in Spain, Mexico, and later the United States, Canada, South America and Australia. It was based on the skills required of the working vaqueros and later, cowboys, in what today is the western United States, western Canada, and northern Mexico. Today it is a sporting event that consists of events that involve horses and other livestock, designed to test the skill and speed of the human cowboy and cowgirl athletes who participate. 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]The events are divided into two basic catergories: the rough stock events and the timed events.[2] Depending on sanctioning organization and region, other events such as breakaway roping, goat tying, or pole bending may also be a part of some rodeos.

---

I personally like this lead much better. I think it would be good to add the Mexican charreada information and keep the paragraph at the end which states the protest and opposition information. I must admit I have never seen goats or sheep at a rodeo. - Josette (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this any better?

A rodeo (IPA: /ˈroʊdioʊ/ or /roʊˈdeɪoʊ/) is a competition held in a public arena in which mounted competitors are awarded points for completing tasks based on traditional ranching skills. In the United States of America, cowboys, cowgirls, and even children attempt to rope, ride, or wrestle cattle and horses; occasionally, sheep and goats are also included. Canada, Australia, and some European countries stage rodeos with similar events. Mexican charreada has nine roping and riding events for men and a precision riding event for young women. Chilean rodeo features two mounted contestants attempting to pin a calf against a wall of the arena.

Rodeo has its roots in the 16th century. It grew from the working practices of vaqueros—the antecedents of the modern cowboy. Vaqueros were cattle herders in Spain and the Spanish territories of the Americas. Later, Anglo-Americans acquired cattle ranching skills, and in the nineteenth century there was a fusion of the two cattle-herding cultures. Rodeo calf roping is directly based on the ranch tasks of nineteenth century cowboys and etc. etc. etc." --MoreThings (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

While this is an improvement over some of the earlier versions offered in this section, I have to say that I far favor the earlier lead that Montanabw just gave us an example of. With the exception of one nit ("a sporting event that consists of events"... using two "event"s in the same sentence is awkward) I think it flows better, is more succinct, and most importantly, is a more accurate and carefully balanced summary of the topic. I suggest we go back to it, perhaps with some additions... it's the result of considerable effort. I do think your improvements are good though, if consensus to go back to that one can't be had, you've offered valuable improvement. ++Lar: t/c 03:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the version immediately above by MoreThings flows well, and has a breadth that immediately reflects the content of the article. It is accurate and appealing. It invites the reader to continue. While Montana's version is quite good, it focuses chiefly on US rodeo rather than rodeo worldwide. I question whether most of the events of US rodeo need to be listed so soon in the lead. The recitation and then the immediate echo of countries in Montanabw's lead: Mexico...Mexico, United States...United States, Canada...Canada could be reworked, and the echoes of "event", "event", "event", "events"; "working" and "working"; "sport" and "sporting" all toppling one upon another could be reworked as well. I wonder about this term: "human cowboy".

MoreThings has written an accurate, appealing lead that retains an encyclopedic style and begins the article brilliantly. I think it important that a worldwide perspective be established at once and previous versions are too US-centric. Additionally, Montanabw's version features "lists" of countries and events which I find somthing of an obstacle to the flow. It also mentions "timed and rough stock" which may confuse readers unfamiliar with anything rodeo. That sort of thing can be saved for later. I suggest a few minor tweaks to MoreThing's version that do not alter the meaning:

A rodeo (IPA: /ˈroʊdioʊ/ or /roʊˈdeɪoʊ/) is a competition held in a public arena in which mounted (contestants or participants to avoid the competition / competitors echo) are awarded points for completing tasks based on traditional ranching skills. In the United States of America, cowboys, cowgirls, and even children attempt to rope, ride, or wrestle cattle, horses, and sometimes sheep and goats. Canada, Australia, and some European countries stage similar sorts of rodeos. In Latin America, the charreada of Mexico has nine roping and riding events for men and a precision riding event for young women. Chilean rodeo features mounted contestants attempting to pin calves against the arena wall.

Rodeo has its roots in the 16th century cattle herding practices of vaqueros of Spain and the Spanish territories of the Americas. These antecedents of the modern cowboy developed roping and riding skills that ...etc.etc.etc. Later, Anglo-Americans acquired cattle ranching skills, and in the nineteenth century there was a fusion of the two cattle-herding cultures. Etc. etc. etc." --MoreThings (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this discussion should continue with input from other readers and editors. I'd like to hear the views of Montana on the revisions. Let's not rush to judgement on this however. The opening sentences and paragraphs are very important in stating the essence of an article as well as persuading users to continue reading. Buttermilk1950 (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I like Buttermilk's changes. I think they're an improvement. I'd probably go for contestants over participants. --MoreThings (talk) 12:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I still like the other one better but if we go with this one than I think United States of America should be changed to just United States. Goats and sheep are very minor and should not be in the lead and if you don't want events talked about than the events in Chile and Mexico should not be there either. And in the lead I think Canada, Australia and South America should be given just as much weight as the United States. - Josette (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality and Factual Accuracy Tags

We have neutrality and a factual accuracy tags slapped at the head of the article. Could someone explain where the article has problems in these areas so an investigation may be conducted? For the future, please discuss in depth your reasons for slapping tags about. In this way, editors devoted to the development of this article can begin an investigation. Thanks! Buttermilk1950 (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Please review the article for neutrality. I can't find anything. I am asking for a consensus on this issue. Shall we retain the tag or remove it? Please review the article and respond KEEP or REMOVE here. Thanks! Buttermilk1950 (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The tag needs to stay, you continue to ask for help and consensus, but yet you continue to edit the article with out consensus. - Josette (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Josette, for pointing that out. You are correct. Could you please read the article and point out the reasons the tag should remain. I can't find anything. Thanks! ItsLassieTime (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• There are no POV issues here. The tag should be removed. ItsLassieTime (talk) 23:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• I rewrote the animal treatment section. I don't find any POV problems in the article and the tag should be removed. Buttermilk1950 (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Montanabw: Admin Noticeboard

Hello, Rodeo. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttermilk1950 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 4 April 2009

The results of that ANI post are here. Cla68 (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Deep breath, and start again

OK, in light of the above, I restored the article to the last "Clean" version, which was that of March 29. Let's start again and see if we can actually improve this article with real collaboration and consensus. Contrary to past accusations, I do not "own" this article, and any minor changes that help make the article clearer and better written, just go do it, with a clear edit summary and hidden text to explain what you did, if needed. If major changes are needed, let's discuss. Montanabw^(talk) 02:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Good! We need a section on Australia if anyone is interested. - Josette (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Was there one in the last version of Buttermilk's? I think there WAS some good international material added (though the sections with their own article were a bit long) and if an Aussie section came in there during the rush, I'm groovy with someone popping it in. Montanabw^(talk) 04:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That was too far back, Montana. The lead you reverted to, for example, was far too long. Please let's start from the current version. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to help with either version. - Josette (talk) 09:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep. I'm happy to chip in to help where I can. I think one issue that needs to be resolved is the balance between rodeo and Rodeo in the United States.

I think I would prefer to use the latest version as a starting point. I did like the way the lead was going. That said, I'm probably not going to be able to spend large amounts of time here, and I'm happy to have that taken into consideration when determining the best way forward. --MoreThings (talk) 11:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, I think going back to where Montanabw went to is not at all unreasonable, the article as a whole was better then. The new lead could be inserted rapidly, and then the hundreds of edits made by B combed through to find things of value to reincorporate (such as the AU stuff, for example) but that place is a better starting point in my view. Further I think stepping back and looking at the entire article family would be beneficial... which things should be put where and what set of articles should remain, evaluated as a whole, (across this, Rodeo in the United States, Rodeo associations, Women in rodeo et al) would be very good to do. That's my view. My wife may not agree. :) ++Lar: t/c 12:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, sometimes you do have to go "too far back" in order to wipe out vandalisms and bad content and such. Then you just have to open two windows - one with the just-previous version, and one with the current version - and look for useful stuff to copy back into the current version. In short, the practical way to do what Lar just suggested above. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Both versions need work in my opinion so I am willing to help with either one and I agree with MoreThings, the balance between Rodeo and Rodeo in the United States needs to be resolved (merged). Montanabw is one of the experts here, she knows far more about rodeos and rodeo sources than most and has admitted that the old article needed work. I suggest we work on the lead as it is. The history and etymology sections are virtually the same. As far as the rest, maybe we can go back to the older version remove a section or two and start to clean up the other sections. I will be happy to start that work if no one objects.- Josette (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi gang, per WP:LEAD, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the content of the article with no original content not discussed in depth elsewhere. This means a) its length will be related to the length of the whole article, and b) there isn't a lot of sense to tweaking it extensively until we have the article content itself stable, because we will just wind up changing it. (For an example of a very long, but necessarily so, lead in a GA-class horse article, see Horses in warfare) The overall article version I reverted to, that of March 29, reflects the last stable version prior to Buttermilk's massive edits. I am going to restore that version one more time, per what seems to be a slight majority in favor. I have NO PROBLEM with working forward from there to add back in the best of what was placed into the article by other editors (and even some of Buttermilk's material wasn't too bad), but we do need to start from a basically factual base and improve it from there. Buttermilk's edits were so extensive that it's nearly impossible to sort out the wheat from the chaff. I put in at least a couple hours initially trying to do this at first, then threw up my hands in despair. Each of you know what you added, and my thinking is that it will be a lot easier for you to jump into the history and grab out your stuff than to go through Buttermilk's whole mess to find the remaining 75% of the article that was originally there. I really hope that those of us left now that the dust settled can work cooperatively to reach consensus on this article. Montanabw^(talk) 21:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed the Independent Views section, there was a strong objection to it and the source was questionable. - Josette (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Okey dokey. Somewhere we need to work in what stats there are on animal injury, but I can see your point. Some of the earlier objections I will have missed because my blood pressure just wasn't up to the whole discussion during the sockpuppet activity. Thanks for keeping the institutional memory on this Montanabw^(talk) 22:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

FOLLOW UP: I made a couple edits to work in some of the stuff that was in the last of BM's version of the article, particularly some of the international material. I also put in all references that were added, even if they aren't necessarily in footnotes at the moment, they may be used later, so we might as well keep them for easy access. I put in hidden text to explain some of what I was doing here and there. As I have stated, I agree that there is room to improve this article, and at this point, I think that we have a base to work from that contains all relevant sections. I'd most sincerely like to consider this version (my last edit) as the starting point and I beg of everyone not to do another revert to BM's last revision, which is going to take hours to sort through. I fully support a merge of the rodeo in the US article, I am comparing this article to Baseball (thanks, Bugs!) where they have ONE article with an international section, but otherwise describe what is a quintessentially American sport (even if there are European roots to baseball). Montanabw^(talk) 22:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)