Talk:White Park cattle

Uniqueness of White Parks

Recent edits by User:ShirleySue suggest that the genetic separation of White Parks from British Whites and other cattle is "misinformation". My understanding is that this is not the case, but is based on good scientific study. I do not however know the original references. We need those refs, but we do not have evidence to show they are they are false either. The correct way of dealing with it is with a "fact" tag, or with an alternative ref.

The edits go on to say that the article by Jessica Hemmings has "proven false" the genetic uniqueness of White Parks. This is not correct. Her article is indeed excellent, but it is a historical paper, not a biological one. It proves no such thing. In fact it is weak on cattle biology, including a number of basic errors about cattle genetics.

The article's phrasing as it stands reads with heavy POV, and is unnecessarily accusatory. At present the only option I can see is wholesale reversion of the recent edits. Any other views?

Incidentally, references such as "Hall, 1991" are not helpful without the full citation. Which Hall, which publication? Likewise, the Jessica Hemming ref is not complete – I happen to have seen it before (Jessica Hemming, "Bos Primigenius in Britain: Or, Why Do Fairy Cows Have Red Ears?" Folklore Magazine, April 2002), but I could not have found it from the ref in this article. Richard New Forest (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hall is now fully cited, as well as the UK genetic database that was once accessible. Try to think beyond Alderson, he is responsible for much misleading information. Oftentimes, history becomes a reflection of who spoke loudest and longest -- Alderson is becoming that historian for both polled and horned Park cattle. Do your own research, read Storer, Hall, and Auld for starters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShirleySue (talk • contribs) 01:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the point of Wikipaedia is that I don't have to do my own research. Anything in the article should be based on verifiable sources, fully referenced. If I check the sources I should not find anything different from the article. Laurence Alderson is highly respected, and I think you need a good deal more than "look beyond" him to discredit him as a source.

We still have hoplessly incomplete references – we can't have "http://www.databases.roslin.ac.uk" as a ref without some indication showing where on that server the information can be found. (Incidentally it ought to be an in-line ref, not an external link.)

This still does not address the highly POV tone of the text. Encyclopaedias must be dispassionate. If there is controversy, both sides must be presented, fully referenced; any analysis must also be from external sources. Richard New Forest (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It is actually a misreading of the article, which I have here before me. It refers almost exclusively to the Chillingham Cattle; the White Park is only mentioned in passing, as a possible ancestor of the Chillingham herd. All this disputed information here belongs into the Chillingham article. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator, as recorded below. BarrelProof (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

---

White Park cattle → White Park – The article was moved without discussion to its present title. "White Park cattle" is ambiguous. It refers to the breeds: White Park (Oklahoma State University) and American White Park (Oklhoma State University) and (maybe) even to the British White. White Park cattle itself may be a disambiguation.
The White Park is also subject of the Speckle Park-RM, that I may split up with that request: Talk:Canadian Speckle Park#Requested moves. It is not mentioned within the request on Talk:Teeswater sheep#Requested move 25 August 2014 PigeonIP (talk) 10:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, User:SMcCandlish made a sensible move. A park is a park. See: Black Park, Green Park, Green Park, Delhi, Green Park, Pennsylvania, Green Park, Richmond, Virginia, Red Park, Michigan, Red Rocks Park, Orange Park, Florida area, Orange Park (New Jersey) area. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there a White Park (park), the cattle breed has to be distinguished from? If so, it would be White Park (cattle). White Park cattle has to be a disambiguation. --PigeonIP (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose "White Park" should be a disambiguation page [1] -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 16:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: There are other candidate topics for White Park, such as White Park (Concord, New Hampshire), White Park, County Antrim, and White Park Bay, and no evidence has been shown that the cattle are the primary topic for "White Park", so White Park should become a dab page. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, 65.94.171.225 already created the appropriate dab page, but it's at White park rather than White Park. I suggest moving it to White Park, since all of its entries use an uppercase "Park". —BarrelProof (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

convinced. If I do a mistake cancelling this RM, please correct me. --PigeonIP (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

References

I came across this page pretty much by chance just now, and have removed some stuff about trying to re-create the aurochs, and also a couple a patently non-WP:RS sources. There seems to be a lot of work to be done here. Unless there's any objection on this page, I propose over the next few days to:

• remove OSU as a ref; their page seems to be full of fanciful stuff which they apparently did not get from the references they cite; unfortunately this site has proved, again and again, to be quite (as in "completely") unreliable
• remove a lot of dubious, unreferenced and/or irrelevant content, including a lot of stuff about Ireland; Ireland has its own colour-pointed breed, the Irish Moiled, and the mythology of that has no place here – or probably anywhere else, unless someone wants to start a page on Colour-pointed cattle in mythology?
• add a number of additional references, some of which (e.g., Mason 6th edition) I've already identified, others will need to be found
• add some factual content based on those references and a few that are already in the page,
• only if there is no objection voiced here, change the referencing system to list-defined, so as to get the refs out of the text and into their own section, and thus make it that much easier to read the mark-up.

Richard New Forest, Dysmorodrepanis, might you give a hand with some/any of that? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)