This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Arapawa pig article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've just removed from this article some stuff about how it is not a breed but a " landrace" (a word we don't usually use in English); editors may like to note that this is exactly the same argument that was recently presented, and dismissed in short order, at Talk:Kiger Mustang.
I've no idea whether these pigs constitute a breed or not - they don't seem to be reported as such to DAD-IS - but the article has exactly one source at present, and that is entitled "Arapawa Pigs: A Rare Breed of New Zealand Origin". In Wikipedia we base articles on the sources, not on personal opinion or conviction; that source seems reliable (it's the Rare Breeds Conservation Society of New Zealand), and also incidentally links to the breed standards for the Arapawa Pig. If there are other sources that say this is not a breed but a "landrace" then please cite them so that they can be weighed against this one. I had a quick look and didn't find any such. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 17:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Secondly, you're misrepresenting entirely the nature of the RfC at Talk:Kiger mustang, which was a split or re-scope discussion; it did not challenge in any way the idea that the article in question covered both a landrace population and standardized breed (possibly two separate ones, that may be trademarked) derived from the landrace; the discussion concluded against the idea of treating them in two articles, or in significantly re-scoping the article to focus on one rather than the other. The article still need work, because much of it conflates the two populations, in what amounts to accidental original research.
The same things seems to be happening here, with
WP:FILIBUSTERing of any attempts to differentiate between the actual feral, landrace population and the bare beginnings of an effort at standardized breeding (F1, with a tiny number of piglets, only 4; it takes several generations to establish a standardized breed, so no such breed yet exists, and many if not most attempts at breed establishment fail). Trying to spin this article as being about a standardized breed is a
WP:CRYSTAL policy failure. The fact that the Rare Breeds Conservation Society of New Zealand have made up a "breed standard of sorts for these efforts
[1] simply tells us they have a plan, something they are breeding toward. They're clear that they don't even know what they're really going to get and that the "standard" is a draft that may change: " NOTE: as domestic breeding and feeding continues, type may well change to resemble domestic type...[list of some predicted changes]"
. I.e., it's their goal to have the standardized breed differ from the landrace population it's being derived from (as is almost always the case in such breeding efforts - they want to capture a few particular traits, and ditch the rest). Come back in 10 or 15 years with a breed standard published and accepted by mainstream New Zealand Pig Breeders Association, and an actuall multi-generational, stable F4 or later breeding stock in notable numbers, then you've got something. And you definitely don't have that right now. Let's quote directly again
[2]: "The Rare Breeds Conservation Society of New Zealand recognizes a number of geographically defined feral livestock groups throughout New Zealand as individual breeds unique to this country."
I.e., "breed" is a desngiation being imposed by RBCSNZ for their own internal puprpose; it's not a scientific designation by outside observers, but internal jargon. "Throughout recent decades various ‘identifications’ of these animals, based almost entirely on physical similarities to known livestock breeds, have been suggested, along with their ‘histories’, few if any of which have been the result of valid research of original sources of information. Many of these have become accepted as fact by rare breed enthusiasts as well as members of the general public – both in New Zealand and overseas – although several have been proven recently to be incorrect. At no time has the administrative Committee of the Rare Breeds Conservation Society of New Zealand formally accepted any of these identifications or histories as having any official status or support – sometimes in the face of considerable pressure for it to do so. The Society disassociates itself from all such unofficial designations as applied to any of our feral animals...."
I.e., even RBCSNZ is rejecting claims that these or another feral populations within their scope are identifiable as any sort of standardized breed at all or even clearly related to anyway. Claiming in this article that they aren't is just OR, it's OR directly against the very sources you're trying to rely upon.
Third, no one is saying in the dispute text that it's "a landrace not a breed"; I'm applying Sponenberg and FAO's term "landrace breed", i.e. a "breed" in the broadest possible sense (broad enough for RBCSNZ's usage too), that also qualifies it as a landrace under the criteria describes and reliable sourced in the landrace article, to distinguish the feral population from a would-be standardized breed. Editwarring away from this clarity is just going to confuse readers, for no reason whatsoever, except POV dislike of the word "landrace". You horse and pig people really need to get over the idea that every term that can be applied to such an animal has to be something that its own breeders prefer to use. There is nothing wrong with application of basic zoology terminology to pigs just because you don't like it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I keep being reverted not only on use of the word "landrace" in this article, despite the fact that this fits the definitions at Landrace, but on every change I make here, by the same two editors who follow me around and revert most of my changes to all domestic animal breed articles. It's not a "breed" except in the widest possible sense of that word, and it definitely qualifies as a landrace. The editors in question keep claiming that it's original research to use the term "landrace" here. I counter that it's original research compounded by POV-pushing to keep try to suppress the fact that this is not a real breed, it's just a feral, free-breeding population. I'm happy to have an RFC about this, or some other process for resolving this dispute, but it's not going to go away by WP:TAGTEAM revert-on-sight behavior. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
<sarcasm>
whopping</sarcasm>
6 breeders were attempting to establish a standardized breed from Arapawa stock, were changing it from the original in various ways their draft standard predicted, and we have no data at all on their progress or failure since 2008; that's 6 years in which the entire project could have collapsed, could still be struggling or could have succeeded;
WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. Now you're going to tell me on what reliable sources basis you're going to continue pushing the angle this is a formal breed, and capitalized? Oh, by the way, I provided a realible source against capitalizing it as "Arapawa Pig", too. So SMcCandlish 2, Jlan 0. Shall we go for round 2? Or maybe you want to realize that you don't
WP:OWN the articles and no matter what your distaste for terminology unfamiliar to you, or for me personally, this isn't going your way, not even with a coordinated
WP:TAGTEAM to evade 3RR. You don't get to suppress science terms because they're not the terms you like best. To address your non ad homimem points, the article has more sources from the same publisher now, and they do not write "Arapawa Pig" except in title-case headings. Meanwhile they state clearly that labeling this as a "breed" is something they are doing for their own internal purposes; it's NRBSNZ insider jargon, is is not a fact they've pulled from any reliable sources such as zoology journals. If NRBSNZ decided to call them a "supermegabreed", WP would not follow suit, per
WP:NEO and
WP:NFT. RBCSNZ is reliable for all sorts of limited things, but not for redefining the meanings of zoological terminology on their whim. One thing they're reliable for is rejecting various claims that this is indentifiable as a standardized breed or even clearly related to any, because they've done the research and it comes up empty. They've even issued warnings that claims some breeders are making may be legally actionalbe as fraudulent. But I guess you missed all that. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
09:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)PS: You and Montanabw both really need to get it through your heads that people referring you to citations in other articles isn't "Wikipedia citing itself", a claim both you sport-argumention fans falsely make about twice per week; it's a pointer to where the homework has already been done for you, so you can just go spending two minutes looking at it and actually have some pertinent facts in hand, for a change. You two do clearly care what is "true", in your personal reality tunnel, vs. verifiabile, as you keep ignoring or selectively misquoting sources to try to get your way. Fortunately for WP, some editors like me will check your work and call "shenaningans" on source misuse like that, as I've done here and in so many other articles. I kind of specialize in it at this point. My policy analyst, tech writer and paralegal backgrounds make me good at it. It's how I brought the race-bating hatewars over Turkish Van, Van cat and Van cat naming controversy to a standstill, without even having to get anyone blocked under WP:ARBAA2. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
{[od}}SM raised a suCbstantive issue? I see no such thing, just more rants and attacks. Montanabw (talk) 03:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
SMC, as usual, you are engaging in vicious personal attacks,using walls of tl;dr text for edit-warring, and then exploding with vitriol whenever someone calls you on the reality that you create your own reality: You work on WP articles in one place (i.e.
landrace) then edit-war to keep your version against anyone trying to disagree with you until you have run off everyone else, then use that article (filled with your own opinions and original research as well as mis-cited sources) to argue that article should be a source for another article. This will not hold up under scrutiny, and you need to stop this now. Here, there is ZERO evidence this pig breed is actually called a landrace by anyone, and absent a solid source, just the observation that it might parallel Sponenberg's definition of a landrace is
WP:SYNTH at best and not acceptable.
Montanabw
(talk)
02:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
There are more reasons your edits were problematic, but I will not create a wall of text, as I am quite certain you will dispute everything I have listed here and will not agree with any of it anyway. But if anyone else cares, here it is. Montanabw (talk) 03:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
The issuance of a ... breed standard is by definition trying to create a standardized breed. I have now refuted two more of your positions, on this subthread alone. There are many other refutations, above, that you have not addressed, and they are not going away. We can open an RFC about each one individually if that's what it takes to come to a consensus on this article's content and accuracy. You keep labelling my refusal to allow you to ignore arguments you don't like as "bullying", but it's not. It's standard operating procedure in article accuracy and neutrality disputes. Discussion continues until consensus is reached. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Minor clarification: I DID remove "pigs.co.nz" because it has nothing to do with anything, it is an organization for pedigreed show breeds, and the conclusion drawn from it was pure SYNTH. I also removed the directory because it is an opt-in page and also did not verify anything - as people self-select to be included, it only stands to note that six breeders wanted to have a listing, not that there were only six breeders, or that ANY of the six were attempting to create a standardized breed. Again, SYNTH in the extreme Montanabw (talk) 04:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
My real point: No breed registries anywhere consider the Arapawa a standardized breed, just a feral population. All three of us, I think (you, me, Jlan) have been looking, and it's just not there. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
It's childishly simple to find sources that refer to this pig breed as a breed. I've added a couple. Perhaps SMcCandlish would now either cite some sources in support of his position (which, if I've understood it correctly, is that this is not a breed but a "landrace"), or agree to drop this particular twig? This search may be helpful. Or do we need an RfC here too? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 09:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Our dispute is about source interpretation and applicability – a core part of how we serve those best interests of the article, encyclopedia and reader, that we're both trying to serve. Stick to the policy matters and the sources. When I observe what I think is a SYNTH, UNDUE or POV problem, I spell out precisely what problem I see and upon what basis. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Off-topic. Dreadstar ☥ 15:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I am un-hatting comments collapsed by SMC. This is highly inappropriate. SMC also ALTERED MY COMMENTS. He may
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Arapawa pig article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've just removed from this article some stuff about how it is not a breed but a " landrace" (a word we don't usually use in English); editors may like to note that this is exactly the same argument that was recently presented, and dismissed in short order, at Talk:Kiger Mustang.
I've no idea whether these pigs constitute a breed or not - they don't seem to be reported as such to DAD-IS - but the article has exactly one source at present, and that is entitled "Arapawa Pigs: A Rare Breed of New Zealand Origin". In Wikipedia we base articles on the sources, not on personal opinion or conviction; that source seems reliable (it's the Rare Breeds Conservation Society of New Zealand), and also incidentally links to the breed standards for the Arapawa Pig. If there are other sources that say this is not a breed but a "landrace" then please cite them so that they can be weighed against this one. I had a quick look and didn't find any such. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 17:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Secondly, you're misrepresenting entirely the nature of the RfC at Talk:Kiger mustang, which was a split or re-scope discussion; it did not challenge in any way the idea that the article in question covered both a landrace population and standardized breed (possibly two separate ones, that may be trademarked) derived from the landrace; the discussion concluded against the idea of treating them in two articles, or in significantly re-scoping the article to focus on one rather than the other. The article still need work, because much of it conflates the two populations, in what amounts to accidental original research.
The same things seems to be happening here, with
WP:FILIBUSTERing of any attempts to differentiate between the actual feral, landrace population and the bare beginnings of an effort at standardized breeding (F1, with a tiny number of piglets, only 4; it takes several generations to establish a standardized breed, so no such breed yet exists, and many if not most attempts at breed establishment fail). Trying to spin this article as being about a standardized breed is a
WP:CRYSTAL policy failure. The fact that the Rare Breeds Conservation Society of New Zealand have made up a "breed standard of sorts for these efforts
[1] simply tells us they have a plan, something they are breeding toward. They're clear that they don't even know what they're really going to get and that the "standard" is a draft that may change: " NOTE: as domestic breeding and feeding continues, type may well change to resemble domestic type...[list of some predicted changes]"
. I.e., it's their goal to have the standardized breed differ from the landrace population it's being derived from (as is almost always the case in such breeding efforts - they want to capture a few particular traits, and ditch the rest). Come back in 10 or 15 years with a breed standard published and accepted by mainstream New Zealand Pig Breeders Association, and an actuall multi-generational, stable F4 or later breeding stock in notable numbers, then you've got something. And you definitely don't have that right now. Let's quote directly again
[2]: "The Rare Breeds Conservation Society of New Zealand recognizes a number of geographically defined feral livestock groups throughout New Zealand as individual breeds unique to this country."
I.e., "breed" is a desngiation being imposed by RBCSNZ for their own internal puprpose; it's not a scientific designation by outside observers, but internal jargon. "Throughout recent decades various ‘identifications’ of these animals, based almost entirely on physical similarities to known livestock breeds, have been suggested, along with their ‘histories’, few if any of which have been the result of valid research of original sources of information. Many of these have become accepted as fact by rare breed enthusiasts as well as members of the general public – both in New Zealand and overseas – although several have been proven recently to be incorrect. At no time has the administrative Committee of the Rare Breeds Conservation Society of New Zealand formally accepted any of these identifications or histories as having any official status or support – sometimes in the face of considerable pressure for it to do so. The Society disassociates itself from all such unofficial designations as applied to any of our feral animals...."
I.e., even RBCSNZ is rejecting claims that these or another feral populations within their scope are identifiable as any sort of standardized breed at all or even clearly related to anyway. Claiming in this article that they aren't is just OR, it's OR directly against the very sources you're trying to rely upon.
Third, no one is saying in the dispute text that it's "a landrace not a breed"; I'm applying Sponenberg and FAO's term "landrace breed", i.e. a "breed" in the broadest possible sense (broad enough for RBCSNZ's usage too), that also qualifies it as a landrace under the criteria describes and reliable sourced in the landrace article, to distinguish the feral population from a would-be standardized breed. Editwarring away from this clarity is just going to confuse readers, for no reason whatsoever, except POV dislike of the word "landrace". You horse and pig people really need to get over the idea that every term that can be applied to such an animal has to be something that its own breeders prefer to use. There is nothing wrong with application of basic zoology terminology to pigs just because you don't like it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I keep being reverted not only on use of the word "landrace" in this article, despite the fact that this fits the definitions at Landrace, but on every change I make here, by the same two editors who follow me around and revert most of my changes to all domestic animal breed articles. It's not a "breed" except in the widest possible sense of that word, and it definitely qualifies as a landrace. The editors in question keep claiming that it's original research to use the term "landrace" here. I counter that it's original research compounded by POV-pushing to keep try to suppress the fact that this is not a real breed, it's just a feral, free-breeding population. I'm happy to have an RFC about this, or some other process for resolving this dispute, but it's not going to go away by WP:TAGTEAM revert-on-sight behavior. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
<sarcasm>
whopping</sarcasm>
6 breeders were attempting to establish a standardized breed from Arapawa stock, were changing it from the original in various ways their draft standard predicted, and we have no data at all on their progress or failure since 2008; that's 6 years in which the entire project could have collapsed, could still be struggling or could have succeeded;
WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. Now you're going to tell me on what reliable sources basis you're going to continue pushing the angle this is a formal breed, and capitalized? Oh, by the way, I provided a realible source against capitalizing it as "Arapawa Pig", too. So SMcCandlish 2, Jlan 0. Shall we go for round 2? Or maybe you want to realize that you don't
WP:OWN the articles and no matter what your distaste for terminology unfamiliar to you, or for me personally, this isn't going your way, not even with a coordinated
WP:TAGTEAM to evade 3RR. You don't get to suppress science terms because they're not the terms you like best. To address your non ad homimem points, the article has more sources from the same publisher now, and they do not write "Arapawa Pig" except in title-case headings. Meanwhile they state clearly that labeling this as a "breed" is something they are doing for their own internal purposes; it's NRBSNZ insider jargon, is is not a fact they've pulled from any reliable sources such as zoology journals. If NRBSNZ decided to call them a "supermegabreed", WP would not follow suit, per
WP:NEO and
WP:NFT. RBCSNZ is reliable for all sorts of limited things, but not for redefining the meanings of zoological terminology on their whim. One thing they're reliable for is rejecting various claims that this is indentifiable as a standardized breed or even clearly related to any, because they've done the research and it comes up empty. They've even issued warnings that claims some breeders are making may be legally actionalbe as fraudulent. But I guess you missed all that. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
09:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)PS: You and Montanabw both really need to get it through your heads that people referring you to citations in other articles isn't "Wikipedia citing itself", a claim both you sport-argumention fans falsely make about twice per week; it's a pointer to where the homework has already been done for you, so you can just go spending two minutes looking at it and actually have some pertinent facts in hand, for a change. You two do clearly care what is "true", in your personal reality tunnel, vs. verifiabile, as you keep ignoring or selectively misquoting sources to try to get your way. Fortunately for WP, some editors like me will check your work and call "shenaningans" on source misuse like that, as I've done here and in so many other articles. I kind of specialize in it at this point. My policy analyst, tech writer and paralegal backgrounds make me good at it. It's how I brought the race-bating hatewars over Turkish Van, Van cat and Van cat naming controversy to a standstill, without even having to get anyone blocked under WP:ARBAA2. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
{[od}}SM raised a suCbstantive issue? I see no such thing, just more rants and attacks. Montanabw (talk) 03:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
SMC, as usual, you are engaging in vicious personal attacks,using walls of tl;dr text for edit-warring, and then exploding with vitriol whenever someone calls you on the reality that you create your own reality: You work on WP articles in one place (i.e.
landrace) then edit-war to keep your version against anyone trying to disagree with you until you have run off everyone else, then use that article (filled with your own opinions and original research as well as mis-cited sources) to argue that article should be a source for another article. This will not hold up under scrutiny, and you need to stop this now. Here, there is ZERO evidence this pig breed is actually called a landrace by anyone, and absent a solid source, just the observation that it might parallel Sponenberg's definition of a landrace is
WP:SYNTH at best and not acceptable.
Montanabw
(talk)
02:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
There are more reasons your edits were problematic, but I will not create a wall of text, as I am quite certain you will dispute everything I have listed here and will not agree with any of it anyway. But if anyone else cares, here it is. Montanabw (talk) 03:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
The issuance of a ... breed standard is by definition trying to create a standardized breed. I have now refuted two more of your positions, on this subthread alone. There are many other refutations, above, that you have not addressed, and they are not going away. We can open an RFC about each one individually if that's what it takes to come to a consensus on this article's content and accuracy. You keep labelling my refusal to allow you to ignore arguments you don't like as "bullying", but it's not. It's standard operating procedure in article accuracy and neutrality disputes. Discussion continues until consensus is reached. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 20:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Minor clarification: I DID remove "pigs.co.nz" because it has nothing to do with anything, it is an organization for pedigreed show breeds, and the conclusion drawn from it was pure SYNTH. I also removed the directory because it is an opt-in page and also did not verify anything - as people self-select to be included, it only stands to note that six breeders wanted to have a listing, not that there were only six breeders, or that ANY of the six were attempting to create a standardized breed. Again, SYNTH in the extreme Montanabw (talk) 04:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
My real point: No breed registries anywhere consider the Arapawa a standardized breed, just a feral population. All three of us, I think (you, me, Jlan) have been looking, and it's just not there. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
It's childishly simple to find sources that refer to this pig breed as a breed. I've added a couple. Perhaps SMcCandlish would now either cite some sources in support of his position (which, if I've understood it correctly, is that this is not a breed but a "landrace"), or agree to drop this particular twig? This search may be helpful. Or do we need an RfC here too? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 09:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Our dispute is about source interpretation and applicability – a core part of how we serve those best interests of the article, encyclopedia and reader, that we're both trying to serve. Stick to the policy matters and the sources. When I observe what I think is a SYNTH, UNDUE or POV problem, I spell out precisely what problem I see and upon what basis. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Off-topic. Dreadstar ☥ 15:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I am un-hatting comments collapsed by SMC. This is highly inappropriate. SMC also ALTERED MY COMMENTS. He may
|