This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Gelding 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 |
![]() | Gelding was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
do horses have "passion"? Maybe a better word choice might be in order.
Yes, they do.
Thanks User:Montanabw! I couldn't seem to get the references to work - thanks for sorting it. I was using NB as more academic to "by the way" or "please note", but it's not really a necessary addition. ( Dlh-stablelights 10:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC))
I think we might be nearly there - I've put in as many citations as I can. I've made a note of places I think the article might need something else with {{ Fact}}. If I've referenced something, and someone had something else in mind, please add your reference! I think if we can reference a few more bits and pieces (esp. the Arab and perhaps Roman connection), its certainly a good candidate for GA. Dlh-stablelights 10:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
A recent online article in TheHorse.com mentioned the Arab thing. I'll do some digging. Montanabw 19:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I think everything's referenced now... how about we put it up for GA? Dlh-stablelights 22:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Worth running up the flagpole and see who salutes. My experience in the past is that if we are close, they will put it on hold and give us a couple days to fix whatever glitches they think are in there. Usually the comments are useful and point out things that actually do need to be done. Go for it. Montanabw (talk) 06:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but all that I could find... got lots of vet textbooks and papers, but not all that much on population genetics! Dlh-stablelights 19:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
B level works for me. Maybe toss in some fact tags where they seem to be needed as a reminder to all (both?) editors to go dig up more citations? The other way to do this is to put it up for GA and let the vultures circle. But I don't think it will quite pass, and hence B level is appropriate. Montanabw 16:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of July 14th 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:
Thank you for your hard work! VanTucky (talk) 00:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Good grief, so do the Animal Liberation Front! I can't find ANYONE who is opposed on principle! Dlh-stablelights 21:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I was not suggesting that every animal-related article has be vetted through the ALF and PETA, but it is certainly odd and not neutral for there to be no discussion of any objection, controversy or ethical consideration of the practice at all. If you're going to create a section about "reasons for gelding" without giving credence to reasons not to geld, then the article gives undue weight to one point of view. Even if only to mention that organizations like PETA recommend it, as Ling suggested. Second, I took several minutes to write this; you have no way at all of telling how long I took actually reading the article, so please refrain from making personal judgements when you have no factual ground to stand on. I took this review very seriously, as it is a vital subject to horse-related articles. As far as I understand the GA process, giving Hold time for improvement is for easily fixable and small issues, not large POV issues. A clearly POV presentation of the topic (through undue weight in this case) is a quick-fail criteria. VanTucky (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, just FYI, if the issues I have brought to attention are addressed this should be renominated, as the article is nearly ready for GA. Feel free to contact me so I can take a look and (probably) immediately pass it. VanTucky (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Would anyone mind if I changed the format of all the refs? I wanna make 'em more complete & consistent, but would also change them to a format I'm familiar with... -- Ling.Nut 15:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
No problem with the ref formatting - I may have mixed up a few different formats, I was quite busy when I did the last few edits. Dlh-stablelights 13:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
To all, I want to make it clear right now that I am not advocating the removal of these images as of this moment. But I strongly advise that we look for alternatives that fill the same encyclopedic function. The removal of these images in consideration of taste alone without looking for some other options and reaching an absolutely clarion consensus is censorship. VanTucky (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
(undent) No, I was looking down the road. My wiki-patience is beginning to wear just a little wiki-thin. :-) If you two wanna turn a tapdance into a crusade, I suggest you go ahead. I personally wouldn't advise such a waste of time, but have no desire to stop you. :-) Ling.Nut 18:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The images are so small that the squeamish, in my humble opinion, can avoid problems by simply not clicking to enlarge. Besides, I personally find the image of horsemeat to be completely repulsive, it makes me nauseated, if you want to discuss things that are gross. So clearly what we have here is the reason we don't censor wikipedia. Perhaps we need illustrations of Rocky mountain oysters? Montanabw (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
For those still interested, the opinion of a practicing vet here is informative. I inquired about how typical the characteristics of the particular procedures photographed were in an effort to gauge what level of veterinary care they depicted. VanTucky (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree about the asepsis being pretty poor - personally, I'd never do an op like that! It was, however, the only free image I could find at the time. I'll keep an eye out for better ones, but I'm not going to be able to supply one myself for a while for various reasons. Dlh-stablelights 13:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
As far as the images being upsetting goes, might it be an idea to place some kind of warning about the images of castration at the head of the article (perhaps referring to the section in which they appear)? News programmes often give warnings of distressing images. Given the number of children who have access to the Internet these days I would seriously consider doing something. You can't 'unsee' an image like the one of the open castration. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
89.240.36.224 (
talk) 10:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Got some good feedback on the article, putting it here to share.
I personally prefer "it" to "who" for wikipedia horse articles, as it's gender neutral, but no biggie.
Hi Montanabw, long time no see! Hope things are going well (other than Gelding, I mean)...
I sorta agree with what the reviewer said, but agree with you that it should have been put on hold rather than quick-failed:
The WP:LEDE definitely needs to be beefed up to make it a summary of the article. That should take a good fifteen minutes (or less, if you're faster/smarter than I am ;-) ). It's just a matter of copy/pasting the current lede to a Notepad doc, copy/pasting key sentences (you know, intros and/or conclusions) from each existing section of the article onto the same doc, then kinda smoothing it all out and making it "read pretty." You definitely need a section about what PETA-type people would say about castration, to comply with WP:NPOV. That might take a while, but if you're dedicated, you can get it done in under a week (hence my belief it should have been put on hold). If you're feeling particularly brave, you might ask them to provide their POV in a responsible manner. There are many punctuation probs. I might fix those, unless my better half calls me away from the computer ;-) Some of the shtuff reads a little like it might be too-nearly verbatim, e.g. "Geldings were once prized by classical steppe warriors for their silence; without mating urges, they were less prone to call out to other horses, easier to keep in groups, and less likely to fight with one another." Go through every sentence with a fine-toothed comb to look for that particular no-no. That might take a couple hours. I dislike the formatting of the references... seems incomplete & inconsistent. I "might could" help with that too, at the same time as I fix the punctuation (since the punct. probs are all with the refs).. if it's OK with you... Personally, I might consider changing the "Possible complications" section to read less like a list and more like prose, but it might actually be acceptable just as it is.. re-read Wikipedia:Embedded list and see what you think.. I think the pictures are gross, too. Is that actually a problem? I dunno, but I think I know who to ask. I'll do so, and get back to you. Later Ling.Nut 19:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC) Update: User:TimVickers said the images are OK & left a message on the reviewer's talk regarding this (don't go there & add more comments)... :-) I fixed some punct/spelling errors. You really need to make sure the references are complete and consistent. I always use {{Harvrefcol}} templates. OH I AM NOT SURE about using "who" instead of "that" for horses; seems questionable to me. You gotta grammar guide nearby? Ling.Nut 20:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The images should be deleted, as Wikipedia is not a shock site. The article should educate people without displaying graphic content, and at least provide warnings to minors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.40.182 ( talk) 19:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
It would be logical to crush the cord BEFORE removing testicles to avoid bleeding. And not the other way round as you discribe it. jmak ( talk) 17:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
would anyone object to the following image being added to the "reasons" section? VanTucky (talk) 00:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Cute photo, but inaccurate caption that I am going to tweak. However, Ling, this image illustrates the origins of the expression, "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours! LOL! Montanabw (talk) 04:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Interesting how this article is coming together with contrubutions from many editors and so far, minimal flame wars, even over the "are these images too gross?" question. So I thought a section on sheath cleaning and the hazards of smegma was needed! Hope I didn't excessively screw up anyone else's work in the process of writing. (By the way, on the topic of distasteful photos, note the image in smegma) :-P
Also moved the history section up, and wonder where to put the "famous geldings" section, as that is kind of a kiddie section and really shouldn't follow the detailed section on surgical gelding procedures, but where else CAN we put it??
Anyway, hope my additions were an improvement, feel free to improve on what I wrote, and you really MUST read the refs, the second one in particular. I laughed myself half to death! Montanabw (talk) 06:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
well I hit the refs pretty hard but am near a stopping point. Many of the refs are websites; it would be good to replace these with articles, reports etc. whenever possible. Some of the website links go to the website's main page rather than the subpage where the info presumably is. I can't get the OK Univ. College of Vet. Medicine site to work at all; there was another that didn't work but I forget which. Just in general, you need to improve the quality of the refs. BUT in my opinion as a former GA reviewer, they are currently good enough for GA. I gotta go now.. Good luck with the article! :-) Ling.Nut 12:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Say, amongst the zillions of wikipedia guidelines on citation format, do you recommend a favorite article that gives the basics of the best format in a fairly simple form? Thanks. Montanabw (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm a history geek, I will check some stuff Ling sent me and look at some other sources to see what I can find. Montanabw (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, both hydrocoeles and schirrous cords can remain "occult", i.e. without showing any symptoms, then flare up months or years later. I didn't put hydrocoeles in becasue they're so rare, but I agree, wouldn't hurt to add them. Dlh-stablelights 13:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Any reason this is in Category:Types of horses? Ealdgyth | Talk 19:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Um, cause I stuck it there? Same as mare, yearling, etc... no real place for "ways of describing horses that aren't described by breed or color." "Types" is sort of a generic catch-all category. Montanabw (talk) 04:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
If I was going to review this article, I'd say BIG concerns about the lede. Should cover the history section, more information from the reasons, reasons not to geld, specialized maintenance, and methods of. (I can see every male cringing about that..) I'd want to work the list in the methods section into prose, so that it reads less like a how-to and more like a general overview. I'd vary my pictures, so they are right-left-right, so as not to bore the reader. I'd nix the famous gelding section, unless the history section expands greatly. History section should be bigger... did the medieval European's geld? Did the Arabs? Did the Bedouin? Did the East Asians? Did the Indians? You see where I'm going with that. Any information on historical techniques that aren't used any more?
Citations. At a minimum, every paragraph should have a citation. I've marked a few that screamed for them.
Short choppy paragraphs. Try to merge or expand them into larger paragraphs so they don't make the prose flow feel short.
Standardize the references, they are formated all sorts of ways.
Try to work the articles listed in the see also section into the text. If they are used in the text, like castration, they don't need to be listed at the end. In fact, consider moving a lot of the 'how to' stuff from the methods of castration to the castration article.
I'll try to fit this article into my schedule .. sometime soon. AARRGH! Ealdgyth | Talk 20:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This partial sentence:
Is immediately followed by:
Seems like these two things are conflicting -- is 22% uncommon? -- Stéphane Charette ( talk) 09:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I have some concerns about the second how-to photo. While I think it is fine to show different techniques for castration, I don't really like seeing the lack of gloves or both cords being simultaneously emasculated. While I'm sure the operator's hands have been thoroughly scrubbed, and there are conditions under which this is the only option, I wouldn't do it. Maybe because I live in California I'm paranoid, since if the horse had any complications after castration, I would easily lose a lawsuit for not wearing gloves.
While using the emasculators on both cords simultaneously may save a bit of time, I don't think it allows for cutting the cords short enough, which in my opinion increases the risk of infection. And in many animals, it would not do as good a job with hemostasis. Particularly in mature animals, or in donkeys and mules, where (in my experience), bleeding seems to be more difficult to control.
This is really meant to be a discussion more than a criticism. Do others share these concerns? I would like to see a photo using aseptic technique and single cord emasculation.-- Getwood ( talk) 14:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
While I completely accept that the risk of anesthesia is very real, I would be in favor of tweaking the wording. The current wording does not seem to be completely NPOV. The leap that complications are higher in the field than in the study population is unsupported. In fact, two things identified in that study that lean towards a decreased risk relative to the overall study population are short anesthetic time and use of injectable anesthetic. While the less-than-ideal facilities in the field would likely increase complications somewhat, there needs to be a reference for the increased mortality rate for castrations. I need to re-read the Rood & Riddle study, but I don't think it states that the risk of death for recumbent castrations is increased over the general anesthetized population.-- Getwood ( talk) 15:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I shall defer to your veterinary expertise on these matters, for the most part. Just go for it, as you have been doing, and if there is non-vet stuff you want me to work on, throw in a few more "fact" tags and I'll grab those parts. DlH Stablelights, who I think is a vet in the UK, did a bunch of the early writing on the techniques and much of the sourcing work, not sure if he's still editing Wiki or not, may want to check contribs log to see if he's still around and toss him a message if he is. JoelMills, who I think is a small animal vet, is very active in wikiproject vet med overall, and it may be well worth checking in with him to see what he thinks. Maybe a note at wikiproject veterinary medicine may get comments. User:VanTucky, who failed this article the first time we sent it up, edits a lot of the animal articles and may have a good wikipedia layperson's outlook when we get other matters cleaned up. And, of course, no GA is complete without Ealdgyth's input.
As for the castration photo, you are not the first to raise concerns about some of the technical issues involved. I think it was an image taken in a third world nation, however. I'll check the photo history and see if I can figure out anything. Most of the earlier objections were just that it was kinda gross. If I can figure out its origins, I may add some weasel words to the caption, or you can. Montanabw (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Unnecessary, bloody, and absolutely no educational value whatsoever except to fulfill some weirdo's bizarre curiosity about what horses testicles look like once removed from the scrotum! A drawing and a text description of the procedure would've sufficed! Next time I'll use a god damn dictionary! ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 10:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
You should AT LEAST put a warning at the header if the article that the images could gross out some readers -- reader discretion advised. I actually threw up when I saw those images! --
Jason Palpatine (
talk) 07:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
This User fails to understand Wikipedia's
Systematized Logistical Projection of its Balanced
Policy Contingency. (
speak your mind |
contributions)
Can now add Mine That Bird to the list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.173.0.16 ( talk) 12:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I am unsure whether the reference in the Bible forbids the practice of gelding, or whether it just forbids the sacrifice of gelded animals. Black.jeff ( talk) 08:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
One source links via a commentary, so it isn't primary and thus I removed one of the tags, but your refinement of the text is helpful, I tweaked it a bit more, and anything you want to add to improve the sources here is always welcome! And can you provide a link directly to the WP guidelines on direct citations to religious works in general? They are primary sources, but sort of unique primary sources; that may help clarify matters Montanabw (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
How in the world is this sanitary let alone acceptable behavior? Why don't they just fix the animal. How can cutting of the genitalia not be a prosecutable offense. The picture below is extremely disturbing for someone who doesn't give animal righs much meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.3.250 ( talk) 02:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
How in the world is this sanitary let alone acceptable behavior? Why don't they just fix the animal. How can cutting of the genitalia not be a prosecutable offense. The picture below is extremely disturbing for someone who doesn't give animal righs much meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.3.250 ( talk) 02:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Gelding. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Gelding. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Gelding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gelding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Gelding 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 |
![]() | Gelding was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
do horses have "passion"? Maybe a better word choice might be in order.
Yes, they do.
Thanks User:Montanabw! I couldn't seem to get the references to work - thanks for sorting it. I was using NB as more academic to "by the way" or "please note", but it's not really a necessary addition. ( Dlh-stablelights 10:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC))
I think we might be nearly there - I've put in as many citations as I can. I've made a note of places I think the article might need something else with {{ Fact}}. If I've referenced something, and someone had something else in mind, please add your reference! I think if we can reference a few more bits and pieces (esp. the Arab and perhaps Roman connection), its certainly a good candidate for GA. Dlh-stablelights 10:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
A recent online article in TheHorse.com mentioned the Arab thing. I'll do some digging. Montanabw 19:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I think everything's referenced now... how about we put it up for GA? Dlh-stablelights 22:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Worth running up the flagpole and see who salutes. My experience in the past is that if we are close, they will put it on hold and give us a couple days to fix whatever glitches they think are in there. Usually the comments are useful and point out things that actually do need to be done. Go for it. Montanabw (talk) 06:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but all that I could find... got lots of vet textbooks and papers, but not all that much on population genetics! Dlh-stablelights 19:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
B level works for me. Maybe toss in some fact tags where they seem to be needed as a reminder to all (both?) editors to go dig up more citations? The other way to do this is to put it up for GA and let the vultures circle. But I don't think it will quite pass, and hence B level is appropriate. Montanabw 16:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of July 14th 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:
Thank you for your hard work! VanTucky (talk) 00:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Good grief, so do the Animal Liberation Front! I can't find ANYONE who is opposed on principle! Dlh-stablelights 21:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I was not suggesting that every animal-related article has be vetted through the ALF and PETA, but it is certainly odd and not neutral for there to be no discussion of any objection, controversy or ethical consideration of the practice at all. If you're going to create a section about "reasons for gelding" without giving credence to reasons not to geld, then the article gives undue weight to one point of view. Even if only to mention that organizations like PETA recommend it, as Ling suggested. Second, I took several minutes to write this; you have no way at all of telling how long I took actually reading the article, so please refrain from making personal judgements when you have no factual ground to stand on. I took this review very seriously, as it is a vital subject to horse-related articles. As far as I understand the GA process, giving Hold time for improvement is for easily fixable and small issues, not large POV issues. A clearly POV presentation of the topic (through undue weight in this case) is a quick-fail criteria. VanTucky (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, just FYI, if the issues I have brought to attention are addressed this should be renominated, as the article is nearly ready for GA. Feel free to contact me so I can take a look and (probably) immediately pass it. VanTucky (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Would anyone mind if I changed the format of all the refs? I wanna make 'em more complete & consistent, but would also change them to a format I'm familiar with... -- Ling.Nut 15:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
No problem with the ref formatting - I may have mixed up a few different formats, I was quite busy when I did the last few edits. Dlh-stablelights 13:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
To all, I want to make it clear right now that I am not advocating the removal of these images as of this moment. But I strongly advise that we look for alternatives that fill the same encyclopedic function. The removal of these images in consideration of taste alone without looking for some other options and reaching an absolutely clarion consensus is censorship. VanTucky (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
(undent) No, I was looking down the road. My wiki-patience is beginning to wear just a little wiki-thin. :-) If you two wanna turn a tapdance into a crusade, I suggest you go ahead. I personally wouldn't advise such a waste of time, but have no desire to stop you. :-) Ling.Nut 18:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The images are so small that the squeamish, in my humble opinion, can avoid problems by simply not clicking to enlarge. Besides, I personally find the image of horsemeat to be completely repulsive, it makes me nauseated, if you want to discuss things that are gross. So clearly what we have here is the reason we don't censor wikipedia. Perhaps we need illustrations of Rocky mountain oysters? Montanabw (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
For those still interested, the opinion of a practicing vet here is informative. I inquired about how typical the characteristics of the particular procedures photographed were in an effort to gauge what level of veterinary care they depicted. VanTucky (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree about the asepsis being pretty poor - personally, I'd never do an op like that! It was, however, the only free image I could find at the time. I'll keep an eye out for better ones, but I'm not going to be able to supply one myself for a while for various reasons. Dlh-stablelights 13:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
As far as the images being upsetting goes, might it be an idea to place some kind of warning about the images of castration at the head of the article (perhaps referring to the section in which they appear)? News programmes often give warnings of distressing images. Given the number of children who have access to the Internet these days I would seriously consider doing something. You can't 'unsee' an image like the one of the open castration. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
89.240.36.224 (
talk) 10:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Got some good feedback on the article, putting it here to share.
I personally prefer "it" to "who" for wikipedia horse articles, as it's gender neutral, but no biggie.
Hi Montanabw, long time no see! Hope things are going well (other than Gelding, I mean)...
I sorta agree with what the reviewer said, but agree with you that it should have been put on hold rather than quick-failed:
The WP:LEDE definitely needs to be beefed up to make it a summary of the article. That should take a good fifteen minutes (or less, if you're faster/smarter than I am ;-) ). It's just a matter of copy/pasting the current lede to a Notepad doc, copy/pasting key sentences (you know, intros and/or conclusions) from each existing section of the article onto the same doc, then kinda smoothing it all out and making it "read pretty." You definitely need a section about what PETA-type people would say about castration, to comply with WP:NPOV. That might take a while, but if you're dedicated, you can get it done in under a week (hence my belief it should have been put on hold). If you're feeling particularly brave, you might ask them to provide their POV in a responsible manner. There are many punctuation probs. I might fix those, unless my better half calls me away from the computer ;-) Some of the shtuff reads a little like it might be too-nearly verbatim, e.g. "Geldings were once prized by classical steppe warriors for their silence; without mating urges, they were less prone to call out to other horses, easier to keep in groups, and less likely to fight with one another." Go through every sentence with a fine-toothed comb to look for that particular no-no. That might take a couple hours. I dislike the formatting of the references... seems incomplete & inconsistent. I "might could" help with that too, at the same time as I fix the punctuation (since the punct. probs are all with the refs).. if it's OK with you... Personally, I might consider changing the "Possible complications" section to read less like a list and more like prose, but it might actually be acceptable just as it is.. re-read Wikipedia:Embedded list and see what you think.. I think the pictures are gross, too. Is that actually a problem? I dunno, but I think I know who to ask. I'll do so, and get back to you. Later Ling.Nut 19:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC) Update: User:TimVickers said the images are OK & left a message on the reviewer's talk regarding this (don't go there & add more comments)... :-) I fixed some punct/spelling errors. You really need to make sure the references are complete and consistent. I always use {{Harvrefcol}} templates. OH I AM NOT SURE about using "who" instead of "that" for horses; seems questionable to me. You gotta grammar guide nearby? Ling.Nut 20:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The images should be deleted, as Wikipedia is not a shock site. The article should educate people without displaying graphic content, and at least provide warnings to minors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.40.182 ( talk) 19:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
It would be logical to crush the cord BEFORE removing testicles to avoid bleeding. And not the other way round as you discribe it. jmak ( talk) 17:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
would anyone object to the following image being added to the "reasons" section? VanTucky (talk) 00:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Cute photo, but inaccurate caption that I am going to tweak. However, Ling, this image illustrates the origins of the expression, "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours! LOL! Montanabw (talk) 04:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Interesting how this article is coming together with contrubutions from many editors and so far, minimal flame wars, even over the "are these images too gross?" question. So I thought a section on sheath cleaning and the hazards of smegma was needed! Hope I didn't excessively screw up anyone else's work in the process of writing. (By the way, on the topic of distasteful photos, note the image in smegma) :-P
Also moved the history section up, and wonder where to put the "famous geldings" section, as that is kind of a kiddie section and really shouldn't follow the detailed section on surgical gelding procedures, but where else CAN we put it??
Anyway, hope my additions were an improvement, feel free to improve on what I wrote, and you really MUST read the refs, the second one in particular. I laughed myself half to death! Montanabw (talk) 06:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
well I hit the refs pretty hard but am near a stopping point. Many of the refs are websites; it would be good to replace these with articles, reports etc. whenever possible. Some of the website links go to the website's main page rather than the subpage where the info presumably is. I can't get the OK Univ. College of Vet. Medicine site to work at all; there was another that didn't work but I forget which. Just in general, you need to improve the quality of the refs. BUT in my opinion as a former GA reviewer, they are currently good enough for GA. I gotta go now.. Good luck with the article! :-) Ling.Nut 12:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Say, amongst the zillions of wikipedia guidelines on citation format, do you recommend a favorite article that gives the basics of the best format in a fairly simple form? Thanks. Montanabw (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm a history geek, I will check some stuff Ling sent me and look at some other sources to see what I can find. Montanabw (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, both hydrocoeles and schirrous cords can remain "occult", i.e. without showing any symptoms, then flare up months or years later. I didn't put hydrocoeles in becasue they're so rare, but I agree, wouldn't hurt to add them. Dlh-stablelights 13:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Any reason this is in Category:Types of horses? Ealdgyth | Talk 19:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Um, cause I stuck it there? Same as mare, yearling, etc... no real place for "ways of describing horses that aren't described by breed or color." "Types" is sort of a generic catch-all category. Montanabw (talk) 04:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
If I was going to review this article, I'd say BIG concerns about the lede. Should cover the history section, more information from the reasons, reasons not to geld, specialized maintenance, and methods of. (I can see every male cringing about that..) I'd want to work the list in the methods section into prose, so that it reads less like a how-to and more like a general overview. I'd vary my pictures, so they are right-left-right, so as not to bore the reader. I'd nix the famous gelding section, unless the history section expands greatly. History section should be bigger... did the medieval European's geld? Did the Arabs? Did the Bedouin? Did the East Asians? Did the Indians? You see where I'm going with that. Any information on historical techniques that aren't used any more?
Citations. At a minimum, every paragraph should have a citation. I've marked a few that screamed for them.
Short choppy paragraphs. Try to merge or expand them into larger paragraphs so they don't make the prose flow feel short.
Standardize the references, they are formated all sorts of ways.
Try to work the articles listed in the see also section into the text. If they are used in the text, like castration, they don't need to be listed at the end. In fact, consider moving a lot of the 'how to' stuff from the methods of castration to the castration article.
I'll try to fit this article into my schedule .. sometime soon. AARRGH! Ealdgyth | Talk 20:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This partial sentence:
Is immediately followed by:
Seems like these two things are conflicting -- is 22% uncommon? -- Stéphane Charette ( talk) 09:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I have some concerns about the second how-to photo. While I think it is fine to show different techniques for castration, I don't really like seeing the lack of gloves or both cords being simultaneously emasculated. While I'm sure the operator's hands have been thoroughly scrubbed, and there are conditions under which this is the only option, I wouldn't do it. Maybe because I live in California I'm paranoid, since if the horse had any complications after castration, I would easily lose a lawsuit for not wearing gloves.
While using the emasculators on both cords simultaneously may save a bit of time, I don't think it allows for cutting the cords short enough, which in my opinion increases the risk of infection. And in many animals, it would not do as good a job with hemostasis. Particularly in mature animals, or in donkeys and mules, where (in my experience), bleeding seems to be more difficult to control.
This is really meant to be a discussion more than a criticism. Do others share these concerns? I would like to see a photo using aseptic technique and single cord emasculation.-- Getwood ( talk) 14:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
While I completely accept that the risk of anesthesia is very real, I would be in favor of tweaking the wording. The current wording does not seem to be completely NPOV. The leap that complications are higher in the field than in the study population is unsupported. In fact, two things identified in that study that lean towards a decreased risk relative to the overall study population are short anesthetic time and use of injectable anesthetic. While the less-than-ideal facilities in the field would likely increase complications somewhat, there needs to be a reference for the increased mortality rate for castrations. I need to re-read the Rood & Riddle study, but I don't think it states that the risk of death for recumbent castrations is increased over the general anesthetized population.-- Getwood ( talk) 15:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I shall defer to your veterinary expertise on these matters, for the most part. Just go for it, as you have been doing, and if there is non-vet stuff you want me to work on, throw in a few more "fact" tags and I'll grab those parts. DlH Stablelights, who I think is a vet in the UK, did a bunch of the early writing on the techniques and much of the sourcing work, not sure if he's still editing Wiki or not, may want to check contribs log to see if he's still around and toss him a message if he is. JoelMills, who I think is a small animal vet, is very active in wikiproject vet med overall, and it may be well worth checking in with him to see what he thinks. Maybe a note at wikiproject veterinary medicine may get comments. User:VanTucky, who failed this article the first time we sent it up, edits a lot of the animal articles and may have a good wikipedia layperson's outlook when we get other matters cleaned up. And, of course, no GA is complete without Ealdgyth's input.
As for the castration photo, you are not the first to raise concerns about some of the technical issues involved. I think it was an image taken in a third world nation, however. I'll check the photo history and see if I can figure out anything. Most of the earlier objections were just that it was kinda gross. If I can figure out its origins, I may add some weasel words to the caption, or you can. Montanabw (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Unnecessary, bloody, and absolutely no educational value whatsoever except to fulfill some weirdo's bizarre curiosity about what horses testicles look like once removed from the scrotum! A drawing and a text description of the procedure would've sufficed! Next time I'll use a god damn dictionary! ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 10:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
You should AT LEAST put a warning at the header if the article that the images could gross out some readers -- reader discretion advised. I actually threw up when I saw those images! --
Jason Palpatine (
talk) 07:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
This User fails to understand Wikipedia's
Systematized Logistical Projection of its Balanced
Policy Contingency. (
speak your mind |
contributions)
Can now add Mine That Bird to the list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.173.0.16 ( talk) 12:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I am unsure whether the reference in the Bible forbids the practice of gelding, or whether it just forbids the sacrifice of gelded animals. Black.jeff ( talk) 08:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
One source links via a commentary, so it isn't primary and thus I removed one of the tags, but your refinement of the text is helpful, I tweaked it a bit more, and anything you want to add to improve the sources here is always welcome! And can you provide a link directly to the WP guidelines on direct citations to religious works in general? They are primary sources, but sort of unique primary sources; that may help clarify matters Montanabw (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
How in the world is this sanitary let alone acceptable behavior? Why don't they just fix the animal. How can cutting of the genitalia not be a prosecutable offense. The picture below is extremely disturbing for someone who doesn't give animal righs much meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.3.250 ( talk) 02:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
How in the world is this sanitary let alone acceptable behavior? Why don't they just fix the animal. How can cutting of the genitalia not be a prosecutable offense. The picture below is extremely disturbing for someone who doesn't give animal righs much meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.3.250 ( talk) 02:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Gelding. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Gelding. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Gelding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gelding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)