Hi there,
you are welcome to edit the encyclopaedia, but removing whole sections (along with metatags and other article data) as you did with Charreada is not the way to contribute. Issues like this can be contentious, but Wikipedia reports facts, not opinions. Denying that people might have a negative opinion of something you support and removing it only makes it more likely to come back and turn in to an edit war. What we need to do is work to bring together the evidence that is printed in external sources (in line with the policies WP:V and WP:CITE that you might want to look at), and put both sides of the case forward.
I don't know much about this topic, but i do follow horse related articles, but it seems clear that the sport is criticised and has been banned in some places, so this needs to be discussed and not ignored. If you've got some sources which disagree with their stance, then they deserve equal weight to the detractors. The best thing for you to do is come back to the talk page (at Talk:Charreada) with some sources that back up your position, and then other editors will help you to work this in to the article.
Any problems or questions, just let me know. Regards, OwainDavies ( about)( talk) edited at 12:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I see you put "claim" back in to the Charro Statistics, and call the sacharro web page "self published". Yet you took out “Cathleen Doyle claims” to have seen 10 charreadas. Now, if I post that I have personally seen 84 Charreadas and 2 coleaderos in the USA, during the last 2 years where 43 horses were captured in non-tradition mangana, 27 horses were captured in traditional piales and 2387 steers were captured in traditional cola. I also personally saw 6 Charreadas in Mexico where 46 horses were captured in traditional mangana, 36 horses were captured in traditional piales and 156 steers were captured in traditiona cola and did not see any animals injured. All the manganas in Mexico, were videotaped. Would that he acceptable. RMJ8757
OK, you need to start engaging with other editors in order to improve the article, which will in turn create a balanced view.
I have no particular view on this issue, but I want to make sure the article meets the standards required of all WP articles. So, a few basic rules which everyone, including you, need to adhere to:
I am trying to keep as much valuable content in as possible, but your current edits just aren't going to be acceptable under the rules. You need to work with the other editors, and i strongly suggest that you bring your issues to the talk page for a sensible resolution.
Regards, OwainDavies ( about)( talk) edited at 14:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Again, an article cannot argue with itself; meaning that an article cannot state something as a fact and then contradict itself. (Mere existence of a "criticism" section doesn't mean that the article argues with itself - as a matter of fact Charreada is subject to criticism from various organization, and the article must report on that.) Likewise, judgemental language like "this is absurd, animal protection advocates are liars and fanatics" etc. has no place in the article; see the policy of neutrality.
Your of the article is still unacceptable in accordance with the Wikipedia policies. But at least, you have brought forward one factual question - did Cesar Chavez actually testify in favor of the Californian legislation? I am going to mark this claim as {{ disputed}}, and you'll have an opportunity to discuss the issue on the article talk page. - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 19:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi there,
Thanks for engaging on this issue, it will make it much easier to improve the article. Please understand that we are not trying to be biased, just trying to apply the rules which exist on wikipedia.
I've taken your message to me and reposted it at Talk:Charreada with some comments and questions. If we can discuss each item separately, then hopefully we can present both sides fairly. To help, if you can keep replies by section, and indent them using colon marks (3 of them at the minute (:::) it will help make it readable. OwainDavies ( about)( talk) edited at 17:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Can you let me know who you mean by "the Charros?" You appear to be referring to an organization, not to individuals, so any help would be appreciated. Montanabw (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
When you add citations, the "quick and easy" way to get them to be formatted properly for wikipedia with all the necessary info is to run this script: http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/view/Reflinks What you do is type in the name of the article you want to fix (for example, Charreada) and the script will convert all your bare URLs (like http://www.whatever.com/article.html ) into fuller citations. See the diffs from my last edit to Charreada where I ran that script to fix your new refs. I just discovered this a couple weeks ago myself (after five years' editing on wikipedia) and it's been a godsend when I'm editing. I sometimes have to do additional cleanup later, but it gets all the main stuff in. By the way, your writing is improving a bunch here and I wanted to let you know that you are doing a good job of editing with a reasonably neutral point of view.
Oh and If you want to do a good deed, watchlist Calgary Stampede, keep your fingers on the "undo" button and help us ALL with the POV editing and vandalism that is going to hit that article when Prince William and Kate show up there tomorrow, the hardcore animal rights folks are going after that article a bit lately. Montanabw (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Rmj, you presumably know the webmaster at the Charros site, so please tell them to keep the hysterical PETA IS WRONG titles out of that external link at the Charreada article. I tried rewording it three times and finally have just tossed it. You are aware that we have a fragile truce here keeping this article neutral and factual. Stuff like this will draw the animal rights activists to the article, and if you think it was biased before you became involved, please help me keep it calm and neutral, you haven't survived the edit wars we had at rodeo a couple years ago. And this topic is HUGE, you know that. Seriously, look at the talk page of horse slaughter if you want to see the world you'll face if that crowd gets wind of this article. Montanabw (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
You don't think this is propaganda:
http://www.ahrn.org/ahw/02ahrn.htm
http://www.idausa.org/facts/horsetripping.html
If you remove the charros side, then remove the other side too. Just be fair. RMJ8757
Would you please explain the conflict of interest. What you seem to be saying, is that if one person writes two books about the same subject Charreada, one of which speeks about the event and the other about complains about the event, only one of them could be referenced. That does not seem to make any sence.
But you allow this propaganda or what you call self published references:
http://www.ahdf.org/tripping.htm
http://www.idausa.org/facts/horsetripping.htm
http://www.ahrn.org/ahw/02ahrn.htm
None of these is anything more then unsubstantiated ranting, with vague references to going to a feedlot or feedlot people say. There are no dates, times or places and most importantly no names associated with this information. So if my page is inappropriate, then take this down too. It just seens to be fair. RMJ8757
I see you put "claim" back in to the Charro Statistics, and call the sacharro web page "self published". Yet you took out “Cathleen Doyle claims” to have seen 10 charreadas. Now, if I post that I have personally seen 84 Charreadas and 2 coleaderos in the USA, during the last 2 years where 43 horses were captured in non-tradition mangana, 27 horses were captured in traditional piales and 2387 steers were captured in traditional cola. I also personally saw 6 Charreadas in Mexico where 46 horses were captured in traditional mangana, 36 horses were captured in traditional piales and 156 steers were captured in traditiona cola and did not see any animals injured. All the manganas in Mexico, were videotaped. Would that he acceptable. RMJ8757
Please explain POV and OR. It seems that it is reasonable to have what Charreada does to help humans, if you allow the AR groups to complain about what happens to animals.
Be useful to know how many horses went to slaughter during the season. Just curious if anyone tracked the fate of animals after. Cattle are generally sent to slaughter, horses less often. Montanabw (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi there,
you are welcome to edit the encyclopaedia, but removing whole sections (along with metatags and other article data) as you did with Charreada is not the way to contribute. Issues like this can be contentious, but Wikipedia reports facts, not opinions. Denying that people might have a negative opinion of something you support and removing it only makes it more likely to come back and turn in to an edit war. What we need to do is work to bring together the evidence that is printed in external sources (in line with the policies WP:V and WP:CITE that you might want to look at), and put both sides of the case forward.
I don't know much about this topic, but i do follow horse related articles, but it seems clear that the sport is criticised and has been banned in some places, so this needs to be discussed and not ignored. If you've got some sources which disagree with their stance, then they deserve equal weight to the detractors. The best thing for you to do is come back to the talk page (at Talk:Charreada) with some sources that back up your position, and then other editors will help you to work this in to the article.
Any problems or questions, just let me know. Regards, OwainDavies ( about)( talk) edited at 12:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I see you put "claim" back in to the Charro Statistics, and call the sacharro web page "self published". Yet you took out “Cathleen Doyle claims” to have seen 10 charreadas. Now, if I post that I have personally seen 84 Charreadas and 2 coleaderos in the USA, during the last 2 years where 43 horses were captured in non-tradition mangana, 27 horses were captured in traditional piales and 2387 steers were captured in traditional cola. I also personally saw 6 Charreadas in Mexico where 46 horses were captured in traditional mangana, 36 horses were captured in traditional piales and 156 steers were captured in traditiona cola and did not see any animals injured. All the manganas in Mexico, were videotaped. Would that he acceptable. RMJ8757
OK, you need to start engaging with other editors in order to improve the article, which will in turn create a balanced view.
I have no particular view on this issue, but I want to make sure the article meets the standards required of all WP articles. So, a few basic rules which everyone, including you, need to adhere to:
I am trying to keep as much valuable content in as possible, but your current edits just aren't going to be acceptable under the rules. You need to work with the other editors, and i strongly suggest that you bring your issues to the talk page for a sensible resolution.
Regards, OwainDavies ( about)( talk) edited at 14:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Again, an article cannot argue with itself; meaning that an article cannot state something as a fact and then contradict itself. (Mere existence of a "criticism" section doesn't mean that the article argues with itself - as a matter of fact Charreada is subject to criticism from various organization, and the article must report on that.) Likewise, judgemental language like "this is absurd, animal protection advocates are liars and fanatics" etc. has no place in the article; see the policy of neutrality.
Your of the article is still unacceptable in accordance with the Wikipedia policies. But at least, you have brought forward one factual question - did Cesar Chavez actually testify in favor of the Californian legislation? I am going to mark this claim as {{ disputed}}, and you'll have an opportunity to discuss the issue on the article talk page. - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 19:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi there,
Thanks for engaging on this issue, it will make it much easier to improve the article. Please understand that we are not trying to be biased, just trying to apply the rules which exist on wikipedia.
I've taken your message to me and reposted it at Talk:Charreada with some comments and questions. If we can discuss each item separately, then hopefully we can present both sides fairly. To help, if you can keep replies by section, and indent them using colon marks (3 of them at the minute (:::) it will help make it readable. OwainDavies ( about)( talk) edited at 17:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Can you let me know who you mean by "the Charros?" You appear to be referring to an organization, not to individuals, so any help would be appreciated. Montanabw (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
When you add citations, the "quick and easy" way to get them to be formatted properly for wikipedia with all the necessary info is to run this script: http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/view/Reflinks What you do is type in the name of the article you want to fix (for example, Charreada) and the script will convert all your bare URLs (like http://www.whatever.com/article.html ) into fuller citations. See the diffs from my last edit to Charreada where I ran that script to fix your new refs. I just discovered this a couple weeks ago myself (after five years' editing on wikipedia) and it's been a godsend when I'm editing. I sometimes have to do additional cleanup later, but it gets all the main stuff in. By the way, your writing is improving a bunch here and I wanted to let you know that you are doing a good job of editing with a reasonably neutral point of view.
Oh and If you want to do a good deed, watchlist Calgary Stampede, keep your fingers on the "undo" button and help us ALL with the POV editing and vandalism that is going to hit that article when Prince William and Kate show up there tomorrow, the hardcore animal rights folks are going after that article a bit lately. Montanabw (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Rmj, you presumably know the webmaster at the Charros site, so please tell them to keep the hysterical PETA IS WRONG titles out of that external link at the Charreada article. I tried rewording it three times and finally have just tossed it. You are aware that we have a fragile truce here keeping this article neutral and factual. Stuff like this will draw the animal rights activists to the article, and if you think it was biased before you became involved, please help me keep it calm and neutral, you haven't survived the edit wars we had at rodeo a couple years ago. And this topic is HUGE, you know that. Seriously, look at the talk page of horse slaughter if you want to see the world you'll face if that crowd gets wind of this article. Montanabw (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
You don't think this is propaganda:
http://www.ahrn.org/ahw/02ahrn.htm
http://www.idausa.org/facts/horsetripping.html
If you remove the charros side, then remove the other side too. Just be fair. RMJ8757
Would you please explain the conflict of interest. What you seem to be saying, is that if one person writes two books about the same subject Charreada, one of which speeks about the event and the other about complains about the event, only one of them could be referenced. That does not seem to make any sence.
But you allow this propaganda or what you call self published references:
http://www.ahdf.org/tripping.htm
http://www.idausa.org/facts/horsetripping.htm
http://www.ahrn.org/ahw/02ahrn.htm
None of these is anything more then unsubstantiated ranting, with vague references to going to a feedlot or feedlot people say. There are no dates, times or places and most importantly no names associated with this information. So if my page is inappropriate, then take this down too. It just seens to be fair. RMJ8757
I see you put "claim" back in to the Charro Statistics, and call the sacharro web page "self published". Yet you took out “Cathleen Doyle claims” to have seen 10 charreadas. Now, if I post that I have personally seen 84 Charreadas and 2 coleaderos in the USA, during the last 2 years where 43 horses were captured in non-tradition mangana, 27 horses were captured in traditional piales and 2387 steers were captured in traditional cola. I also personally saw 6 Charreadas in Mexico where 46 horses were captured in traditional mangana, 36 horses were captured in traditional piales and 156 steers were captured in traditiona cola and did not see any animals injured. All the manganas in Mexico, were videotaped. Would that he acceptable. RMJ8757
Please explain POV and OR. It seems that it is reasonable to have what Charreada does to help humans, if you allow the AR groups to complain about what happens to animals.
Be useful to know how many horses went to slaughter during the season. Just curious if anyone tracked the fate of animals after. Cattle are generally sent to slaughter, horses less often. Montanabw (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)