Firstly, welcome to Wikipedia!
I've been watching your edits to British White with interest. I'm afraid though that a lot of what you've done so far will not fit with Wikipedia's aims, which are for a neutral, authoritative encyclopedia without "POV", a personal "point of view". For example, phrases like "the misinformation that abounds", "a blatantly false statement", "yet this fact is largely ignored" and "politically powerful owners" read very strongly as from a particular point of view (though of course as an active breeder and promoter of British Whites myself, I do share it to an extent). It is also important to be sure that statements can be supported by evidence. For example, "it is believed" is no good – we need to stick to facts which can be backed up, and give the references.
I don't want to put you off or seem unwelcoming, but your edits will need a very considerable amount of work before they will fit, and at I think it'll actually be easier to start from where the article was before. Therefore, with some reluctance, what I intend to do in the next day or so is revert your edits, and then discuss them in detail on the Talk:British White page. I think there is a good deal of what you've included which is worth incorporating (especially if you have good references for it), but I'm afraid a lot of it will not do. Again, please accept this in the spirit in which it is meant, as friendly and constructive criticism (but if I don't do it, someone else will...).
See you on the talk page. Best regards, Richard New Forest ( talk) 21:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Following copied from User Talk:Richard New Forest:
Hi Richard,
Shirley Sue is my Mom and she passed away a few weeks ago, just came out of my finger tips when I set up a Wiki login. I'm not familiar with some of the protocol here for edits, will try to figure it out in the future. Just ran across this wiki entry a few weeks ago and it popped up again a few days ago and really irritated me.
You're right, a lot of my writing sounds more like a private web page. I made some changes today, and provided some sources, and realize there's still more that is too much my voice rather than an encyclopedia type entry. The errors I saw that come to mind this moment would be: a)The breed's history dates back some 2000 years and more, just like the horned Park variety
b) The breed does not have black skin, they have white or grey skin, and actually lots of times it's a mix of both. Underneath the colored spots one finds the pigment is the inverse of the surrounding skin, which an A&M geneticist commented upon last year, and as well it's a trait of the Shorthorn. I actually have an original document from Kleberg of the King Ranch where he indicates he believes the breed is the predecessor to the shorthorn based on observation of shorthorns reverting to white with red points when left to their own devices - but I digress, sorry.
c) They have hair, not fur, though that may be how it's referred to in the UK, if so, fur it is.
d) They were not brought over by the Vikings or the Romans. There is ample verifiable sources which confirm their existence well before the appearance of the Vikings or the Romans. That particular comment is quite irritating. It continues to be found in histories of the breed . . . just because. I think people think that notion is somehow romantic or laudable or something. Like those who once, and perhaps still, liked to say their family came over with the Norman's, and wore it like a status symbol.
e) And there was a comment about the British White's relationship to the White Park, a genetic comment, and it's just wrong. Alderson perpetuates that myth with his own interpretation, and perhaps the best thing to do encylopedic wise is to simply not address the genetics. What's out there is very feebly sourced, on either side of the argument. I'm pretty sure even today the Chillingham group still says they are genetically related to the aurochs. There's a web site that shows the 'blood protein groups' of the white park and many other breeds. The English Longhorn and White Park are similar. I don't have that web site in the UK handy, but I'll find it and post it should you be interested. There's a curious lack of follow through in blood testing of the White Park and British White considering their place in history. I think it's because the results would further dispute Alderson's stance. Also, there is absolutely no identification of the animals used as the basis for the tests, which isn't the case with most of the other breeds studied. The Chillingham cattle would be distinctly different, although not of aurochsen descent; they are the product of inbreeding and ruthless culling in modern times. The same can't be said of the average horned White Park, and I very much doubt, and would love to prove, that these cattle were not in the population subject to study.
Anyway, sorry to be so long-winded. J
Hi Richard,
On the coloring, I call it gray, and I've heard folks in the UK refer to those that are 100% gray as 'blue-skinned', so perhaps it's a matter of interpretation. And yes, they are pinkish as well but mostly in their extremities I think, and moreso when they're younger. I'll look tomorrow more closely. And yes mine have speckles of color around the neck a lot as well, so far I see somewhat of a heritable nature to the color pattern of speckles, or lack of speckles of color.
On the use of historical references in the many old tales as pertaining to British White, I understand your concerns. However, the White Park Cattle Society, and even I think the RBST has no such qualms in reference to the horned White Park. For all they know the great 'whitehorn' of The Tain was the precursor to the English Longhorn. Point is, I agree when looking at it impassionately and with distance; but I don't as a breeder of these wonderful girls.
I actually think the Irish Moil is undoubtedly kin to the polled British White, and maybe even the now extinct, I think, Irish Drimmon (sp?). The Moil is colour sided with red points, the Drimmon colour sided with black points. But, the ancient references are not to speckled red cattle, they are to 'milk white' cattle with red ears. I see no reason to doubt the veracity of such ancient writings that have stood the test of time. Either the Moil or the Drimmon could have come about long, long ago from the intermixing of milk-white cattle with coloured points with other ancient breeds, which were predominantly red and black. Just as there are those today who prefer a red or black pointed animal, in the ancient days it is foolish to suppose that humans weren't capable of the same preferences and directed breeding for what they wished in their pastures. The colour sided pattern could easily have survived because it was separated from the 'milk white' classic marked cow.
On the Shorthorn, most definitely a shorthorn bull was introduced into the Woodbastwick herd on a limited basis, and that's Alderson's one supportable demafatory claim against the modern day polled British White. Kleberg with King Ranch indicated that his herd of shorthorn cattle reverted to white with red points when left to breed on their own for a number of years, I find that highly significant, and he said he thought the Park Cattle were likely the ancestors of the Shorthorn. It makes some sort of sense logically that the milk white animal with coloured points is the predecessor to the colour sided animals.
I've crossed black Angus with British White, and I got either classic Park cattle markings, or line- backed calves. I kept two of those crosses, one linebacked, one classic marked. The classic marked half blood always gives me a white calf, the line-backed halfblood has given me one classic marked Park calf and three line-backed ones, but never a solid black calf. Once it's there, it remains in the blood line and is a dominant.
Can't remember what else you asked/said, need to follow those links and learn how to work with this site, even posting to this 'talk' seems a strange animal to figure out.
Made some changes earlier, then read your note. Will remove the bold things, and work on an intro for the breed, unless you'd rather do that yourself. Removed most of the inflammatory stuff.
Thanks, J
Following copied from User Talk:Richard New Forest: Hi Richard, I really like your changes, and I made some very minor ones this evening. I answered back your last comments, but as I am not at all up to par with the way this whole 'talk' works, you may not have gotten my last response to your comments that I posted to ShirleySue -- I like using my Mom's name btw, and she was always quite dogged about her stance on things that meant a lot to her. Jimmie —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShirleySue ( talk • contribs) 02:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
Image:ParkCattle1835.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate
copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{
PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{
self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}
(to require that you be credited), or any tag
here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. -- MifterBot ( Talk • Contribs • Owner) 00:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
Image:StosythPrioryCattle1951.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate
copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{
PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{
self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}
(to require that you be credited), or any tag
here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. -- MifterBot ( Talk • Contribs • Owner) 00:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, welcome to Wikipedia!
I've been watching your edits to British White with interest. I'm afraid though that a lot of what you've done so far will not fit with Wikipedia's aims, which are for a neutral, authoritative encyclopedia without "POV", a personal "point of view". For example, phrases like "the misinformation that abounds", "a blatantly false statement", "yet this fact is largely ignored" and "politically powerful owners" read very strongly as from a particular point of view (though of course as an active breeder and promoter of British Whites myself, I do share it to an extent). It is also important to be sure that statements can be supported by evidence. For example, "it is believed" is no good – we need to stick to facts which can be backed up, and give the references.
I don't want to put you off or seem unwelcoming, but your edits will need a very considerable amount of work before they will fit, and at I think it'll actually be easier to start from where the article was before. Therefore, with some reluctance, what I intend to do in the next day or so is revert your edits, and then discuss them in detail on the Talk:British White page. I think there is a good deal of what you've included which is worth incorporating (especially if you have good references for it), but I'm afraid a lot of it will not do. Again, please accept this in the spirit in which it is meant, as friendly and constructive criticism (but if I don't do it, someone else will...).
See you on the talk page. Best regards, Richard New Forest ( talk) 21:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Following copied from User Talk:Richard New Forest:
Hi Richard,
Shirley Sue is my Mom and she passed away a few weeks ago, just came out of my finger tips when I set up a Wiki login. I'm not familiar with some of the protocol here for edits, will try to figure it out in the future. Just ran across this wiki entry a few weeks ago and it popped up again a few days ago and really irritated me.
You're right, a lot of my writing sounds more like a private web page. I made some changes today, and provided some sources, and realize there's still more that is too much my voice rather than an encyclopedia type entry. The errors I saw that come to mind this moment would be: a)The breed's history dates back some 2000 years and more, just like the horned Park variety
b) The breed does not have black skin, they have white or grey skin, and actually lots of times it's a mix of both. Underneath the colored spots one finds the pigment is the inverse of the surrounding skin, which an A&M geneticist commented upon last year, and as well it's a trait of the Shorthorn. I actually have an original document from Kleberg of the King Ranch where he indicates he believes the breed is the predecessor to the shorthorn based on observation of shorthorns reverting to white with red points when left to their own devices - but I digress, sorry.
c) They have hair, not fur, though that may be how it's referred to in the UK, if so, fur it is.
d) They were not brought over by the Vikings or the Romans. There is ample verifiable sources which confirm their existence well before the appearance of the Vikings or the Romans. That particular comment is quite irritating. It continues to be found in histories of the breed . . . just because. I think people think that notion is somehow romantic or laudable or something. Like those who once, and perhaps still, liked to say their family came over with the Norman's, and wore it like a status symbol.
e) And there was a comment about the British White's relationship to the White Park, a genetic comment, and it's just wrong. Alderson perpetuates that myth with his own interpretation, and perhaps the best thing to do encylopedic wise is to simply not address the genetics. What's out there is very feebly sourced, on either side of the argument. I'm pretty sure even today the Chillingham group still says they are genetically related to the aurochs. There's a web site that shows the 'blood protein groups' of the white park and many other breeds. The English Longhorn and White Park are similar. I don't have that web site in the UK handy, but I'll find it and post it should you be interested. There's a curious lack of follow through in blood testing of the White Park and British White considering their place in history. I think it's because the results would further dispute Alderson's stance. Also, there is absolutely no identification of the animals used as the basis for the tests, which isn't the case with most of the other breeds studied. The Chillingham cattle would be distinctly different, although not of aurochsen descent; they are the product of inbreeding and ruthless culling in modern times. The same can't be said of the average horned White Park, and I very much doubt, and would love to prove, that these cattle were not in the population subject to study.
Anyway, sorry to be so long-winded. J
Hi Richard,
On the coloring, I call it gray, and I've heard folks in the UK refer to those that are 100% gray as 'blue-skinned', so perhaps it's a matter of interpretation. And yes, they are pinkish as well but mostly in their extremities I think, and moreso when they're younger. I'll look tomorrow more closely. And yes mine have speckles of color around the neck a lot as well, so far I see somewhat of a heritable nature to the color pattern of speckles, or lack of speckles of color.
On the use of historical references in the many old tales as pertaining to British White, I understand your concerns. However, the White Park Cattle Society, and even I think the RBST has no such qualms in reference to the horned White Park. For all they know the great 'whitehorn' of The Tain was the precursor to the English Longhorn. Point is, I agree when looking at it impassionately and with distance; but I don't as a breeder of these wonderful girls.
I actually think the Irish Moil is undoubtedly kin to the polled British White, and maybe even the now extinct, I think, Irish Drimmon (sp?). The Moil is colour sided with red points, the Drimmon colour sided with black points. But, the ancient references are not to speckled red cattle, they are to 'milk white' cattle with red ears. I see no reason to doubt the veracity of such ancient writings that have stood the test of time. Either the Moil or the Drimmon could have come about long, long ago from the intermixing of milk-white cattle with coloured points with other ancient breeds, which were predominantly red and black. Just as there are those today who prefer a red or black pointed animal, in the ancient days it is foolish to suppose that humans weren't capable of the same preferences and directed breeding for what they wished in their pastures. The colour sided pattern could easily have survived because it was separated from the 'milk white' classic marked cow.
On the Shorthorn, most definitely a shorthorn bull was introduced into the Woodbastwick herd on a limited basis, and that's Alderson's one supportable demafatory claim against the modern day polled British White. Kleberg with King Ranch indicated that his herd of shorthorn cattle reverted to white with red points when left to breed on their own for a number of years, I find that highly significant, and he said he thought the Park Cattle were likely the ancestors of the Shorthorn. It makes some sort of sense logically that the milk white animal with coloured points is the predecessor to the colour sided animals.
I've crossed black Angus with British White, and I got either classic Park cattle markings, or line- backed calves. I kept two of those crosses, one linebacked, one classic marked. The classic marked half blood always gives me a white calf, the line-backed halfblood has given me one classic marked Park calf and three line-backed ones, but never a solid black calf. Once it's there, it remains in the blood line and is a dominant.
Can't remember what else you asked/said, need to follow those links and learn how to work with this site, even posting to this 'talk' seems a strange animal to figure out.
Made some changes earlier, then read your note. Will remove the bold things, and work on an intro for the breed, unless you'd rather do that yourself. Removed most of the inflammatory stuff.
Thanks, J
Following copied from User Talk:Richard New Forest: Hi Richard, I really like your changes, and I made some very minor ones this evening. I answered back your last comments, but as I am not at all up to par with the way this whole 'talk' works, you may not have gotten my last response to your comments that I posted to ShirleySue -- I like using my Mom's name btw, and she was always quite dogged about her stance on things that meant a lot to her. Jimmie —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShirleySue ( talk • contribs) 02:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
Image:ParkCattle1835.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate
copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{
PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{
self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}
(to require that you be credited), or any tag
here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. -- MifterBot ( Talk • Contribs • Owner) 00:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading
Image:StosythPrioryCattle1951.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate
copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{
PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{
self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}
(to require that you be credited), or any tag
here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. -- MifterBot ( Talk • Contribs • Owner) 00:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)