Talk:Bloodless bullfighting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Portugal Portal Bloodless bullfighting is part of WikiProject Portugal, a project to improve all Portugal-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Portugal-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Portugal To-do: edit purge Portuguese COTW Wikipedia:Portuguese Collaboration of the Week/Current Portuguese COTW Improve to Featured status Portugal Improve More... Review Requests See Requested articles Listed for deletion Assess Help assessing articles. Need images Translate from Portuguese Wikipedia Wikify Vote: Watch this list — Edit this list

I created this article for the sake of separating it from the regular "bullfighting" section.

Portuguese style "Bloodless Bullfighting" should be in it's own category and not mixed in with the classic Spanish style of bullfighting.

1) It is not just in Portugal, it is also here in the United States. 2) The bulls are not killed, and the Forcados are an integral part of the event. A Portuguese bullfight is usually with a Cavaleiro who precedes the Forcados group. Whereas a Matador is the main event in a classic bullfight.

There are more points and information that needs to be entered, like a sorteo, tienta, and so forth. These are important facts to know what goes on before a bullfight happens. Most of the information found here are from my original article issued about 4 or 5 months ago. It's been changed to accommodate Wiki's guidelines.

I will add more later on.... sorry, it's getting late.

If anyone else has facts that they would like to input, please make your suggestions here first before inputing them as I like to keep the look and feel of this article in an organized fashion.

Thanks --Webmistress Diva 09:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Contents 1 More on horse breeds here? 2 Changed Title and Edited Text 3 The fairness of the information 4 I think you are confused 5 Adding & Revising 5.1 Misspelled Words... Savvy and Attire 5.2 Banderillas 5.3 Forcados 5.4 Costume vs. Attire 5.5 Cavaleiros 5.6 Leather Wrap 6 Please do not add or change anything 7 Responding to your request for help 8 Bullfighting in Portugal vs. USA 9 Photos and other stuff 10 Article Cleanup Co-Ordination Point 10.1 Discussion

[edit] More on horse breeds here?

Pebs, two suggestions (hopefully constructive ones) I was just wondering if you want to add more about the different horse breeds that do this to your article, maybe if you link to the breeds you name, the "what links here" section of each of those articles will lead more people to this one? And maybe when you add your info on bullfighting to be breeds pages the way you have done on several, perhaps do so with a wiki link? ie...Bloodless Bullfighting or Bullfighting Anyway, just a thought. Montanabw 05:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Montana, sounds great. I've been busy, but I'll be sure to add it to my "to do" list. Thanks for the input.--Webmistress Diva 21:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changed Title and Edited Text

I did some major text changing. When I initially posted/started this section, it was done very quickly.

I had a few minutes and I revised some things to read better and removed some redundancy.

I'm sure I'll have to go through it again, but for now, it's good to go. I still need help "wikifying" it. Someone had offered to help (Montana or Metro). One of them, I'm sure they are just as busy as I am. So when one of you guys get a chance, just let me know.

Thanks --Webmistress Diva 00:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The fairness of the information

All the information in the article is very precise, using the original portuguese term. But the description of the bullfight isn´t. In portugal the bullfight starts wiht the cavaleiro entering the arena, followed by the forcados and finishing with the herders, who take the bulls out of the arena. Normaly there is no toureiro. Maybe in california the tings are done differently, and that is normal. Since each people has a different way of doing things.

[edit] I think you are confused

In Portugal and in California, the "opening ceremonies" are the same.... the Forcados enter first, then the Matadors along with their helpers (Bandaleiros), then the Puastals (the bull herders), then the Cavaleiro(s).

When I wrote this article, I noted in sequence of the "Opening Ceremony".

When the "actual" bullfight starts, that's when the "Cavaleiro" starts first, then soon after, the "Forcados" jump or walk-in the arena and then the "Puastals" (bull herders) comes in to take the bull out of the arena. And if a "Matador" is performing, then they smooth out the ground and then the Matador does his/her thing.

You read it, but didn't read the part where I mentioned that it was referring to the "Ceremony". The "ceremony" refers to the opening/start of the bullfight. The "bullfight" itself starts after the ceremony.

I hope that clears it up for you. --Webmistress Diva 19:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding & Revising

I have not had the time to update certain sections. I guess now is the good time to do this.

Just an FYI, when I had mentioned to "feel free" to make any additions or corrections, always run a spell check, and do not correct the spelling of a word when it was already spelled correctly. Moreover, make sure that you use the proper terminology. Additionally, DO NOT add your external links here, as this is NOT a place to promote your site, especially when your site is about "SALES".... Wiki rules

On with the corrections. For starters, here are some things that I am deleting from what someone previously added and changed. My explanation will be in a bullet format.

[edit] Misspelled Words... Savvy and Attire

-Each entertainer must be quick and '''savy''' to do what he needs to do.
-Portuguese-style atire are typically traditional...

• Savvy is spelled with 2 "v's", which was originally spelled correctly.
• "attire" is spelled with 2 "t's"

[edit] Banderillas

This mechanism replaced the banderillas which possessed the '''3-inch spears''' used in the classic
Spanish style of bullfighting. In Portugal, they use the banderillas, with '''smaller spears''' "to
draw less blood".

• 3-inch spears -- No, this is incorrect. In case you did not know what a "spear" is, here is the definition....
  • –noun
  • 1. a long, stabbing weapon for thrusting or throwing, consisting of a wooden shaft to which a sharp-pointed head, as of iron or steel, is attached.
• I am going to correct it back to how it was "3-inch nails" and add "/barb" next to it, because a nail/barb is what’s at the end of banderilla/spear, when used in the "traditional" style of bullfighting, both in Spain, Mexico, and Portugal. It is a pointed edge (a barb), which is used to "bleed" the bull so that the bull will slow down.
• There is no point in trying to say "to draw less blood", because blood is blood.

[edit] Forcados

the '''Forcados''' (aka fork),which is what each of the eight men used traditionaly to ward off the
bull from the king and queen. In California there is a "Forcado Group" called "The Suicide Squad"
and this name has expanded to refer to all Forcado Groups in general.

• This is incorrectly stated. You must always first describe who the "subject" is, in this case, it's "The "Forcados" are 8 men lined up....."
• If you want to describe the meaning of the name "Forcados", then it must be written like this...
• The name forcado comes from the word “pitchfork” in Portuguese, which the forcados used to carry in their hands when appearing in the arena. Then you can add, "Traditionally, the pitchfork was used to help ward off the bull from the king and queen. Just an FYI, the proper term for the word "Forcado" in this case is "pitchfork" and not aka "Fork", because what they used is a long handle with a U shape at the top of it.... hence a "pitchfork" used in an agricultural sense, and not a "fork" which is used to eat with.

[edit] Costume vs. Attire

The Portuguese-style atire are typically traditional 18th century clothing, while the Spanish-style
atire consist of a bolero and leather chaps.

• First, "attire" is spelled with 2 "t's"; secondly, attire describes what to wear as in "please wear semi-formal attire".
• The term "Costume" is more appropriate because it is the distinctive style of dress of a particular people, class, or period.... hence the Portuguese-Style "Costume" worn in the arena is a typical 18th century traditional attire.... <<< now the word "attire" can be used in this sentence.

[edit] Cavaleiros

by giving the bull the advantage when charging, meaning the bull must initiate the charge before the
Cavaleiro makes his move. When the Cavaleiro and the bull charge each other they must be head to
head until the very last second; the horse should dodge the impact of the bull by side stepping and
wrapping itself around the bull showing its captivating athleticism

• That is being deleted... aside from it being too long and wordy, it describes what an "exceptional" situation would be. In all bullfights, your "rare" and "exceptional" stuff do not normally occur all the time ... that is why it is unique. This section describes your normal, everyday Cavaleiro and bull interaction. The bull typically does not initiate the charge. If that happens, then every bullfight would be an exciting one.
• It could be rephrased as follows... "An exceptional Cavaleiro gives the bull the advantage by allowing it to initiate the charge first. A head-to-head action occurs until the very last second, while the horse dodges the impact of the bull by sidestepping and wrapping itself around the bull."

[edit] Leather Wrap

To prevent any of the artists and horses from getting serious injuries, the bulls' pointed horns are
covered with a leather wrap for the Cavaleiros and Forcados performances. For Matadors, they
sometimes file down the horns to make it more blunt and less harmful and to make his fight a little
more challenging and exciting.

• I am revising this whole section
• The term "artists" seems to be loosely used. Granted that bullfighting is a form of "art", not all performers are an "artist".

Comments by: --Webmistress Diva 08:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not add or change anything

I am in the middle of wikifying and revising this article.

It would not benefit anyone to change as I will override any changes made.

Thank you!--Webmistress Diva 13:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding

[edit] Responding to your request for help

Hi Pebs, Couple of thoughts. Given that I know squat about bullfighting of any kind, I'll stick to wikipedia stuff.

Overall the outline looks essentially good, pretty thorough. Sometimes as you write you find that headings need to be renamed or shuffled around, so I'm not going to go through the organizational structure much now. I found that when I have written articles from scratch, the outline organizes my thoughts, but it often does change, things are split up or combined, order is rearranged, etc. before it's done.

First off, there are a couple of places that look like this:

the sentence is in a weird font in a weird box.

Whenever that happens, what you did was put a space as the first character in the line. Take out the space and it will look normal again (don't know why that happens, but that's what happens)

Next, you need more wikilinks. You know the words in blue created by [[words in brackets that link to another article]] You need lots and lots and lots of wikilinks. You may not have to literally link every word possible (read the guidelines) but you need to link every unfamiliar or unique term at least once, and even some of the common ones. (I link words like "horse" or "saddle" or "bull" but only the first time. More technical terms I might wikilink several times throughout the article if they are widely scattered when used.

However, don't create red links. You know links that go to nothing. If you find you have a red link, do a search to see if there's a similarly named article. If no article exists, consider if you want to either create one, or leave the red link to see if someone else creates one (I have occasionally deliberately left red links in articles because I know I will be writing such an article and when I do, it will already have some built in cross links), or take off the brackets and leave it as ordinary text.

I live on the Help:Contents page as the basic index to find out all the formatting stuff, what to wikilink, when to wikilink it, etc. Also, for the horse pages, some wikilinks aren't obvious and you have to search them out. You may also have to use piped links. For example the article on Bay colored horses isn't just [[Bay]], or even [[Bay horse]] but [[Bay (color)]] so to create the link to the article on bay colored horses I type [[Bay (color)|Bay]] to get the wikilink Bay.

Don't be too defensive about not wanting people to change things. Yes, half the time they screw things up, but that's what history and revert are for...I'd say about 1/3 of the time someone made a real positive change, whether it was to catch my typos, point out a weak spot in the article, or add something useful. Remember: "If you don't want your writing to be to be edited mercilessly...do not submit it."

Most of the photos are good, the one long wide one is too side--on a screen someone blows up so the text is larger, the photo is wider than the monitor, Maybe make it only 400px of so...?

For sources, they like to see footnotes as well as stuff at the end. Be careful about External links to anything that smacks of advertising, most links should be to rules, trade associations, etc...sources of knowledge more than promotion. Wikipedia does have a "no original research" rule, so they don't like you to publish what is basically what you have learned. (Ironically, you can publish a reputable, reliable source elsewhere on the web that someone else borrows and cites to--that is OK)

In general, always remember NPOV. For example, "my pony named Tony is the best pony in the world" is, obviously POV. Saying, "Susie Q has a pony named Tony whom she professes on a daily basis to be the best pony in the world. However, her neighbor, Sally MacGillycuddy, claims her pony named Baloney is a superior animal. Analyis of the ponies by Dr. Smith at Main Street Veterinary college confirms that both ponies are of the fuzzy buttheaded variety popular with young children.[footnote here to newspaper article that describes the block war between Susie and Sally]" is NPOV. <grin>

Speaking of no mercy, footnoting, wikilinking, citing sources, etc., check out Horses in warfare. I don't even know how I got sucked into revamping that article, (it was originally War horse), but I did (though I really could care less about military stuff, I just like history), the military history people found it and beat the living crap out of it, but the bottom line is that after I put about 20 hours into it with several serious pissing matches along the way, now it is an article that is ALMOST well sourced (if those who care about the Middle Ages will get off the dime and source their bits, I'm not doing it all!). My point is that it is pretty NPOV (though, admittedly it was easy because I don't care about military history), thoroughly wikilinked, most sections are adequately cited, though not all...it's not perfect, but it's maybe an example you can look at for ideas about how to improve yours.

As always, spell check as best you can, remember NPOV is a pillar of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

OK, long blurb. Hope it's helpful. Montanabw 08:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggesting, for example, that bulls do not suffer stress and cruelty, just because they are not stabbed, is certainly far from a NPOV. MikeHobday 14:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think I'm getting it now. I took out the box thing (code pre), and I've been adding the wikilinks, also resources. And I still have to go through and remove the words "beautiful, amazing, etc., etc. Is that what you mean by the "NPOV's"? What does it stand for anyway? "Non Point of View"?

Thanks Montana and Mike for helping out. By the way, am I putting the correct copyright tags on my photos? I gave it the GFDL tag. But I want to make sure that it is know that I have the copyright along with photographer's on it and that nobody can change/edit it for their own purpose other than using it on Wiki pages. I just want to be clear that it is known that we did not relinquish our rights, but gave permission for use on her.

Thanks again!--Webmistress Diva 22:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bullfighting in Portugal vs. USA

I just want to make it clear that in Portugal, it is NOT bloodless, unlike in California. Even though they do not kill the bull in Portugal, they are still using a banderilla with a pointed edge to poke at it so that it releases some blood to slow the bull down. You can't call something "bloodless" if there is blood coming out... right? And irregardless that it is a small amount, blood is still blood.

Because of the animal rights laws in the United States, not only can you not kill the bull, but you cannot make the bull bleed.

It is "Portuguese style" because of the equestrian bullfighting (on horseback). Spanish style is typically with a bullfighter on foot.... as in a Matador. --Webmistress Diva 02:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Right. In the USA, you're only allowed to slaughter the bull for food, not for fun. Wahkeenah 02:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

awww... not fair. Are you a vegetarian? This was not suppose to be a debate thing.... I'm just writing the facts.... cruel intent or not.... it is a form of art, which unfortunately is not popular by everyone. I am glad that there is a "bloodless" style of bullfighting. This way, you can see the true art form without all of the gory stuff. Quite honestly, I am not a fan of the killing and stabbing portion of a bullfight, which takes place in Spain and Mexico. I cover my eyes when that part happens. Slaughtering? I wouldn't call it that. Maybe we could say "the circle of life".... yes?
--Webmistress Diva 02:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• No, that was just my twisted sense of humor, and making fun of bullfighting, not of meat consumption. When someone talks about vegetarianism, I think of something Rita Rudner said about moving to California and hiring a vegetarian moving company, and then having to help a lot, because they were too weak to lift anything! Wahkeenah 03:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.... I was hoping it was your humor I was sensing and not another editor getting on my case about something. Yeah, that is funny about the vegetarian thing. Can man really live by bread alone? Oh wait, are they allowed to eat bread? Back when I was 15, I had a Big Sister who would come and pick me up to do things for the weekend. She and her husband were vegetarians, but it was actually good. Although, it's not the same now. I think they're just a bit over board these days. Hey... they can hang out with the bulls and graze in the pastures. But, oh well.... to each it's own. Thanks for the chat! Stop by anytime to bring a laughter now and then. --Webmistress Diva 03:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photos and other stuff

It's best to read all the different licenses. If you want anything posted on Wikipedia, I think you can require attribution and that the image can't be altered with the GFDL, but be sure to read the details.

BTW, if you are having vandalism problems, go to help and then the vandalism pages. A faster method to get help sometimes is to ask an admin person who may have posted something to you about your article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 05:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Article Cleanup Co-Ordination Point

I see that little flag above. I think you are getting into trouble in a couple of main areas. One is NPOV-- neutral point of view, one of the "five Pillars" of wikipedia. Compare the Friesian horse article now and the version in, oh about last May...wherever you see me first start working on it, take a revision or so before and see all the unnecessary and flowery language that was there before I started hacking on it. Another problem is verifiability. When a lot of what you have links back to material you have actually created, that violates the no original research rule on wikipedia. In short, you can't publish your own stuff. If it's from your external web site but originally came from a book or something, quote that original source. The other problem is you are trying to perhaps put in too much detail, yet at other times glossing over things that actually need to be explained more for a general audience. I know that I have looked at the article a couple of times, and it isn't long before I just get confused and my eyes glaze over. Too many new and complex terms. Figure the first several sections need to be the "101" level and only get more complex as you get deeper in...maybe instead of organizing around the chronology of the bullfight, maybe have 2-3 sections of more basic material first. Just a thought. Another thing is to face controversies head on, and just do one of those "some people say this, but other people say that..." kind of things, address them, explain each as rationally as possible, and move on. When you have people challenging your Point of view (POV), at the very least, you know you need to get rid of a few adjectives... If you want to read a shorter article that has some fairly major POV problems that need to be fixed (and my critique on their talk page) look at Barefoot horse. They have lack of citation, too many red links, too much POV pushing, etc. It's not a horrible article, but it needs a lot of work. I hope you take any suggestions or comments in an constructive spirit and remember that the goal here is to create good articles. Montanabw 04:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Montana! I'm always open to good constructive suggestions. I just didn't get all of the POV, NPOV, citation stuff. It's rather confusing when so many are giving their input and not explaining and breaking down the details.

But ok, I will do my best to work on it. If you would like to help in some areas, just let me know. Is there a time limit on when I have to have this done by? I feel like I've been working on this project forever..... UGGGGHHH!!! I'll work on it and then I'll ask you to review, ok.

Thanks again for all your help and suggestions.--Webmistress Diva 06:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There are no deadlines on Wikipedia. The only requirement is that something is being done on a regular basis leading towards improvement of the article. The article is a trainwreck of tags and normally I would have removed some of them, especially the unreferenced tag and the OR tag since those do not really apply anymore. In fact it is this trainwreck of tags that caused me to stumble across this one while moving through the backlogs. Happy editing and the very best of luck with the article! MartinDK 11:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, you should not be discouraged by the fact that cleaning it up seems like a long process. It is a long article and the best improvements are usually those made in short well-considered steps. The fact that you are working on the article is enough to keep it away from AfD. Based on the edit history of the article any nomination at the moment at least would be considered bad faith. So take your time, there is no hurry. MartinDK 11:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

awwww... THANK YOU MUCHO (as I am in tears.... literally, when I write this....), but tears of joy and relief to hear good faith and natured comments such as yours and Montana. I appreciate you both for really helping me out and guiding me the "write" path of the "wiki world". It sounds so much better than when I first got on board... lots of criticism thrown at me left and right.... w/out really knowing what's going on. But with the last two comments, I know I'm on the right path. So thank you both again!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pebs96 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

While technically we DO have a "don't bite the newcomers" rule, sometimes when people come on real strong and sound authoritative we forget that they ARE newcomers. Hang in there. I've only been here since early 2006, and feel like I am just barely starting to get it... Another idea to help refine your overall editing skills is to pick some stuff that you know a bit about but have no serious emotional attachment to, and go try and see if you can do some useful edits to those articles. Especially expanding stubs. For example, I try to monitor the article on Montana and have added some material there, I also have done some other edits on articles that deal with my geographical area or other hobbies/interests that have NOTHING to do with horses!! For another example, the article on feral animals was a total mess and has sections that were written by a non-native speaker of English and looked like they were translated by Babelfish! It was easy to do some cleanup there! Montanabw 20:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I can only agree with this. The first article I worked on was the Axis powers article which was a terrible choice. One thing I learned though is that if people keep saying that the article is POV it is a good idea to include the opposing views yourself. That way you gain some control over what is written and it is much harder for people to get upset if their views are alreday included in the article. Also, it is worth to remember that the opposing views must be sourced as well. If someone thinks that bulls still suffer stress during blodless bullfighting (which I would imagine is true) then such a view must be sourced as well. A good starting point would be to remove the references to your own web site as Montana suggested. Such references are too easily used to tag the article as original research. MartinDK 07:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm on overload right now and especially with all of the info everyone has provided.... thanks! I am trying to decipher all the mumbo jumbo inside the Wiki style guide.... there is so much information. I wish there was a good sample of a really well put together article on wiki. Just letting you guys know that I'm on top of it and have not forgotten about this article. I'm thinking..... --Webmistress Diva 05:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There ARE examples! <smile!> Try Wikipedia:Good articles for a list of articles considered to be of good quality. There's a whole bunch. All the "good articles" on animals can be found under Natural sciences---> biology and medicine ---> organisms. Everyday life--> recreation--->sports has some sports articles that also met the criteria. Also, social sciences---> culture and society--> has some interesting articles, you might find weapon dance worth a look.

Thanks for pointing out the good articles. Really.... I needed that because I was seriously getting overwhelmed with text after text and everything started to get blurry (LoL).--Webmistress Diva 09:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)