Talk:Bullfighting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article Bullfighting is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 11, 2004.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Selected content star Bullfighting is part of the selected content on the Portugal Portal, which means that it was selected as a high quality Portugal-related article.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Bullfighting as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Russian language Wikipedia.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia There is a request, submitted by (unknown), for an audio version of this article to be created.

See WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia for further information.

The rationale behind the request is: "Previously requested".

See also: Category:Spoken Wikipedia requests and Wikipedia:Spoken articles.

Contents

[edit] Advertisment replacing the main image

I just can't stand advertisment replacing the main image in this article. Everytime I go there, there's a random advert like Jessica Alba doing something dirty and smilies. Isn't there a way to prevent this.--Hundred-Man 14:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] origins

Modern bullfighting links backwards to the ancient rite detailed in the sky with banderilla and sword used to slay the bull leading to deification...of the participant. (Right of perfection - that sought after connection to heaven making the particpant a god. (sic-the grandmaster of the Priore de Sion/JC). /s/ GMPS

[edit] older entries

What is lavanae poisening? I can't find it anywhere.

This was bullshit. Meat from bullfights is sold and consumed. I've corrected it. There is plenty of evidence on the web in this regard, including the text of the current Spanish Royal Decree that regulates the handling of bull meat from bullfights and its market:
Real Decreto 260/2002, de 8 de marzo, por el que se fijan las condiciones sanitarias aplicables a la producción y comercialización de carnes de reses de lidia [1]

At a bullfight I attended at a fiesta in a town in Yucatan, the killed bulls were promptly butchered and cooked as food for the fiesta. Is this rare or common? -- Infrogmation 02:40 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

They are usually sold to local butchers or restaurants, but doing it so fast doesn't seem common (or gourmetly). -- Error
In Portugal, is commom what Error says, and its also for fiesta (called, festa), but not promptly, that would be a terrible scene. Bullfighting is very unpopular in here (north of Portugal). Most closed, only in my city, Povoa de Varzim (the only standing, some want it closed), but now only a few per year, mostly for TV. When I was a kid, some yrs ago, we use to see bullfighting after going to the beach on sundays, cause its near the beach. Its more popular in southern Portugal and Azores. In Portugal was forbitten to kill the Bull in the Arena, now its authorized in a small town, Barrancos, because they have allways killed the animal. Even with police, TV, every year there was a scandal because no one was arrested. That was giving more fame to the town and to that "festa", the government authorized it (only) in there.Pedro 01:07, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

We need some more info or links where the Bulls are victorious by killing the human. RedWolf 06:18, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

A List of bullfighters killed by bulls? Paquirri, Manolete,... -- Error 04:51, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
Bulls are not "victorious" when they kill the bullfighter (who will be replaced by another bullfighter). Bulls are victorious when they are pardoned, after demonstrating great bravery and strength. I don't have any solid number, but this usually happens several times every season.
[alt.culture.bullfight FAQ] 4. What is an indulto ?
If a bull has shown exceptional bravery and the crowd petition the president of the bullring before it is killed, he will grant an indulto (pardon) and spare the bull's life. The kill is then simulated using a banderilla or an empty hand. The bull will usually then become a semental (stud bull).
--Felix3 23:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Are you serious? What was the bull guilty of in the first place to require a pardon from death? Also, does anyone have any recovery rate statistics of bulls who are 'pardoned'? I couldn't picture a bull living much of a life after a bullfight with numerous wounds to it's muscles, tendons and spine? Jachin 17:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Er. One wonders how much you know about animals. First of all, bulls or other animals cannot be guilty, as the concept of guilt implies the capacity for one to be responsible for their actions, something that only humans can do. So your semantic argument is unfounded. And second of all, before they are slain, the wounds bulls receive during a corrida are only superficial, and inflicted to fuel their anger and make them run after the picadores and the matador. It's all the running which exhausts them, not the wounds. Banderillas only stab a few centimeters under the skin; for a 600+kg animal, that is a mild cut. And finally, bulls which are bred for corridas leave a much happier life than their peers before the corrida, and after when they survive, since they recover in a matter of days/weeks, have sex with plenty of cows, and die of old age in some meadow where they are allowed to live out their life. LeoDV 14:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eating the bull

When I was in a village in Spain, the bull that was part of a "bloodless bullfight" at the village fiesta was butchered. Within a few hours it reappearred as some rather good stew. This was provided free to anyone in the town, as the bullfight was part of the (publicly funded) fiesta. (Anon.)

This is precisely what happens to the sacrificed bull in Greco-Roman cult. Wetman 21:32, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC) Well (aron) the bull is slaughtered and donated as charity in Mexico to the local orphanages and "soup kitchens" but in spain the bull is slaughtered and sold.

It's a pity that people can't put a gaur in to fight in place of the bull.


http://www.arkive.org/species/GES/mammals/Bos_frontalis/Bos_frontalis_00.html

If the gaur dies, then its meat will be ten times more delicious than normal bull's. But that would be impossible, all matadors may die within 10 secs, for it's too huge and fast.

[edit] Catalan confusion

Some separatists despise bullfighting because of its association with the Spanish nation. Recently Barcelona, the capital of Catalonia was declared an anti-bullfighting town. However, even a former Herri Batasuna leader was a novillero before becoming a politician. This is all very unlikely, since the pre-Christian religious significance and the former heart of bullfighting country is precisely Catalonia, Navarre and occitania. Wetman 21:32, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I think it's accurate at least in Catalonia. I don't know in the past, but presently, bullfighting is not very popular in many parts of Catalonia. Furthermore, bullfighting has been heavily promoted as a symbol of Spain (fiesta nacional), which does not make it popular at all for catalan nationalists. Xevi 09:35, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Bullfighting has never been that popular in Catalonia amongst Catalans; the only famous Catalan bullfighter was Mario Cabre in the 1950s. While bullfights were long popular in Barcelona, few Catalans attended the bullfights ; most of the spectators were from other parts of Spain or from foreign countries. One of Barcelona's two arenas had been shut down long before the ban. Bullfights in the Baleares have generally catered to tourists. The heart of bullfighting country is considered to be Andalusia, where the spectacle began in its modern form, where the best bulls are raised, and which continues to produce the most bullfighters and have the highest level of popular interest in the spectacle.

[edit] Confusion over ban

If Catalonia has banned bullfighting, why are there still bullfights going on in Barcelona? I spoke to the man who works at the Barcelona bull ring and he described the Catalan government's declaration that bullfighting was illegal as 'propaganda' and said that no law had been passed. Can anyone enlighten us on this?


Barcelona city council (not Catalonia) has not banned bullfighting. They have just made a public statement against bullfights being held in the city. They don't have the powers to forbid bullfighting, though. [Manel]


Bullfighting used to be popular in Catalonia . Don't some rabid Catalan separatist consider Roussillon part of Catalonia? Well, there are popular bullfightings in Perpignan and matadors wear the typical Catalonian barretina onto their heads. Also bullfightings are popular in Nîmes and many cities of southern France. To demote bullfightings in Catalonia (like the autonomous Government does since 1980) is not very Catalan from the historical and cultural point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.37.82.199 (talk) 14:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Errors in Portuguese Section

Errors exist with these two statements:

  • in Portugal, the main stars of bullfighting are the riders, as opposed to Spain, where the matadores are the most prominent bullfighters
  • In Portugal, bulls have their horns severed in a way that they do not present sharp points.


The article states that "in Portugal, the main stars of bullfighting are the riders, as opposed to Spain, where the matadores are the most prominent bullfighters". This is incorrect. The riders are the main attraction in a corrida that is done with one or two horses/riders. This is also the most popular of the "two-types" of bullfights in Portugal. However, Portugal also has bullfights that are not done with the horse. In these bullfights, the matador is the prominent figure.

Confusion may come from the fact that in a "horse-style" tourada, assistants are available. These assistants are paid by, and work for, the horse rider. These assistants are known as bandalheiros (not sure of the spelling). They do carry capes to guide the bull, but they are not matadors.

Additionally, the article states that in Portugal the bull's horns are cut. In a "horse-style" bullfight, the horns are covered to prevent injury to the horse and to the Forcados. Forcados are the men that must bring the charging bull to a stop and therefore come in direct contact with the horns. They only perform with bulls that are fought by horse. Bulls that are fought by foot do not have their horns capped are not stopped by the Forcados.

These "non-horse-style" bullfights are what people typically think of when they speak of bullfighting. These are performed by a matador. During these bullfights, the matador is the prominent figure (obviously, because there is no horse).

The two styles of bullfighting may be mixed, it is then referred to as a tourada mista, with some bulls being fought by horsemen and the others by matadors. However, each bull cannot be shared by a horseman and a matador.

In Portugal, the "horse-style" bullfights may be more popular because the matador (which means killer) does not have the authority to kill the bull. It may also be because the crowds enjoy the Forcados, which cannot participate in a "foot-style" bullfight because of the sharp horns. Regardless of the reason, Portugal does have more "horse-style" bullfights than "foot-style", which may be the reason that this was written up incorrectly. I plan to amend the section when I have a chance.

--Januario 23:43, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

"English-speaking critics often confuse the tauromachia with the coarse entertainment of "bull-baiting" formerly popular in Britain, in which packs of specially-bred bulldogs were loosed upon a bull confined within a ring or even tethered to a stake."

Is this really accurate? I'm speaking only from personal experience here, but the standard image of bull-fighting focuses around the matador and the bull, and few ever even think of bull baiting. I'm not sure I've ever heard of the two being confused. --Xanzzibar 19:48, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cavaleiro

I changed the "rejoneo" to Caveleiro. In Portuguese style bullfights, the bullfighters/ horsemen/ horse riders are formally known as the "Cavaleiro". Spanish style would be called a "rejoneo". Here in California, the bloodless bullfights are a seasonal event that begins between the months of April through October. And I also want to clarify that the horses are NOT beaten or abused to get them to do what they do. At least our horses are not. Just like with any animals, it is the "owners" responsibility to make sure that the animals are not harmed in any way. I read somewhere on the internet that the horses are tortured to get them to do tricks and go up against a bull. And I'm simply saying that it is NOT true at all.--Webmistress Diva 20:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Red hats

(I've moved the following question by an anon from Image talk:Suerte de banderillas.jpg, where it was originally posted. -- ChrisO 16:23, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) )

hi I wonna ask one question Why bullfighters wear red hat?

IIRC only portuguese "forcados" wear a red hat (the traditional portuguese headdress). The standard hat for on-foot bullfighting is called a "montera" and it's always black. It's, though, usually lined on the inside in crimson. It's a common superstition not to let it bottom-up (with the inside visible) on the arena because it "looks like a coffin ..."

[edit] Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when a few references have been added to the article. - Taxman 18:51, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

I've removed this:
"It is said that the King of Spain, Juan Carlos, has once told in the midst of the European Union process of congregation, in face of great pressure from other European royals, to stop what was considered a cruel bloody business, that: "Spain would rather leave the European Union than to abolish bullfighting"."
It would be needed a reference maintain that. I live in Spain and I'm agains bullfighting but I've never heard that statement. Anyway, the King has no power making laws in Spain so it doesn depend on him, and it's just one more opinion.
84.122.6.175 01:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The King is a great fan of bullfighting, this is true. While he has no power to make laws, in many regions of Spain there is considerable support for bullfighting. In Andalusia, Castile, Extremadura and Valencia interest in bullfighting remains high. The Canary Islands banned bullfighting in the 1990s but it was not a part of their culture, as is the case with Catalonia, and likewise I would expect bullfighting to disappear in the Baleares at some point in time. I would not consider a national ban to be feasible but with the decentralization process which has occurred in Spain since the return to democracy and the resulting power of the autonomous communities, I would expect bullfighting to completely disappear in some communities while in others it will continue to thrive. Also, the article did not address the fact that in Spain it is considered a cultural event along the lines of opera or ballet, not a sport. Bullfights are covered in the cultural sections of newspaper, not the sports sections.

I'd say your argument is moot on the grounds that dog fighting was also a 'cultural event' of numerous nations prior to the 1900's and in some instances of more well educated and refined cultures the 1800's. A complete ban on bullfighting will eventually occur as the practise of torturing and killing animals, for entertainment, under the guise of culture or not, is an affront to human decency and common sense to the rest of the world.
The argument that it is the countries right to see things differently is moot on the grounds that numerous countries saw it as their right to allow slavery and other animalistic behaviour, yet eventually they gave in to reason and common decency as human beings. Jachin 17:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone give a source for the number of 6000 horses killed or wounded? I live in Spain, and a horse killed is something exceptional. And wounds (if you mean horn wounds) are also uncommon. I daresay that dropping a couple of zeros would still be exaggerated.--JoseFMartindelPozo 19:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My Compliments

A darn fine page. It makes me proud to be a Wiki. (Didn't I catch a bullfightin Brazil once? I was drunk, and may have been in Argentina.) Paul, in Saudi 17:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] When was bullfighting banned in the USA?

Bullfighting in the Spanish style was quite popular in the American West in the 19th century, but by the 1920s was illegal. The bloodless bullfights in California became legal within the last 20 years, as they largely occur in small towns which had continued to hold conventional, illegal bullfights long after bullfighting became illegal. The bloodless corrida was legalized as a way of preserving local traditions in the state's rural areas, if I remember correctly. Documentation would be welcomed.

[edit] Here's the official statute law for bullfighting in California...

resource: Bullfighting Statute/Law

Citation: Cal Pen Code §597m

Summary: This statute makes it unlawful for any person to promote, advertise, stage, hold, manage, conduct, participate in, engage in, or carry on any bullfight, but does not prohibit rodeos or bloodless bullfights, contests, or exhibitions held in connection with religious celebrations or religious festivals.


Statute in Full: It shall be unlawful for any person to promote, advertise, stage, hold, manage, conduct, participate in, engage in, or carry on any bullfight exhibition, any bloodless bullfight contest or exhibition, or any similar contest or exhibition, whether for amusement or gain or otherwise; provided, that nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit rodeos or to prohibit measures necessary to the safety of participants at rodeos. This section shall not, however, be construed as prohibiting bloodless bullfights, contests, or exhibitions held in connection with religious celebrations or religious festivals. Any person violating the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.

--Webmistress Diva 12:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The link does not include legislative history, so it is uncertain at what time bullfighting was banned in California. There was a brief Los Angeles Times article about bullfighting in 19th century Los Angeles and its popularity at the time which is not available on the web. I get the impression that California banned bullfights some time in the 19th century, and that New Mexico and Arizona allowed bullfights into the early 20th century. This information would be appreciated.

[edit] POV Wording

It is apparent to me that this article has drastic point of view wording in the pro; the words 'pain', 'torment', 'cruelty', 'suffering' and 'torture' to name just a few are all jammed down in the criticisms section only. There is no possible argument that these are NPOV words to describe the act of ritualistic maiming and (eventual) slaying of an animal. The only instance of the word 'suffering' that isn't in the criticisms section is in relation to the matador suffering a gorging from the bull.

Cultural egg-shell treading must be put aside for accurate, realistic and neutral point of view editing of this article, I think personally that we all, as Wikipedians, are having ourselves on by being hypersensitive and keeping anything factual, that could be percieved as criticism, jammed in the criticism subheading only. Thus I have placed the NPOV boilerplate on the main article until this issue can be addressed. Jachin 18:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I have trouble understanding your point of view. The fact that the article does not condemn bullfighting makes it pro? It is your opinion and your point of view that bullfighting is "cruel" and a "torture". Many disagree. So I would suggest that you keep your point of view out of the article. It's perfectly NPOV, reflecting pro and con arguments in their respective sections. LeoDV 14:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BJAODN

I think that the WP:BJAODN version of the introduction is actually better. It creates a greater sense of involement for the reader. Of course, that's my opinion. ~ Syrae Faileas - «Talk» 21:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligence

In "characteristic combination of intelligence, strength and attack-proneness", it may not be clear that the desired intelligence is not very high. A smart bull would not attack blindly but would check at the last moment the real position of the bullfighter. (I was told that cows don't attack blindly, that's way there are no cows in bullrings). Samewise, the strength and attack-proneness have to be limited. Too much and the bullfighter can't work. Too few and the show is just butchering. There is also the difference between torerist and bullist audiences.

How could it be expressed more clearly? --Error 23:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A 1931 viewpoint

Origen europeo, liberal y antiespañol de las corridas de toros, a diatribe from 1931 by Ernesto Giménez Caballero in the pre-Falangist organ La Conquista del Estado. --Error 02:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

That's rather interesting considering that Gimenéz Caballero was not only from Cadiz, a part of Spain in which antibullfighting sentiment is virtually unknown even today, but was a man of the extreme right. The overwhelming majority of Spaniards who are opposed to bullfighting are from areas in which there is little interest in bullfighting and are on the left end of the political spectrum. An Andalusian right winger opposed to bullfighting is quite atypical. There was concern for the welfare of animals involved in bullfighting in Spain during the 1920s, but it invariably advocated measures to protect horses rather than banning corridas. The custom of padding worn by horses in the bullfight dates from that era, according to Hemingway's "Death In The Afternoon"

[edit] When the bull wins

A Mexican friend of mine has described the outcome when the bull wins the fight: the bull retires to a life of ease and breeding. In this sense, he argues, bullfighting is fairer to the bull than a traditional slaughterhouse where the animal has no chance of survival. I don't have any particular view on this - but it would be interesting to see a subheading on the subject. Durova 22:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

This argument is quite common in Mexico, where the conditions in slaughterhouses are considered to be far worse than any fate which could befall a bull in a ring.

This is almost correct. In certain, very rare, circumstances when a bull has been unusually brave the crowd can petition the president of the Corrida to pardon the bull. In such a case the bull does live out a long life likely as a stud bull afterward.--Counsel 06:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origins

Well, for one there is a sentence in it that doesn't make much sense. Secondly, no one is quite sure or even relatively sure what happened in crete. what we have are some tantalizing but unfortunately vague murals etc. Is it bull leaping? Or are the 'leapers' being gored, sacrificed the bull? Is it ritualistic? Are the paintings merely symbolic? Ok. Thirdly, with that note, I highly doubt you can trace bullfighting back to crete. Yes. They had something go on with bulls. But it is highly doubtful that there is even an indirect connection between the minoans and this sort of bullfighting. I mean, randomly, if I had to guess, I'd say that a connection to the venationes of Rome and its empire...

[edit] Pictures

The pictures are currently (mostly) stacked at the top of the article. I think it would be better to arrange them around more, so space it out and avoid further clipping. I don't really have the time at the moment, but if no one else tries, I'm going to give it a shot. --Falcorian (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Matador'

where in the bullfighting world is 'matador' a common term for the torero? In the United States, amongst people who know absolutely nothing about bullfights, the word 'matador' is standard. But I have never encountered it in places where bullfighting actually occurs, and there are some comments to the same effect on the matador page. It seems clear to me that that page should be moved to torero, and that there should be some clarification on this page. But I don't feel qualified to make that clarification... Is 'matador' simply wrong? Is there somewhere where bullfights actually occur, and this word is used in favor of 'torero'?

- Ncsaint 17:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Matador is word used in the Spanish speaking world. The word in Spanish for bullfighter is torero. Not all Toreros are bullfighters. Matador is the highest level of torero. It is sort of like being in the major leagues. A particularly promising torero is presented at a major bull by a current matador (his sponsor, so to speak) and the older matador formally asks the novillero to kill one of his bulls for him at which point the torero is promoted to full matador.--Counsel 18:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
but where? it's simply not true that 'matador' is used in 'the Spanish speaking world' in that way. People in Andalucia, for instance, are aware of the word, but have no use for it, in my experience. So where is this word being used? - Ncsaint 22:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
DRAE defines matador as "torero who kills by the sword". Banderilleros, picadores and rejoneadores are not matadores, but I think at least some of them are toreros. --Error 00:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Matador is a Spanish word and is used in spanish. The Spanish version of Wiki has this to say about the varios levels of promotion among Toreros: "El torero tiene varias etapas de formación, obtenida por la práctica. La primera etapa es la de novillero, en la que se lidia novillos debido a su menor tamaño y fuerza, comenzando generalmente en festivales sin caballos, para luego pasar a novilladas con picadores de acuerdo a sus resultados. La segunda etapa es la de matador, donde el torero ha conseguido destreza suficiente para desarrollar con estilo y técnica todos los tercios de la lidia. Cuando un novillero logra, en teoría, los méritos necesarios alcanzar el grado de matador, realiza una corrida especial denominada alternativa. La alternativa se puede conseguir en cualquier plaza de toros de primera categoría; sin embargo generalmente los matadores realizan una confirmación de su alternativa en plazas de particular tradición como Las Ventas en Madrid o la Monumental de Ciudad de México." If you are not a spanish speaker, this says largely the same thing that I wrote in English above.

The assertion that the article as written should be moved to "Torero" is largely valid, however. The article is not particularly accurate right now. It confuses Matador with Toreros in general. The article under Toreador is flat wrong. Matador is used in Spanish. It is roughly (very roughly) analogous to saying "major leaguer" rather than "ball player". Torero is the more common word, however picadors, peones, novilleros, and rejoneadores are all toreros. Only a Torero who is skilled in the third tercio of the corrida and has been presented at Las Ventas or Monumental is a Matador. This is the person who works the bull with the muleta and kills him with the sword in a major bullfight. I think that this article should be corrected and clarified to explain the role of a Matador vis a vie the rest of the players in a corrida, or it should be expanded to include all of the Toreros in a corrida and moved to that title. I believe the latter is the better option.--Counsel 17:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I copied this discussion to the Matador page. Probably the better place for it.--Counsel 17:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Bullfighting/Pictures

I am moving some pictures to Talk:Bullfighting/Pictures as a holding area. They are cluttered and I need to remove them to get my thoughts straight... Don't worry, they're going right back. --Falcorian (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

And done, for now. Two pictures now have no home. I think they'd only clutter the article if put back... But I'm looking for a spot for them. --Falcorian (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indulto

I removed the part about a bull surviving as it happens so infrequently as to be almost misleading to include it as a regular cause of applause at a bullfight. One may be an active aficionado attending bullfights for his or her entire life and never see this happen. Also, it is not the first part (third) of the fight that is the most significant. The bull must show unusual bravery and often this is when the bull faces the picador as this is the most painful portion for the bull, but it is not necessarily dispositive. A bull that shown disregard for the discomfort and continues to go after the picador will win points wiht the crowd and the president. Also the performance in the third tercio will be important. the Indulto is only issued when the time to actually kill the bull arives after the faena.--Counsel 00:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

have you ever go to a corrida? i have go to a few on plaza de toros, mexico city, and i have seen at least 1 bull to recive the indulto, and i have only been to like 5 bullfights in my short life

[edit] Bull-on-bull fighting

Is it still considered bullfighting if no bullfighter is involved? If so, could we have some more coverage of this version of the sport, which is practiced here in Korea? If not, what is the proper term for this sort of fighting? -- Visviva 14:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

When I lived in Okinawa, the fights in which a bull fought another bull were called bullfighting as well.--Counsel 01:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Reversion

I just reverted an edit removing this statement:

It is notable that Spanish laws against cruelty to animals have abolished most archaic spectacles that had involved animals while including specific exceptions for bullfighting. Animal welfare supporters question why such exemptions would be imposed if bullfighting were not inherently cruel.

The double negative renders this statement nonsensical. If bullfighting were not inherently cruel, as posited, then exceptions for it make sense.--Counsel 17:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that the language is clumsy, but the point is well made and the revert seems to me to be wrong. The exemption was quite possible inserted because it was felt that prosecutions would succeed. The law protects cruelty - in a similar way that UK animal welfare legislation provided exemptions for fox hunting until recently. MikeHobday 17:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cheating

The article currently has a section which outlines allegation of cheating against the bull. The various charges are drawn from a Michener novel about Mexico which includes bullfights in rural Mexico in the 1920's or 30's. Today, Bravos bulls represent a massive investment in money and time. The suggestion that the breeders of these bulls, who's reputations and finacial well-being is determined by the performance of their bulls, would leave these animals unsupervised in a position to be abused immediatly before a bullfight strains credulity. Does anyone have a citation for these allegations where something like this has happened in the past 50 years? Is there anything to this other than the novel? If not, I suggest that the section be revised to reflect that these were allegations of abuse in the past or that a novel incuded such exploits.--Counsel 17:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This has been posted for quite a while without response. I am removing the cheating section unless there is a source to support it.--Counsel 01:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Iberian Horse"

That part had no information dealing with bullfighting. If the section consisted of facts about how these horses took a role, whether as picador mounts or at rejoneo, it would be welcome. Only some curiosity on horse breeds, even a supposed etymology of the word "Andalusia", etc. But, nothing about bullfighting at all! In its current form, it is impossible for the section to have a presence in this article. Behemoth 20:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Condescending Behemoth

Behemoth (→See also - How can you expect people "see also" when such articles don't even exist? C'mon dear user, this place is not intended to serve your "national sensitivity!) ... ETC.

what??? please don't make assumptive comments about my motives when your expression cries from having a chip on your own shoulder. although i don't disagree with all of your edits you seem to be as pedantic with your comments as you are with your seek and destroy behavior. maybe i'm wrong about YOUR motives but that's what it seems like. if you insist on nitpicking that's amusing since you demonstrate habits that just beg to be picked on. stop the condescending BS, 20 edits in a row with poorly quipped comments encouraging a flame war on the article history page. other than that, your input is appreciated.

Thank you.

Lusitano Transmontano 17:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Issue resolved. Thanks, Behemoth.

Lusitano Transmontano 08:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 83.132.142.225 (Corrected several incorrections regarding Portuguese bullfighting.)

Most of the these so-called corrections are moot and just substituting one thing for another. Removing Nazaré fishermen and putting Ribatejo campinos is without reason, unless you are from Ribatejo (and I wouldn't be surprised if you are). If you must you could leave Nazaré fishermen and just add Ribatejo campinos. The part about Feira do Touro was not incorrect. You just needed to word it in a way that pleased you. Your correction by removing the fight is accordingly referred to as a "bloodless bullfight" is actually incorrect. Whoever wrote that did so accurately since it is indeed bloodless in the ring where the bullfight takes place. The bullfight is not after show when a injured bull may be killed. Severed was changed to covered regarding a bull's horns - yes they are covered but are severed also. Adding covered without removing severed would have been more appropriate. And so on. I would hesitate to call these "corrections".

Lusitano Transmontano 05:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bloodless Bullfighting (Portuguese Style)

I created a separate area for "Bloodless Bullfighting" since it is different from the classic Spanish style of bullfighting.

So, if any is here that has an input for this section, it would be nice if you can go over to the new area and make your inputs there.

Thanks in advance. --Webmistress Diva 09:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I added Matadors and edited Bandarilheiros

I added Matadors as they are still part of a Portuguese Style bullfight, although they are not always present.

I edited this and moved it below the "Matadors"

  • Bandarilheiros - Akin to the Spanish matadores (see above), but without the sword. These men simply play the bull with a red coat.

I re-wrote it to say that they are the Matadors and Cavaleiros helper. Which they are. Their sole purpose is to help the Matadors and Cavaleiros in the arena by moving, distracting, and placing the bull elsewhere in the arena so that the Cavaleiro or Matador can position themselves.

I would also note that they (Bandarilheiros) are not part of the "three main events" noted by someone. Whoever wrote that don't know what they were talking about.

[edit] Dominique Aubier

I found this on the article:

French ethnologist Dominique Aubier considers according to an espistemological study that there is no relationship between the Greek sacrifice which is an agricultural ritualistic celebration or the Roman Gladiators and the bullfight which is in Spain of pure paleontological hunting origins.Dominique Aubier explains that the corrida is a 20 000 year old primitive tradition, and that the theory of a so-called Arabic introduction of the corrida in Spain is an extravancy.

I did some research on Aubier and watch over her article. She seems to have quite esoteric views. Not sure what to make of the above part. Is this mainstream scientic view, because it doesn't cite sources and sounds quite weird to me. But maybe that's just because I'm a newbie when it comes to bullfighting. ;) Best regards, --Plumcouch 12:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the claim that the corrida is a 20.000 year old primitive tradition - no scientific claim, no references; I'm Im wrong, don't hesitate and correct me. --Plumcouch Talk2Me 17:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

We seem to have a lot of 'em. Removal/conversion to citation type suggestions? - brenneman {L} 14:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animal Welfare research for this event should be explored seriously

I didn't know why my back getting pain since last week untill yesterday which was the worst day for me and which was coinsident with the 7/7 2004 London bombing. This also reminds me of the Madrid bombing and the spain train crash last week.

Don't people get allert that this is a very karmic event and needs to be changed to a more civilized form?

Not only animal suffers and now this suffering is epidemic to human like me who is sensitive to the surrounding.

If this old fashined bullfighting doesn't change, more mad cow diseases and bulling of human insidents shall happen

You can't be serious, look how you worded and backed up your thesis. You're saying that the terrorist bombings are connected with bullfighting. Please, support and sign your statement if you're actually serious.--Exander 05:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a criticism of the article or just, as it appears to me, pure drivel about karmic consequences. That and UNSIGNED drivel to be precise. AntonioBu 15:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excellent Article

My compliments to the contributors. A sensitively written and balanced article. Well done! AntonioBu 15:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Descabello

Does not the descabello pierce the cerebellum instead of the spinal cord? Isn't it akin to garrote (or garrote vil, I mean the non-suffocating variant)?

[edit] Andean festival

I miss a link to the Andes festival in which a captured condor (representing the Amerindians) is tied to a bull representing the conquistadors.

[edit] Children

From memory, there is an age limit to attending a corrida but either it is very low or is not enforced, because there may be children watching it. There should be a mention too of the television coverage of the corridas.

[edit] Capeas, tientas

I miss a mention of the capeas and tientas. Apparently it is a private social gathering of some significance.

[edit] Changes and suggestions to the Portuguese section

I removed this "(usually it is a violent choke)", which was located in the "Forcados" section. How can one say that it is done in that manner? I'd like to know if the person who wrote it is actually a "Forcado". Because think about it.... when the bull is charging fast towards the first guy, his job is to grab the bull by it's neck, because it's the only logical place to where he can securely hang on to while the bull is trying to toss him off. There are plenty of times where the front guy is dangling and barely hanging on the bull. Also, if the front guy is "violently" choking the bull, there would be no need for the rest of the guys to take the bull down. That's why it requires at least 8 guys to take on the bull, because the bull is stronger than them all. I'm also removing it because we don't need animal rights activist coming up with another reason why this is not fair game.

So, unless you are a true Forcado and can actual state how it is truly done, then please make or suggest the corrections.

One additional change I'd like to include (but I haven't done so) is the subject about the horns. It needs to state that when a bull is being fought by a Cavaleiro and grabbed by the Forcados, the horns are covered with a "leather wrap". And for the Matadores, the bulls are not covered nor are they severed. The point of the horn is significant and challenging..

I've read controversial/conversations on the subject of cutting the horns of a bull. Some say that when that occurs, the bull losses their balance. Although, I have documented on video of when the ganaderos have cut a small portion of the tip, filed it down a bit, and then covered it with duck tape. This was during a tienta (tenta), where they test the bulls. It was also for the safety of the amateurs participating in the arena. If anyone objects or has the true facts, please include here.

Thanks--Webmistress Diva 04:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


It's not only Lusitano Horses that are used in Portuguese Bullfights and there is no mention of Manuel dos Santos or as he was (well) known in Spain "Manolo dos Santos - a Matador

And as it was said...there is no violent choke, one man cannot choke a 600 Kg Bull half an arena or sometimes almost the entire arena ALONE...and in 8 people, he is the one hagging in the horns and neck of the bull...the others are "fists aids", "second aids" "rabojador" (taile man) etc 18 Fev 2007

[edit] Popularity Percentage in Spain

I noticed it is mentioned several times in your article that "Nowadays, less than 10% of Spaniards support bullfighting". It also states a "citation needed" for this number. Why is it being shown then? It is a contraversial figure to say the least! It took me 5 minutes on Google to find several sources disagreeing with this figure and none stating anywhere near 10%. Most in fact stated around a 20 -30% figure and used much improved wording of "XX% of Spaniards have no interest in bullfighting", which to me more accurately represents a NPOV.

The two sources I have put below both appear to use results from the same recent survey (both articles are from January this year). They state 72% of Spaniards have no interest in bullfighting, 82% of "young people". I assume young people would mean under 18 but this is not stated. Surely this should replace the ridiculous and unsighted 10% currently used.

[2] [3]

203.202.43.46 04:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Brett

[edit] Featured?

Note: I have posted links to this discussion on WikiProject Spain, WikiProject Portugal, and WikiProject France.

I don't believe this article lives up to the standard set for Featured Status anymore, per WP:FA?. In specific, I believe it fails 1.(c) "Factually accurate", as it has almost no citations. It may have a few other problems, but I believe this one to be the most serious. Is anyone willing to help source it? I have a interest in Bullfighting, but almost no knowledge or access to off line sources, so I'd need help in cleaning it up. --Falcorian (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it miserably fails 1c. If there wasn't such a backlog, I'd list it for FAR. Good luck trying to bring it up to shape! :) Raystorm 19:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bull approval by the presidente and the audience

I heard that if the audience whistles, or if the president does not give his consent then the bull can be removed from the arena due to a lack of brevity.63.19.181.150 01:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bullfighting hazards in "Requiem for the Masses"

I remember that I have the song "Requiem for the Masses" by The Association, and although the song dealt with the death of boxer Davey Moore, as cited in this link, part of its lyrics mentions the hazards of bullfighting, as follows: "Your flag is flying full, / At half-mast for the matadors / Who turned their backs to please the crowd / And all fell before the bull." Just wanted you to know whether to improve the article with this info or not. --Angeldeb82 01:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Recortes

I disagree with the revision done at 14:08, 16 August 2007 by Bob98133 who says he "removed unreferenced and POV content". My opinion is that rather than remove POV he introduced his own POV.

In the section "Recortes" he changes "The bull is not harmed in any way" to "The bull is not visibly harmed". What is this supposed to mean? That the bull may be "invisibly" harmed? It is a true fact that "The bull is not harmed in any way" (obviously barring unforeseen accidents). The phrase should be restored. The new wording just leaves open the suggestion that the bull may be harmed even if not "visibly".

"They perform jumps and other daring acrobatics..." is changed to "They perform jumps and other acrobatics..." What is the point of removing the word "daring"? The stunts are, in fact, daring, very daring! They are not just any acrobatics but very daring indeed with high risk of serious injury or death. The change just reflects his POV, not the facts.

"It is probable that these events will continue to grow in popularity as they are less objectionable to animal rights advocates..." is changed to "These events may grow in popularity as they are less objectionable to the general public..." which, again, shows bias as trying to imply that all of the general public is opposed to bullfights which is certainly not the case. Also the change "It is probable that these events will continue to grow in popularity..." to "These events may grow in popularity..." is just silly just like the twice removal of the word "continue". It is a fact that these events have been growing in popularity in the last years and if they continue to grow, well, they continue the growth.

The fact is that the trend is for growth and that there are reasons which favor the growth so it is a fair assessment to say that "It is probable that these events will continue to grow in popularity".

I propose that the wording be restored. GS3 20:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand the points you make, but using words like "daring" is a point of view. Some people may think it's stupid or irresponsible. It is best without the adjective. Unless you can provide documentation to show not only an increase in popularity but a predicted future increase, those statments too are best toned down. As for the bull being harmed, I suppose you would have no objections to restoring your wording and including "barring unforeseen accidents?"

Anything you can reasonably document is fine with me, but the changes I made were because these things weren't documented, just opinion. Sorry, I tried to remove the opinion, but just reverting isn't acceptible. Bob98133 20:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid your bias is showing. Daring is not POV, it is a factual description according to the dictionary. Either it is "daring" or it is "not daring". Are you willing to support that jumping over the horns of a charging bull is not "daring"?
I live in Spain and in the last few weeks I have seen quite a few events shown on TV while just a few years ago this was unheard of. But I am not going to spend a lot of time documenting this. Search Google for "concurso de recortes" and similar terms and see how many you find from, say, before and after 2000. If every affirmation in Wikipedia had to be similarly supported Wikipedia would disappear into insignificance, beginning with this very article. I affirm from my own experience that these events have grown in popularity and you do not like this assertion but you have no proof to the contrary so you just ask me to spend time proving it. You have presented no contradictory information, only that you want me to prove an assertion that you do not seem to like. Can you offer any evidence that my assertion is not accurate? I don't think so.
As to adding "barring unforeseen accidents" to my phrase "the bull is not harmed in any way" I find it plainly ridiculous as it is understood that any activity may have unforeseen accidents which may result in harm. In the article Bed of nails it says "the volunteer is not harmed" and anyone with an ounce of common sense understands that an accident may still happen from which harm may result. The fact is that in the normal course of events the bull is not harmed in any way and what the article is supposed to describe is the normal course of events. Again, trying to inject those words just shows your bias. Or do you really propose that every description of events include every possibility of what could go wrong? GS3 21:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, the way this works is that if you post something you should be able to document it. I am asking you to document an increase in popularity. "Affirmations from your own experience" are not acceptible as documentation. I think daring indicates that this is an exceptional circumstance and, in fact, it is a routine performance, so I think that daring is POV. If you so strongly disagree then I'll leave it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bob98133 (talk • contribs) 22:54:26, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Look, this is nonsense and you know it. You are a self-described animal rights activist and admin wannabe. You are the one with bias and agenda, not me. When I have some time I will try to find some information regarding the increase in popularity and when I do I will restore every one of my words. If you have a problem with that you can call an admin to settle this because I am not convinced by your POV. GS3 17:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

My only problem is with undocumented assertions being posted as fact. I appreciate you taking the time to document this material. Where did I describe myself as an animal rights activist? Is it wrong to want to be a Wiki admin? Bob98133 18:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No your problem is with assertions which do not fit your agenda even if you have no objective reason to doubt their veracity. You could have put a "citation needed" tag but you chose to delete what you don't like. That is not being constructive. Look at Running of the Nudes. It has not a single cite in support of any of the asserted facts. Will you delete it in its entirety? Or should I do it? Do we really want to go down this path? GS3 22:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The word "daring" (according to Wikidictionary and Wikipedia: willing to take on or look for risks, courageous and/or foolhardy bold behaviour, showing bravery) is used in the following articles together with similar adjectives to describe actions of US military personnel in action. If you remove every single instance of the word in those articles as "unacceptible" because it is just a POV then I will drop my request that the word be reinstated here. a daring helicopter rescue in Vietnam, a daring resourceful and courageous leader, a daring airborne rescue operation in Vietnam, a daring raid, another daring raid. GS3 22:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Put "daring" back. I'm convinced. If you'd cited some examples earlier on, I'd have agreed then.Bob98133 23:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the original text. If you have a problem with any of it I suggest you propose any changes in this discussion page before making them there because I strongly believe the wording is just fine and I will insist on it. If you have a problem with the "increase in popularity" I have no problem with your adding a "citation needed" tag until such citation is provided. I will not agree to its removal unless you can present a citation to the contrary . GS3 10:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

These changes have been discussed. You failed to provide documentation for your assertion that Recourtes is increasing in popularity. Your assertion that animal rights advocates find this more acceptible than traditional bullfighting is ludicrous and unfounded. My understanding is that animal rights advocates do not believe in any animal use for entertainment, so there is no chance whatsoever that they would find Recourtes any less objectionable than traditinal bullfighting. If you wanted to change that to "animal welfare advocates" or "the general public" - the change I made earlier - I would agree that it would be more reasonable. I agreed with you, after you provided documentation, that "daring" was used properly and that I did not oppose it being re-inserted. However, the other reversions you made are NOT acceptible and were done without regard to the discussion. I have added citation tags, however I will revert the section about animal rights advocates and increasing popularity soon since it is your obligation as the editor posting them to document contentious citations, not mine. I will give you a day or two to find citations to support these items, then will revert them or change them if you do not. Despite your statement that you "will insist" I think it would be better if you documented things prior to insisting that they are true. Thanks. Bob98133 18:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

>> You failed to provide documentation for your assertion that Recourtes is increasing in popularity.
And you have not provided any evidence to the contrary either. As I said, I have no objection to the "citation needed" tag but if you want to remove it you should seek consensus here. No matter how much you would like it you are not an administrator yet. If you want to prevail please seek consensus here or find contrary proof. You may challenge my assertion if you have proof to the contrary. Do you?

>> Your assertion that animal rights advocates find this more acceptible than traditional bullfighting is ludicrous and unfounded.
The spelling is "acceptable". Are you seriously proposing that people who care for animal welfare see no difference between a corrida, where the bull is injured and killed, and an event where the bull suffers no harm whatsoever? Really? You are saying that those people have no problem really with the blood, the injuries and the killing but their objection is to... enticing the bull to running around? What world do you live in? In my world this looks pretty stupid just on its face.

>> My understanding is that animal rights advocates do not believe in any animal use for entertainment, so there is no chance whatsoever that they would find Recourtes any less objectionable than traditinal bullfighting.
"Animal rights advocates", by definition, includes anyone who cares about and defends animal welfare. Not only, as you seem to imply, some nutty, radical organization like PETA who equate eating chicken with the Holocaust. The rest of the population, i.e. those who do not particularly care about animals' welfare, would not be affected one way or the other as there is no reason they would find any difference on that account. Furthermore, in this case we are talking about animal rights advocates in Spain which, just to state the obvious, are not American.

>> However, the other reversions you made are NOT acceptible and were done without regard to the discussion.
Again, the place to discuss that is here. If you find ample support for your position then your wording shall prevail over mine. You are not an administrator yet and you have absolutely no authority to determine what is "acceptible".

You want me to provide a lot of support for my wording while you are not even bothering to answer half of my questions and points. Again, look at Running of the Nudes, you want to delete it in its entirety as unsupported by cites? It seems you think you can demand others to spend a lot of time justifying every single word while you are exempt from that requirement. You can play the game too by finding cites that support your POV.

If you revert then I will revert and we *will* get the admins involved. You need to get off the idea that you have some authority over what others post. It would also be helpful if you got off your agenda but that may be impossible. GS3 13:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. After some reflection I would propose "those concerned with the bull's welfare", "those who find the suffering of the bull objectionable", or similar wording in place of "animal rights advocates". I am not so concerned with the wording but just want to point out that Recortes are acceptable to many who find bullfights unacceptable on account of the blood and suffering of the bull. GS3 14:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, GS3 - now we're getting somewhere! Either of those wordings are fine with me - your choice. I agree with what you say in your PS, but the wording should be clear - which your proposed changes are. I won't revert or complain about any change like that.
Just for discussion: This definition of yours ["Animal rights advocates", by definition, includes anyone who cares about and defends animal welfare.]is absolutely wrong or the National Cattlemens Assoc., fast food outlets, etc., who claim to care and support animal welfare, would be animal rights advocates - which they wouldn't agree with. Perhaps the distinction isn't so fine in Spain, but in the US and UK these types of distinctions are bitterly fought over. The different point of views of animal rights and animal welfare are detailed on those pages, but basically AR says no animals should be used at all, while AW says they can be used but should be treated humanely. Obviously there is a lot of overlap.
Thanks for considering these changes. If it is of concern to you, put a "citation needed" on the Running of the Nudes page and I will get around to documenting it. Sorry if I haven't answered other questions - just ask again if it's important. Again, I appreciate your willingness to work this out and apologize if I was harsh or impolite earlier.Bob98133 15:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I have made that change and the wording of that section is acceptable to me as it is. I hope it is acceptable for you too. GS3 08:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Bullfights, touradas, make me sick. I'm from Portugal and they do that shit a lot. This is not art! This is torture! The Bulls have their lives, they don't care about us, they don't kills us, they're vegetarian! So what's the fucking point in killing an Animal that doesn't want to kill us?? We, humans, have no right to stab a Bull to see if it's brave or not! Stab your mother and father you asses! No fucking common scence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.193.38.174 (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Association with Mithraism

I just ran several pretty thorough database searches for something to substantiate the claim of ancient bullrings having provenance with mithraea but had no success. This is an issue that is of interest to me because I have encountered several reasons for suspecting that this Spanish bullfighting did descend from Mithras worship. If anyone knows more I would like to discuss exploring this possibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.178.240 (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The only thing bullfighting and mithraism has in common is a 'bull'. Nothing more. There's no similarity in the sacrifice, or killing methods, at all. Sounds like puff to me. 122.107.56.47 (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] added guide material to article

Sorry, my remarks got cut off when I posted. I have added some material from the Bullfighting Guide to the AR section of the article and deleted the EL as it is no longer necessary.Bob98133 (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV issue: Proposed changes.

Bullfighting or tauromachy (from Greek ταυρομαχία - tauromachia, "bull-fight"), is a traditional spectacle of Spain, Portugal, some cities in southern France, and several Latin American countries. Its origin is unknown and there are several competing, opposed and inconclusive theories.

Bullfighting is a blood sport, I will address this below, however a link to blood sport should be included in the opening paragraph as it's definitive if we adopt a purposive approach.

This is in ph 3. f you look at an article such as dog fightingyou will see that cruelty is not mentioned in the first ph, although there are few of us who would think that dog fighting is not cruel. I agree that bull fighting is a blood sport, if indeed it is a sport,however to call it a blood sport prior to describing it doesn't make that any more clear. Typically, the topic is defined fairly traditionally, described and then objections or controversies may be presented. This is the way the bullfighting article is at the moment, so shifting the order would make it POV since it would be stressing opposition ahead of explaining the topic. The blood sport article is kind of thin, maybe you want ot add content to that.Bob98133 (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The tradition, as it is practiced today, involves professional performers, toreros (also refered to as toreadors in English), who execute various formal moves with the goal of appearing graceful and confident, while masterful over the bull itself. Such maneuvers are performed at close range, and conclude often with the death of the bull by a well-placed sword thrust as the finale. In Portugal the finale consists of a tradition called the pega, where men (forcados) try to hold the bull by its horns when it runs at them. Forcados are dressed in a traditional costume of damask or velvet, with long knit hats as worn by the campinos (bull headers) from Ribatejo.

I call into contention the neutrality of the term 'professional performers.' Suffice to say, they refer to themselves as atheletes, many people refer to them as warriors. No performer inflicts injury on an animal for the purpose of entertainment, it would be safe to say that since the turn of the century only countries allowing animal blood sports allow such (which proves another point I will come to), however it would be safe to say that the profession of a bull fighter is to inflict grievous injuries on and eventually kill the bull for the entertainment of the audience. This is not a performing art, just as fencing is not interpretive dance.

Someone who gets paid for what they do is a professional. Maybe they're also professional killers or professional sadists, but they are being paid to perform whatever the tradition is. Calling them "professional" is a job status, not priase for their behavior. It is a neutral comment to indicate that they are paid for their "work."Bob98133 (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It is also worth noting that these professionals (just like professional policemen, professional soldiers, and professional firefighters) fairly frequently get injuries of their own on the job. Some of these injuries are rather grevious, such as death. While probably more bulls die than members of the bullfighting team on average, it would be inappropriate to not mention that bullfighters are indeed trained professionals (not "entertainers") and are subject to injury themselves. Loren.wilton (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
No objections to the changes you made. Lots of professions are inherently dangerous, as you mention, but also test pilots, loggers, acrobats, stunt men. It is somewhat assumed that injuries can result, but no harm mentioning it.Bob98133 (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that in order to maintain some neutrality in this article that it should be stated outright that the profession is an entertainment role of inflicting injury and death on an animal in a controlled environment.

You are certainly right from your point of view, but Wiki works by concensus, and like it or not, concensus of editors would not support this change. If you want to work/edit in a cooperative environment like Wiki, you've got to accept that everything isn't always going to be the way you want it. If you can find a legitimate reference supporting your point of view, you are welcome to post it to the article. Currrently, you are presenting your point of view without documentation.Bob98133 (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

'while masterful over the bull' is apparently the sanitised term for 'inflicting injury and killing the bull', it's interesting to note that the injuries are not mentioned, and the death is 'often' and not 'almost always', I often go to the toilet, it doesn't mean I'm perminantly on the toilet.  :)

I already know more than I wnat to about your toilet habits, however, I agree that this phrase, 'while masterful over the bull', should be changed since it is point of view. The beginning of the sentence, that "the goal of appearing graceful..." implies that the mastery of the bull is also an appearance, but you're right here. Should say something like "while attempting to maintain mastery over the bull." The fact that they get gored indicates that this is an attempt, not a reasonable description as it now stands.Bob98133 (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Further there is no reference to the large support crew in place for the toreador, who assist in the inflicting of greivous injuries, often severing nerves and muscle groups in the spine and thus essentially assuring that the bull 'fight' isn't quite a fight anymore, controlling the environment even further.

So what? There's no mention of the 300 people or so that work on the Jay Leno show. I think that there is a reasonable assumnption that "professional" performers have support crew. There is no need to mention them all. If you have documentation about how many other "performers" are required to conduct a bullfight, please add that referenced material in the proper place.Bob98133 (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Further, the taunting, irritation and general anguish inflicted on the animal, which falls within all animal cruelty laws of all first world countries (the three that allow bullfighting excluded, of course) should be brought to address foremost.

This may be true, and is addresses somewhat in the Animal Concerns section. Is that the reasons that these other 1st world countries don't have bullfights? That would be interesting to know, but what you suggest adding doesn't address that. Find some documentation about why other countries have banned bullfighting and add that if you like.Bob98133 (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Bullfighting generates heated controversy in many areas of the world, including Spain. Supporters of bullfighting argue that it is a culturally important tradition, while animal rights groups argue that it is a blood sport because of the suffering of the bull and horses during the bullfight.

It doesn't generate heated controversy, at all. There are three countries that could be deemed to be first-world nations who's concept of moral, ethical and decent treatment of animals does not extend to this blood sport. Three, out of how many hundreds of nations? Controversy requires heated debate and lines drawn, there are no lines when it's a miniscule minority versus a vast majority.

This talk page contradicts your statement.Bob98133 (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Supporters do argue that it is a culturally important tradition, and so may it be to them and theirs. However that does not mean that we are to write this article from their point of view, marginalising 'opponents' to this activity as 'animal rights groups'. I have no care what so ever for animal rights, however as a long time Wikipedian I have a care for NPOV and this article stinks of sanitisation and POV bias.

Thus, I propose: -

Bullfighting or tauromachy (from Greek ταυρομαχία - tauromachia, "bull-fight"), is a public entertainment blood sport, legal only in Spain, Portugal, some cities in Southern France and some Latin American countries. Its origins are unnown and there are several competing, opposed and inconclusive theories.
No problem with this if you go into theories of origins with references as well as a reference that its origins are uncertain. Otherwise, we'd have articles on the Atom that say things like "nobody knows what this looks like or has ever seen one, so their existence is in doubt."Bob98133 (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The sport, in its contemporary incarnation, involves armed men, toreros (or toreadors in English), who execute various formalise injuries to the bull inflicting gradually escalating grievous injuries to the animal with the aim of appearing graceful and confident, whilst weakening the bull itself. Such maneuvers are carried out at close range, however a formal support crew including armed and mounted men, as well as other armed men on foot are present to carry out further formalised injuries to the animal in an attempt to weaken it to the point of collapse. At this point the fight is concluded with the death of the bull, objectively carried out with a well-placed sword thrust into the neck of the animal. In Portugal the killing of the animal occurs only after men (forcados) try to hold the injured bull and push it to the ground by its horns when it runs at them. Forcados are dressed in a traditional costume of damask or velvet, with long knit hats as worn by the campinos (bull headers) from Ribatejo.
Some of this could be included, but just reading this doesn't give you more of an idea about the author than the topic.Bob98133 (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Bullfighting, whilst illegal in most parts of the world, is deemed by its fans to be a culturally important tradition. Critics of bullfighting argue that given that the tradition has no origin point and a very sketchy history that calls on Roman era animalia combat as a historical frame of reference, that it is merely another blood sport at the expense of animals.

Please provide feedback on this matter. I will be reviewing comments in 24 hours and making ammendments and repeating until we come to some general agreement of how best to make the opening part, at least, of this article a little more neutral. 122.107.56.47 (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that instead of establishing a time line and threatening to make changes and repeating, that you continue to disucss this on the talk page until concensus is reached, otherwise your unreferenced, anonymous edits will likely be quickly reverted.Bob98133 (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect Reference?

In the section titled "Animal Concerns," the statement, "It has been estimated that 70% of the attendees at Barcelona's Monumental bullring are tourists.[7]" does not seem to be supported by any percent figures I can find at reference #7 (an About.com article).

(I really need a source if there is one for this figure, as I would like to address a group that intends to travel to Spain next month and take in a bullfight. Thanks in advance for any help.)

--DianeC'est ma (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right, the reference says no such thing. I removed it and tagged the claim as needing a citation. What the About.com article states is: "It is difficult to gauge how many people in the audience of a bullfight are tourists and how many are local aficionados." →Wordbuilder (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply and correction. Is the original author of that section around, and if so, do you know where you might have gotten the original percent estimate from?C'est ma (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Animal Concerns - Portugal/Colombia

The references for both of these items are in Spanish and also appear to be from advocacy organizations (they are also inline refs and could be formated as reflist references). I left the information and references up for now, assuming good faith, but these two items really need reliable, English references. Bob98133 (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

I think this article needs a better section about criticism of the bullfights, from intelectual and religious points of view. Pope St. Pius V banned bullfights in the 16 th century, but he latter had to accept the demands of Philip II of Spain. I´m from Portugal and I know that many great writers and intelectuals have opposed it through time. I can think about Portuguese writer José Maria Ferreira de Castro and Brazilian writer Érico Veríssimo.213.13.246.220 (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)