Talk:Natural horsemanship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Natural horsemanship article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.
Start	This page has been rated as start-Class on the quality assessment scale
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance assessment scale

There's a link among Natural horsemanship and other new ideas about horses welfare and horse "rights". As an example, take a look to Barefoot horses. A very good webside on these new ideas is http://www.barefoothorse.com

It's translated in many european languages too (including French, Italian, Spanish, and many other) and it has lots of very selected links inside.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.0.239.23 (talk • contribs)

Contents 1 Why a POV tag? 2 Image caption 3 Refs Added 4 Section Needed? 5 Archived? 6 Answers 7 Commercial website

[edit] Why a POV tag?

What's the reason for the POV tag? Unless someone wants to address it here (as it promises), I'll delete it. The article seems rather balanced to me, with a balanced criticism section.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of fair & balanced, I'm going to add a 'criticisms' section to horse bits, per your example: "This article is not an advertisement for NH, it is a neutral encyclopedia article that explains both sides."(montanbw) AeronM (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I stuck it on there when someone (an anon IP) kept blanking the criticisms section. If that little spat has died down, then I have no objection to tossing the tag. Montanabw^(talk) 01:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've got it on my watchlist now, so we'll only have to worry about the six-revert rule. --Curtis Clark (talk) 03:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Tee hee, Curtis, you're so funny! AeronM (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You say that now, but you seemed to totally miss my joke to Montanabw on her(?) talk page by taking it as an attack on you. As much as I might appreciate the compliment, I have no evidence of either your sincerity or your perceptual ability.--Curtis Clark (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Imagine my disappointment! AeronM (talk) 03:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image caption

The caption for this image Image:Camargue naturally approached 1a.jpg is grammatically incorrect. I have corrected it. --AeronM (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Refs Added

I have added in-line text citations. Can page tag be removed? --AeronM (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section Needed?

The section "Criticisms of the Movement" is still wholly unreferenced. I propose to remove under POV. I am unable to find similar examples on other horse pages. --AeronM (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been a month with no refs added or compelling argument to warrant keeping this section, so I am removing it. If someone wants to reinstate it at a later date with proper referencing, that is fine. --AeronM (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That's because I have been dealing with your good friend on other articles for the past month and forgot about it. Will find some things. Montanabw^(talk) 03:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Okidoki, I am going to remove, for the time being, this section as it is still wholly un-referenced after two months. When and if refs are provided, it can be put back. Open to discussion, as always. --AeronM (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, OK, but I'll tag for neutrality until I can get around to it. Montanabw^(talk) 04:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archived?

Has a section of this page been archived? If so, is there a link to the page? --AeronM (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how one would archive without it appearing in the page history. The article was created on 2005-09-03 and the first entry on this page was 2005-11-03, so there's no discrepancy.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Answers

I don't think there is an archive, you can check the history if you want. It should indicate every edit ever made to the page. Montanabw^(talk) 05:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Second, no you can't yet remove something that you tagged along with your 200-zillion other fact tags you have put all over, it could take WEEKS to source everything you want to have sourced, my god, just keeping the hackamore article intact is taking up way too much of my time. My god, you don't think anyone criticizes the NH movement for basically just taking stuff that has been around for centuries, giving it a new name and calling it a new technique? By the definition of "NH" every good horseman in history has been a NH practitioner, not just five cowboys from the Pacific Northwest (two of whom I have met before they were big names), a retired bronc rider, and an old movie stuntman. I happen to be unable to spend 12 hours a day on wikipedia, Some things will be gotten to in their own time. Montanabw^(talk) 05:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Natural horsemanship is not new. You will discover this as you round up some refs. Meanwhile, I would echo Una's request that you source your material, then add, not the other way around. I will leave the "Criticisms" section up for now, but not indefinitley without adequate refs.--AeronM (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what the criticism section says: "...simply applying humane methods of classical horsemanship that have been practiced for centuries to western riding and labeling them new." I must be misunderstanding your point.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, The criticism section says a lot of things.... I guess with the sentence you quote I have two small issues: 1) it implies western riding, prior to applying humane methods of late, was inhumane, and 2) that the whole "movement," purported by the article to be "hype," is new. It isn't. I"m happy to concede with sufficient refs. --AeronM (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I read it as saying that many techniques claimed to be new are not, but I agree that it's not clear.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting that Natural Horsemanship per se is not new, you are the first NH-oriented editor to admit that! THAT has always been my point -- the MOVEMENT is new, and some stuff (now removed) that claims that all other previous methods of horse training (um, like dressage) were mean and cruel is what gave rise to the criticisms section. I've seen the "mean and cruel" methods at work (remember, I once had to board at a rodeo barn, god almighty, have YOU seen a horse's face bloodied by a hackamore? I have! You remember stuff like that!), the movement is at least calming down some of the cowboys out here who were once a lot more brutal than they are now. But my point is that the methodology is NOT new, it is centuries old, and that people have been getting ripped off by certain flim-flam artists who claim to have invented the whole philosophy themselves). I have respect for the Dorrance brothers, Ray Hunt, and their direct descendants. I don't always fully agree with them, but they had/have legitimate methodology. Independent of their teaching, I also like the works of Mark Rashid and Cherry Hill. John Lyons is heading in the right direction, especially in his more recent works. (He now "gets it" that the bit has a place) I've actually ridden horses that were trained by Brannaman and Curt Pate back before "The Horse Whisperer" made them megastar sorts, they are from around here, they did a fine job with a horse, though what happens once the horse goes back to their owners is not predictable. I'm leaving some people off this list because I feel rather differently about them -- One guru uses methods that screw up horses so bad that they now tell people not to sell a horse trained in that method to anyone other than fellow members of the cult, er, program. Another has been exposed in a public expose as a near-complete fraud. This article is better than it was six months ago, but it has to be understood that the movement has several branches, not all of them sweetness and light. Montanabw^(talk) 03:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Commercial website

I have reinstated the Monty Roberts website as we have included several other 'official websites' of other trainers and need to be consistent. Or, we could exclude all official websites, but I think it is beneficial to include them. Open to discussion as always. --AeronM (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, pitch them all. Wikipedia isn't a place for personal advertising. It's one thing to include links to internal pages in web sites that happen to have good data in addition to being commercial (I think several of the articles on barefoot trimming would fall into that category, as do several of the sources in articles like Icelandic horse, where truly third-party sources are few and far between), particularly in footnotes. It's another thing to have huge lists of external links. Montanabw^(talk) 04:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)