Talk:Budweiser Clydesdales/Archives/2013

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More sources

Some stuff from 2013 discussing the farms and upbringing of the Clydes:

Problems with the article

In one place, the articles states there are 3 traveling teams. Elsewhere it's stated that there are 5 teams. There's also two different lists of home locations. Would be nice if this could be clarified. Thanks. --208.14.216.12 (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Check the citations, if you see where the correction can be made, go ahead and fix it - and clean up the cite, if needed. The corporate changes have made the article outdated in a couple spots, it's been tweaked, but I don't have the time to work on this article I once did, so fixing any other errors is always useful. Montanabw(talk) 19:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for catching this. The herd has been downsized since AB sold Busch Gardens. The references that refer to Busch Gardens are no longer valid. I removed the most obvious offending material. Americasroof (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
It's better to tag it and fix it than to just dump it, updating is work, but we are all in it together! Montanabw(talk) 21:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I see you restored the inaccuracies. I earlier edited it to update the reduction in herd. The reference before I updated it was from Busch Gardens which Busch hasn't owned for some time and so the Budweiser Clydesdales are not there. What I deleted was superfluous. I haven't taken information out other than what was inaccurate and will never be accurate.Americasroof (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I restored - but with TAGS - we need to update the number of hitches, their headquarters locations, etc... not just dump this important material. In your earlier edit, you threw out citations and didn't replace them. I'm not disputing that you are probably right, but we need sources and verification Go do some research and back up your changes with cited material. I'm good with improving the article, but not by removing important information and not having citations to back up the statements made, that's all. Montanabw(talk) 20:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I guess by your argument it's best to keep inaccurate and unreferenced material in an article long after it's clearly defined as wrong. The references I removed are no longer valid because of a company change. The material I removed is not substantive to the article and I would rather have an accurate article rather than restoring things to the way we wish they could be. I'm from Missouri. I wish AB still had its world headquarters there and had its considerable empire but times have changed. The article after your restorations is flat wrong and inconsistent. Why are you telling me to find the references to support your inaccurate edits? If you strongly believe your edits are correct then YOU find the references. If YOU can't find the references the material should be deleted.Americasroof (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Because of WP:BURDEN -- the person who wants the changes has the burden of finding a way to do so that is acceptable. Tags flag material to be fixed. Then someone is supposed to fix it. Just removing things without a good faith effort to replace the source material is, IMHO, lazy. Don't get upset about this, I have 3000 articles on my watchlist, am actively writing a new article in my sandbox, am upgrading another to GA with a team of editors, and have other fish to fry. Montanabw(talk) 00:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
BTW I see you have made a good faith effort to find the references. The bottom line is that they are now in three different locations across the country. However the Missouri situation is a little complicated. More than half the total herd is at Boonville. However, there are some Grant's Farm in St. Louis and a hitch at the St. Louis brewery itself. The other herds are based at Fort Collins, Colorado and Merrimack, New Hampshire. There's no reference to any other herds including Texas. InBev has considerably reduced and consolidated AB operations.Americasroof (talk) 11:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
WP:SOFIXIT -- properly. Find the sources and put them in. You clearly know this material, so finding a source to back it up should be pretty easy. Montanabw(talk) 00:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Soap content

I checked out two external-link websites which were not marked as commercial--and they were both pushing the beer brand! That makes 12 out of 12 commercials. Not really what Wikipedia is all about. Lovely images in some of them, but still blatant advertising, no worthwhile information. I recommend ditching the whole section. What do others think? Bjenks (talk) 01:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Well duh! The Budweiser Clydesdales themselves are kept, trained, and travel to advertise beer! The whole article is about a commercial enterprise to promote beer but inthe process, also breed some truly high-quality animals. Get a grip, please. The commercials are examples of the uses of these animals, but obviously cannot be used on wiki. Montanabw(talk) 00:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Per MTBW. That's what this group of horses are, an ad gimmick for beer. We can't use the actual commercials, but you these horse ARE wiki notable and you can't talk about them without talking about Budweiser Beer. PumpkinSky talk 01:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Is it agreed—"obviously cannot be used on wiki"? Then I propose removing all but one, per the MoS guidelines on advertising, collections of external links and Minimizing the number of links. I think the one to keep is the 9/11 one, which shows the horses off well with minimal advertising content. Bjenks (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
IThe commercials can't be used and they aren't. I didn't say they couldn't be linked to. Drop the stick. External links are not references so the reliable refs argument is hogwash. PumpkinSky talk 09:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Commercials meant to advertise cannot be used on Wikipedia, but pics of these horses are not being used to advertise. Intent is the issue. The intent is to educate not advertise, and the pics showing the animals in different situations educate. I doubt anyone is going to buy beer because they come to a wikipedia page where there are pictures of horses used and bred for an advert campaign. The article is about advertising but is not advertising.(olive (talk) 02:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC))
  • Those links? Every single one of those Youtube links? They are copyright violations. Wikipedia can not link to copyright-violating content, and per WP:COPYLINK they have been removed. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Your edit summary on your tag team edit war is nonsense. Someone did say something about refs. As for Youtube, they don't allow copyvios, so IF your claim is true, why are they still on youtube? IF your claim is true, have to bitched to youtube? If they remove the videos from youtube that'd solve the problem quite readily. Go to the alleged source, or do you not really care about copyvios and are just here to stir up a wiki shitstorm? PumpkinSky talk 15:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I've been following this discussion tangentially, and Wikipedia:Video links#Use states "Videos of newscasts, television shows, films, music videos, advertisements, etc. should be considered to be copyright violations if not obviously uploaded by the copyright holder." (Underline added by me.) I don't have the luxury of going to youtube currently, so my question is: a) Is the youtube video obviously uploaded by the copyright holder? and b) Are you sure that person holds the copyright? Rgrds. (Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.) --64.85.217.189 (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
    • EDIT: Just realized that is just an essay, but still the questions might help. Rgrds. --64.85.217.189 (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Some of the videos were uploaded by "BudweiserMedia" on Youtube, but not all, and there is no indication that "BudweiserMedia" is actually affiliated with Budweiser as opposed to being a fan who ripped the commercials from a recording. As we can't confirm that they are uploaded by Anheuser-Busch we cannot link to them. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

YouTube routinely removes copyright violations (just try to find bootleg versions of any music video that last longer than about 24 hours, they are quickly tossed). Keep in mind too, that these video clips, being low-resolution as a rule, would probably even pass wiki's fair use guidelines. It is Anheuser-Busch's responsibility to enforce its copyright at YouTube, not ours. Clearly, per WP:EL, these are appropriate links: "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." Also, "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites" I have searched the Anheuser-Busch site(s) extensively and can find no link to these commercial clips other than on YouTube. I initially put up only a couple of commercials as examples, but it became apparent rather quickly that there was really no way to pick a single "representatve" commercial because they are generally quite unique. Frankly, this is really quite absurd. Montanabw(talk) 23:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Look, if this is fair use, try to upload just one of them Wikpiedia servers in their YouTube condition and see what happens... I guarantee they would be deleted as clear copyright violations. Obfuscating the violation behind a link changes nothing: YouTube cannot be assumed to have permission to publish these, not their uploaders, which mean we're violated copyright by linking to it, not to mention violating WP:ELNEVER. Just as we can't link to unofficial hosts of music videos or television episodes, television commercials fall under the exact same restrictions. DKqwerty (talk) 00:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • This is ridiculous. WP:COPYLINK is quite clear. If you can link to versions of these advertisements actually uploaded by Budweiser then all well and good, but as I said in my last edit summary, I will block anyone else that violates that policy by restoring links to copyvios. Please don't do it. Black Kite (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • BTW, the ABCNews video just linked is fine. Black Kite (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Here's a somewhat trickier question: the NFL hosts a selection of Super Bowl commercials on their website, here. One of them is a Clydesdale commercial, could we link to that? I would assume that the NFL has licensed all the clips they host on their website, but it doesn't explicitly say so. The Call of Cthulhu (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I think that would probably be OK. If it's on the NFL site they've presumably licensed it from Budweiser. Black Kite (talk) 00:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a little note to all involved... I made a small copy edit to the article in the midst of all this reverting, and my changes got caught up in the mix too. In the future, when reverting, please make sure that you are only reverting what you intend to, and not other editor's changes. The 'undo' option might be better if you need to revert an edit that is not the most recent one. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 12:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I might add, please remember WP:AGF. Much of this drama could be avoided if people were a bit more polite. DKquerty and Bjenks were behaving (not saying you are, just saying you behaved...) like a couple of prissy, condescending little trolls, I have over 3000 pages on my watchlist and I have no time and no use for such nasty attitudes, when people who have never touched an article suddenly do massive removals of material with snotty edit summaries, they get reverted. My understanding of WP:EL was made in good faith and I still am not entirely convinced that these cannot be used under a fair use claim, but I haven't the time to do uploads and test this, but more to the point I also have no interest in a block- (really Black Kite, I've edited over 7 years and have a 100% clean block record, show some respect, please. Your approach is akin to templating the regulars) Cthulu had a far more polite approach and a more logical explanation. I'm sick and tired of people who just go around reverting things and can never get off their lazy ass to find something better to replace what they delete. conversation . The ad from the 1960s is particularly rare to find and it is a significant contribution. I've never tried to upload video to WP under a fair use tag, but that is one I think is worth looking at. Montanabw(talk) 17:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

So will these cause more drama?

Will video commercials posted on any of these sites pass muster? Yea or nay from those of you who raised this issue in the first place, help out, don't just complain, please. Montanabw(talk) 18:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll look for more but these old ads are damn hard to find. Quite curious about the "educational use" aspect of this. Seems to fall within fair use. Montanabw(talk) 18:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

  • All of those are hosted by entities uninvolved with Budweiser or Anheuser-Busch, nor can the users who posted them be assumed to be. In fact, the second link is just an embedded YouTube video. Take a look at the link posted by The Call of Cthulhu here as an example of a copyrighted commercial unambiguously provided by the copyright holder. Further, "educational use" means by an educational institution; It is not "educational" to provide links to things such as music video or TV commercials in a Wikipedia article unless the specific commercial has a specific need on the page, and doesn't violate WP:COPYLINK/WP:ELNEVER in the process (i.e. "it exists so we should link to it" is not fair use). DKqwerty (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, "uninvolved" actually, you could say the same for the NFL and ABC stuff that WAS OK'd. Frankly, you don't have any credibility with me anyway, DKquerty, but I'd like to hear what Black Kite and Call of Cthulhu have to say. Montanabw(talk) 18:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
      • THere's a huge difference between "fair use" and "copyright violation". I'm very busy tonight (it's my eldest daughter's 14th birthday) but I'll have a look at all these tomorrow. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Thank you, Black Kite. No rush. I may dig up a few more. Montanabw(talk) 18:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
        • The ABC piece was clearly uploaded by [ABC itself], and as the content owner, they have the rights to do that - meaning we can link to it (even though it was uploaded to YouTube - the difference is that it was uploaded legally). Likewise, the NFL very likely has Budweiser's permission to allow the Superbowl ad to be viewed on NFL.COM. Some random guy on YouTube who did a screen capture of his DVR recording does not have permission to upload those videos to YouTube, and in the process makes YouTube guilty of copyright infringement. That's the difference. Does that make it any more clear? Livit⇑Eh?/What? 18:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not stupid, Liv. I am aware of that. (Also, technically, ABC doesn't "own" the copyright, they are uploading with permission, ditto NFL. Or at least, we have a good argument that they think they have permission, that they really are who they say they are and it isn't a fake site, yada, yada, yada... one can get as paranoid as they'd like, of course) ) But what you fail to grasp is that I did a lot of hunting to find what was up originally; there were MANY (many, many) other links I looked at where the video WAS removed with the "this video is no longer available" or some other indication of copyright claim tag on it. I figure that AB company is pretty aggressive about protecting their copyright and anything that lasts on YouTube more than a few years didn't raise a red flag. (It can't take them more than five minutes to do a word search, they clearly do so a lot already...) I am particularly interested in trying to preserve those really old ads from the 60s and 70s, somehow. Montanabw(talk) 19:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • It's a bit confusing, but if you're implying that because the NFL and ABC broadcasted the commercials on public airwaves that they are now somehow in the public domain for free distribution through and and all media, that simply is not the case. DKqwerty (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Once again, other people ignoring copyright (YouTube) or AB not enforcing their own copyright in no way gives us legal permission to violate. DKqwerty (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Don't wikilawyer at me, DKqwerty. That isn't what I am saying. I am making an argument for Fair Use of at least the older ads that can't be found anywhere else. If they are fair use for us, they are fair use for those who uploaded them as well. Montanabw(talk) 19:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I really don't want to get dragged into this while we are also discussing a totally unrelated content issue below, but two specific points regarding your response to me. ABC does own the copyright to the ABC video, because the video is an excerpt from Nightline, which is an ABC Produced program. ABC is the content owner in that case. Second, I didn't say that the NFL owned the copyright to the foal ad, I stated that we could assume that the NFL had permission. I don't want to get into any further discussion on the intricacies of fair use or copyright law right now, but I did want to clarify my points above, since it appears you misinterpreted them. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 19:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, I am not f---king stupid! I am NOT arguing the ABC or NFL use somehow makes other things public domain. Christ, how stupid do you think anyone other than your self happens to be? I was, sarcastically, joking that any troll - like some people I have been dealing with lately - could find some paranoid conspiracy theory to disqualify even ABC and the NFL. Sorry you didn't pick up on the snark. And WTF ever happened to WP:AGF? I also just found out that one of you people reported this whole thing at ANI with no notification here at talk - or to any of the editors. That is just crap! I am at this point so seriously pissed off that I don't really know what to say. All of this could have been handled with a little RESPECT for other editors, and I truly believed that WP:EL specifically allowed links where copyright issues would otherwise prevent their use on wiki. As quick as YouTube is to remove copyvios of videos in general, I truly did not think that these were at issue because most have been around there for several years. A clarification of the specific details of the policy (which someone eventually got around to, when it should have occurred much sooner) would have solved this problem with far less drama. I still would like to research the fair use possibiities, but I'm a bit short on time and have other projects at the moment, so, as seen below, I am also willing to add different links akin to the NFL and ABC ones. But as far as I am concerned, wikipedia has lost its collective mind these last few months and it seems that All that is not mandatory is forbidden and the slightest infraction is assumed to instantly be an "off with their heads" situation. Or maybe shoot first and ask questions later. My frustration tolerance is at an end here. Sheesh! Montanabw(talk) 03:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Editing the "Traveling Hitches" section

Rather than start another edit war, I thought I'd bring this up for discussion...

1) The locations that the teams are based is not necessary in this section, as the exact same list of 3 locations appears earlier in the article in the "Location" section:

The three Clydesdale teams that tour the world are based near the company's brewing facilities in St. Louis, Fort Collins, Colorado, and Merrimack, New Hampshire.[5][8]

Pick one place, or the other to have this information, but don't repeat it twice.

2) The wording here is difficult. The word "team" has two meanings. The first is the common usage (a football team, a debate team, etc.) which means "all the members of the club, including alternates". But when talking about horses, the word "team" has a very specific meaning: it's the horses that are actually hitched up and pulling the load. It gets confusing because the two "alternate" horses are part of the "common usage team" (they travel, they presumably are groomed, they have harnesses, etc...) but they are not part of the "equine team" hooked up to the truck. I reworded this section as I did to try to remove some ambiguity. "There are ten horses in that travel on each team." makes it sound like there are 10 horses pulling the wagon. I'd like to change it back to the wording I had:

There are eight horses in harness on each team; two additional horses travel with each team to provide alternates for the hitch as needed.

Then there's the problem that the reference doesn't say this... It says that there are 10 horses traveling, and anyone with two eyes can count to 8 and surmise that there are two horses still in the van, but the fact that they are specifically tapped as "alternates" isn't supported by any source.

Thoughts are welcome... Livit⇑Eh?/What? 18:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


Thanks Livitup, the article probably needs a little updating since the InBev purchase of Anheuser-Busch, as it was accurate at the time written but some links have changed and they have reorganized their operation over the last few years. (Selling off Busch Gardens was huge...) But as for the article, first off, anything in the lede MUST be also mentioned and sourced elsewhere in the article per WP:LEAD, so that is inherently redundant. The "locations" and the "traveling hitches" repetition is a real conundrum; I think it wound up in there twice because "drive-by" people kept re-adding it if it wasn't in both. I really am not sure the best approach to solve this elegantly, it's also kind ofawkward to say things like "from the three locations noted in the above section." Ideally, we could add detail in the traveling hitches section if we could find a source that says that the Colorado hitch tours the west, the St. Louis hitch tours the south andmidwest adn teh new Hampshire hitch handles the east coast... that's relevant to that section, allows brief mentioning the hitch homes in the Location section (so people don't keep adding locations there instead of below) ... so feel free to see if you can find this(?) The eight and ten horse alternates thing WAS in the old Busch gardens FAQ. The new one contains most of the same info but is reworded (and note, I moved the location of the citation to reflect this. Tag if it is giving you heartburn, but really, WP:POPE applies, as "anyone with eyes" can indeed count. Gotta be able to find the alternates thing somewhere, I just really do have other fish to fry at the moment... Montanabw(talk) 18:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I reworded the "in harness" bit to incorporate both my old and your new language: "Eight are in harness when performing at any one time and the other two horses provide alternates for the hitch as needed." Will that work? I want to be careful not to imply that two horses are always the "understudies" as that isn't true (though some horses will be less-experienced than others, some will be put into more high-stress situations than others), it's more to allow a rotation so all the horses get breaks. Montanabw(talk) 19:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I typed this and got an e/c when I submitted it - you posted the above. Here's my original reply before your latest update:
I'm a copy editor. Things like this exist to give me heartburn. I don't think POPE applies here; POPE is an invitation to be specific enough to be clear to all readers. Really we have to worry about if the "material [is] challenged or likely to be challenged". We can say 8 are hitched at a time, but I have no idea if the other two are there to serve as backups, or if they are just brought along to evenly distribute the weight in the trailers. Finally, the first appearance of this line isn't in the lede, it's in the "Location" section, and properly sourced there. It's inclusion in this section is 100% unnecessary.
What about something like this:
The touring Clydesdales were first transported by train; cross-country truck transport was introduced in 1940.[11] As of 2013, three traveling hitches are on the road at least 10 months every year. There are ten horses in that travel on each team,[8] however only eight are in harness when performing. Several professional handlers accompany each team. Often, one handler has night duty to provide round-the-clock care for the horses. Transportation for each hitch requires three 50-foot semi-trailers. Two carry the horses, and the third transports a red, white, and gold beer wagon, and other equipment.[8][11] The horses' comfort is enhanced with air-cushion suspension and thick rubber flooring, and cameras in the trailers enable the drivers to watch the horses during transport. The team stops each night at local stables.[8]
Would that work for you? I realize you're active in the video/copyright discussion above, so if you want to table this for later, I can leave it alone for now and come back later. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 19:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm ok with your latest version of that sentence, but I'd prefer "...any one time, while the other..." However, the locations are mentioned in the lede, in the "Locations" section (with source) and again in the "Traveling Hitches" section. It's just too much and it makes the article read very awkwardly. What say you? Livit⇑Eh?/What? 19:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, let's get one thing straight right now. This article is not on my priority list and needs some updating, so I am certainly willing to look at improvements. Nonetheless, some of what you have above is a too-close paraphrase from the source, in my view. Please keep in mind (Understanding that I do realize On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog) that I do know how to write articles. I have created 177 articles plus a number of 5x DYK expansions. Add to that 13 FA credits (two of which in the last 12 months where I was lead editor. Most of the rest I was a major contributor, often the editor with the most edits of the team), 32 GA credits (several as lead editor), and over 50,000 edits to wikipedia since I started in 2006, so do not condescend to me and treat me like I am stupid. People can have differences of opinion and interpret wiki's often-contradictory guidelines in multiple ways. Montanabw(talk) 03:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

All that said, I agree the issue is how to avoid saying exactly the same things in both sections. But given that people not seeing it in one section or the other do get confused, we need to tap both areas in some way. Play with that a bit. Montanabw(talk) 03:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Budweiser_Clydesdales/Archives/2013&oldid=1089872494"