Talk:Bullfighting/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Unsupported claim
Hi,Jeofromrandb As far as I know, the claim that 'French [...] cities and regions have started to formally declare their celebrations of bullfighting part of their protected cultural patrimony' is erroneous. Can you please provide material supporting your assertion? Thanks.--Roze Chaplain (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- I don't need to. It's already in the article. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Joefromrandb: Roze is less likely to benefit from a snippy response than from an actual reference, and it technically is your burden to provide the source, since you restored the content. The only reference in proximity to the disputed phrasing is this and I don't see any mention of France. So if you're aware of another reference in the article that supports the content, it would be appreciated if you'd please provide it, otherwise Roze may feel free to remove the content again on the basis that it is not properly sourced. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Well, Cyphoidbomb, you have made it clear that your opinion is the be all and end all of this article. You've already abused your tools here once & then threatened to block me if I complained about your misconduct. Consider any and all objections withdrawn. I humbly apologize for not clearing my edits with you first. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for your help, Cyphoibomb.
- Well, Cyphoidbomb, you have made it clear that your opinion is the be all and end all of this article. You've already abused your tools here once & then threatened to block me if I complained about your misconduct. Consider any and all objections withdrawn. I humbly apologize for not clearing my edits with you first. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Joefromrandb: To me, a fact is not an opinion.--Roze Chaplain (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- You needn't worry about minor nuisances like "facts" here anyway. Now that you have Cyphoidbomb on your side, you're untouchable. If Cyphoidbomb likes your edits, he will lock the page in that version, and threaten to block anyone who complains about it. He's done it before. Congratulations. You're home free. Reality be damned. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Joefromrandb: I am very sympathetic to "ugh, I made a mistake and was snippy on top of it...awkwaaard" but if you're seriously trying to blow this up into some ridiculous persecution scenario, you're really shortchanging Roze, a brand new editor who was thoughtful enough to seek clarification after the revert rather than edit-warring. If this is a saving-face situation, I get it, but I'm not here to kick dirt in your grill. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- "Trying to blow it up"? No. Please don't think that means I've forgotten what took place at this article. I'm sure Roze is a fine editor who means well. That does nothing to change the fact that you previously edited this article extensively and then locked it. I personally think it takes some huevos grandes to lecture me about conduct, let alone at this article. It's easy for you to refer to a "ridiculous persecution scenario"; you're the one with the admin tools. Have I been following you around, complaining about what took place here? No, I have not. I dropped it. I realize you're infallible. I realize I'll never have any avenue of rejoinder to address what took place here, but accusing me of playing the victim while not acknowledging even the smallest measure of error on your part is really not cool. Roze, I'm glad you want to be a part of improving this encyclopedia. I appreciate your desire and your efforts. My issues with Cyphoidbomb are my issues. Please don't think they extend to you in any way, and please don't be dissuaded from being a part of this worthwhile project. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Since you've not bothered to support your reversion, I think it's safe to assume your position was legitimately erroneous and Roze's edit was legitimately sound. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Whatever you say. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Since you've not bothered to support your reversion, I think it's safe to assume your position was legitimately erroneous and Roze's edit was legitimately sound. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- "Trying to blow it up"? No. Please don't think that means I've forgotten what took place at this article. I'm sure Roze is a fine editor who means well. That does nothing to change the fact that you previously edited this article extensively and then locked it. I personally think it takes some huevos grandes to lecture me about conduct, let alone at this article. It's easy for you to refer to a "ridiculous persecution scenario"; you're the one with the admin tools. Have I been following you around, complaining about what took place here? No, I have not. I dropped it. I realize you're infallible. I realize I'll never have any avenue of rejoinder to address what took place here, but accusing me of playing the victim while not acknowledging even the smallest measure of error on your part is really not cool. Roze, I'm glad you want to be a part of improving this encyclopedia. I appreciate your desire and your efforts. My issues with Cyphoidbomb are my issues. Please don't think they extend to you in any way, and please don't be dissuaded from being a part of this worthwhile project. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Joefromrandb: I am very sympathetic to "ugh, I made a mistake and was snippy on top of it...awkwaaard" but if you're seriously trying to blow this up into some ridiculous persecution scenario, you're really shortchanging Roze, a brand new editor who was thoughtful enough to seek clarification after the revert rather than edit-warring. If this is a saving-face situation, I get it, but I'm not here to kick dirt in your grill. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- You needn't worry about minor nuisances like "facts" here anyway. Now that you have Cyphoidbomb on your side, you're untouchable. If Cyphoidbomb likes your edits, he will lock the page in that version, and threaten to block anyone who complains about it. He's done it before. Congratulations. You're home free. Reality be damned. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Joefromrandb: Roze is less likely to benefit from a snippy response than from an actual reference, and it technically is your burden to provide the source, since you restored the content. The only reference in proximity to the disputed phrasing is this and I don't see any mention of France. So if you're aware of another reference in the article that supports the content, it would be appreciated if you'd please provide it, otherwise Roze may feel free to remove the content again on the basis that it is not properly sourced. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Unsupported claim
Hi,Jeofromrandb As far as I know, the claim that 'French [...] cities and regions have started to formally declare their celebrations of bullfighting part of their protected cultural patrimony' is erroneous. Can you please provide material supporting your assertion? Thanks.--Roze Chaplain (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- I don't need to. It's already in the article. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Joefromrandb: Roze is less likely to benefit from a snippy response than from an actual reference, and it technically is your burden to provide the source, since you restored the content. The only reference in proximity to the disputed phrasing is this and I don't see any mention of France. So if you're aware of another reference in the article that supports the content, it would be appreciated if you'd please provide it, otherwise Roze may feel free to remove the content again on the basis that it is not properly sourced. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Well, Cyphoidbomb, you have made it clear that your opinion is the be all and end all of this article. You've already abused your tools here once & then threatened to block me if I complained about your misconduct. Consider any and all objections withdrawn. I humbly apologize for not clearing my edits with you first. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for your help, Cyphoibomb.
- Well, Cyphoidbomb, you have made it clear that your opinion is the be all and end all of this article. You've already abused your tools here once & then threatened to block me if I complained about your misconduct. Consider any and all objections withdrawn. I humbly apologize for not clearing my edits with you first. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Joefromrandb: To me, a fact is not an opinion.--Roze Chaplain (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- You needn't worry about minor nuisances like "facts" here anyway. Now that you have Cyphoidbomb on your side, you're untouchable. If Cyphoidbomb likes your edits, he will lock the page in that version, and threaten to block anyone who complains about it. He's done it before. Congratulations. You're home free. Reality be damned. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Joefromrandb: I am very sympathetic to "ugh, I made a mistake and was snippy on top of it...awkwaaard" but if you're seriously trying to blow this up into some ridiculous persecution scenario, you're really shortchanging Roze, a brand new editor who was thoughtful enough to seek clarification after the revert rather than edit-warring. If this is a saving-face situation, I get it, but I'm not here to kick dirt in your grill. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- "Trying to blow it up"? No. Please don't think that means I've forgotten what took place at this article. I'm sure Roze is a fine editor who means well. That does nothing to change the fact that you previously edited this article extensively and then locked it. I personally think it takes some huevos grandes to lecture me about conduct, let alone at this article. It's easy for you to refer to a "ridiculous persecution scenario"; you're the one with the admin tools. Have I been following you around, complaining about what took place here? No, I have not. I dropped it. I realize you're infallible. I realize I'll never have any avenue of rejoinder to address what took place here, but accusing me of playing the victim while not acknowledging even the smallest measure of error on your part is really not cool. Roze, I'm glad you want to be a part of improving this encyclopedia. I appreciate your desire and your efforts. My issues with Cyphoidbomb are my issues. Please don't think they extend to you in any way, and please don't be dissuaded from being a part of this worthwhile project. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Since you've not bothered to support your reversion, I think it's safe to assume your position was legitimately erroneous and Roze's edit was legitimately sound. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Whatever you say. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
- Whatever you say. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Since you've not bothered to support your reversion, I think it's safe to assume your position was legitimately erroneous and Roze's edit was legitimately sound. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- "Trying to blow it up"? No. Please don't think that means I've forgotten what took place at this article. I'm sure Roze is a fine editor who means well. That does nothing to change the fact that you previously edited this article extensively and then locked it. I personally think it takes some huevos grandes to lecture me about conduct, let alone at this article. It's easy for you to refer to a "ridiculous persecution scenario"; you're the one with the admin tools. Have I been following you around, complaining about what took place here? No, I have not. I dropped it. I realize you're infallible. I realize I'll never have any avenue of rejoinder to address what took place here, but accusing me of playing the victim while not acknowledging even the smallest measure of error on your part is really not cool. Roze, I'm glad you want to be a part of improving this encyclopedia. I appreciate your desire and your efforts. My issues with Cyphoidbomb are my issues. Please don't think they extend to you in any way, and please don't be dissuaded from being a part of this worthwhile project. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Joefromrandb: I am very sympathetic to "ugh, I made a mistake and was snippy on top of it...awkwaaard" but if you're seriously trying to blow this up into some ridiculous persecution scenario, you're really shortchanging Roze, a brand new editor who was thoughtful enough to seek clarification after the revert rather than edit-warring. If this is a saving-face situation, I get it, but I'm not here to kick dirt in your grill. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- You needn't worry about minor nuisances like "facts" here anyway. Now that you have Cyphoidbomb on your side, you're untouchable. If Cyphoidbomb likes your edits, he will lock the page in that version, and threaten to block anyone who complains about it. He's done it before. Congratulations. You're home free. Reality be damned. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Joefromrandb: Roze is less likely to benefit from a snippy response than from an actual reference, and it technically is your burden to provide the source, since you restored the content. The only reference in proximity to the disputed phrasing is this and I don't see any mention of France. So if you're aware of another reference in the article that supports the content, it would be appreciated if you'd please provide it, otherwise Roze may feel free to remove the content again on the basis that it is not properly sourced. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.20.17.84 (talk • contribs) 2006-11-23T11:29:03 (UTC)
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.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.20.17.84 (talk • contribs) 2006-11-23T12:02:21 (UTC)
Capeas, tientas
I miss a mention of the capeas and tientas. Apparently it is a private social gathering of some significance.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.20.17.84 (talk • contribs) 2006-11-23T12:03:26 (UTC)
If no one has included it in the last 14 years, then either it's not important, not relevant or has not citations. Now archiving this section. Normal Op (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Korean bull-fighting
In south Korea, the old tradition of bull vs. bull bull-fighting continues: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/20/us-korea-bullfight-idUSBRE83J0AU20120420, http://discoveringkorea.com/090407/the-cheongdo-bullfighting-festival-in-korea/, http://www.marimari.com/content/categories/editorial/archives/korean_bullfight.html
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdammers (talk • contribs) 2014-11-09T00:52:56 (UTC)
- See Bull wrestling; different sort of bull fight. And it's already mentioned in that article. Normal Op (talk) 23:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Done
Jean-Pierre Rachou's method of death and year
There seems to be a contradiction about how Jean-Pierre Rachou died. One, if not both versions, is false. In the article Bullfighting it is written, "The course landaise is not seen as a dangerous sport by many, but écarteur Jean-Pierre Rachou died in 2003 when a bull's horn tore his femoral artery." In the article Bull-leaping, it is written, "Although there is little to no risk to the cow in this form of contest, it is a highly dangerous sport for the human participants; a prominent one from Montois, Jean-Pierre Rachou, was killed in 2001 when he fell on his head after being hit by a cow." Note that "Jean-Pierre Rachou" is NOT mentioned in either of the two French wiki articles [1] or [2].
The only consistency in the statements is that it is related to France and 'course landaise'. Since there was a "citation needed" tag in the Bullfighting article, I went looking for a source. Unfortunately, I didn't find any reliable source confirming year (2001 or 2003) or method of death (cow or bull, head injury or pierced artery). What I found were the same two sentences copied everywhere (on blogs and wikis). If we cannot confirm any of this, I think we should remove the mention of the name "Jean-Pierre Rachou" from English Wikipedia.
(Cross-posted on Talk pages of Bullfighting and Bull-leaping)
— Normal Op (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Introduction improvement or reworking
The introduction has too many paragraphs (four) and it is too long. The second paragraph seems to be dedicated to Spanish style bullfighting and it could be moved to its own section. The third paragraph could also be moved to its own section about fighting venues.
The second paragraph seems imprecise and confusing. It says "some forms are sometimes considered to be a blood sport". Which forms? The Spanish-style bullfighting is undoubtedly a blood sport and it should be clearly differentiated what forms are and what forms are not. It says that bullfighters are almost as popular as football players. How can you measure popularity? Maybe it would be enough if the article said that bullfighters are popular in Spain, or that they have some popularity. It also says "in some countries, for example Spain, it is defined as an art form or cultural event". Is there any country besides Spain that classifies bullfighting as a cultural form? What can be classified as a cultural form?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edits2019 (talk • contribs) 2019-05-13T18:08:26 (UTC)
- I agree the lede needs work. I will work on it. (Also making this comment so sigmabot doesn't auto-archive this old thread.) Normal Op (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- I reworked the lede, taking out a lot of fluff that was bloating what should have been a simple summary of "What is bullfighting?" The part about bullfighters was no longer present, and I clarified the part about "cultural form" in simpler/lay language. Need a second opinion and if no problems then I'll archive this thread. Normal Op (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
2nd opinion requested
- I reworked the lede, taking out a lot of fluff that was bloating what should have been a simple summary of "What is bullfighting?" The part about bullfighters was no longer present, and I clarified the part about "cultural form" in simpler/lay language. Need a second opinion and if no problems then I'll archive this thread. Normal Op (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Hazards: weak infrastructure
@Iraniangal777 I look at your edit [3], and it kind of looks to me that it does not belong to that section. I guess, the incident can be mentioned in the article in some other section, but in the current section it pretend to be as an inherit danger of bullfighting, which it is not. I mean... there were famous infrastructure failures with victims on football stadiums, but they are sure not mentioned like hazard in a soccer article. Also, I don't think that bullfighting in general is associated with poor infrastructure. Say, in Spain most of bullrings are solid and safe buildings, which hardly can fail in a similar manner. Thus, I'd suggest to rephrase a bit the paragraph you added, and move it to a new section, say "bullfighting-related incidents" or smth. like that. What do you think? -- Birdofpreyru (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Birdofpreyru. Yes, that's a good suggestion. Iraniangal777 (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Are the bulls trained to attack the cape?
I was told once that the bulls are trained before the fight to attack red or to attack the bullfighters cape. Is there any truth to that? If so, please answer in the article. Thanks. CountMacula (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
They are not, they merely have an instinct to attack suddenly moving things. Knowing and exploiting such natural instincts is largely the point of bullfighting and other bull- related games. Also bulls aren't good to distinguish the red color. Birdofpreyru (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Are the bulls trained to attack the cape?
I was told once that the bulls are trained before the fight to attack red or to attack the bullfighters cape. Is there any truth to that? If so, please answer in the article. Thanks. CountMacula (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
They are not, they merely have an instinct to attack suddenly moving things. Knowing and exploiting such natural instincts is largely the point of bullfighting and other bull- related games. Also bulls aren't good to distinguish the red color. Birdofpreyru (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. The article seems to contradict you in a couple places: "Ferdinand, an animated film covering the adventures of Ferdinand the bull as he is raised and trained to become a bull in the ring" and "In medieval Spain bullfighting was considered a noble sport and reserved for the rich, who could afford to supply and train their animals."CountMacula (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Total number of bulls killed
What are some reliable annual estimates of the total number of bulls killed in bullfighting? The most widely quoted number of 250,000 from the International Humane Society, without any other sources or basis for the number, is ridiculously high. Eg in Spain where the numbers for matadors and venues are closely tabulated that number is around 3,000 per year. https://www.mundotoro.com/escalafon-toreros Jbgfour (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps they estimate all bulls that went for steaks and hamburgers worldwide, no matter bullfight or not :D or just like most activists they believe that straight lying is great if the cause is noble, in their opinion :) Birdofpreyru (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)