Talk:Cowboy/Archive 3

A shootout on this article
Ya'll better be careful with your edit guns, or a sheriff (i.e. administrator) will come around & put yas in jail. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Keartes1, 13 October 2010
Please change "mestizo and Native American" (before footnote 18) to mestizo because this is how it is referenced in the secondary source used for footnote 18.

Keartes1 (talk) 03:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Will review source material. Initial page references mestizo settlers, second page notes only mestizo, but in passing. Will move material at what is now footnote 24 up to verify the "native American" piece.  Montanabw (talk) 04:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Historic Indian cowboy photo
I recently added File:Kiowa or Comanche cowboy, 1869.jpg, an historic photo of a Kiowa or Comanche cowboy, replacing File:Indian students branding cattle.png -- which is pretty blurry, especially at thumbnail size. Another editor reverted, commenting "Photo not of a working cowboy, it's just a portrait of someone in cowboy clothes."

I don't think it was fashionable to dress up in cowboy clothes in 1869, and anyway the photo it replaces isn't working cowboys either, but students learning how to brand. As the second photo is much clearer, and also shows an Indian cowboy, it better serves the same encyclopedic function, imo. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, that was me. You missed the point.  The individual is simply posed in quasi-cowboy regalia that doesn't even look like a working outfit--it looks like the photographer gave the guy some random clean clothes and told him to pose.   There is nothing in the photo that adds any action.  The photo of the students, while not ideal quality, shows real ranching work being done by Indian youths. Now, the Smithsonian, Library of Congress or National Archives may have better Indian Cowboy photos than this one -- and that are public domain.   I do not object to a truly better photo, but while the one you wanted to add may have been a clear photo, this did not make it a "better" photo.   Montanabw (talk) 04:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I got a helpful note from an SMU archivist. The photo was miscaptioned -- only some of the young man's outfit was Southern Plains Indian, and they don't seem to have any real info re the man himself. So it does seem likely he was dressed up in "props" by the photographer. You are right, this isn't the place for it. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. The hat, if nothing else, was just scary!  =:-O   Montanabw (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

social world
this section is a little thin, and appears to give the idea that not only that a significant amount of cowboys were gay, but that was a main reason people became cowboys. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All about footnotes and sources. Someone have a macho hetero study to add that describes the mainstream culture, that would be fine.   Montanabw (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Article improvement
Wanting to bring this article up to GA quality, it's not really even ready for a peer review, need some eyes to look it over in general. Much info, better than it used to be, a lot of myth and legend stuff tossed in favor of citable material, but I'm at the point where I can see improvements at the paragraph level but am open to input on the overall article. Any lurkers want to comment, feel free. It's ultimately going to need more sources, which will be pretty time-consuming, but want to focus first on organizing what's here, sourcing as time permits. Montanabw (talk) 05:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to know why "waddie" redirects to cowboy. I know that "waddie" means cowboy - my Scrabble dictionary tells me so. But I'd sure like to know the hell why "waddie" means cowboy. Could whoever decided to redirect "waddie" to cowboy actually explain why???????

For that matter, shouldn't it be axiomatic that anytime someone redirects a word to a different page, that they explain the word on the new page? Otherwise it's just stupid and useless! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.140.146 (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hm. Not what my dictionary says, there is probably a more appropriate redirect than this. Possibly Stockman (Australia)?  Montanabw (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

End protection
High time this page become unprotected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.123.77 (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, every time we do, the kiddie edits and inappropriate edits crank up again. It's a target.   Montanabw (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Etymology
I recall once seeing one or two US colonial-era posters for a runaway slave, a Cow Boy, in a book on some aspect of African-American experience. I believe that it predates any etymology that I've seen, but I've been unable to locate it again. I invite you to publish any successful investigation in this area. Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Find a source, we'd be interested in seeing it. The only east coast mention we've found to date is the Revolutionary War reference noted in the article.   Montanabw (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Several readers are contesting the numeric proportion of non-white cowboys, especially since the one citation #24 is an unsubstantiated article with no primary sources referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.2.32 (talk) 07:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Find a better source, then. This should not be difficult, we'd be glad to see what you can find.  Montanabw (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Origins of cow boy....
During the peak of development of the cattle industry, the Mexican industry had begun long before 1700's, however, the Mexican cattlemen had highly skilled horsemen who actually herded their cattle to market. With the settling of new blood from Northern Europe, quick money was made by growing and selling cattle at local markets. When news spread to Louisiana and North Florida about the money that could be made by selling cattle in Texas and beyond, word got back to other oppressed areas including Canada, France, Germany, et cetera... Many from Canada were forced into states like Louisiana, who had experience with animal husbandry, and decided to begin new roots in places like Louisiana. Now, Louisiana had a large Spanish Catholic population that utlized the professional cattle herdsman, called cabellero, however, poor French Acadians could not afford their expense, so, their alternative was to employ their children from the farmstead to move the cattle to market. The task was relatively easy since there was a trail called the Spanish trail, now called the "Old Spanish Trail" that extends from Florida through Louisiana.  As the new Acadian settlers grew their cattle, they would herd their products along the trail, which had plenty of grass and water, such bodies of water like the Bayou Tech is an example of the track used to drive the cattle. As the children herded the cattle West, the herds were enlarged as they picked up more along the way. The children who performed this task were the sons of Louisiana Acadians. When they arrived in the reaches of Western Louisiana, they sold the cattle to family contacts who were waiting in cooperation with the Mexican families and Texas families. Some Acadian children were so professional and skilled that they became endeared with the term cowboy by admiring Texans, and were asked to hitch up to drove the cattle herds North for larger money in the North. Research into Louisiana Acadian history will find cowboys of the time with the surnames of Breaux, Arceneaux, Spell, Boudreaux, Cheramie, and many more. Many had family in places we now know as Kaplan, Erath, Abbeville, Mamou, et cetera... So, the term cowboy was truly developed from the children who worked hard as men, with most from the families along the Old Spanish Trail in Louisiana. 

Cajuns are credited with a major role in starting the cattle industry in the south. In 1761, the first Cajun cattle brand was registered in Louisiana's official brand book--a book, incidentally, maintained in French and housed in a Cajun community until well into the 19th Century. Cajun involvement in cattle is not surprising. At the time of the expulsion, Acadians lost an estimated 100,000 head, confiscated by the British.

When Spain entered the Revolutionary War on the side of the colonists, Cajun volunteer forces captured Baton Rouge, Mobile, and Pensacola.



Here is an extract from Acadian.info called "Cajun Cowboys" : The American cattle industry started on the Cajun prairie almost a century before that of the one in Texas. The cattle industry in the Cajun prairie dates back to 1739 when the areas first cattle brand was recorded in the French ' brand book.' The cattle traction started with Captain Antoine Bernard d'Hauterive, a French colonial official, offered to help the Cajuns who were refugees from Canada by agreeing to lend settler families eight cows and one stud bull for a period of six years, afterwards the settlers would return nine cattle and half of the offspring produced. The colonial era cattle were mainly Spanish longhorns and used on Cajun ranches called vacheries. The cattle ran wild, making the brand book very important. Pieux fences were used mainly to keep cattle out of farming areas. The Cajun vachers learned their cattle raising techniques from the Spanish vaqueros and Indians such as the Avoyelles Indians. Cattle were driven over cattle trails to the town of Washington, and from there into New Orleans. The modern day cattle industry in Louisiana is still dominated by Cajuns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monsieur Breaux (talk • contribs) 23:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Monsieur Breaux (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 December 2012
In the article "Cowboy", under the sub-heading "Cowgirls" appears the following text:

"Rodeo competition for women changed in the 1920s due to several factors. After 1925, when Eastern promoters started staging indoor rodeos in places like Madison Square Garden. Women were generally excluded from the men's events and many of the women's events were dropped."

This string of that text is a sentence fragment: "After 1925, when Eastern promoters started staging indoor rodeos in places like Madison Square Garden."

The several simple ways to correct this, I believe, will be obvious.

96.252.54.130 (talk) 03:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done. Rivertorch (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

TEXAS TRADITION
This is particularly directed to Montanabow, and with all due respect... Montana? It truly saddens me to see -- especially in light of our (meaning me and you) earlier very congenial exchanges (as can be viewed thru archives) -- that you seemingly adopt the outlook that you are the *ultimate* editor of this subject and page.

As it is? In fact? If you will recall? Then (see last archives talk) you asked me to add the Terry Jordan material. That is almost a direct quote. And I did so. Then you not only re-worded what I wrote, but even changed up the sources of the original. Thus, your recent revert (May 11, 2013) seems somewhat spiteful...to be honest.

Well, I am sorry, but I am going to, if possible, to undo yours and revert to mine. I will leave it to others to review the history as to which of us is being the more reasonable on all this. Let me hasten to add? Yes, my original addition could be legitimately taken by some as a bit to much opinion in wording as to which source is better backed up as to the primary roots of the Texas cowboy tradition: The American South or Mexico (spanish). So in that regard, your original "toning down" was justified in many ways. However, I thought it went a little too far the other way, thus I re-added some minor points, but still kept it (IMHO) reasonable. At the same time? Your most recent appears to not want to compromise at all on what was actually a very mild re-edit and definitely historically real.

With it being understood on my part for sure that your own knowledge and expertiese is *without question* more than mine...we CAN discuss this like reasonable men. Let's do, ok? Best Regards! TexasReb (talk) 23:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)TexasReb


 * Just to add, Montana, I am not sure exactly what you mean in the question posed related to your earlier re-edit. If you mean the source for population figures as to origin points of new settlers to Texas?  Then it came from a completely seperate book than that used to reference the Southern roots of the Texas cowboy tradition (which was titled "The Southern roots of Western Cattle Ranching).  The settlement origin figures came from a Texas cultural geography book that Jordan had a major role (although not total) in editing, but the source of the figures themselves are from the U.S. Census Bureau.  Hope that helps, but let me know if not and I will do my best to answer!  Thanks! TexasReb (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The section in question was already sourced for what it contained. You added another source, as I requested and for which I thank you, but as that source appears to be a single source, a minority theory and otherwise a bit dubious (not having access to the work itself, but a review of the work available online, was rather critical), I kept the gist of your material about the ADDITION of influences from the southeast, but removed that which implied too strongly that the SE US tradition was somehow superior or the causative factor for the Texan tradition, which clearly had MULTIPLE influences, beginning with the Spanish, who had a head start of a couple centuries.  I'm open to additional evidence of a "skilled horsemanship" tradition out of South Carolina, but, frankly, the horsemanship and horse-breeding traditions of Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee were far better known and superior to South Carolina, thought the "cracker cowboy" tradition in Florida has a clear historical base.  I also see from your edit history that you mostly focus on the history of the south, and here we have a broader article that encompasses more than a narrow sectional interest. I also see you have a pretty good block history on your talk page for edit-warring on certain articles, so I advise that you don't start here.    Montanabw (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Follow up: I also noted that Jordan's later work directly refuted some of his earlier work.  I found a better-respected work and linked to what there is about it in the "further reading" section of the article.  It may be useful for further study.   Montanabw (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Montana? No pun intended?  But we are at a Mexican stand-off!  LOL

But seriously I appreciate all you say and will re-interate for sure that your knowledge on the general subject as a whole is MUCH more extensive than mine. I learn quite a bit from it. But at the same time? I have to add -- emphatically -- that you are (IMHO) using a double-edged sword when it comes to influences. That is to say? You "accuse" me of too much emphasis on the American South influence as a seemingly POV relative to the Mexican vaquero. BUT...I get the impression that the premise of the objection traces to your *own* clinging to that the latter was the major foundation. I hasten to add, I am not in any way suggesting you are being "politically correct". Not in the least. I respect you too much to even remotely suggest that. Just that -- with all due respect -- you in turn want to downplay -- in so many words -- the influence of the South. I realize this is iconoclastic -- if such terms can be used -- but it cannot be ignored.

The blunt fact is, even before Texas became a state in the Union, the overwhelming majority of settlers were from the southeastern United States. That stat is verified by the U.S. Census Bureau records of the era. They *far and away* outnumbered any other demographic group. And these settlers did not need a lesson in how to drive, herd, or tend cattle by Mexican vaqueros. Or ride horses. Did the Spanish/Mexican have a goodly amount of influence? No question they did.

But did they just teach these settlers from scratch? No, they didn't.

For all these reasons, I am reverting your re-edit. But only back to my own...which seems very fair in the whole scheme of things. Best regards, I mean that sincerely! TexasReb (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, here are the problems with your edits: So I hope this clarifies things. I recognize that your primary interest is in the south, but we cannot engage in WP:SYNTH analysis nor put WP:UNDUE weight on certain theories. Montanabw (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) The section already states that there were multiple influences and I incorporated some of your material about the south.  However, the historical evidence is overwhelming that the core design ran from Spain to Mexico to the USA, northern European and eastern US influences were less significant, in part due to simple geography: The cattle herding traditions of the American prairie, and the traditions used to train cow horses, clearly developed in the analogous dry regions of Europe, i.e. Spain.  You see this in the horse equipment, the training methods, etc.  Englishmen and their descendants on the east coast simply didn't need herd large groups cattle over vast distances on horseback, they had no geographical imperative.  You can look at any physical geography map and see the "wet/dry" line around the 96th meridian, which runs right through Texas.  East of that line, you didn't need the techniques to raise cattle that were obligatory west of the line.
 * 2) This article is about cowboys, who were, at heart, horsemen.  So while management of cattle was obviously the economic engine, the cultural traditions are more clearly exhibited in horsemanship - the tool needed for the trade, so to speak.  Hence the emphasis on the vaquero.
 * 3) I have no objection to info that most ENGLISH-speaking settlers moving into east Texas probably came from the SE USA, however, US Census records would not be able to verify pre-statehood numbers, and the census is still notorious for undercounting Hispanic population.  (It would help if you would cite a specific page number from the Jordan text, by the way, just citing to the whole thing isn't ideal) There obviously was a significant Spanish, then Mexican population there first, though the regions of East Texas first settled by Americans were, I agree, the generally undeveloped areas and we both know that, originally, the Spanish and then Mexican governments were perfectly OK with using American settlers as a buffer zone between them and the Comanche, for example.  (As for Native Americans, the horse itself as well as domesticated cattle were European imports, so Native American stuff is less a factor here).
 * 4) Reviews of Jordan's later work (added at the bottom of the article) indicate that even he backtracked some from his original analysis and argued that the midwest (Missouri/Kansas) actually contributed significantly to cattle management, (though not necessarily horsemanship).
 * 5) You have no real source for the "skilled horsemanship" tradition of South Carolina, I have no independent evidence from other sources (and I study this area) that there was one that had anything to do with cattle-herding or major horse breeding.  (For horse breeding, there's a good argument for Virginia and Kentucky, but not SC; for cattle herding, there are good arguments for Florida and Missouri, but not SC)  Further, note the Florida "Cracker Cowboy" section below the Texas one, which bears little resemblance to the western tradition, other than a few commonalities of mostly Spanish origin.
 * 6) You also overlook who the EMPLOYEES of white ranchers were -- Mexicans, some Native Amerians, some African-Americans. The guys who did the real work set the cultural standards, whatever their bosses said... they had a job to do and got it done in the most efficient way possible; the Mexicans had a 250-year head start in the general region.


 * Montana? LOL It it extremely obvious that you consider yourself the final authority/ultimate editor on this page. Unfortunately, I can't see another way to take it. When one seemingly takes it for granted they can actually *not only* re-word the additions of another editor, but change up sources?  Then what else can be said?.

I don't have the time to get into all this line by line with your points. Believe it or not, this subject is really not a major concern of mine (at least to the extent it seems to be with you). No, it just really involves the fact you amazingly (IMHO) feel you can just presume a role that -- far as I know -- you have no official blessing to presume. That is to say -- put another way -- that this article is a prodeny of yours and all additions/deletions/edits/etc, must first go past you. I hate to say it that way, but when someone changes a source of another "good faith" editor? Then how else to take it? I would never do something like that.

On the related tangent? Well, here is an excerpt from Raymond Gastils classic work "Cultural Regions of the United States." that says it fairly well (in addition to the Census Bureau figure):

"Unlike the Interior Southwest, neither aboriginal Indian nor Spanish-American culture played a central role in the definition of the area. The people of Texas are mostly from the Lower, Upper, and Mountain South and these Southerners easily outnumbered the Spanish speaking and Indian people even before the state joined the Union. Therefore, when we refer to a large Spanish-speaking population in Texas, we are primarily speaking of a relatively recent immigrant population, quite different from the core areas of the Interior Southwest."

Point is? Once the Mexican possession of what is now known as Texas became open to colonization, then southeastern settlers flooded in and easily took control; for better or worse. These Southerners possessed "cowboy" qualities that lent to a far greater development of the Texas tradition than the Mexican vaquero ever did. This leads to the notation you made about the prior settlement of Texas. Well, your point is taken...but one has to start from somewhere..and it wasn't "Texas" then, anyway. I know it is not politically correct to say it, but the Southern tradition -- particularly drover -- dominated Texas, not Spanish. Sheer numbers would seem to bear that out.

I don't want to get into an "edit war" with you, Montana. For one thing, I respect your knowledge very much. But at the same time, I intend to be a good faith editor myself. Best regards! TexasReb (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry to butt in, but might I suggest that the discussion thus far has been reasonably constructive (and genuinely interesting) and could proceed just as well or better with no further reverts by either party? WP:BRD tends to work a lot better than WP:BRDRDRDRDR.... WP:3O would be another option. (I'd offer a third opinion but have no relevant sources close at hand.) Rivertorch (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I will *definitely* go along with that Rivertorch! Works for me for sure.. and I hope Montana will agree as well.  Handshakes all around!  Thanks! TexasReb (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Feel free to take it to 3O if you wish. As for good faith, your block record says otherwise. The point is not population or political control, it is the horsemanship tradition: Your argument appears to be that cowboys in Texas owe little or nothing to the vaquero (or at least not the primary root), when it is clear from the historical and geographical record that this originally-Spanish tradition influenced cattle herding from Florida to Hawaii, with the regional variations being - as I have already agreed - linked to the additional cultural influences of other people who settled various places from Florida to Hawaii, as well as geography -- this is WHY we have a "Texas tradition" at all.  But you fail to understand reality:  Settlers from the southeast HAD to adopt methods that corresponded with the climate, land, and geography of Texas, anything less would mean starvation. And efficiency meant not reinventing the wheel, hence borrowing from the Spanish tradition:  You need only look at hats, boots, saddle trees, stirrups, lassos, bridles, and horse-training methods to see that the Spanish tradition has a far greater influence than any sort of "English" tradition (for an "English" tradition, uninfluenced by Spanish horsemanship until late in the game when American ideas arrived there, compare the Stockman of Australia, who adapted English equipment to the Outback -- very different equipment!)  You quote various books about population, but they appear to have nothing to do with the cowboy or horsemanship tradition and you cite little evidence that these writers were discussing cowboys.   Montanabw (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Monatana? With all due respect? You seem to be going off into the twilight zone in addition to obviously (once again to repeat) considering yourself this article's final authority and editor and expert, and nothing is allowed except what you personally approve of.  Matter of fact, I think it is becoming increasingly evident to others.  Rivertorch offered what I considered (and I bet others do to), an extremely reasonable compromise.  Apparently, you didn't think so.

Also? What "block history" of mine are you even talking about? I wouldn't even know HOW to "block history". Please explain what in the world you even mean? Now then, if you are going to get testy and PO'd and personal, then I am equal to the task...

1. I didn't change a single thing you ever wrote. On the other hand? You took it upon yourself to edit my post (and I even said the first one was understandable), but actually change a source I cited.

2. Not one time did I ever downplay the Mexican vaquero role in what the cowboy tradition of what later became known as Texas. What I DID do, was add a much needed balance to that the settlers from the southeastern United States (and they were definitely the majority), already came from a stock (no pun intended) already familiar with cattle raising and droving. While sure, it would only stand to reason they adopted some things from the vaquero, it would also only stand to reason that these things adopted only adapted (and I agree with you here), to the environment. The main point is that the traditions and skills were already in place. They didn't learn everything from the vaquero as in going to cowboy school. I realize this is politically correct to teach, but not historically accurate to maintain.

3. The Texas cowboy, as we know it, had a prototype which was more connected with the American South than Mexico. Again, sheer numbers would bear this out. The real cattle boom and cowboy era was after the War Between the States. Most were either former Confederate soldiers and/or sons of the same. They rode McClellan sadles and followed more of a droving and branding tradition akin to that of their family roots, rather than the vaquero.

4. I have furnished plenty of sources for all this. The fact you don't like it has little to do with it. I have tried to get along and compromise to the best extent I can. If you cant? Then that is your problem. TexasReb (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

You keep twisting the argument and phrases like "twilight zone" constitute a personal attack, so stop. It is not a question of what I "like" - it's historical reality. The Texas cowboy had multiple historical influences, the article says so, but the ancestral root of all western-style horsemanship is a clear historical path from Spain, through Mexico, though with some influences from elsewhere. And here we are specifically discussing the cowboy, not the rancher. It is YOU who, first of all, are fighting over phrasing of a sentence when I DID agree that some of your material was useful AND kept the source, but looked for some online URL that proved it existed (feel free to properly fix YOUR citation, expand it, add page number, publisher, etc, I will be glad to see that). But you are not backing up your highly dubious claims that South Carolina, of all places, had a "tradition of skilled horsemanship" or anything to do with significant cattle herding (Georgia and Florida have better claims for a cattle industry than does South Carolina). You vaguely reference a book, absent even a full cite or a page number, and one which has been criticized by reviewers as overborad -- AND the author himself apparently in later works rejected his earlier theses. If you have a claim for "They rode McClellan sadles and followed more of a droving and branding tradition akin to that of their family roots, rather than the vaquero." then please provide a verifiable cite; I'd be all ears (you vaguely name two books, I'm talking full cite, page number, and preferably google books link) And at any rate, the modern Texas cowboy most certainly does not, so even if there were folks arriving that way, they changed their tactics quite quickly; you can't rope and dally a cow in a McClellan! As for my concern with your own behavior, aside from your "twilight zone" personal attack above, your very use of the phrase "The war between the states" show that you have a pro-confederate agenda to push here, and this is not the article for it. This is further evidences by your own past problematic behavior and edit-warring documented at your talk page and your block log is evidenced here. Montanabw (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You are the one making it personal (i.e. "blocking history, etc), not me. On the contrary, I have done everything possible to be reasonable, compromising, and congenial, so don't presume to lecture me on the subject.  I have nothing personal against you at all. My sole issue is what appears to be your presumption of being the ultimate editor of the page.

Check the archives 2 for some backup on the McClellan saddle thingy. Also, what sources do you have to show Jordan "rejected" his own work? I am sure there are questions to be legitimately asked, just as there are with any work. In fact, if it had not been for you taking upon yourself to change another editors sources, I probably would have let the whole thing go. Regardless, the material about the branding traditions of western Texas being almost identical to that of the southeastern US appears in several places in his book, and on the book jacket overview as well.

And please. A pro-Confederate agenda? Geez! That is almost funny. Yes, I refer to the "Civil War" as the War Between the States" because I believe that more accurately reflects the status of the warring parties, but it has nothing to do with this article. In fact, I used "Civil War" in the article itself. *shrug* Georiga and Florida may well have better claims for a cattle industry than does South Carolina.  The SC mention only repeats what Jordan says when stating the primary influence on the Texas cowboy (as came to be) is traceable to there.  That it developed and evolved across the southeast and the fact MOST Texas settlers originated from there, has a bearing on the subject.

You accuse me of using "dubious sources"? What is dubious about them? Other than the fact they might be a bit in conflict with your own emphasis on the vaquero. And I don't really see how they do, far as that goes. Plus, your own sources in the article segment do not appear to meet the standards you seemingly demand I provide (which I did on one, and summed up on the jacket of the other).

In a nutshell, I honestly don't see what all the fuss is about. TexasReb (talk) 02:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The fuss is that you don't know what you are talking about. You are trying to insert your original thinking into the article, supported by vague references. You also fail to cite your source with a page number so someone could verify your data. Further, the second book I found by Jordan (placed in EL until I can take a better look at it, seems to contradict his earlier work, at least when comparing the two reviews...   Montanabw (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * shakes head sadly* No, the real fuss is that you seem to believe you are the final authority on the subject, that this Wiki article is subject to final review by you
 * Montana? I have said before and it is there for the record -- in both this exchange and in the archives -- I very much respect your extreme knowledge in this general area.  No question and I never doubted it.  I mean that sincerely!   The problem is that it seems any sources that might even remotely bump up against your own historical version of the said history must be "dubious" -- what is so dubious about official U.S. Census records, for instance -- and (IMHO) tag them as so.  Put another way, you seem to demand of others a standard you don't adhere to yourself.  This goes in tandem with the underlying message conveyed that no one else knows what they are talking about, sans you.  You seem to take umbrage at that anyone who might provide something that gives even the slightest hint of going against your own Spanish/Mexican "vaquero" thesis.  Heck, far as that goes?  Your OWN disputation of Jordan's work is predicated upon that on that your sources are the real McCoy.
 * Ever consider that your own disputations might be the "dubioius" ones? What you provide in counter-point boil down to reviews of a book.  ANY book and/or even article is going to be subject to review.  That is just a given. As to your claim the author (Jordan)later somewhat repudiated his own work?  Give a link to the source/review/link.  Please.  That is only fair, isn't it?
 * Finally? I have been out of town for the last several days, so was unable to respond to you until this evening. As it is?  I am going to revert once again.  YET?  I will add something that I hope might be a good addition/qualification.  If you can't recognize it as a very fair attempt to arrive at a "solution" as to our impasse?  Then?  I honestly don't know what else to say.  And will just leave it to others to be the judges of it all!  Best Regards!  TexasReb (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Provided the link to the 2000 Jordan book that appears to represent a maturation of his views. I am not really disputing that a US Census after the Civil War probably did indicate that "most" settlers to Texas came from the SE USA, but A)  the census is historically notorious for undercounting people of color.  And B) your "source" doesn't have any way to verify your statement -- no link to actual census numbers (and the US Gov't should have these online for that period).  But I strongly dispute that the branding, herding and horsemanship traditions of Texas primarily came from a region with a completely different geography either misstates Jordan or defies reason. To the extent that the Texas tradition differs from the California tradition probably does reflect these Southeast influences, and I found some material that stated specifically what some of those changes were (bringing in bigger, less-agile horses, economic need for faster training, more unskilled riders resulting in less sophisticated training methods and simpler equipment)   If you actually have the book, could you kindly provide a direct quote with specific page number?  Bullying me isn't going to work against the bulk of evidence supporting the immense Spanish influence on horsemanship across all of Europe and to the Americas (even in Vienna, it's the Spanish Riding School for chrissake).   Montanabw (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Montana? Believe it or not, this really isn't a "hot-button" topic for me.  And geez. No one is "bullying you" nor attempting to.  Where do you come by that?  Unless you take disagreement as being bullied. I have stated repeatedly I respect your obviously superior knowledge on the general subject of the American cowboy. And as I said earlier, if you hadn't altered one of my sources, I probably would have just let the whole thing stand as was.  If anything, you are the one doing the bullying (and with all due respect, it won't work with me either). But be that as it may, let me address your points above one at a time.
 * 1. Have you yourself read the book you present as a "maturation" of Jordan's views? I haven't...but I did read the blurb provided in your link. And what it indicates was that he apparently agrees that the Texas influence on the entire West might be less than previously thought.  I don't doubt that at all. In fact, I have always considered Texas (and I am a 4th generation native), essentially a Southern state, not a "Western" one (if by the West one means the Rocky Mountain and interior SW states).  But? That is really not my point.  I am talking about the Texas tradition itself, and that the southeastern settlers to Texas did not just suddenly learn everything from the Mexican vaqueros.  Rather, that the horsemanship traditions and branding styles and open-range methods were already in place when these folks arrived in Texas.  So I think you might be mixing apples and oranges here.  Here is the blurb/review in question to back up my point:
 * ''Cattle ranching in the Old World and New is reinterpreted in this path breaking study that both recasts the history of a well-known topic and is also truly original. Jordan begins by tracing how different cattle-raising cultures in Spain, the British Isles, and North Africa helped shape varieties of ranching in the New World. He then delineates the American adaptations of ranching beginning with European expansion into the Caribbean and then considers continued evolution in Mexico, the American South, and the West. By 1850, three distinct ranching cultures existed - Midwestern, Californian, and Texan. Jordan argues that over the next fifty years the Midwestern system triumphed over its two rivals throughout the West. In particular, the role of Texas is depicted as less important than previously thought.'


 * Not what I said, if you'd read that whole section, you will see that there is considerable discussion about how and why the Texas and California traditions differed. Either way, the Mexicans were there first, by a good century or more. --Montanabw
 * 2. I will go back and fine-tune the source about the settlement patterns in case it wasn't clear. The Census Record indicates the origins of the "free immigrant population" in Texas in 1850, which is at least ten years before the "Civil War."  No, it doesn't count the African American population, but that fact actually backs my own figures that settlers from the SE were easily the dominant influence.  As it is with just the free population, the numbers from the Southern United States (defined in the case as the slave-holding states) -- by these records -- would be at least 70%.  If blacks were counted, then the numbers would soar thru the roof. And this is especially relevant in that blacks made up a number of Texas cowboys and obviously had to come from the southeast. All this appears on page 74 of the Westview Geography source provide.


 * Not arguing that the bulk of white English-speaking people probably did come from the SE US. I am arguing that the census undoubtably didn't count the hispanic people very well at all, no more than the black population.  Just saying...  ;-)  But in any case, you need to cite to reliable census data (or a work that provides the numbers with census sourcing) if you think it relevant  --Montanabw
 * 3. I simply don't understand what more you want in way of page numbers from the sources. ??? I have provided them.  Anyone is free to read them.  But if you want a few quotes and page numbers?  Well, here are a couple selected randomly:


 * Read WP:CITE look at what is required for a full citation, that's what I mean. If this article is to ever go to WP:GA review (someday, maybe, not any time soon, I suspect) this sort of thing is required. --Montanabw
 * "Still more important and revealing was the fundamental difference between Anglo and Hispanic brand designs. Anglos, both in the East and in Texas normally chose block capital letters for brands, usually the initials of their surname and/or Christian name. The Spaniards and Mexicans in Texas, by contrast, more often chose abstract designs rather than letters or numbers, frequently incorporating Moorish crecents and Indian-inspired figures."


 * That is not quite the meaning you originally conveyed. I have no dispute with this "brand design" assertion as stated. --Montanabw
 * Unlike the Interior Southwest, neither aboriginal Indian nor Spanish-American culture played a central role in the definition of the area. The people of Texas are mostly from the Lower, Upper, and Mountain South and these Southerners easily outnumbered the Spanish speaking and Indian people even before the state joined the Union. Therefore, when we refer to a large Spanish-speaking population in Texas, we are primarily speaking of a relatively recent immigrant population, quite different from the core areas of the Interior Southwest."-- Raymond Gastil "Cultural Regions of the United States".


 * Covers the whole state, not cowboys. This article is about cowboys. Not farmers, only somewhat ranchers, mostly cowboys.  And again, we are not talking about population either, we are talking about style of riding, equipment, etc.  Talk to me about the cowboy population --Montanabw
 * "Certainly by the time the lower southern herders reached southeast Texas, they were skilled horseman, aquainted with Hispanic roping techniques...and they were doing so when they first came to the province."

'':::::"On the basis of these findings, I conclude, first, that cattle ranching was brought into Texas by lower Southerners in the period 1820-40 and that this form of economy was initially established in the coastal prarie of southeast Texas, where it remained centered until about 1850. The presence in this area of certain ranching traits recognizable as uniquely lower Southern, the presence of a population dominantly of lower-South origin, the presence of a herder-belt from Georgia to Texas, and the absence of antecedent Spanish-Mexican ranching, when viewed in conjunction leaves little justifications for denying a major contribution by Anglo-Americans of the Carolina tradition to the ranching of southeast Texas." Pg. 82''
 * This acknowledges Spanish influence, which was not the way you originally phrased it, but what page number? Which book? ---Montanabw
 * Which book? Jordan? (You are tossing around at least two here...) What I see here is a relatively likely but tangentially relevant assertion that the coastal plains ranching in southeast Texas of early white settlers was a spillover from the south, but the cowboy and cattle drive tradition that ultimately developed was clearly something quite different and the Hispanic influence is undeniable. Even the Spanish ran cattle to New Orleans to sell, that was a longstanding tradition that evolving population demographics didn't change much.  And, as a Texan, you know better than I that there are really "two" geographic parts to Texas, east and west, with the 96th "wet-dry" meridian running right down the state and explaining much of why this is so.  And, again, this is the cowboy article, not the ranch article.  There is a distinction there.  --Montanabw
 * Anyway, the above are just a few. Incidentally, have you read Jordan's work?  You suggest I am misinterpreting it, but for that to be a valid accusation, I would expect you have read it yourself before advancing such a conclusion.  I realize (it is obvious), that you have a Spanish/Mexican vaquero centered thesis.  I am not accusing you of subscribing to "political correctness", but I can say with certainty that it is very popular today to emphasize "multi-culturalism" (I was a teacher for 14 years, so I know of what I speak. LOL).  So anyway, there is nothing wrong with adopting the "vaquero centered" theory per se, but all too often those who adopt it take extreme offense if credible evidence is presented (as did Jordan) that such is only a part of the story.


 * And your comment above suggests that you have a bias as well. Someone else out there made a good comment once:  "Truth is not POV.  It's truth."  Horsemanship history is quite clear on the role of Spain in worldwide horsemanship traditions, and the Texas tradition (as I have said until I am blue in the face) made modifications to the Spanish-Mexican model.  But from the saddles, brands, and roping on, it's clear the Spanish influence was the strongest and foundaitonal contributing element.  (No cowboy today rides in a McClellan!)  And I too was a high school teacher and now teach American History survey courses at the college level (among other things, I'm not a full-time professor).  So let's just not go there.  --Montanabw
 * My bottom line in this post is that any work at all related to the historical origins of certain traditions are going to be questioned, challenged, disputed, reviewed, etc. That is well and good and healthy and quite often very informative. After all, if one surrounds themselves with people who always agree with them, then they will never learn anything!  As this applies to our discussion?  My only request is that you stop "tagging" my contributions (and I have tried like hell to find a compromise and provide specifics as to page numbers and etc), as "dubious", simply because you don't like what they conclude/say.  Like I said, ANY source on historical subjects could be so tagged to the point of absurdity if everyone did the same. And your own would not be immune.  Best regards.  Hopefully we can come to agreement and get all this behind us soon. TexasReb (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Your quotes are useful and I commented separately on each, but PLEASE read WP:CITE and make proper footnotes, at the very least. Add full citations and the precise page numbers for each to create pinpoint cites here and on the article too. For one thing, should this article ever be submitted for WP:GA review (and it's a long ways off at this point), such things would be required. Also add ISBN numbers, as these works would have to be obtained in hardcopy via interlibrary loan, as Google books doesn't seem to list them -- it's OUR job as editors to fully provide info for the sources we are using. And it is the burden of the person trying to add material to justify it. Jordan was a cultural geographer, he's a credible source on his research and on cultural geography, though he was also criticized for making overbroad statements and overgeneralizing. But already, the quotes above indicate to me that you perhaps didn't quite frame what he said accurately. I'm all for accuracy to the extent it can be found. Montanabw (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Tossing you a bone: I found this on Colonial Spanish horse influence on South Carolina via the Marsh Tacky. Now, if you can find some other horsemanship source that discusses a "skilled horsemanship tradition" (other than just the locals keeping the little horses left behind by the Spanish, and not particularly valuing them until the 21st century...), we MIGHT be able to to add more on the influences on the Texas tradition (also take your time to read the next section on the Florida Cracker Cowboy). But it's got to be more than raw population stats; it's got to be about horsemanship. Montanabw (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * LOL I appreciate the "bone" you are tossing, but I still think you are missing my point on some levels. In lots of ways, I think we are talking past each other.  I suppose, everything traces back to somewhere.  Even Jordan said that skilled horsemanship was unquestionably an Hispanic trait.  And for sure, when cultures bump up against one another, then they are going to "borrow" off of one another.  Or blend.  In fact, Jordan even acknowledges that some of these southeastern setters has antecedent roots which encountered the Spaniards long before they ever reached Texas.  I don't doubt that at all.  But to just repeat, the whole point of the at least equal influences of the Texas cowboy tradition comes from the American South.
 * Tell you what. Here is a proposal for you to consider.  Why don't we (meaning you and I) work it out here and write up something that suits both of us.  When we agree? Then it can be posted.  How does that sound?
 * In the spirit of a compromise however? Will you agree to (because I really don't know how! LOL), to put up something indicating the article's neutrality is being disputed. Or something like that! Whatever sounds best and works right.  Then, we can go from there, ok?  TexasReb (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Your last edit was fine. However, this is an article about cowboys, and the article already explains (and I added more) much about how the vaquero tradition was modified by the southeast; modified bitting, different style to western saddles, etc.  Absent a RS saying "at least equal" I would strongly dispute such an assertion as WP:OR. I'd grant maybe 2/3-1/3, particularly when compared to the Californio vaquero model, (and we could go on for years about how both models merged in the Northern and Central Plains) but as with all culture issues, it's hard to measure such things in numbers.  I guess I fail to see what you are trying to add at this point other than an origins question and census data, which is kind of irrelevant here, particularly when most Texas cowboys (as opposed to landowners) were the poor people - many of whom were people of color - anyway.  Montanabw (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

CONTINUATION OF TEXAS TRADITON
Montana? We can continue this forever with point then counter-point and counter-counter point and on to infinity. I am tempted to do just that with your latest additions to mine. But...it would serve no purpose. We would just keep going on ad-infinitum! LOL So here is what I propose as a tentative "treaty" between us:

1. You take out the insertion that Jordan later questioned his own earlier work. I request that because the subject is not applicable to the Texas cowboy tradition per se ala' intrastate. However, I would have no objection at all to moving it somewhere else as per the Texas influence on the frontier West itself. In other words, while Texas was strongly influenced by the habits/methods of the southeastern United States, that the overall influence of Texas was not all that great in the whole scheme of the frontier West. And definitely not to the extent the old classic Western movies (which I love) have lead many to believe. I never disputed that. 2. You remove your "citations" as being "dubious" and I will not ad any of the same to yours. 3. In exchange? I will agree to you either eliminating the "skilled horsemanship" comment and/or making an addition that it was likely that westward moving anglo and black settlers has previously encountered and definitely absorbed some of the Spanish traditions before reaching Texas.

That is my initial starting point as to us coming to agreement. Tell me what you think and we can hammer it out. TexasReb (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This isn't horse trading, Tex, it's facts and Verifiability. You misquoted your own sources.  Put in proper citations, quote the above material accurately and I will be happy.  My citations are not "dubious" -- they are properly cited to the precise page number of exact books with full citations. And best of all it's all in Google books so you can check them out yourself. I'll past the current paragraph here and you can add the proper citations.  Montanabw (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't (misquote my own sources). Please provide evidence of such a serious accusation...?
 * What seems to be going on --and almost self-evident -- is that anything which go against your own embracing of the Mexican vaquero centered thesis are, by some indefinable definition of your own, dubious. How in the world is it possible to rationally argue against such circular logic? I mean, you "tag" a source -- such as figures from the U.S. Census Bureau -- as being "dubious".  What in the world else can be provided as a reliable source?  Tennessee alone furnish 17% as of 1850.  Alabama was 12%, with Georgia and Mississippi not far behind. Even those few states made up 42% of the total.  This is just one example.
 * Also? Yes, I resent the fact that you label as "dubious" my figures as to settlement patterns of Texas?  What are your own credentials in the realm of Texas history to dispute all this?.  I mean, I had a double major in college and one of them was history, with an emphasis in Texas history...and I am a 4th generation native with Deep South roots.  I am not trying to be a smartass, but when it arises, what are your own in terms of presuming to prosecute mine?  This is like me trying to tell you about Montana history.  Which I would never do and it never even occurred to me.
 * I mean, I can very easily label your own addition of that Jordan supposedly questioning his own earlier conclusions as being something like "dubious conclusion not supported by cited source". And I plan to do just that unless we can arrive at some kind of editing agreement. Something that I have tried hard to do from the start.  To be specific (again, and mentioned in another exchange)Jordan said that the Texas influence on the whole western cowboy tradition may have been overemphasized.  I agreed with that and explained why I did.  BUT...such has very little to do with the influences on the Texas tradition itself.
 * And no, you are right. This isn't horse-trading...as no money nor stock is involved. It is my sole wish that two reasonable men (which I hope we are) can come to an agreement on content. It saddens me though that you have not been willing to do that...
 * HOWEVER? On the flip side? In the spirit of good-will -- and the fact I absolutely sincerely do" appreciate your extension of a solution to this impasse -- I fine-tune a few things(even though I really feel like I already have and am open and welcoming to get input from other readers as to which of us has demonstrated the best attempt at good faith). I mean that. Is that fair? At the same time?  I hope you will not take this as weakness on my part.  That would not'' be wise for either of us and certainly not in the spirit of Wiki, which I am confident we both want to perpetuate.
 * BTW -- Going out of town tomorrow for a few days, so this might take a week or so in terms of our exchange and the offer above to get all worked out and acceptable to all concerned. Best Regards. TexasReb (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no rush, if you are gone a few days, I have 3000 articles on my watchlist and many other fish to fry. I'll comment below the new text.  Montanabw (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * So, I previously copied "your" paragraph as it is in the article below. Rewrite it here.  Properly. When we have something we both can live with, it can replace what's there.   Put up or shut up.   Montanabw (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Montana? I hope that your "put up or shut up" statement is not a threat. I am more than equal to the task if so.  Please don't let it go that way as 'I will put up gladly''. Let's try and not go down that blind alley, cos that is all it will be.  I think we have both had enough of that.
 * Here is my revision(see below and hope it works!): TexasReb (talk) 00:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Just tired of the endless debate, mostly. Also as tired of your tone as you apparently are of mine. Montanabw (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

- Historian Terry Jordan proposed in 1982 that some Texan traditions that developed—particularly after the Civil War—may trace to colonial South Carolina—including an established base of skilled horsemanship,[dubious – discuss] open-range herding[dubious – discuss] and branding methods[dubious – discuss] as most settlers to Texas were from the southeastern United States.[79] [80][full citation needed][81][full citation needed][82] However, these conclusions have been called into question by some reviewers,[83] and by 2000, Jordan himself appeared to have changed his views on the matter in subsequent scholarship.[84].
 * How about this?
 * Historian Terry Jordan proposed in 1982 that some Texan traditions that developed—particularly after the Civil War—may trace to colonial South Carolina and then spread across the southeastern United States before these settlers arrived in Texas. These include an already established base of skilled horsemanship, open-range herding, and branding styles.   However, a few of these conclusions have been called into question by some reviewers. . Some of Jordan's later works agreed with that the Texas' influences were not so important on the overall Western cowboy culture as previously believed. . TexasReb (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

-- I've set up this numbered list so you can reply to each if you wish, or just discuss at the end. I haven't addressed all my concerns, but these are the big research ones:
 * 1) The citations are more complete but use the citeweb templates if you can, they do all the fancy formatting for you (should appear in the editing box where the other formatting links are, click "cite" and use the drop down "templates" menu (at least that's how it looks on my computer).  It's also better form to put the source right after the material cited, rather than all bunched up at the end, unless you had to combine the sources to get a coherent sentence.  Also, never put punctuation after the footnote, put it before.   Montanabw (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * (how to answer here, with hash mark and color to preserve numbering):
 * 1) "already established base of skilled horsemanship, open-range herding, and branding styles." is the phrasing with which I take most objection, as it's worded to imply it came first and was superior, when it was really neither. But below are three ways to fix.   Montanabw (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) "different brand designs," cited to the quote you gave above, that would be fine.  "Branding styles" sounds like how they branded, the "already established base" implies that the SE tradition came first, when it did not (they got it from the Spanish, all the beef cattle herding on horseback stuff was mostly Spanish throughout the continent)  Montanabw (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) "tradition of skilled horsemanship" is somewhat dubious without more background; why South Carolina - did it come up from Spanish Florida, down from Virginia, or what? I truly have never heard of anyone claiming that South Carolina was the foundation of ANY style of horsemanship, all I've ever heard of were their Marsh Tackies that developed there, a landrace breed adapted to the climate and used to herd cows around; not that the people themselves were particularly good horsemen.  This one is an extraordinary claim that requires very specific evidence.  Montanabw (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) "open-range herding"? Ditto, never heard of open range in South Carolina ... again, an extraordinary claim that requires very specific evidence. If we have yet another specific tradition of non-Spanish roots,  (England?  Um, they mostly herded cattle on foot...) we need to know about it and maybe add it in.  If the Spanish influence came up through Florida and morphed before going west and rejoining a variant that came up from Mexico (which appears to be what happened) that's interesting stuff worth further discussion (but read the "Florida Cracker Cowboy" bit in the article before you reply here)   Montanabw (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Now we appear to be getting somewhere, Montana! *thumbs up*.  Gotta get moving on the road-trip, but will get back with it at the end of the week. Meanwhile, I appreciate your reply.  We still don't agree on certain aspects, but it definitely seems we have broken the ice to arriving to something acceptable to both of us.   Have a good and safe Memorial Day weekend! Best Regards! TexasReb (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 June 2013
I suggest a change to the section titled, "Ethnicity" by changing the title of this section to "Race and National Origin". The reason for my request results from the content of this "Ethnicity" section is focused on the racial makeup and/or National Origin of the general population of 19th century working cowboy. A close review and study of the term "Ethnicity" will reveal that it isn't necessarily a race based concept. As presented on the Wikipedia page entitled "Ethnic Group", "Ethnicity" is instead described as, [i]"...a socially defined category based on common cultural heritage, shared ancestry, history, homeland, language or dialect, and possibly other aspects such as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, physical appearance, etc."[/i]

Additional request: Under the section "Social world" the content of the second paragraph is merely unsupported conjecture offer be the authors of the cited source no. 59 (which is actually an incomplete citation). The citation source is located on Google books, however, the statement within this source is nothing more than what we learned in 9th grade English class to be a "Glittering Generality", which the authors fail to support as a bonafide fact. Most of the content on the relevant page that this citation refers consists of nothing more than that author's unsubstantiated opinion, and just because that author includes these allegations in his book neither makes them true nor makes them historical fact. Hector-rosales (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Hector-rosales 06.30.2013

Hector-rosales (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Noted, will consider. This is a complex request, which requires some analysis. Will consider the two issues. Montanabw (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The National Day of the Cowboy
Hello

I found in :  http://nationaldayofthecowboy.com/wordpress/?page_id=73

that there is difference between The National Day of the Cowboy and The National Day of the American Cowboy. Here is the text discussing the subject that I forward to you :

July 23, 2005 – US Senator Thomas reading the Letter of Support from President GW Bush at CFD A western lifestyle magazine erroneously reported in 2005 that the Day of the Cowboy had been signed into law by then President, Geoge W. Bush; This is never happened. The President sent an official “Letter of Support,” which is the highest action he could take with regard to a resolution. Many people remain under the mistaken impression that the Cowboy resolution was made permanent at that time. We at the National Day of the Cowboy have the letter from the President stating his support of the resolution. When Senator Thomas finished reading the letter, he and his wife, Susan, presented a National Day of the Cowboy flag to the Cheyenne Frontier Days Executive Committee and to the Cheyenne Frontier Days Volunteer Organization. We were honored to be on the platform that day as guests of Senator and Mrs.Thomas. The 2006 letter was handed to us by Senator Thomas himself, after he read it to the crowd in attendance at Cheyenne Frontier Days on the National Day of the Cowboy. The National Day of the Cowboy nonprofit corporation has been working to make this resolution permanent since we founded our organization in June, 2005.

173.176.98.7 (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Céline Racicot

Concerning "Spanish Roots"
Hello, seems that Jagged 85 who claimed that cowboy tradition come from Arabia and Persia without clear and well-known sources, his account has been banned from editing Wikipedia by the community and it's mean that must delete all his edits in "Spanish roots" and thanks --ثائر مستنير150 (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Not necessarily. I mean, the edits have stood for two years without objection. —C.Fred (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear, why not necessarily?, have stood the edits for two years without objection doesn't mean thing, because most wikipedia's visitors just read a bit of articles, if I were know that before two years I was objected to his claim. --ثائر مستنير150 (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The material in the article as of now is clearly footnoted to a reliable source. I'm not sure what your actual complaint is here.  We don't purge the message if it's accurate, no matter who the messenger is.   Montanabw (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the material in the article as of now is unclearly footnoted to a unkown source because it's "Bennett, pp. 54-55" without the writer's name and its book, my actual complaint is must put all hypothesis about origin of cowboy tradition because as can you see Eastern middle people claims that everything came from their region, I don't see it accurate, origin of a word doesn't mean anything, many Arabic-speaking people think that "camisa" of Arabic origin from "camis" but it's untrue the word from Latin "camisia", I'm native speaker of Arabic and in the Arabic Wikipedia there are no anything about that cowboy tradition come from Arabs or Persians and must purge his edits like all banned accounts in Wikipedia --ثائر مستنير150 (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Modern horsemanship in general can clearly be traced to roots in ancient Persia. The cowboy tradition unquestionably has Spanish roots, and much Spanish horsemanship was strongly influenced by centuries of Islamic occupation. It's clear as a bell; you don't need to rely on words alone, it's also evident in the equipment.  Bennett is fully sourced at the bottom of the article in the bibliography and is a reliable source. If you have a different, reliable, verifiable source that supports your assertion, provide it here and we can discuss.  And no, we don't purge the edits of banned users, besides, I was the one who sourced to Bennett in this article.  Montanabw (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

You said "can" and it's mean that you are not sure what you're saying, that is doesn't encourage to discuss, I want from you put a clear source (in Arabic or English or Persian) saying that Modern horsemanship its roots in ancient Persia and Spanish horsemanship was strongly influenced by centuries of Moorish occupation, Because I don't see in the Arabic Wikipedia and nor the Persian Wikipedia anything about that, The first source is an insufficient and from one of Turkish academics (cleary that he is not well-known) must put with it other sources of American people about origin of cowboy tradition, as for the second source is unclear to me, I don't understand what is "Bennett, pp. 54-55" I searched about it in google and I don't find anything, the third source I talked about that origin of a word it is doesn't mean origin of other thing --ثائر مستنير150 (talk) 01:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Find a source. Until then, drop it, you don't have anything to back your assertions.  Montanabw (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a source, can you show us the things that back your assertions? because it's to me unclear and also non-existent in the Arabic Wikipedia nor Persian Wikipedia and thanks. --ثائر مستنير150 (talk) 01:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC).


 * READ THE REFERENCES! Under the footnotes are the full citations to the books consulted and links to help you see the info. You have no idea what you are talking about, so please just read the article.   Montanabw (talk) 04:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me don't talk to me that way I respect you, under the footnotes the link first Reference "Bennett, Deb (1998) Conquerors: The Roots of New World Horsemanship" doesn't working "404. That’s an error The requested URL /books/about/Conquerors.html?id=IaN-YaOMhX4C was not found on this server. That’s all we know", as for Metin Boşnak, I don't trust in Eastern books even many Easterns don't do that, I know what I talking about so please Improve your speech and thanks --ثائر مستنير150 (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC).
 * 150, despite the fact that the Bennett link is apparently not working right now, it is still an extremely reliable source, as is the Turkish journal article. The fact that you personally don't trust it is immaterial. The information in the article is properly sourced. If you have a source that states that what is in the article right now is incorrect, please provide it. The fact that the information is not in other language Wikipedias is also immaterial, as we have no control over what is and is not in them. Give us a source proving your point of view, and we can talk. Otherwise, all you are doing is providing a personal opinion. Dana boomer (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Your speech is immaterial how can to invalid link be an extremely reliable source, Montanabw said that the link will help me and I said I don't trust in that because there are many hypothesis about the origin of anything and the Turkish journal article is insufficient, this a source says that cowboy culture is synthesis of Anglo and Hispanic cultures, whatever that's not personal opinion, I try to sure and I want reliable source and working links not just speech about one hypothesis --ثائر مستنير150 (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC).
 * The link is merely a courtesy link - it was most likely working when it was added and isn't now. The base reference (the Bennett book) is a very reliable source, as is the Turkish journal article. Links are not required, although they make things easier to verify. Your source says that western US culture is a synthesis of Anglo and Hispanic cultures, true, but that does not contradict what the article currently says. The article traces the cowboy tradition through Spanish culture, and from there, specific elements of the tradition are traced to Arabic and Persian roots. This is not contradicted by your source - your source merely doesn't trace the Spanish traditions back further to their initial origins. Again, give us reliable sources that contradict the origins of the la jineta riding style, the hackamore, etc. and we can discuss. So far, you have shown us no sources that contradict what is currently in the article. Dana boomer (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I've updated the link, looks like the online version is not accessible at the moment, but the link provides you the ability to see where the book is sold and sometimes there are excerpts online at other locations. And yes, Dana is correct, if you want to challenge the material, you need to provide sources, not simply your statements of opinion.   Montanabw (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Notes and references
I am not quite sure what methodology was used here, but it would appear that quite a few of the notes are in actual fact references. I also see that the Malone reference is cited numerous times, but only on citation 51 do we get to see the full details — the full name of the author, the book, publisher etc. Is this accpeted practice, or should the the full reference be moved to the first place where it is cited? Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * There could be a bit of cleanup for consistency, but use of "notes" and "references' versus "footnotes" and "bibliography", "references" and "sources" or whatever is a style decision within the individual article. For a book, the proper method is to put the book in the section that here is titled "References" and then just last name and page number in the footnotes.  Cite 51 is actually incorrect.   Montanabw (talk)  17:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Cowboy as an image of the American People
I'm not being a patriot or anything, but I think it's better to include in the article of the cowboy being an image of the American people abroad and how they symbolize American ideals such as independence and self-reliance. Not to mention how they themselves are an American cultural icon like Superman and John Wayne. There are tons of references out there and books such as American Folklore: An Encyclopedia and American Cowboy 112.198.64.36 (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 09:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * WHere would you suggest adding something like this? The first two sources wouldn't pass WP:RS, but the second two might.   Montanabw (talk)  18:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Cowboy images
This is a section excerpt I took from the page American frontier:

The cowboy has for over a century been the iconic American image, recognized worldwide and saluted as an authentic hero by Americans. The best known cowboys are President Theodore Roosevelt (1858–1919) who made "cowboy" internationally synonymous with the brash aggressive American; Will Rogers (1879–1935), the leading humorist of the 1920s; Charlie Siringo (1855–1928); and Andy Adams (1859–1935).

Roosevelt conceptualized the herder (cowboy) as a stage of civilization distinct from the sedentary farmer—a classic theme well expressed in the 1944 Hollywood hit Oklahoma! that unveils the conflict between cowboys and farmers. Roosevelt argued that the manhood typified by the cowboy—and outdoor activity and sports generally—was essential if American men were to avoid the softness and rot produced by an easy life in the city.

Rogers, the son of a Cherokee judge in Oklahoma, started with rope tricks and fancy riding, but by 1919 discovered his audiences were even more enchanted with his wit in his representation of the wisdom of the common man.

Cowboy, Pinkerton detective, and western author, Siringo was the first authentic cowboy autobiographer. His books helped popularize the romantic image of the American cowboy.

Adams spent the 1880s and 1890s in the cattle industry and mining in the Great Plains and Southwest. When an 1898 play's portrayal of Texans outraged Adams, he started writing plays, short stories, and novels drawn from his own experiences. His The Log of a Cowboy (1903) became a classic novel about the cattle business, especially the cattle drive. It described a fictional drive of the Circle Dot herd from Texas to Montana in 1882, and became a leading source on cowboy life; historians retraced his path in the 1960s, confirming his basic accuracy. His writings are acclaimed and criticized for realistic fidelity to detail on the one hand and thin literary qualities on the other.

The great cattle drive movie remains Red River (1948) directed by Howard Hawks, and starring John Wayne and Montgomery Clift. The unique skills of the cowboys are highlighted in the rodeo. It began in the 1880s when several Western cities followed up on touring Wild West shows and organized celebrations that included rodeo activities. The establishment of major cowboy competitions in the East in the 1920s led to the growth of rodeo sports. Rodeos combine the traditional skills of the range cowboy — calf and steer roping, steer wrestling, team roping, bronco riding, and horsemanship with the showmanship of bull riding, and barrel racing. Historians Pearson and Haney, have argued that the rodeo cowboys are more than just athletes; they are cultural icons representing such values as rugged individualism, patriotism, tradition, masculinity, and courage; they personify the heroic image of the Old West.

If an extensive information like this exist in a separate article, the it definitely should be in the Cowboy article as well.112.198.64.36 (talk) 07:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting clip.
This interesting clip shows the Feria de Abril, or Fair of April, in Seville, Southern Spain. It shows people in traditional costumes riding horses, with traditional music, too. Here it can be seen the obvious similarities between the American cowboy and the Spanish tradition:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIH70DYLBV0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.236 (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe they learned from Hollywood movies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.194 (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Those traditions a very old in Spain. Spain is a very old country. Those traditions were in place much before the US even existed. Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.236 (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2015
The word buckaroo is generally believed to be is believed to be an anglicized version of vaquero and shows phonological characteristics compatible with that origin.

should read:

The word buckaroo is generally believed to be an anglicized version of vaquero and shows phonological characteristics compatible with that origin.

2602:306:3022:1EA0:5556:B4D4:E4A8:F4D8 (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Thank for spotting that.  Montanabw (talk)  07:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Cowboy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131106000814/http://buscon.rae.es/draeI/SrvltGUIBusUsual?LEMA=vaca to http://buscon.rae.es/draeI/SrvltGUIBusUsual?LEMA=vaca
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081228100042/http://www.northjerseyhistory.org:80/history/smith/claudius.htm to http://www.northjerseyhistory.org/history/smith/claudius.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110102054447/http://www.newsday.com:80/community/guide/lihistory/ny-hs328a,0,6827509.story to http://www.newsday.com/community/guide/lihistory/ny-hs328a,0,6827509.story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2015
Statements that should be removed:

''It appears to be a direct English translation of vaquero, a Spanish word for an individual who managed cattle while mounted on horseback. It was derived from vaca, meaning "cow,"[4] which came from the Latin word vacca.''

There has never been anything particularly strange about "noun + agent suffix" constructions in English to attribute it to a Spanish calque, cf. (much earlier) potter (=pot + -er), miller... not to mention -boy compounds had been long-established in English by the 1700s: kitchen boy (1400s according to Oxford), post boy (1500s), pot-boy (1600s)...

''Originally, the term may have been intended literally—"a boy who tends cows." By 1849 it had developed its modern sense as an adult cattle handler of the American West.''

This assumes the primary sense of boy is "young male", but, although rare today, the "junior employee" sense has been usual since its first attestation according to Oxford.

94.3.97.165 (talk) 06:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made, i.e. please provide a more direct line of reasoning behind your requested change. JustBerry (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2016
Canadian folklore

76.88.107.122 (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC) More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Cowboy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080418044220/http://www.gov.ab.ca/home/index.cfm?Page=27 to http://www.gov.ab.ca/home/index.cfm?Page=27

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Images and captions
There are inappropriate images that reflect stereotypes of cowboys being added here that are not necessary. I removed the image showing sadistic behavior and replaced it with one that is a bit more typical of the concept discussed in the article. Montanabw (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Been meaning to post here and this is related. If a good book cite for cowboy behavior is needed, I got one: Charles Goodnight by J. Evetts Haley. It was first published in the 1930s and is reasonably enough, about Goodnight, but a lot of info about the cowboys and old-time ranches is also included. I'll have to look up the exact page number, but there's a place where Goodnight is quoted as saying, "The old-time cowboys were some of the most misunderstood people on earth..." Think we could use that? There's also an interesting section that says most old-time ranches didn't allow drinking, swearing, or gambling. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 22:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

unjustified speculation
"...in a region where men outnumbered women, even social events normally attended by both sexes were at times all male, and men could be found partnering up with one another for dances. Homosexual acts between young, unmarried men occurred, but cowboys culture itself was and remains deeply homophobic."

The first sentence is factually true. The second is sheer speculation, and logically contradictory. Cowboys were often socially uncomfortable with "wimmen", to the point of misogyny. Given that, and the fact that cowboys developed close and long-lasting friendships, the claim that a deeply homosocial culture was also homophobic makes no sense. Nor does it make sense to claim that homosexual behavior among cowboys was limited to young, unmarried men. Married men don't do such things? (One of the few honest things in the Brokeback Mountain movie is the married rancher making a pass at Jack.)

A famous photo of a bull dance shows the men dancing "hands on hips" rather than one leading the other. Neither wears a "heifer brand" (an armband identifying which is the woman), because they're dancing as men.

To believe that homosexual behavior was virtually non-existent among cowboys makes as much sense as believing it was nearly universal. The environment encouraged such behavior, and one cannot believe cowboys blindly followed the sexual norms of their era. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

unspecified infraction
I made an edit to this page today. However, it was rejected citing "copyright infringement." The rejector never provided any context why. I cited all of my sources and used two images that are already on Wiki file. When I asked for help, I have yet to hear any response. Is there anyone I can run my edit by so that I get an understanding of what, if anything, I did wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justbean (talk • contribs) 13:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , as we have discussed on your talk-page, your first version of the material was reverted as a copyright violation and has now been hidden in the page history. I thought your second version was almost OK from a copyright point of view, though a few phrases needed some attention; apparently did not. For what it's worth, I think that the material is appropriate here, and would like to see it restored to the page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , thank you so much for taking a look and for all your help. It's a little embarrassing, and frustrating, that I keep getting it "wrong."  I guess I look at the page and didn't think I was doing something so different than what others had done.  For example:


 * The historic American cowboy of the late 19th century arose from the vaquero traditions of northern Mexico and became a figure of special significance and legend.[1]


 * Perhaps this is the user's own words, but it reads like he/she took an observation from the source and cited it. Also, I come across sources that can't be checked online (books)...i.e. the Malone book is repeatedly cited.  So, I don't understand how my paraphrasing is such an infraction, while the user citing Malone is not.  Beyond that, I came across examples where the source is not even accessible anymore (History.com)...


 * The largely undocumented contributions of women to the west were acknowledged in law; the western states led the United States in granting women the right to vote, beginning with Wyoming in 1869.[67]


 * Yet, that remains.


 * I'm really confused about the way all this works...why one user's paraphrasing of a fact works, while another one's doesn't. Or why the definition of "cowboy" from Answers.com is not only used on this page, but also carries the same weight as other sources. , I didn't receive an email from you or any specifics as to where I apparently went wrong.  Can you please advise?  ThanksJustbean (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't send you an email because I don't have a personal email. I reverted you because the second edit looked to me to be the same as the first. Copyvio is one of the most serious problems with Wikipedia and is something I would rather be safe than sorry about, after seeing editors get blocked for it. I don't know how the stuff above got into the article. I didn't write it. It was probably added under the radar and nobody noticed it was too close to the source, so they didn't revert. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

In short, the existence of problems in this article does not justify adding to them. The first problem is that a lot of the "history" in your ethnicity content was either not accurate, or is overly detailed and as such would be more appropriate in articles such as charro or vaquero. Second, you cannot misquote sources (as you did with the 2003 National Geograpic source -- the 15 to 30 percent claim is not contained there). You also cannot closely paraphrase sources. Most of all, your citations must be to reliable sources -- for things such as ethnicity and other controversial points of history, you have to be particularly careful. For cowboys, the picture is muddier because there is an awful lot of junk research done on the American west. ( and sad to say, a lot of really bad research comes out of Germany, where cowboy culture is over-romanticized even worse than it is in America ). Where material is unsourced, citations should be sought. But where content is cited, the existing citations should not be removed and overwritten by weaker content, as you did with the etymology section. You had some interesting content in the ethnicity sections you added, but they were, for one thing, over-long for an article that is an overview, and in some cases is lengthy history best placed elsewhere. They also contained over-broad statements (like "according to the US census") inaccurate sections (and had unsourced and mis-sourced content. I'm not opposed to seeing more on ethnicity and some of your sources are neutral, but overall, you made mass changes that were of undue weight and not of particularly good quality. Some sections might do well in spin-off articles, too.    Montanabw (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * To wit: 1) Your ethnicity sections both say that "15 to 30 percent" of all cowboys are of X ethnic group... and badly sourced.   2) The current content on homosexuality could be improved, it isn't very good.  But it needs one or two good paragrapha, not eight.  That is a separate article.  3)  The content on black cowboys also runs 12 paragraphs, that's also undue weight, and particularly when you go clear back to the 1700s, which is before the "American cowboy" era...  3) The sections on Hispanic cowboys dates to the 1400s and some of this content should go into the vaquero article, and much of it is already in articles.  Again, undue weight. 4)  The content on Native American cowboys is particularly poor.  The stats on population decline don't even belong in this article, and they are highly controversial, to boot (I've heard estimates of anywhere between 50% and 95%) a statement like "in line with this decrease, Native Americans are estimated to have accounted for less than 1% of all cowboys" is sheer uncited original research. The rest is totally irrelevant to an article on cowboys, it's native american history and needs to go into an appropriate article on the horse culture of the plains (though some of it is still of questionable accuracy...and this is just for starters.  I would be glad to have a sub-page created here to review this content and determine what could be added.   Montanabw (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

reversion justification
Please do not alter the comments of other users on a talkpage. If you choose to utilize a point-by-point discussion, you can use talkpage quotation to do so. Montanabw (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

, below I broke up the two paragraphs you addressed to me in order to answer your points to the best of my ability. Hope I didn't create confusion by answering each of your points in this manner... In short, the existence of problems in this article does not justify adding to them. Montanabw (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I greatly disagree. Not only do I not see the problems you pointed out, but I also fail to see how my edits are substantially different from the current edits on the page. Justbean (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The first problem is that a lot of the "history" in your ethnicity content was either not accurate, or is overly detailed and as such would be more appropriate in articles such as charro or vaquero. Montanabw (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems like you are putting "history" in quotes to undermine/minimize it. It is history...just like the rest of the history on the page.  Beyond that, please let me know what is inaccurate, and what is overly detailed.  Because while you may think of it as being overly detailed, it is actually there for context (see below). Justbean (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Second, you cannot misquote sources (as you did with the 2003 National Geographic source -- the 15 to 30 percent claim is not contained there). Montanabw (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Two things here:
 * 1) This was not my source. It was already on the Page...and has been so since Sept. 1, 2005.  I simply accepted the source that was on the Page and reworded the content for efficiency.  So, I'm being chastised for something I did not do.
 * 2) Regardless, the quote is accurate. Per the source –– "One out of every three cowboys in the late 1800s was the Mexican vaquero." 1/3 is 33%.  That's not a misquote...that's just math.   Furthermore, the previous edit, before mine, said, "...cowboys of Mexican descent also averaged about 15% of the total."  So, there was a range.  A range between 15-33%.  "15-30" is within that range, but I am happy to say 33% if you like; however, I gave deference to the range.  If someone wants to dig further, isn't that what the source is there for? Justbean (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

You also cannot closely paraphrase sources. Montanabw (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not paraphrase. I wrote in my own words.  I am aware of Close paraphrasing rules, which I took a lot of time to not violate.  Again, I asked three editors to review my edit when I submitted it and let me know of any red flags, so that I could take it down if there was a problem.  Those editors were fine with my edits, with one even writing another editor on my behalf.  In addition, I ran a copyviol tool, provided to me by another editor, when I submitted the edit.  My edit was clean.  I did not copyvio. Justbean (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Most of all, your citations must be to reliable sources... Montanabw (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "Reliable" is subjective, and is prone to Wiki bias given that of the top 20 news sites used as references on Wikipedia, 18 were owned by large for-profit news corporations... There is no uniform standard as to what constitutes "reputable"....only an editor's opinion.  For example, on the Tulsa race riot page, I think there should be, at the very least, the same about of objection given the sources used on the page. For example, the page cites:
 * 2011 History Thesis, Oklahoma City University
 * Tulsa Tribune Race Riot blog, 18 June 2014
 * GOOD Magazine
 * 8-page lesson plan for high school Students, 2013, Zinn Education Project/Rethinking Schools
 * Subliminal.org
 * digitalprairie.com
 * chroniclingamerica.loc.gov
 * Public Radio Tulsa
 * Yet, these sources still stand for a major historical event. Conversely, nothing has been pointed out as to why my sources are not "reputable," only that the editor, who reverted my edit, disagreed with them Justbean (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

-- for things such as ethnicity and other controversial points of history, you have to be particularly careful. Montanabw (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Why is it that including, what was excluded, "controversial" when it involves race/gender/etc.? What is so controversial about anything that I wrote?  If anything, it should be controversial that cowboys and cowgirls of color, etc. are so glaringly omitted from the current page.  Yet, adding their historical, and recorded presence, is controversial?  The page is on American cowboys.  I provided additional context to American cowboys...simply acknowledging the fact that they weren't all straight white men.  And that is a fact.  So, how is providing more context to the American cowboy experience controversial? Justbean (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

For cowboys, the picture is muddier because there is an awful lot of junk research done on the American west. Montanabw (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, that is an opinion, and the same could be said of research sourced for ANY page on Wiki. Justbean (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

( and sad to say, a lot of really bad research comes out of Germany, where cowboy culture is over-romanticized even worse than it is in America ). Montanabw (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with Germany's fixation on cowboys, yet none of my sources was German.  The one source that's title is noted (in German) is not a German book, but this one which is published by Thames & Hudson...in New York. However, even if I did use a German source, just because you disagree with it, doesn't mean that it's inaccurate or not reputable.Justbean (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Where material is unsourced, citations should be sought. But where content is cited, the existing citations should not be removed and overwritten by weaker content, as you did with the etymology section. Montanabw (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Four things here:
 * 1) "Weaker content." That's subjective.  This should not be about "weak" or "strong" content, but "accurate."  And you've provided nothing to suggest that my source (i.e. in the etymology section) is inaccurate.  Only that you reject it...because you do.
 * 2) Furthermore, my edit followed the tradition of previous notes of the etymology. No one knows where "cowboy" really came from.  For example, on the current page it says this: "It appears to be a direct English translation of vaquero..."  "Originally, the term may have been intended literally—"a boy who tends cows."  And in one of your own past edits of this section, you wrote, "This term appears to have  developed after the creation of the Hacienda system... So, how is me saying ,"The term may also have been derived from slave job descriptions on Texas ranches e.g. a house boy who tended the house, a yard boy who tended the field, and a "cow boy" who tended the cattle" any different? Justbean (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) FYI...here's another source that further supports my edit
 * 4) I cited everything. Am I expected to cite every sentence?  If I do so, then I will be accused of plagiarizing...so this seems like a Catch-22.  For example, this is on the page: "The English word cowboy has an origin from several earlier terms that referred to both age and to cattle or cattle-tending work."  Where's its citation?  Why is this allowed to stand without a citation, yet every sentence I wrote is scrutinized? Justbean (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

You had some interesting content in the ethnicity sections you added, but they were, for one thing, over-long for an article that is an overview, and in some cases is lengthy history best placed elsewhere. I'm not opposed to seeing more on ethnicity and some of your sources are neutral, but overall, you made mass changes that were of undue weight and not of particularly good quality. Some sections might do well in spin-off articles, too. Montanabw (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a matter of perspective. Please note the communication with  in the tea room...


 * "Another problem that I see is that you are trying to add significant new content that unbalances the coverage of the ethnic composition of American cowboys. Black cowboys would end up appearing far more important than Mexican cowboys, for example. I think that a better solution is to create a new article on Black cowboys linked from the main Cowboy article, and to add a brief summary of the new content to that article." Cullen328 Let's discuss it  18:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "Cullen328 I don't see how it unbalances the coverage.  The entire article was unbalanced to begin, given its default that cowboys are white.  It's unclear why "cowboys" can't include all cowboys, or why black, Mexican, etc. should have their own pages.  I thought the page is about American cowboys.  If that's true, then, as of now...white cowboys are appearing far more important than all others...which is inaccurate, given that others accounted for 40-60 percent (per census) of all cowboys.   It seems that including cowboys of color others shouldn't necessitate the need for them to be separate.  That's akin to saying white cowboys are the "default"...and others are subcategories.  So, while I see no harm in cowboys of color having a separate page...I also don't see why they have to be relegated on this page (as Cowgirls have their own sizable section), or re-directed to other pages.  As for Mexican cowboys...I simply didn't do that edit.  But, I also don't see why I need to do the edit on Mexican cowboys, et al. in order for the edit on Black cowboys to be accepted?" Justbean (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "The article had a section describing the regional ethnic variations among cowboys and I see no default assumption in the article before you began editing that cowboys were white. I am not arguing that anything be "relegated" and agree that you are working to add useful content. But all additions need to take into account the full article and often it is better to create more detailed sub articles rather than to allow the original article to evolve in a sprawling, disorganized fashion. As for cowgirls, I would support a separate article for them as well. In my opinion, Black cowboys and cowgirls are discrete topics covered in detail in many books that, in my view, deserve separate articles. This is a matter of editorial judgment to be decided by consensus, and I am expressing my opinion. Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  18:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ''"<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328 that's my point.  You don't have to say cowboys are white...the default is that they just are.  It's a given.  Look at all the artwork on the page, or the section that talks about the Cowboy image.  This is why it has to be explained that there were non-white cowboys.  It's the same if/when reading a story.  If a character is not white, it has to be pointed out...otherwise people assume/default that the character is white.  But...back to the article, there are, in fact, other references in the Cowboy article where cowboys are mentioned as, or alluded to being, white:


 * "American cowboys were drawn from multiple sources. By the late 1860s, following the American Civil War and the expansion of the cattle industry, former soldiers from both the Union and Confederacy came west, seeking work, as did large numbers of restless white men in general."


 * "In the 19th century, most tribes in the area were dispossessed of their land and cattle and pushed south or west by white settlers and the United States government."


 * "By the middle of the 19th century white ranchers were running large herds of cattle on the extensive open range of central and southern Florida." Justbean (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

They also contained over-broad statements (like "according to the US census") inaccurate sections (and had unsourced and mis-sourced content. Montanabw (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I used the same verbiage the CIA uses, which is also found on demography pages such as the page for the Demography of the United States, where it states, "...according to the Census Bureau's estimation for 2012, 50.4% of American children under the age of 1 belonged to minority groups."  I was stating demographics, so I used the source up front.  How is that "over-broad," especially if it's accurate?  Speaking of accuracy, what sections were inaccurate/mis-sourced? Justbean (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

To wit: 1) Your ethnicity sections both say that "15 to 30 percent" of all cowboys are of X ethnic group... and badly sourced.  Montanabw (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Three things:
 * 1) I only had one ethnicity section, with three sub-sections in it.
 * 2) Again, National Geographic (in the Mexican Cowboys section) was not my source. It was previously on the page, but if National Geographic is a bad source, then that's news to me.
 * 3) Likewise, in the Black Cowboys section, I cited two books published by the University of Nebraska Press, which is an "academic publisher of scholarly and general-interest books," the English publisher of the last two Nobel laureates in literature, the publisher of the Definitive Journals of Lewis and Clark, the 12th largest publishing press in the US, and it specializes in scholarly works and historical works on the Great Plains. But somehow, when it comes to books on Black Cowboys, its reputation just flies out the window? Justbean (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

2) The current content on homosexuality could be improved, it isn't very good. But it needs one or two good paragrapha, not eight.  That is a separate article.  Montanabw (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Two things:
 * 1) The homosexuality edit was there before I made my edit. I elaborated on it.  It's eight paragraphs because I broke it up rather than force 2-3 big blocks, as I've often seen on pages.  However, you had no issue with a section being 8+ paragraphs when you edited the Cowgirls section.  In fact...you added four paragraphs to a section that already had four.  So, why was it ok for a section you edited to be eight paragraphs (and is currently nine), but unacceptable for one I edited to be the same? Justbean (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Furthermore, I've never seen any stipulation on wiki as to whether or not an editor has to "like" the content of an edit (i.e. "It isn't very good.") There are TONS of edits on Wiki that aren't very good.  But an edit being good is subjective.  Rather than focus on its "goodness," can we please focus on its accuracy?  The info is accurate.  It doesn't matter if anyone doesn't find it to be good because....it can be further added/edited by the community.  Isn't that the point?  For example, your own edit on Jan. 19, 2007 wasn't very good...nor was it "reasonably decent, tight, well-written, encyclopedic tone and properly sourced edits," as you demanded of me.   In fact, for an entire new section you created, you only used one source...and only cited it once over eight paragraphs.  Your source?  The American Heritage Dictionary.  Yet, you have the audacity to say that my sources are lacking, and to accuse me of "uncited original research" (below)?  However, despite your infractions and lack of finesse at the time, your entire section was never reverted.  And you've improved this page for the simple fact that you've edited it several hundred times, without scrutiny, over the last 10 years...so, now it's better.  So, I don't understand why you're holding me to a different standard than you held yourself?  Beyond that, shouldn't an edit's inclusion not come down to any editor's personal taste, but to "accuracy?"  And if accuracy is the metric, then there is no reason as to why my edit should not be included. Justbean (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

3) The content on black cowboys also runs 12 paragraphs, that's also undue weight, and particularly when you go clear back to the 1700s, which is before the "American cowboy" era...   Montanabw (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Two things:
 * 1) I don't understand why I'm not allowed to cite a year to establish context. For example, the current the vaquero section points to 1598, the current roundups section mentions the 16th Century, as do the Florida cowhunter, the Hawaiian Paniolo, and the "Other" sections.  Since the page is already going back as far as 1598 in other sections, why can't my edit(s) do the same? Justbean (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) And here's the kicker...guess who wrote the roundups section?  You did.  Just like you wrote the "Other" section.  So, you, yourself, referenced time periods "before the American cowboy" era to provide context to your own edit...but when I do it, for some unexplained reason, it's frowned upon. Justbean (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

4) The sections on Hispanic cowboys dates to the 1400s and some of this content should go into the vaquero article, and much of it is already in articles. Again, undue weight.  Montanabw (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As for "undue weight," please refer to my communication with <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328 noted above.  But also, please consider my communication with  below:


 * As to whether the content should be spun out into a separate article, perhaps Black cowboys, I have not carefully considered the details, and have no firm opinion. Often that is a good way to handle specialized content on Wikipedia -- in many other cases it is not the best way. As I understand it, cowboys historically were of varied ethnic and racial backgrounds: Mexican, Black, and Anglo and some others. All of these should be mentioned in the main article Cowboys. However if content about any one of these is so extensive that it overwhelms the others, that might be a case of undue weight, and be best handled with a summery and a link to a separate, more detailed, article. But I am not saying that this is the best way to handle this specific case. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ''DES, I totally understand the importance of not having a sub-edit drown out the main edit. I mentioned this in in my TeaRoom comments a bit, but, to me the issue isn't whether Black Cowboys, Mexican Cowboys, etc. should get their own pages.  The issue is that the Cowboy page is about American Cowboys...and there were black, Mexican, etc. cowboys.  They shouldn't have to be separated out, especially when they accounted for 40-60% of actual cowboys.  The issue isn't "including" them on their own page...it's that they were "left out" of this one.  By leaving them out, and re-directing users to "specialized" pages...it does two things:
 * it falsely perpetuates the inaccurate default image and understanding that [virtually all] cowboys were white
 * it relegates black, Mexican, Native American cowboys into "other" subcategories that users must specifically search for which, by default, will not receive as many views as a broad major page
 * So, the issue isn't inclusion, but exclusion. Justbean (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)''

5) The content on Native American cowboys is particularly poor.  The stats on population decline don't even belong in this article, and they are highly controversial, to boot (I've heard estimates of anywhere between 50% and 95%) a statement like "in line with this decrease, Native Americans are estimated to have accounted for less than 1% of all cowboys" is sheer uncited original research.  Montanabw (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Again with the "poor" and "controversial." I didn't say they were between 50%-95%....so that was irrelevant to bring up.  Can we stick to my edit and not hypotheticals?  And I didn't commit original research.  I used multiple sources, Wiki's own numbers, and obvious math.  If multiple sources say Mexican cowboys were between 15-30%, and other sources say that 15% were "Mexican, Native American and Chinese," the inference is that Mexican cowboys accounted for the majority.  Native Americans have never made up even 1% of the population.  So, by saying that the percentage of Native American cowboys was less than 1%...how is that inaccurate?  No other outcome is even possible.  Beyond that, this was in line with the decrease in overall population of Native Americans.  I didn't say it was a causation, or even a correlation...but "in line with"...which simply means "comparable."  Again, that is not inaccurate info that I just pulled from the sky. Justbean (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The rest is totally irrelevant to an article on cowboys, it's native american history and needs to go into an appropriate article on the horse culture of the plains (though some of it is still of questionable accuracy...and this is just for starters. I would be glad to have a sub-page created here to review this content and determine what could be added.   Montanabw (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not "irrelevant." For example, the stats on population decline go in line with context.  This is where that Wiki Bias I mentioned could significantly impact what info is included/excluded on the page. Because people in the status quo never have to provide context about their existence/participation/relevance...because they are the default.  This is not wordy, irrelevant Native American history to be sent away on some never-to-be-seen separate page, or some random sub-section on another Native American page.  Rather, it's information that provides context about the presence/existence/participation of Native American cowboys.   It's no different than the current page having this:
 * (5) Regional traditions in the U.S.
 * (5.1) California tradition
 * (5.1.1) Buckaroos
 * The California tradition and the Buckaroos provide more context to the Regional tradition in the U.S. I simply provided context without the bullet points.  But it's literally the same logic.


 * Furthermore, you did not extend me the same courtesy you've shown other editors or the deference you've shown for yourself. For example, you once restored an edit for this reason: "Inappropriate to delete without first offering editor an opportunity to locate a source."  However, you didn't grant me that same courtesy.  Rather, you reverted my entire edit...after no other editor (of three other editors whose approval I sought) had a single issue with it.  Beyond that, you accused my writing of being "unencyclopedic" (which isn't even a word); however, with your own edit, you once reasoned that you wrote the way you did in order to "just rearrange things in hopes the narrative will flow a bit better."  In addition, you've reverted "good faith" edits numerous times.  Yet, from a person who willfully admits, "I sometimes do hit revert too hastily," you quickly reverted my edit, without any acknowledgment of the good faith effort I obviously poured into it.  And, on top of that, you insult me by telling me "...you are someone who hasn't quite yet learned how to edit around here." Justbean (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Finally, I think I've answered all your questions, and in the process, showed how my edit is being treated differently. I'm not asking for anything more than you had when you started editing this page 10 years ago.  Fairness, good faith, and an opportunity for the community to expand on it.  Thx. Justbean (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Consensus Request
I am requesting that the 22:57, 24 July 2017 version of this page, which I contributed, be restored in full.

'''I retract this request, and please disregard the content within this section. Issue is being resolved.''' Justbean (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I have reason to believe that editor,, is penalizing my contribution to this page by using WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics against me. I don't know if this Talk page is the best place for this, but sometimes context is required to expose subtleties, and started to go to to ANI, I found the process to be more like a cold checklist. So, I closed out my inquiry there and came here...to you.

The context for this request is somewhat lengthy, but important. So, if you don't have the time to consider the full breath of this request, or if you're unable to make an objective judgment about as an editor –– for any reason –– I kindly ask that you refrain from weighing in. So, here goes...will break into 10 sections for ease:


 * 1. On 08:39, 15 July 2017‎, I made an edit to this page adding a section on Black Cowboys.  Due to a misunderstanding, my edit contained copyvio.   correctly called me out on the infraction.  He/She  reverted my edit, but helped resolve my misunderstanding.  I revised the edit and submitted a new version.  However,  thought my edit was WP:close following and, again, reverted it.  I contested his/her finding, to which he/she said, "If your second edit was not a copyvio, which I'm perfectly willing to accept, then I would support adding it back."  Justlettersandnumbers invited me to the Tea Room to help me gain more clarity.


 * 2. In the Teahouse, Justlettersandnumbers voiced support for me: "I believe the editor's second attempt was very close to being perfectly OK."  This was in line with the support he/she provided on the Talk page on my behalf as well: "For what it's worth, I think that the material is appropriate here, and would like to see it restored to the page."


 * 3. However, also in the Teahouse,  and  expressed that other editors might take exception to the length of my edit or cite undue weight  –– but I received no red flags from them regarding copyvio.  However, these new potential issues are things I disagreed with, inclusive of the edit alternatively being redirected from the Cowboy page to a new article.  I went to lengths to explain my position and these three exchanges best sum it up:


 * a) "Another problem that I see is that you are trying to add significant new content that unbalances the coverage of the ethnic composition of American cowboys. Black cowboys would end up appearing far more important than Mexican cowboys, for example. I think that a better solution is to create a new article on Black cowboys linked from the main Cowboy article, and to add a brief summary of the new content to that article." <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328 Let's discuss it  18:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328 I don't see how it unbalances the coverage.  The entire article was unbalanced to begin, given its default that cowboys are white.  It's unclear why "cowboys" can't include all cowboys, or why black, Mexican, etc. should have their own pages.  I thought the page is about American cowboys.  If that's true, then, as of now...white cowboys are appearing far more important than all others...which is inaccurate, given that others accounted for 40-60 percent (per census) of all cowboys.   It seems that including cowboys of color shouldn't necessitate the need for them to be separate.  That's akin to saying white cowboys are the "default"...and others are subcategories.  So, while I see no harm in cowboys of color having a separate page...I also don't see why they have to be relegated on this page (as Cowgirls have their own sizable section), or re-directed to other pages.  As for Mexican cowboys...I simply didn't do that edit.  But, I also don't see why I need to do the edit on Mexican cowboys, et al. in order for the edit on Black cowboys to be accepted?" Justbean (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "The article had a section describing the regional ethnic variations among cowboys and I see no default assumption in the article before you began editing that cowboys were white. I am not arguing that anything be "relegated" and agree that you are working to add useful content. But all additions need to take into account the full article and often it is better to create more detailed sub articles rather than to allow the original article to evolve in a sprawling, disorganized fashion. As for cowgirls, I would support a separate article for them as well. In my opinion, Black cowboys and cowgirls are discrete topics covered in detail in many books that, in my view, deserve separate articles. This is a matter of editorial judgment to be decided by consensus, and I am expressing my opinion. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  18:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ''"<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328 that's my point.  You don't have to say cowboys are white...the default is that they just are.  It's a given.  Look at all the artwork on the page, or the section that talks about the Cowboy image.  This is why it has to be explained that there were non-white cowboys.  It's the same if/when reading a story.  If a character is not white, it has to be pointed out...otherwise people assume/default that the character is white.  But...back to the article, there are, in fact, other references in the Cowboy article where cowboys are mentioned as, or alluded to being, white:
 * ––"American cowboys were drawn from multiple sources. By the late 1860s, following the American Civil War and the expansion of the cattle industry, former soldiers from both the Union and Confederacy came west, seeking work, as did large numbers of restless white men in general."
 * ––"In the 19th century, most tribes in the area were dispossessed of their land and cattle and pushed south or west by white settlers and the United States government."
 * ––"By the middle of the 19th century white ranchers were running large herds of cattle on the extensive open range of central and southern Florida." ~Justbean (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * b) As to whether the content should be spun out into a separate article, perhaps Black cowboys, I have not carefully considered the details, and have no firm opinion. Often that is a good way to handle specialized content on Wikipedia -- in many other cases it is not the best way. As I understand it, cowboys historically were of varied ethnic and racial backgrounds: Mexican, Black, and Anglo and some others. All of these should be mentioned in the main article Cowboys. However if content about any one of these is so extensive that it overwhelms the others, that might be a case of undue weight, and be best handled with a summery and a link to a separate, more detailed, article. But I am not saying that this is the best way to handle this specific case. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ''DES, I totally understand the importance of not having a sub-edit drown out the main edit. I mentioned this in in my TeaRoom comments a bit, but, to me the issue isn't whether Black Cowboys, Mexican Cowboys, etc. should get their own pages.  The issue is that the Cowboy page is about American Cowboys...and there were black, Mexican, etc. cowboys.  They shouldn't have to be separated out, especially when they accounted for 40-60% of actual cowboys.  The issue isn't "including" them on their own page...it's that they were "left out" of this one.  By leaving them out, and re-directing users to "specialized" pages...it does two things:
 * it falsely perpetuates the inaccurate default image and understanding that [virtually all] cowboys were white
 * it relegates black, Mexican, Native American cowboys into "other" subcategories that users must specifically search for which, by default, will not receive as many views as a broad major page
 * So, the issue isn't inclusion, but exclusion.'' Justbean (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * c) <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328, again, I wasn't aware that I had to account for scope. Will take into consideration. However, I also didn't see my edit as being any bigger than the edit on Cowgirls. I honestly don't know when/how the cowgirl edit was added...But, if an edit is accurate, why should its size matter? In addition, no one has mentioned that the size of my edit is an issue. All I've heard is copyvio, although I have yet to receive any specifics. Justbean (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 4. By this point, White Arabian Filly expressed support for inclusion of/an article on Black Cowboys, along with Justlettersandnumbers and DES: "I'm with DES and would support having a black cowboy article too."  So, I went back to the drawing board to complete an edit that would address as many expressed potential issues as possible.  I did several hours of research over four days.  This resulted in me submitting the 19:00, 19 July 2017 version, using this copyvio tool to double-check the edit, and reaching out to, DES and  White Arabian Filly  with the following:


 * Hi all. I just wanted to thank you again and let you know that I took everyone's feedback to heart.  I'm taking a chance and submitting a new edit.  I tried really hard to cover everything, though I am not submitting in smaller chunks.  This is one thing I decided to try, as the long edit provides context.  The big do-over was really in making edits to the entirety of the Ethnicity section.  <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  pointed out that by only editing Black Cowboys, it "unbalances the coverage of the ethnic composition of American cowboys."  While I think the balance of the ethnic composition is skewed toward white cowboys (as the "default"), and also find it an unfair burden to edit for ALL excluded minorities simply to include one, it was an issue that I wanted to take off the table.  So, the new edit presents roughly ALL American cowboys...to the best of my current ability.  The edits are meaty...meaty enough to be a springboard for each of their own pages (should someone else opt to write those), but lean enough to warrant their inclusion on a page about American cowboys. This was a big and sincere effort, so I really hope it sticks...and if one of you would be kind enough to look it over and give me a heads-up –– if you think I should take it down and retool my strategy –– that'd be awesome...Justbean (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 5. After I submitted my edit, I continued to make minor edits to it e.g. grammar, adding more sources, and (in particular) adding new images.   helped me understand Wiki's fair use policy on WikiCommons, and I uploaded 13 images that I scouted, adding most of them to the edit.  Guanaco even sent me a kind note on July 20: "You just made your tenth edit; thank you, and please keep going!"


 * 6. I continued to make small edits to the page over the next 3 days, ending with the 22:57, 24 July 2017 version.  Everything seemed fine...until  reverted the entire edit, citing: "Remove a lot of changes that are not supported by appropriate source material."  This was news to me, as no other editor had flagged anything that would warrant the reversion of the entire edit.  So, for your consideration, here are the sources I used:                                                    In addition to these sources, I used eight sources that were already on the Page, along with one source from the Cross dressing ball page.


 * 7.Here's where things got weird. When I expressed that my edit was clean, and that 's reversion felt like Wiki systemic bias and/or a Wiki racial bias, Montanabw accused me of  personal attacks.  I strongly refuted that, as I never said Montanabw was "guilty" of these things, nor did I call Montanabw any names...I merely expressed how it felt given that Montanabw noticeably removed everything about black, Mexican, Native American, Women and gay cowboys that I added (including some things that were not from my edit within those subjects).  And then Montanabw said this: "...all I will say is that your problem had nothing to do with racial or gender bias, it had everything to do with copyright violations, undue weight, and poor use of source material."  I refuted this, listed out all I had done to submit an edit –– that no one had any issue with for three days –– and noted how Montanabw's rational for the reversion had changed:


 * Initially Montanabw said my edit was reverted because it wasn't "supported by appropriate source material." When I challenged this, Montanabw then said, "Discussion is appropriate." Then, Montanabw disregarded my content altogether with this opinion: "There is a lot of nonsense about cowboys out there and a lot of bad sources."  Yet, in the same breath, Montanabw implied that my sources weren't, in fact, the issue, but that, "This article is in need of careful development..."  After that, Montanabw accused me of copyvio.  And then, on the Talk page (above), Montanabw listed off a myriad of "other" things I supposedly violated.....including several of my edits not being "very good."  While the target of Montanabw's accusations kept moving, the accusations were also illogical given that, if I was guilty of these things, at least a few of them would have been flagged by the copyviol tool I used (which was provided to me by other admin) when I submitted the edit, or by any of the three admins I asked to check it when I submitted it.  Confused, I responded:


 * "So, which is it...is my source material flawed? Was my entire edit all "nonsense?"  Or does it just warrant a discussion?  OR...have I committed copyvio?  You can't have it ALL ways....[You're] moving goalposts.  You state I did one thing, then you message me saying I did something else.  Furthermore, if I did something so bad, why not lay out what the problem is and tell me what I can do to correct it, so that the edit may be accepted?  But you did not do that.  You removed everything about black, Mexican, Native American, Women and gay cowboys that I added (including some things that were not from my edit within those subjects)...and then actually said "there's "a lot of nonsense about cowboys out there."   So, you are telling me that you won't accept my edit UNLESS it clears your threshold of what you know/believe a cowboy to be.  So, again...we all know that this is not about my presentation, but about content and perspective because that's what you said it was about." Justbean (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 8. Then things got weirder. After belittling me i.e. "...you are someone who hasn't quite yet learned how to edit around here," Montanabw seemingly Wikihounded me to the Stephen F. Austin page with an obvious intent revert my recent edit there.  If that was not Montanabw's intent, then it's quite a coincidence that Montanabw, who has never been an editor on the Stephen F. Austin page, suddenly appear and take no issue with any other edit on the page...only mine.  The edit had been uncontested for 10 days...until Montanabw suddenly showed up, reverted my entire edit, and chastised me for needing "better sourcing."  After I noted that this reversion was petty, less than 10 minutes later, Montanabw restored one sentence, and two of my references, to the Page...which doesn't make any sense because if my edit needed "better sourcing" to begin with...and my sources were so bad enough to necessitate the reversion of the entire edit in the first place, then why restore any of the edit or the sources?   Then, I noticed that another recent edit had been changed by Montanabw...the Bill Pickett.  It was an edit so minor, you'd wonder why anyone would bother at all...it didn't add anything to the page, or make it more efficient.  Rather, Montanabw's edit made the page more inefficient –– resulting in Pickett's wife being named twice] on the same eye level.  So, if this edit didn't make the page "better," one must ask, why did Montanabw do it?


 * 9.As if things couldn't get weirder, Montanabw came on this Cowboy Talk page and wrote two paragraphs accusing my edit of being guilty of all sorts of things that they blatantly were not. For example, I was accused of "misquoting sources."  Montanabw criticized a percentage that I cited from a 2003 National Geographic source, saying, "...the 15 to 30 percent claim is not contained there."   However, the literal quote from the source was this: ""One out of every three cowboys in the late 1800s was the Mexican vaquero."  Hence, this was my response to Montanabw:
 * 1/3 is 33%. That's not a misquote...that's just math.   Furthermore, the previous edit, before mine, said, "...cowboys of Mexican descent also averaged about 15% of the total."  So, there was a range.  A range between 15-33%.  "15-30" is within that range, but I am happy to say 33% if you like; however, I gave deference to the range.  If someone wants to dig further, isn't that what the source is there for? Justbean (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * 10. Finally, the weirdest thing of all happened because of all of Montanabw's accusations against me on this page (above). I know it's long, and if you've made it this far, then the last thing you likely want to do is read more.   Well, because I simply responded to those accusations, I was led on a path where I discovered some hypocritical, and disturbing temperament issues, about Montanabw.  As for the hypocritical things...the very things Montanabw was accusing me of doing, and being so disrespectful in those accusations...I found a paper trail of Montanabw doing those exact things...and I laid it all out in the reversion justification section above –– particularly in bullet points 2, 3 and the bottom of 5.  As for temperamental issues...I learned of Montanabw's established history of WP:OWNERSHIP behavior and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality.  Given that Montanabw has been the primary contributor of the Cowboy page, for the last 10 years, I am concerned as to whether or not Montanabw feels ownership over the page and will accept any edits that conflict with his/her worldview.  Ever since I presented Montanabw with my findings, I have yet to hear a response.  This is why I decided to be proactive and fight for my contribution.


 * Furthermore, there's one action that did that leads me to believe his/her interaction with me has been personal.  It goes back to the reversion, then restoration, of some of my contribution on the Stephen F. Austin page.  This is someone who never edited that page before, but came to it, reverted my edit, and restored it within 10 minutes.  However, what stands out here is that Montanabw allowed some aspect of the edit to remain.  Yet, when it came to the Cowboy page, Montanabw reverted my entire edit...and after leaving no real explanation, at first, Montanabw's explanation became a salad-bowl of accusations...none of which ever added up to the initial accusation (which I'm still trying to decipher).  In addition, my contribution on the Bill Pickett page was done in the same manner as my contribution on the Cowboy page...why does the Pickett edit mostly stand, but nothing on the cowboy edit remains?  Especially given that the Cowboy edit is thoroughly researched, well presented, and done in good faith shown.  Yet, it was shown such animus by Montanabw...not a single aspect of it was restored to the page.  And because this Montanabw has a history of calling editors names like "Whiners," "Assholes" and "Pretentious, mall-minded little jackasses [who should] get a freaking life"...and because Montanabw has implied an annoyance with so-called "PC Wars," and accused editors of things like "romanticized silliness" this was not something, with my limited experience, that I thought I could handle without help.  So...here I am.

So, to sum this all up, I am asking for consensus for a full restore of the 22:57, 24 July 2017 version of this page for three reasons:


 * 1) I fear that, by trying to edit and re-submit,  may just revert me again for "some other" reason, at best, or troll my my future edits, at worst.  I don't want the time and effort I spend on contributions to go down the drain, nor do I want to spend the kind of additional time and effort (as I've done so here) in trying to have my contributions treated fairly.
 * 2)  has a well establish edit history, and the power to go with it, so getting into a back-and-forth seems futile.
 * 3) I am fairly new at this, as my history of edits have mostly been minor, and not only am I trying to keep my budding history/record as a contributor in tact, but I am also trying to make sure that my passion to contribute is not discouraged.

I'm coming to the Wiki community because I believe in Wiki's Five Pillars and because I think my contribution adds something important and useful to Wiki. But, if this is just the way editing works on Wiki, and you all find I'm over-reacting...I'll take it in stride, and move on. In any event, I hope you all can help resolve this. Thx Justbean (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)