Talk:Cowboy/Archive 4

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links 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/20160205102621/http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/earp/earpaccount.html to http://www.law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/earp/earpaccount.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newsday.com/community/guide/lihistory/ny-hs328a%2C0%2C6827509.story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Article improvement
The above is a bit tl;dr, and most of the legitimate points I have previously addressed. But forward, I would agree on the following points: So, no, restoring the whole set of edits as proposed above is not a good idea. But the concept of some expansion to the ethnicity section in particular is a good idea. Montanabw (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) We can and should improve existing source quality where we can, of course.  I'd suggest adding additional footnotes to material if the sources are weak, or simply add appropriate tags to the iffy ones, so long as we are not tag-bombing.  (FWIW, the Malone and Roeder book is a highly respected work on Montana History and is a solid RS.  Some of it is online in Google books, should verification be needed).
 * 2) We do need a short, focused, better quality section about homosexuality in the cowboy world, I agree that content is not well done.   found some good sources, but it needs to be consolidated into ONE paragraph, at the most two.  This could expand the "social world" section a bit, but WP:UNDUE would suggest we also balance by a bit more content on other aspects of cowboy life, the isolation, the strengths and weaknesses of the culture and so on.  It is important to avoid stereotypes.
 * 3) Same for black cowboys.  There could be content added, at most a paragraph or two in the "ethnicity" section; short, tightly-written, focused only on the cowboy experience, and well-sourced.  If someone wanted to create a whole separate article on the African-American cowboy, building off a summary here, that might be useful, but only so long as it is not a content fork for poorly-researched stereotyping.
 * 4) The hispanic influence on the cowboy tradition is summarized adequately, as we already have vaquero and charro and similar articles that go into detail on the cultural underpinnings of the immense Spanish influence on the American cowboy tradition (always room for article improvement, of course).  That said, the experience of the hispanic vaquero and cowboy in the post-Mexican revolution period could be discussed a little more, if focused tightly, as Mexican people in the United States were often marginalized in spite of their deep roots and considerable contributions.
 * 5) There could also be some content added on Indian cowboys and Indian rodeo, again a paragraph or so, focusing specifically on Native people who became cowboys or ranchers, as the horse culture of Native people is a totally different topic.  The whole issue of assimilation was mixed up in all this, so I suspect a paragraph in this article that points the reader to the more detailed discussions in other articles is the most useful approach.
 * 6) The cowgirls section is already pretty extensive.  It was once a separate article, but it was merged back into this one to avoid "ghettoizing" women and due to CFORK concerns ... I cannot recall where the discussion was, but there was a discussion about it.  Women are "cowboys", it's a job, men and women work side by side on ranches. We also don't need an extensive discussion of women's roles in general.  If there is a need for a separate article focused on women's experiences, it would be a broader article on women in the west generally.  Montanabw (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I greatly appreciate this response, clarity, and thoughtfulness. I wish I had received this from you when you initially reverted the edit, which would have been very helpful.  My experience, over the last 12 hrs or so, is teaching me that it's unlikely I'll get a full restore, which is disappointing.  But, I really think there's good information in the edit, and that it could be useful to Wiki users.  So, if you're up for helping me, I'd like to work with you to get as much as I can in an acceptable edit...and perhaps start the pages of others you mentioned,  i.e. Black Cowboys.  It's not what I was hoping for, but as, who started the Cowboy page said, it's "better than nothing" :)  And...hopefully, the edit(s) will have a chance to evolve through the community.  In any event, please let me know if you're willing/able to help me do this, and I'll move our correspondence off this page.  Regards ~ Justbean (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * "Consensus" does not mean "completely restore everything I did." And I did say pretty much the same thing earlier.  As I said above, the way to handle this is to create a subpage to propose and refine content. I suggest working on content here before creating new articles that may or may not be suitable.  I can create a link here that allows that process to begin:  Talk:Cowboy/Article improvement subpage.  Montanabw (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks . I didn't know that sub-pages, within a talk page, could be created.  Very helpful to know.  Will add the content here and see how the shaping of it goes.


 * My confusion stemmed from the recorded reason you gave of your reversion...you cited a problem with my sources, which I worked hard to procure. I genuinely felt, I dug deep, and that they were reputable.  So, that left me confused.  And, after discrediting my sources, suddenly other issues were added on...including some things I didn't commit.  And, I still don't understand why, if three editors were ok with the edit, your reversion trumped them all.  If they were "wrong," it seemed like editing could be very disappointing.  All in all...the lack of uniformity has been very confusing for me, and created a space to feel as if I was on the negatively end of differential treatment.  So, I hope you understand where I was coming from.


 * Lastly...a quick question...there any reason that these sections (i.e. Mexican Cowboys) have to be two paragraphs, versus being of comparable length to the Cowgirls section? Or why my edit, in the cowgirl section, was rejected -- it was pretty minimal.  Anyhow, these cowboys have been excluded, for much of American history.  My hope is their presence/contributions is accurately recorded and won't be marginalized...like "Click here to see 'other' cowboys."  It seems to diminish their presence/participation in cowboy history all over again.  So...thx... ~ Justbean (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * ...oh, and for what it's worth, I know "Consensus" doesn't mean "restore everything I did." However, I made that request because no one mentioned anything wrong with my edit prior to your reversion.  So, I was asking for the restore in order for the edit to be accepted by the community, where it would then have a chance evolve –– much like your edits on this page have been allowed to do –– over time. Justbean (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

…just want you to know I'm still working on this edit. Will piecemeal it and connect with you, as I would greatly like your input. I'm serious when I say I'd like to work with you in getting an edit added. I've been very excited about this edit for a while, so I want you to know, I'm pushing myself to make a new edit better. Thx Justbean (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The work you were doing on the homosexuality section was probably the strongest in terms of having info on both sides, some useful sources (McMurty is actually a good source on some of this stuff) and on the right track. That paragraph in there now is definitely a place where improvement is needed.  How about taking what you had done, thin it down to maybe two paragraphs tops, be sure to have complete sources we can verify online (use the citation templates too), and let's at least get that prepped for prime time.  I'll build Talk:Cowboy/article improvement subpage and we can workshop it there. Doesn't need to be a treatise, per WP:UNDUE, but tightly-written and balanced.   Montanabw (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * thanks for the reply, and for the guidance! Sorry about the delayed reply...was traveling.  Give me a couple of days to work on it on the improvement page, and I'll shoot a message your way when I've given it a solid stab.  Appreciate you being willing to develop this with me.  Means a lot :) Justbean (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * No worries. If you look at how I changed your content and what I flagged in hidden text there, you will get the general idea of what will work for this article.  Basically, the biggest things are 1)  Summarize, 2)  Focus on cowboys as opposed to the western history in general (i.e. stuff on miners is a bit far afield, even if there are apparent similarities). and 3) Try to find URLs to journals, google books (even snippet view), Hathi Trust or other ways to verify content (I can probably find some of these works at libraries in my area, but most people could not)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links 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/20070302085406/http://www.history.com/tdih.do?action=tdihArticleCategory&id=4363 to http://www.history.com/tdih.do?action=tdihArticleCategory&id=4363
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080113093912/http://www.historynet.com/culture/womens_history/3026886.html?page=1&c=y to http://www.historynet.com/culture/womens_history/3026886.html?page=1&c=y

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

New redirect
I just redirected Cattle handler to this article. Is this accurate? Qzekrom (talk) 05:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good. - Donald Albury 12:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)