Talk:Rodeo/Archive 1

What a cruddy article
It's like it was written by a 5 year old. Putting "!" at the end of sentences that don't need them, stupid phrasings or choice of words. Worst. Article. Ever. I wrote this snippet.

Who are you? Care to give an example of "stupid phrasing"? Cruddy would qualify I think. I wrote this article, one of 18 encyclopedia articles I have published on the subject. The others were invited & Peer reviwed, and none of the scholars who reviewed them found them "cruddy." Mary Lou LeCompte, PhD.


 * The article does need re-writing. Perhaps it has been degraded since you wrote it.  Tmangray 17:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Beyond question. I looked at the version of the article as it appeared this January, and it has been changed beyond recognition. Much work to do here. 172.191.244.211 05:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Traditional North American sport?
I was looking to find the missing interwiki on the Spanish wp page, but only found a disambiguation page (es:Rodeo), which has a red link for the sport. It says "Rodeo, es un deporte nacional de Chile" or "Rodeo, a national sport of Chile." Is the claim of this article correct that it is a traditional North American sport? GilliamJF 21:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The Spanish wiki references merely reflect a lack of development of articles. Tmangray 17:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Rodeo events
I came here hoping to learn more about different rodeo events, but instead I found a list of professional rodeos. Quite unexpected and disappointing.

Rodeo events are explained in the third paragraph in the section entitled "Organizations Governing Rodeo.". There is no list of professional rodeos.

Some additions are needed. The entry is a good essay, but a poor wiki article in that it does not contain sufficient in-line links to clarify jargon or provide examples. Also, I was surprised at the lack of attatched photos or illustrations. Unfortunately, I have none to donate to the cause. Lastly, as the above comment mentions, it would be helpful to include a list of events (with links), both past and present, as well as a list of links to existing articles about individual rodeos. (e.g. Pendleton Round-Up, Snake River Stampede Rodeo)

As I said above, the events ARE explained. There is also a reference note to that section. If you have the time and resources to add a list of links to articles about all 650 PRCA rodeos, why don't you do it? Anyone can contribute to wiki articles, so why not you? As for illustrations, I have no access to them either. As for links, there are lot of them at the end of the article, and they are very good ones.

Please identify the jargon that you would like clarified.

Thank you for your input, whoever you are.

24.19.157.40 16:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Author: mllecompte1]]

Translation
I'm no expert in Spanish, but the translation seems wrong on several counts:


 * "Rodeo" is not an infinitive, so it cannot mean "to go round".
 * "Rodear" (which is an infinitive) means "to surround" or "to avoid" (source)
 * "Rodeo" is the first-person singular indicative of "rodear" (there is also "rodéo", the first-person indicative preterite, but the Spanish noun is "rodeo", not "rodéo") (source)

This suggests that an appropriate translation would be "I surround". I'll change the article accordingly; someone whose Spanish is better than mine might like to confirm this or correct it if I am wrong. &mdash; Paul G 10:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

i love goin t rodeos they are sooo much fun !!!! :)


 * Rodeo means "roundup". A rodeo is a roundup. It is not necessarily a sport. Tmangray 17:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Reverted a recent edit which confused the translation. Added a standard dictionary reference and included the Spanish Royal Academy's cite. Tmangray 02:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but you dumped my SOURCED contribution on when it appeared in the English language, so I put it back. I think the only solution here is to create a separate Etymology section and put all the different versions there, allowing people to fight it out with sourced citations. To that end, I created it, did some rewriting of the intro so that is wasn't just one sentence, and hope I tacked the correct cites to the correct statements from what you added. I'm a believer in letting readers analyse material based on citations and decide for themselves.  FYI, regardless of origins, let's not forget modern meanings.  I sure don't know one single cowboy in the USA today who calls a roundup a "rodeo," though there is a whole subgroup of folks who do "ranch rodeo."  (grin). Montanabw 16:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Note
This article has been edited by Mary Lou Lecompte, a professional historian with many published works on the history of the rodeo. Ms Lecompte is not wholly familiar with Wikipedia formatting; her material needs to be properly incorporated with pre-existing content. DS 18:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with the definition of rodeo meaning to go around. It was not part of my contribution! It was already there. I would have removed it as it is incorrect! But the Wikipedia people chose to leave it in place. Mary Lou LeCompte, PhD

Neutrality/POV
this entire article seems to have neutrality/POV issues... especially with regards to women in rodeo, which is pervasive throughout... Perhaps this should be pulled into its own section...

comments like "Apparently this unfortunate situation stems from a lawsuit brought by the WPRA. " and ", these 120 women toil in obscurity," seem to be biased. Ijustkrushalot 23:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the 2 quotes above, but I changed them anyway. As for putting women in a separate section, that's exactly what has happened in the past! Women were marginalized, trivialized, & put in separate sections, outside the mainstream. This article puts them into their historical context with the rest of humanity where they belong. It does the same for blacks and Hispanics who have also been marginalized. Separate and equal is never equal, as the Supreme Court realized decades ago. As for the POV being based on opinion not fact, this article is totally factual. That includes the "unfortunate" situation mentioned above. It is unfortunate, as the lawsuits could well bankrupt both the PRCA & WPRA, leaving the Pro Bull Riders laughing all the way to the bank. So. Ijustkrushalot, whoever you are, I stand by my research. If you can do a better job, have at it. I look forward to reading your unbiased work. Mary Lou LeCompte. 24.19.157.40 16:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Author: mllecompte1]]

I'm a casual reader who came across this article when browsing. There seems to be an amount of coverage for women in rodeo that must surely be out of proportion (and I say this as a woman!). Obviously this material is interesting, but in what is a not very long article it really seems to the casual reader as though the main aspect of interest in rodeo is the role of women. This is not a criticism of any of the material, just an observation about the balance of the articl - it feels very very odd to the casual reader interested in finding something out about rodeo. Sorry I can't help rebalance as I know nothing about rodeo! 217.42.68.74 13:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it any better now? 3 May 2007 MLL

"This chaos does not help a sport that needs to grow and attract new audiences. Rodeo organizations must maintain their vigilance against animal rights groups, but other issues have become more pressing."

"It is really amazing that the most successful rodeo event of the twenty-first century is the oldest contest of them all: bull riding, which was introduced to North America by the conquistadores in the sixteenth century."

These are just two quick examples I found after glimpsing this article. This article is terribly written, with NPOV violations everywhere. I bet that there are many of these violations throughout. Spudst3r 01:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed - the remark "Rodeo organizations must maintain their vigilance against animal rights groups" is particularly jarring. AndrewWTaylor 13:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just amended that. I also made some small edits to the History of rodeo page for similar reasons--thought I should mention that too, what with the merger tag.--64.180.163.229 09:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The article dosent mention animal rights or how they get animals to "work". i may be slightly biased on this though.Dog jumper idiot100 20:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Cruelty to animals?
I've heard this claim numerous times (from PETA in particular) but see no mention of it in this article. Is it notable enough to merit inclusion? Titanium Dragon 10:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Done!! User Mllecompte1 10 April 2007 (UTC) (the author)


 * Where? I see nothing about cruelty or PETA in the current article: has what you wrote been removed? AndrewWTaylor 14:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've just added a subsection on animal cruelty. I think I covered most of the major claims.--64.180.163.229 09:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Charros, vaqueros, bullfighting
The rodeo did not originate as bullfighting. The rodeo was part of the work done by vaqueros. The events which involve wrestling bulls have far more to do with cattle ranching than the ancient religious-based Mediterranean sport of bullfighting.

The charro is not as ancient as the vaquero, insofar as the terms are used to refer to cattle-ranching. In the first place, the term "charro" originated in Spain, probably as an epithet used by Basque sheepherders vis a vis cattle ranchers in the area of Salamanca. "Charro" came to be a term for someone from Salamanca, as it is today in Spain. The charro vest and other accoutrements are the style of clothing worn centuries ago around Salamanca. Some settlers from this region became cattle barons, hacendados, in the Mexican state of Jalisco. Meanwhile, in the rest of Mexico, including what is now part of the US, ranch hands were usually called "vaqueros", whence we get our word "cowboy". For reasons that are not entirely clear, the Jalisco charro overtook the vaquero in Mexican usage. I suspect there is some class snobbery involved, as well as some regionalist fervor. The role of the Mexican cinema cannot be overlooked in nationalizing what was really only a regional tradition, akin to what Hollywood did to the cowboy. The vaqueros were the working cowboys (usually Indian and mestizo) who rarely had the money to afford the fancy outfits worn by the hacendados. The fancy outfits of the wealthy hacienda owners are what is taken as the "charro" costume today. These costumes lend themselves to the showmanship of modern charreada events more than the plainer, dusty, dirty, but practical outfits the real vaqueros wore at real rodeos. A charreada is just a fancy-dress rodeo where everybody plays the hacendado and nobody plays a vaquero. Tmangray 17:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You are wrong! Bull riding (jaripeo) and bull tailing (Coler) originated in the bull rings of colonial Mexico. They were later adopted by the Charros, and only later by vaqueros. See the following:

Guarner, Enrique, ''Historia del Torreo en Mexico, (Mexico, Editorial Diana, 1979; "Historical Synthesis of Charreria,"Artes de Mexico 90/91, 1967; Steiner, Stan, Dark & Dashing Horsemen, Harper & Row, 1981; Slatta, Richard, Cowboys of the Americas, Yale University Press, 1990. For a detailed discussion of the evoluation from bullfight to Charreria to rodeo, see mary lou Lecompte, The Hispsnic Influence on the History of Rodeo, Journal of Sport History, Spring, 1985. User:Mllecompte1 7 May 2007


 * I'm not exactly sure what you're saying I'm wrong about. Ordinary, everyday, plain-dressed, hardworking ranch hands (vaqueros) have, from time immemorial, practiced catching and corralling bulls, cows, and horses.  They've used many and varied techniques.  Now, there may be some particular artful method popularized by those hacendados hailing from Jalisco calling themselves "charros" to which you refer which was displayed in Mexican bullrings---I don't know.  But bullriding per se can be seen on Minoan vases from 2500 BC! I haven't seen the cited references, but I doubt seriously they credit bullriding to charros in Mexico.  Maybe the tailing part---I'll have to see what they say. Tmangray 22:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

In sixteenth-century Mexico, the conquering Spaniards retained for themselves the exclusive right to own and ride horses. To flaunt their status and skills, they organized elaborate contests on their ranches, and in the cities on festive occasions. Sixteenth-century fiestas featured corridas, where the gentlemen on horseback used lances to fight the bulls. They quickly grew to include other events like sortijas in which the speeding horsemen attempted to spear rings suspended overhead, and two additional ways of fighting bulls. In the most popular, the coleadero, riders pursued the bulls, grabbed their tails, and threw them to the ground, repeating the feat until they had exhausted the bulls. Jaripeo involved riding the bulls to death. It remained a central feature of corridas as well as charreadas, and moved to what is now the United States in that format. Thanks in part to the popularity of corridas, cattle ranching became big business, and fiestas de toros took place on ranches as well as in Mexico City. The growth of ranching produced a growing need for manual laborers because neither the wealthy Spanish landowners nor the mission padres wished to do the work. In the sixteenth-century, Sebastian de Aparicio established a hacienda near Puebla and employed Indians to tame bulls. After as sustained effort, he succeeded in obtaining permission to teach the Indians to tame and ride horses. Continued pressure from Jesuits through the seventeenth century ultimately led to liberalization of laws, thereby enabling Indians to use saddles, bridles, and spurs. These first vaqueros [cowboys] became excellent cowhands, perfecting the use of the lasso and many of the ranching techniques still used today. The skills of the range also became sports of the workers. Vaqueros adapted the jaripeo and coleadero, changing them from means of killing or exhausting bulls to contests of skill. They ultimately devised over twenty different ways to perform the coleadero or cola, with some being judged more difficult and worthy than others. They also developed contests in roping, riding wild horses, racing, and picking up objects like coins from the ground while riding full speed. Some of their contests, like capturing and riding wild bucking horses, and roping cattle and horses, did arise from utilitarian skills. Others including the coin game, the many races like correr el gallo (run for the rooster or chicken race), and the charro version of jaripeo, were simply challenging contests for man and beast and an excellent opportunity for gambling. One of the most famous and dangerous contests was the appropriately named paso de la muerte (pass of death). It requires the rider to jump from the back of his speeding horse to the back of a wild horse. Legend suggests that this skill was once a legitimate method for capturing wild horses, but however it began it soon became a way for the best riders to prove their supremacy. All of these sports became an integral part of the Mexican culture, and were institutionalized at hacienda events like roundups, auctions, and brandings, as well in the bull rings and at the numerous fairs and fiestas that occurred year round in villages and cities all over Mexico. Read the references above. User:Mllecompte1 8 May 2007


 * That's all interesting, and voluminous, but it doesn't contradict anything I posted. Tmangray 17:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Update
To those with any knowledge of the subject who want to update the article now or at some point in the future: "the WPRA has lost its latest court battle with the PRCA. Details can be found at the following: http://prorodeo.org/news.aspx?xu=495", as Ms. LeCompte let me know through email. I don't know enough about these issues to incorporate this stuff myself, but perhaps others passing by do. --JoanneB 19:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There's more: go to www.wpra.com/wpranews.htm

It's over. The WPRA won, $6.7 million from the PRCA and exclusive control of barrel racing.

--mllecompte1 2 February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mllecompte1 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And frankly, the whole thing really does need to be moved lock, stock and barrel to the PRCA article, IMHO.  Montanabw (talk) 03:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Animal abuse
That should be in its own section instead of a subsectionDog jumper idiot100 20:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

To Merge or not to Merge and other disasters - (May 2007)
Hi folks, your equestrianism wordsmith/aka annoying person who rewrites everything has arrived! First off, I recommend that the history sections of this article be moved to the history article, not vice-versa.

This article needs some serious help and reorganization and seeing as how the topic has been well discussed, but the article is still a mess, I am nominating myself to go in there and clean up this here lawless locality! (grin) So basically, here's what I am going to do  (may take a few tries before it's ideal, feel free to dive in and help):  1)  rearrange the sections into what might be a more logical sequence  2)  Copyedit and wikilink each section so it reads a little better. 3) eliminate redundancies (if I cut your pet section, look to see if it got merged or moved before you see red and revert things, it's probably still there somewhere) 4) Try to take the controveries and edit war stuff and plop it all into one section where those who care can fight it out amongst themselves 5)  Insert some material from other rodeo articles and add cross links to the actual events, of which there is virtually no discussion, which is a problem, IMHO, and 6)  Move things toward either NPOV or at least a balanced discussion of the controversies.

In short, I am trying to do for this article what I have done for several others (such as cowboy, which took over my wikilife for a month) and that is to create something that works better than what exists now. Once this process starts, feel free to improve on whatever I do, hopefully you won't think it's so messed up that wholesale reverting is the only solution.

I'm not out to destroy any section, though it may get edited or moved farther down the page. I have no agenda here other than accuracy, so I am not trying to insert my own POV, though I may add material that is common knowledge, but feel free to request citations if I toss in something you think is out in left field. So wish me luck and remember Assume good faith. Montanabw 02:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Update--it's worse than I feared. I'm quite concerned to see that some material in the article from January and February of this year has simply vanished.  And for another thing, why is the PRCA-WPRA fight taking up tons of space here and not in the PRCA article? Speaking of something to move, unless someone really has a problem, I think the whole thing needs to be moved to the association article, particularly when there are many other rodeo groups out there worth discussion, including the NIRA, High school rodeo, little britches rodeo, etc...  About all I could do was to toss in some info on the actual events, get accurate word origins for the word "rodeo" and tone down the POV of the cruelty section and add some views on both sides and in the middle...citing all the way...the goal was to try and have each viewpoint take up roughly the same amout of space and without any emotionality in any section.  Hope it's close, tweak if it isn't.  This article has some adequately-written individual sections, but it's like an elephant assembled by a committee...Montanabw 06:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge > June 2008
The merge tags have been in these articles for over a year.


 * Current sizes
 * Rodeo = 59,660 bytes
 * History of rodeo = 10,834 bytes

Per: Article size:


 * "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose. If an article is significantly longer than that, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries (see Wikipedia:Summary style). One rule of thumb is to begin to split an article into smaller articles after the readable prose reaches 10 pages when printed. Articles that cover particularly technical subjects should, in general, be shorter than articles on less technical subjects."


 * "A rule of thumb


 * Some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles, and combining small pages:
 * Readable prose size 	What to do
 * > 100 KB 	Almost certainly should be divided
 * > 60 KB 	Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)
 * > 40 KB 	May eventually need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
 * < 30 KB 	Length alone does not justify division
 * < 1 KB 	If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page."

Propose NO merge and remove tags (one way or the other) by 30 June 2008. ~ WikiDon (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's the scoop: The history article is very poor--your edits helped, but it still is very poor; there is inaccurate info and too many laundry lists.  This rodeo article here has some good sections, but overall is very uneven.  There is also a history section here, but the info is different (and somewhat more accurate, particularly what is footnoted)  What I think actually needs to happen is that the lengthy sections on the various political things going on with the PRCA needs to be merged out of this article and into the PRCA article, then an even better history of rodeo section needs to be written for THIS article, which then may or may not either become a summary for a (improved) history of rodeo article OR the history of rodeo article needs to be scrapped and moved into this one.  Problem is, I appear to be the only one doing any serious editing here, and WikiProject Equine has me pretty busy with many other projects in the queue ahead of this.  So, all I have to say is if someone wants to improve History of Rodeo using the material here, and making it accurate and not just a list of milestones of the PRCA, that would be fine too.  It's just that it is so bad now I don't even like having the rodeo article linked to it as is.   Montanabw (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't even read the thing. I just went in patrolling after another contributor and tried to do a quick strike of fix and retreat. I spotted the merge taglet and thought we should put it to bed. I guess I should go back and read it. It is amazing that when are just patrolling to fix references, or W-links, or what ever one or two things you are looking for, that you don't see other problems. Well, lets see what happens over the next two weeks. Thanks. ~ WikiDon (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No sweat, I've done the same at times. You are right that the merge tag has been there forever.  I think I put it there, actually. But somehow got sidetracked.  There are over 1700 articles in WikiProject Equine, and that's NOT counting some of the ones in WikiProjects Thoroughbred racing or Veterinary medicine!  =:-O  But any help appreciated.   Montanabw (talk) 05:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

De-Merge > July 2008
Section Rodeo seems to contain lengthy mainly duplicated parts of History of rodeo still, which makes where to find / check information rather confusing. Is there any reason for so much of it remaining on this page, when it says "see main article"? -Hunting dog (talk) 07:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's beyond a freaking mess! BOTH articles are now a disaster.  I want to get this fixed, but at the moment am dealing with a brushfire in another article.  IMHO, it all needs to be in one place or the other, but there are some parts that are NOT duplicative in each article, so a simple replacement would be difficult.  If you have the time to consolidate both in the history article, making sure nothing is deleted, I can go in an make sense out of it all later (some material also really needs to be merged into the PRCA article...the depth of this mess is scary to even look at -- it's an abyss!) Any help appreciated!  Montanabw (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Have made comparison by copy and pasting content of each article into my WIP page to compare diffs. See The current content of History of rodeo contains everything that was here in sections 'Early history of rodeo', ' Rodeo after World War I' and 'Rodeo after World War II' as at 14th July dif .  The section 'Organizations governing rodeo' which was in between them remained in this article and was re-positioned above them.  The part in 'Early History' that started with "Before World War II...." was removed from this article but transferred intact to the History of Rodeo article.


 * As all the content that was recently in Rodeo, Rodeo and Rodeo is in the other article, I think on that basis those three sections here could be deleted from this page. Might be worth someone checking I haven't mangled that analysis though!   The earlier content of the History of rodeo page was overwritten and the 'Anti-rodeo groups' section removed see  that seems to be the only area where some minimal amount of content might have been lost. Everything from "In 1923, Tex Austin hired the New Yankee Stadium..." at the end of History_of_rodeo section and the complete History_of_rodeo section, is content that was previously in the other article and has been left there, running on from content transferred from here. -Hunting dog (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh great, so they tossed most of the older content in there, eh? And there actually was some stuff worth saving!  Arrgh!  Well, if you want to triple check that everything here in rodeo is duplicated in history of rodeo, I can summarize things in a paragraph here and delete the rest?  (or you can?).  I wonder if you could dredge up the old content and plop it on the talk page of the history article as "Old material to review" or something like that -- so it isn't lost in the sea of subsequent edits???  Appreciate any help you can offer.  Montanabw (talk) 03:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * have copied the overwritten content of the history article into Talk:History_of_rodeo for checking as suggested. Have attempted a summary here using a couple of paragraphs from previous content and a bit of added generalisation about post WWI.   My attempt at summary isn't pretty (or referenced) but at least that should get rid of the danger of the duplicated content developing differently in each article, and becoming even harder to unravel later... -Hunting dog (talk) 07:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I like what you did. I rewrote what was left for a bit more accuracy.   Montanabw (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Protected
The ariticle has been protected due to edit warring. Work it out on the talk page per WP:DR. Dreadstar †  08:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Mercado v. Matanza
Two different things. Most of the early ranchos did not drive their cattle to a market at all, but drove them directly to a slaughter ground or house. Perhaps the best way to edit this is to include all three. But a matanza is definitely not a market. Tmangray (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Works for me, as long as it's sourced. Had a different fight about this with someone else who did the earlier sources.  As long as we al agree to call it a "rodeo" today, I'm happy.  (LOL)   Montanabw (talk) 04:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Participant esteem for animals and refrence- problem?
This article states: Rodeo competitors in general have a high level of esteem for the animals with which they work.[14]

The citation may not be reliable and the claim isn't clearly supported by the citation.

The book cited merely says in the portion of the citation most favorable to the claim made that the public is often unaware of the esteem the rodeo riders have for the animals they ride or tie up or whatever. This is a different claim than that made in the article: that riders have a high esteem for the animals.

The source said that riders hold favorable views of the animals they work with relative to the popular perception of such. The source's statements could mean rodeo riders hate animals (in another portion, however, the book claims that riders get into rodeo initially due to loving animals) but that the public views them as wanting to kill and exterminate animals.

The source could also mean that the public views the rodeo riders as mean and disliking animals but that riders overall are ambivalent to the animals they participate with.

I'm not sure, therefore, that just cuz a rider has esteem higher than is presumed this means that they have a high level of esteem.

The book also contains no sources or informaiton from where this information comes from. Given that the broad claim is supposedly representitive of rodeo participants in general, I don't think it is reliable simply on their say so without even claiming to interview five people on the subject.

I don't know what the verifiability and reasonableness threshold for published material is on wikipedia, but I would say this info is not verifiable, and as previously detailed the representation may not be correct.

I'v'e changed that wording for now to state that the public is not aware of the esteem riders hav efor animals- a claim more accurately reflecting the sole

source.--24.29.234.88 (talk) 06:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I will review that section of the book and see if I agree with your assessment.  Montanabw (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The book is available on google books if that helps- should hav ementioned this earlier.--24.29.234.88 (talk) 07:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Long story short, on a re-read, the statement summarizes about two pages of text on how rodeo competitors respect, care for, and value the animals. So I tossed both versions and inserted a paraphrase of simpler language that is more encompassing of the tone of the overall section.   Montanabw (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)