Talk:Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971

Round three
I've spent an hour so far and am about halfway through the changes. Here's my take so far:
 * 1) The integrity of wikipedia as a neutral, reliable source is paramount. So sourcing must be meticulous and accurate.  Sources, including page numbers, must match up to what is being sourced.
 * 2) This article needs to be treated as a highly controversial topic, right up there with abortion and climate change. Agendas have to be put aside, though different perspectives actually help improve NPOV.
 * 3) The reader must be presented with balanced information, properly weighted so that they can draw their own conclusions. For example, if a right-wing source is used, then the position of a left-wing source should also be presented.  But that doesn't mean a WP:FRINGE source (like, for example, PETA) needs equal time.
 * 4) WP:UNDUE applies. We need to stay focused here on the legislation itself and not things that can be expanded upon in other articles.
 * 5) Since the article passed GA, it has changed; there also is a need to clean up formatting and update links— it is probably irrelevant whether those changes occurred before or after the GAN. (A cursory glance suggest the answer is "both before and after")
 * 6) Sources cannot be cherry-picked. For example, the dissent was the losing side of a legal case; not an ideal source, though the underlying evidence in the record might be.
 * 7) I'm agreeing with at least half the material added or changed, at least to the extent that the section targeted needs a change and that the source material is probably suitable.

Two+ hours in: All for now. Not two weeks down the tubes. It's progress. Montanabw (talk) 03:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) pp 2-3 of Mustang Country over-extrapolated beyond the source, that's why I am doing this. Can't go that far beyond what sources say.  Frustrated that I am going to have to check it all, eventually.
 * 2) You are right, the sourcing formatting is all over the place, a lot of time is going into fixing old links.
 * 3) some of the material needs smoothing out between old and new, feel free to flag stuff said twice.


 * I'm sure you're finding places where my edits can be improved. Please just improve them and stop implying that there are general problems with them.  If you're putting back in statements such as this...:


 * "There were strong disagreements over the nature of the horses. Many ranchers and hunters considered feral horses to be an invasive species, or at least an introduced species. While conceding that federal law protects the animals, these individuals also argued that economic needs, such as livestock grazing, should take precedence over the horses. But advocates for free-roaming horses argued that horses were native to North America and eliminated by paleolithic human beings, and as a native wild animal they should be protected like the grizzly bear or bald eagle. To test which definition applied to feral horses..."


 * ...and then making statements like: "#pp 2-3 of Mustang Country over-extrapolated beyond the source, that's why I am doing this. Can't go that far beyond what sources say.  Frustrated that I am going to have to check it all, eventually."  I don't get just frustrated, but exasperated.  As you recall, you removed the other reference to that statement, implying that is was the Mountain States Legal Foundation that said it and not a Federal Judge.  Yes, I agree it would be best to get the information from the underlying case, and all you need to do is say that, instead of removing it, chiding me for the results of your removing it, characterizing putting it in as  "cherry picking" (which I disagree with) and generally trying to justify the implication that I can't be trusted. Also, whether or not the statement came from the losing side is completely irrelevant. Also this statement:  "You don't replace something with a source that is of lower quality or less accessible" when I had several edit summaries that said I was replacing sources with MORE accessible ones just makes my head spin.


 * Back to the material you returned that I quoted above. It is totally uncited, and for a good reason. It's BS.  Total Synth.  That's not the reason for that legal challenge.  So, just try to focus on the accuracy and the quality of the article instead of what you think I've done wrong.  I've reverted back that whole section, since you also took all the legal challenges back out of chronological order.  Let's move forward with the attitude that we are both competent editors, and that misunderstandings and differences of opinions over edits are not ammunition. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The tag is a good thing, as is the  tag.  Feel free to use them, within the parameters of WP:TAGBOMB, of course.  It takes me hours to review your edits every time you make them, and I AM finding sources where you cite something but the citation doesn't support what you have said.  I have found this so many times that I have to check everything you do. You aren't legally trained, either, as a dissent is not a RS for a finding of fact in a legal case is merely the opinion of a judge on the losing side of a vote.  Further, their comments, unless cited to the record, are not reliable for the facts, they are only an appellate judge's view of the facts.  You can find what you want to say (that most wild horse populations are not pure Spanish horses) with better sources. Sorry it is taking me so long to get though all of this; RL is very busy for me right now and this is not the only article I'm working on.  Montanabw (talk)  20:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "You aren't legally trained, either, as a dissent is not a RS for a finding of fact in a legal case is merely the opinion of a judge on the losing side of a vote." Well, I can certainly read, and no, it was not the judge's opinion.  And, I would suggest you not make assumptions about my experience in the legal field.  "I AM finding sources where you cite something but the citation doesn't support what you have said."  Uh huh.  Like the article wasn't already completely poorly sourced and FULL of synth, as well as HUGE POV issues.  Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I haven't the time to go through the case to find the underlying briefs, but my assumption is that the dissent probably referenced the brief of the Western States Legal Foundation, which undoubtably cherry-picked their sources. But either way, WP:RS suggests we try to use the best possible sources, which would be whatever underlying source they relied upon.  Just tag the places with  or  where you have the most issues.  Truth is, I'm agreeing with you some of the time, but because this is a GA, we have WP:BURDEN to apply, and where there is a dispute, the last "clean" version stays.  And because of past experience, I am reviewing every change you make one at a time, which is very, very time-consuming.   Montanabw (talk)  01:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You know, one of the reasons that lawyers are the most hated professionals is because they play dirty by constantly casting aspersions. If you are such a control freak that you have to check every edit, it's on you.  I'm not taking the blame for your idiosyncrasies and do not feel one bit bad for you and your wasted time. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Please stop making "you" statements and simply learn to do things properly. WP:ASPERSIONS has nothing to do with anyone who is simply making poor quality edits.  Now please stop making personal attacks and work on improving the quality of your own research.  And why are you bringing lawyers into this?  This debate was about using the dissent in a law case as a RS when it was not.   Montanabw (talk)  03:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe you brought up lawyers when you implied I wasn't capable of reading a legal brief because I'm not "legally trained". I having been asking you for weeks to focus on the edits rather than run around criticizing my ability to edit. I'll stop with the "you" statements when I no longer have to respond to yours. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It doesn't take a lawyer to tell the difference between the opinion and the dissent. They teach that in Government 101.  I AM focusing on the edits, and I am trying to explain why they are reverted; it is quite frustrating to keep repeating myself to those who do not listen.   Montanabw (talk) | GO  THUNDER!  05:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "It doesn't take a lawyer to tell the difference between the opinion and the dissent." Then why did you bring up your belief that I have no legal training?  "it is quite frustrating to keep repeating myself to those who do not listen." Yes, I know the feeling. Especially when I have to repeat myself because the discussion keeps being taken around in circles. If I reject your premise that I am not competent and you must check everything I write, circling around and around one less than ideal source trying to convince me that your aspersions are justified is not productive. You need to pay a little more attention to your less than ideal edits, and a lot less on mine.  Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I would love to continue to improve the quality of this article. I have acknowledged previously and will acknowledge again that some of your additions have been useful. You have also found some good source material, even if it has been improperly cited to for material not supported by the source.  I've explained with a fair bit of detail what has had problems and why.  If you choose not to accept my viewpoint, I obviously cannot force you. Some of the material in the article is still not up to par is, in part, due to the sheer exhaustion on the part of editors trying to insert neutral material, correctly sourced, on a highly complex and controversial issue in the face of POV-pushers on both sides combined with stupid things like that bunch a while back who wanted to move this article title to describe the car. What's helpful is accurate content, properly sourced without POV-pushing, OR or SYNTH.  This is not a repository for notes on new theories or working ideas; it is an encyclopedia that needs to be an accurate, neutral source for the readers we serve.   Montanabw (talk) | GO  THUNDER!  19:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Well I'd sure like to find a model of the "Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971" car. Is it a Ford, Chevy, GMC, Jeep?  Maybe a foreign make?
 * Ah! Something we agree on!   Montanabw (talk) | GO  THUNDER!  04:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's the deal. Your exhaustion is coming from an attitude of needing to control other's editing of this article.  If you would just let other's fix it rather than obstruct editing until you get around to watching over their shoulder while they do, you might not find yourself so distracted and frustrate.  Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Please do not attribute motive to me. I care about accuracy, and your "fixes" are often misattributed, your cites don't match up to what you are claiming to verify, and we've already had the discussion about OR and SYNTH.  If you would actually edit more carefully -- and sometimes you can -- I'd love not to have to go around cleaning up after you. But frankly, you have not earned the trust of the community; it is not just me, where have you actually collaborated with anyone?    Montanabw (talk) | GO  THUNDER!  04:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)