Talk:Nose ring (animal)

message: I believe this article could be viewed as being biased- there's no need to explain how dangerous a bull can be; all that really needs to be said is that it's used to control the bull. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.140.57 (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2007  (UTC)
Response Perhaps it would put this in perspective if you considered why only bulls, not cows, are nose-ringed.  I do not believe that a direct statement of why you need to nose-ring a bull (i.e., because it is too powerful and dangerous to be controlled by halters, bridles or mere herding of unrestrained animals, as cows are commonly herded) is in any way indicative of bias.  To the contrary, I wonder about the sensibility that suggests this as an implication of bias.Elcajonfarms 15:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Claim of Bias

message: I'm also unconvinced that it most of  this would work. What's to stop the bull running forwards, nose, ring, string, lying down or driving the staff into you? As for the tractor story who would drive down the paddock with an angry bull at your back and then have to release him or whatever. Sounds like another April Fools Day joke! Even bull fighting or feral bulls don't have geier hitches or nose rings applied when captured and believe me they can be agro. Cgoodwin (talk) 07:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I must weigh in here. From my Ynakee perspective, let me reassure you that Cgoodwin is still a relatively new user, but is very knowledgable about agricultural practices in Australia, and while the use of footnotes needs to be improved, this user's statements "ring" as credible.  Expertise in the field doesn't always translate to mastery of wiki markup language for footnotes, so I would hope that you could reach an effective compromise here.  Also note that "bull staff" in the USA is, in reality, more often an electric cattle prod!  Some of what is going on here are just regional differences in handling practices.  Montanabw(talk) 17:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nonsense

message: I thought pigs are often nose ringed for control of boars and to discourage rooting? VanTucky 03:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put in a section on pigs – I've described it as done in the New Forest, but it perhaps needs a wider perspective.  --Richard New Forest (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Camels usually have them.  --Una Smith (talk) 05:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only bovines? 

message: I'm beginning to wonder if we've got bogged down in a lot of excessive detail about bull handling.  This article is about nose rings, not primarily about bull handling – we really only need enough about that to explain the need for rings.  Would this material be better in an article specifically about it: Bull handling, or Bull management?  Perhaps most of the last two sections...?  --Richard New Forest (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bull handling

message: In Canada cows caused 33% of livestock injuries to handlers and 16% were killed. See:
http://www.cfa-fca.ca/upload/casw_livestock.pdf  
Some Serious Cattle-lnflicted Injuries Reported in North Dakota in a One-Year Period 
http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/farm_safety/cow.html
Many serious cattle handling injuries are caused by a single agitated steer or cow, which can be very dangerous. 
http://www.grandin.com/behaviour/principles/principles.html
Cattle were likely cause for death of dog walker
http://archive.westerntelegraph.co.uk/2006/2/1/9049.html 
In OZ, too, cows and steers have caused many injuries and deaths.Cgoodwin (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cows

message: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sneck The definition of a sneck is both of latching/locking onto something and it also means the nose. Therefore a sneck latches onto the animals nose. This is the agricultural definition.
Colinmotox11 (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  However, neither of those defs are for a nose-ring as such.  Do you have a ref for that meaning?  Richard New Forest (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Sneck

message: I have removed several links from the article that have been part of a recent edit war. If one is going to tag this article with the animal rights template, then the article must contain something about animal rights (with due weight and suitably sourced with reliable sources). If one simply wants to identify this as a topic of interest to Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal rights, then the appropriate action is to tag this Talk page with . That is all that needs to be done.
Relevent policies/guidelines include:
* From Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates:
** The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.
** The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.
** Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox, so that the navigation is bidirectional.
* From Wikipedia:Navigation template:
** every article listed on a particular navigation template generally has the template placed on its page.
** They [navigation templates] should be kept small in size as a large template has limited navigation value.
** If the articles are not established as related by reliable sources in the actual articles, then it is probably not a good idea to interlink them.
* From MOS:SEEALSO:
** The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic.
Some animal rights advocates, editing in Wikipedia, have inappropriately mass-tagged hundreds (thousands?) of articles in Wikipedia with the Template:Animal rights navigation template which has over 350 entries on it, which is very oversized for a horizontal navbar. The topic of nose rings isn't in the template, and animal rights isn't mentioned in the article on nose rings. However, this argument applies to all of the many articles tagged with Template:Animal rights which are not also listed in the template and where animal rights hasn't been mentioned in the article. The same arguments apply to tagging "see also", "categories" and "templates" all together at the same time (advocacy spam), and also includes the subjects of Animal rights, Animal welfare and Cruelty to animals. WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS may also apply in this situation.
Platonk (talk) 08:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate links 

message: This article was a mess and was predominantly being used to describe how and why bulls are dangerous (which belongs in the Bull article). Also, there were duplicate citations; the lead was too verbose; there were too many low quality or simply decorative images, and not enough informative photos (I added 3); too much information about bulls, dangers of bulls, management of bulls, deaths by bulls, and not enough direct information about NOSE RINGS. I reorganized the page by animal/use and what seemed logical. I did not remove all the old content, but it's likely not in the same old place. Sorry, but the diff will be gobbledegook. I doubt I even touched the pig section. I didn't read all the citations, but did read many of them, and discarded several sub-par or tangential ones in favor of the better ones that were already there, or some I found and added. Some of the older citations I updated with newer URLs from their websites, and I found some links to citations that didn't have any. The result is more streamlined and a lot more on-topic. Platonk (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major edit