Talk:Charrería

message: Until the advent of Mexican cinema, but no earlier than the end of the Mexican Revolution, most of the ranch hands throughout Mexico were simply vaqueros.  The only charros were the hacendados of Jalisco, some of whom evidently were descendants of men from around Salamanca in Spain.  The typical vaquero---that is, 99.9% of the working ranch hands---was typically mestizo or indigenous, and could never afford the fancy outfits worn by the hacendados, nor is it likely they would have been allowed to wear them. 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 18:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two events in the last month with no injuries is comparable to the ancedotal stuff on the other side that's already there. We can keep some numbers, but in a summary, just as the other examples were summaries.   As far as videos go, we really don't want to start down that road because one search of YouTube, particularly if linked from SHARK or PETA, would bring up all sorts of horrible, gut-wrenching things on the other side.  (Thank me, I found them, but I didn't add them because I don't care much for hyperbole from either side)  I'm really trying to help out here, but the bottom line is that wikipedia has a certain way of verifying things, (read WP:V article) and while your work documenting injuries is actually a really good idea, it's also really new, and so we have to summarize. Montanabw(talk) 20:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  charros versus vaqueros 

message: You say the statements that were removed are promotion and the statistics are speculation. Then why is the Chavez letter allowed to remain that the informal statistics allowed to remain. It seems inconsistant and even discriminatory.
(Rmj8757 (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved them down to be side by side with the animal welfare group's statistics.  The idea is to keep the subjects grouped.  Montanabw(talk) 04:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Hi Rmj, per your comment on the 9th, I reformatted the material and moved some of it.  Your earlier edits need to have "http://" with the web URL to work when people click on the reference.   Some of your edits are not going to pass muster with wikipedia because they are too narrow to be statistically relevant.  Beyond the one or two anecdotal reports you have been so kind to provide to balance the other one or two anecdotal reports, what is needed in the long run is not an event-by-event commentary, but instead at least a season's worth of legitimate statistics, not a report from three or four events.  The PRCA studies I think covered dozens of rodeos over a fairly long time, the study was done in the 1990s, it was done by people independent of the PRCA, I think, and I believe veterinarians were the people who were on-site for the study and so on.  Montanabw(talk) 04:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Abuse controversy

message: The below, copied from my talk page to make sure everyone can comment,
Firstly, thanks to rmj for engaging - constructive work will make this article a lot easier!
---
;Cesar Chavez
About Charreada, my god the man was dead. How can he testify. If you go to the source of this statement, “The Cultural De fence”, you see that it does not support the statement that Chavez testified. It says that Chavez was against Charreria. This is based on a statement of the California Equine Council, Cathleen Doyle's group. If you look at the footnote, you see it references a piece of propaganda from that same group. That propaganda, says that Chavez and the Mexican American Political Association oppose Charreria, without any reference. That is because Chavez never said it. He did write a letter condemning the American Rodeo. 
:OK, as discussed earlier, i hadn't even heard of him until this week, but his being dead at the time of the bill's submission doesn't necessarily preclude him from having contributed, as bills are usually discussed for quite some time before actually being submitted.  But I am interested in making this article right and in line with the WP policies.  This is being discussed above, so hopefully we can sort this out there.
What you are saying, is that if is someone makes something up and it is misquoted on Wikipidia, it is OK. That is pretty silly. 
:In this case, WP:V applies, and in this case, the source quoted is reputable.  That said, i think we can improve the wording around it to relate the attribution to the source.
;Statistics
I am told I cannot put up disputing statistics about Charreada. Yet it is OK, for Doyle's silly statistics to stay up. Doyle's statistics say that of 75 or 78, horses used in Charreada, only two did not go to slaughter. The fact is, they were going to slaughter, whether they were ever in a lienzo or not. If you go to the source, Horse tripping facts, they only one horse that was documented as being seriously injured.  
The second set of statistics talk about 2 to 5 horses a week being seriously injured. When you go to the source, you find out that the source is an unnamed individual at an unnamed feed lot. I know you are from the UK, but this is the kind of thing Joe McCarthy used to do. 
:OK, as I said above, I'm dubious over the original statistics, and would like to see the original.  Do you have a link?  Failing that, given the POV of the source, I am tempted to disregard their statistics, in favour of the more generally provable aspects of their campaign (that they don't like it)
When it is pointed out that over 1000 manganas, 2000 colas and 600 piales were done at the National Finals in Pachuca Mexico, without any injury to the animals, it gets removed. When it is pointed out that during the five days of the State Finals in Texas, not one animal was injured, it gets removed. Both statements were supported with references.  
:OK, this would be a good statistic, but we've got no proof that 'not one animal was injured'.  It might be true, but as far as I, or any other editor knows, it is equally likely that all of them were mortally wounded - i have no reference point without a citation.  If you can find a reputable source, then this could go in, but as with the Doyle stats, if they come from a POV source, they might not be reliable enough.
;Laws
You also let the animals rights fanatics point out that seven states have made laws against mangana, but you take out the fact that they failed in  last three states where they tried to get laws passed. This was referenced to the Denver Post and the Carson City News. When it was pointed out that the PRCA and the United Horse Organization opposed the passage of the law, as stated in both the Denver and Carson City papers, the comment was removed. This did contradict the statements made by the critics, who maintains the PRCA, support the ban.  The fact is the PRCA, did oppose mangana, but it has changed its mind. They finally came to the realization that if you stop the roping of one species, they you can stop the roping of all of them. 
:OK, so the laws are factual, so there is no reason to remove them.  Do you have some citations that we can see for three states having rejected a ban?  If you can post a few links here which show that, then we will certainly include it.  The same goes for the PRCA - have you got some evidence in a source that they have changed their position - if so, then we will certainly include that too.
;Shadow sport
You allow a blatantly racist statement about Charreia being a “shadow Sport and akin to dog fighting. When it is pointed out that the events are widely advertised and that anyone with a video camera can go in, it gets removed. This is true, even though there were multiple citations.
:To an outsider on this topic, this doesn't strike me as particularly racist, but a comment on the sport supported by at least 2 citations, even the more sympathetic ones, which mention the unregulated instances of the sport, which aren't advertised, and have a charro disparaging them for not being part of the organisation.  Maybe we need to draw a distinction, but a valid source has claimed this, and so it can stay.  If you have a counter source then that's fine, but listings pages don't really cover it, we need an actual article, book or something similar.
;Centre of gravity
One of the most ridiculous statement made in the criticism is the one about calves having a lower center of gravity. When it was pointed out that even calves in the American Rodeo are subject to Newton's law. This comment was removed even though, it was referenced to “rodeocruelty.com” which shows dozens of calves and steers being seriously injured in the America Rodeo.
:OK, again rodeo is something I know very little about, but detracting from one sport doesn't help in an article about another.  What I have read seems to suggest that this is true, with smaller animals being less prone to injury when roped, due to the fall distance.  Why does this sound ridiculous?  
If you really want to be fair, then take out the criticism, or post both sides. 
:Great, I would love to put both sides, so if you can help us by coming up with some references as noted above, hopefully we'll get a nice balanced article.  
Original post:
(Rmj8757 (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for sources.  If Rmj has them or will give us links to them, I have no problem adding them.  I believe in having a fair and balanced article.  On one hand, the whole "cultural defense" issue does raise a legitimate question if bans on charreada and not rodeo do reflect anti-Mexican/anti-immigrant racism, which is a serious problem in the American southwest.  On the other hand, though, I will say that making an argument that charreada has fewer animal welfare concerns than rodeo isn't going to fly.  Rodeo, also a sport with Mexican roots, is not without its controversy and legitimate concerns, but there is a lot more data out there and a lot more scrutiny.  Montanabw(talk) 17:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorting out issues 

message: Just a thought but perhaps this article should be protected to some degree. the sheer amount of propaganda type stuff and reverts that are needed - mostly caused by rotating IPs Nirame (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's warranted yet, it's almost all one user, Rmj, who is kind of new to wikipedia and I think forgets to log in sometimes.  Rmj has very strong feelings and at first was a bit disruptive and I was my usual "revert too fast" self ;-) , but he's getting the hang of how things work, and as we've been sorting things out he has actually found and contributed some material that helps provide info on both sides of the picture. I was kind of worried at first, but now that Owain is also on board, there are 2 or 3 more sets of eyes here than mine, I think it's under control. If the hardcore animal rights crowd shows up and things get overemotional or edit warring starts, then I'd agree that protection would be needed ASAP. But for now, I think Rmj is intense about the issue but is not really being disruptive.  I am trying to take each of his edits and try to reformat them into something that will pass muster with WP:V.   It's going to be tricky to keep this article neutral as clearly there are extremely intense feelings on both sides.  Montanabw(talk) 04:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: hmm i think this will keep people busy. pity pending changes never took off might have been good for the likes of hereNirame (talk) 10:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  this page-some degree of protection? 

message: In regards to the figures being used to claim no injuries by the Charreada Charros of San antonio and bexar county.  I was happy enough when it first went up, but I am now starting to have concerns.  Firstly, the quote in the text doesn't match the figures shown, which say one Charro broke his eye socket, whereas the data shows 0 Charros injured.   Secondly, it is starting to look a little suspect to me that in 188 events not a single rider or horse has been injured?  Not one slightly lame horse?  Not a single thrown shoe?  Not one rider with a sprained ankle?  If that's the case, then this is the safest horse sport in the world!  In 188 instances of hacking a single horse out for pleasure i'd be relatively pleased if i didn't have one instance of foot soreness or something minor (and if it's my wife's horse, i'd been pleased if it got ridden out 188 times without causing someone a bruise!)
Ultimately, it seems likely (or at least WP:DUCK) that Rmj has some interest or knowledge of the publication of that source, and it therefore seems to fall in the realms of WP:SELFPUBLISH and isn't a reliable source.  Even if no editor here has an interest in the site, it still appears to be both self published and dubious.
The solution?  I think it still might be worth mentioning in passing that some regional Charros are claiming to collect data, and the source can stay for that, but I think having the figures in there gives WP:UNDUE credibility to the source, and its mention in the lead is also unwarranted.
Any thoughts?
OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 07:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm certain that there is a self-publish problem here, but as I am trying to balance the views presented, I have to admit that the other side has inadequate and self-reported documentation also, so the fix is in on both sides.  I do think that all the stats on rodeo, etc., and probably here as well are primarily concerned with injuries to the "rough stock" -- the roping and bucking animals.  I don't think even the PRCA keeps records of, say, bowed tendons on the barrel racing horses.   I figure that as long as the info is roughly balanced, NPOV is met.  My take is that we can say that a)  Animal welfare groups have concerns, b) The Charro groups have begun to address these concerns by beginning to gather statistics this year, c) the only solid studies that exist anywhere were done on rodeo, which is analogous, but not quite the same. Maybe the stats themselves can be cut and replaced with a general statement that references the appropriate page on the other web site that is keeping the records.   If you want to do some cleanup, I see no problem.  Maybe a good idea to have a third party do a run-through.  Montanabw(talk) 23:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sacharro figures 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Charreada. 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/20110816195630/http://dnn.epcc.edu/nwlibrary/borderlands/10_la_charreada.htm to http://dnn.epcc.edu/nwlibrary/borderlands/10_la_charreada.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130315182541/http://www.idausa.org/facts/horsetripping.html to http://www.idausa.org/facts/horsetripping.html
*Added  tag to http://lienzomagazine.com/wp-content/documents/FMCHSB364.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081123072049/http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=pp_en_rodeo to http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=pp_en_rodeo
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) 17:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Charreada. 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/20110903115809/http://www.ahdf.org/tripping.htm to http://www.ahdf.org/tripping.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.equinevoices.org/pdf/pdf/rodeosch.php
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) 19:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Charreada. 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://archive.is/20120719202616/http://www.americanhumane.org/animals/animal-welfare-news/american-humane-opposes-tail-grabbing-rodeo-to-be-held-in-jefferson-county-colo.html to http://www.americanhumane.org/animals/animal-welfare-news/american-humane-opposes-tail-grabbing-rodeo-to-be-held-in-jefferson-county-colo.html
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) 00:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think the title should be "Charrería", not "Charreada". "Charrería" is used in the Spanish Wikipedia version of this article and seems to be more commonly used.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1Trevorr (talk • contribs) 17:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, thanks for your input. Please see Charreada at Encyclopedia.com first. . dawnleelynn(talk) 17:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title should be "Charrería"