Talk:Monty Roberts

message: Patrick, let's work out a list of "horse whispering" topics. There are non-fiction books as well as novels on this theme, plus movies (mostly based on the books). Maybe a page of links, to supplement equine topics? --Uncle Ed 16:38, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk from merged page

message: *Monty Roberts' family rebuttal
----
It just does'nt make sense to me to have a rebuttal of a POV, when the article doesn't even give the POV. Uncle Ed 01:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: If you have any questions I have the book.  Mhera (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book  

message: :Image:Monty Roberts.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Monty Roberts.jpg

message: Due to assorted conversation across several user talk pages, it appears there is a need to tag this article as NPOV due to the fairly flattering portrayal of the individual, downplaying some of the controversies.  Article is not wholly neutral and balanced.  Further discussion can take place here if needed.  Montanabw(talk) 20:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because those of us who work to achieve NPOV standards are bullied, beat up, battered and berated by fanatics.  Sigh. Good to see you back in the fray! Montanabw(talk) 00:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV tag

message: In researching the notability of Horse Whispers and Lies, I found 3 refs that address both that book and Roberts in general. They may be useful here:
#
#
#
--A. B. (talk •  contribs)  13:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  3 useful refs for Roberts' family disputes 

message: @Lil Peck: you obviously have a personal agenda behind your efforts to discredit Monty Roberts and his work. Are you a member of that part of the family that published "Horse Whispers and Lies"? Perhaps you are the niece of Marvin Roberts. You do not disclose any such information that would illuminate your fervent desire to diminish Monty Roberts' life work. Monty Roberts is a public figure, and this is justifiable entry, no matter how feverishly you try to keep the alleged controversy alive. Your comments and contributions are far from balanced or objective, although you accuse the authors of exactly the same thing. Do you detect any irony there? You allude to incriminating information that you are not at liberty to disclose - well, how convenient. This enables you to suggest that there exists reliable evidence against many of Monty Roberts' claims, without having to prove your allegations. You complain at great length and with seemingly relentless energy that the man has not made useful contributions to the field of equistrianism. Your main points appear to be that he did not invent the Join-Up method, that he was not battered by his father, and that he has taken credit for the achievements of others. You don't seem to be up-to-date on the work Monty Roberts has been pursuing for several decades, you just harp on some aspects published in his earlier books. You should be aware that many people regard the book "Horse Whispers and Lies" to be a blatant attempt by certain family members to make money off of Monty Roberts' success and career. What's more, not only abusers, but also their families will often go to great lengths to cover up and deny the abuse, so strong is the stigma still attached to it. When I read your repetitive entries, I am compelled to comment "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."188.60.187.51 (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not engage in personal attacks against other editors.  Please read WP:AGF, editors assume good faith on the part of other editors.  I have worked with LilPeck for over three years on wikipedia and have no reason to believe that this individual is in any way affiliated with any member of the Roberts family. (And I think LilPeck is male, by the way...)  To seek a balanced point of view is not to be hostile to an individual, merely to point out that the controversy exists.  (Compare this article to those on living political figures, for example) Your comments above are a personal attack, which is not appropriate, and as there is controversy surrounding Roberts, the policy of WP:NPOV requires that wikipedia articles have a point of view that does not favor one side over another. Blog and chat board comments are not reputable sources for wikipedia.  You may also wish to read wikipedia's verifiability guidelines for further information.  Montanabw(talk) 22:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the reply.  The bottom line is that many of the "natural horsemanship" articles, on both practitioners and  methods, have a lot of problems on wikipedia because people want to write them like either an advertising brochure or an expose.  Roberts is quite controversial, likewise, so is Parelli (the others seem not to attract quite so many detractors).  But as long as editors stick to biographical material that is sourced and verifiable ( see [[WP:CITE]} and Verifiability guidelines) covering the good and the bad, being balanced and neutral in tone, that's my only axe to grind. (smile) Montanabw(talk) 04:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Second that advice (took the liberty of correcting a typo in the links) ++Lar: t/c 20:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  comments by Roberts fan 

message: As I stated, there has been no discussion regarding a merger between this article and The Man Who Listens to Horses so there is no consensus to merge. It is not proper procedure to nominate an article for merger and do it the same day, much less the next day. It is even more improper to cite a consensus for doing so when there has been no discussion. That needs to occur in order to form a consensus. I noted the lack of discussion on this point yesterday, when I reverted the merger and I am noting it again today. Do not undo or remove the merger templates until you all have actually discussed it. I would further note that I have grave concerns with the myriad sources posted here that are mostly anti-Roberts in nature. Please be mindful of WP:BLP when these are posted. If there is a link or another that is germane that someone wants to let another editor have, please post it at the editor's talk page and not here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a merge tag placed by a member of WPEQ who has long been in charge of cleaning up the horse articles.  I agreed with the merge. There had been no significant edits on the article since March of 2008, and it was virtually a stub, the article was orphaned, and the material could be merged into the Monty Roberts article in less than a paragraph.  There was clearly no sense for there to be a separate article and there was also a consensus amongst the only two people who had been paying any significant attention to the article at all for the past 18 months (based at least on who was reverting the vandalism and such).  You may disagree with that consensus and we can discuss it here.  Your threats are entirely inappropriate here, as we are long term wikipedians.   All can agree that Roberts is a controversial figure, thus there will be sources both pro and con; Wikipedia isn't a place for puff pieces or advertising, as I am sure you know.  My position is that it's simply silly to have a bunch of useless  book stubs hanging around when they are more appropriate to the article about their author.  I will also note that most of the souces are also on the Monty Roberts article itself. Nothing new here.  Montanabw(talk) 22:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, but what threats have I made? I commented that the posting of anti-Roberts links on this page are a WP:BLP issue, but that was a statement, not a threat. There has been no discussion posted on this page nor on the talk page for The Man Who Listens to Horses for you to reference. Basically, you're saying "two of us agreed to this so we did it" and that is not proper procedure. I have been watching this page for a very long time, after I was asked to do so by an editor. If that editor cares to identify herself, fine. If not, then I won't out here. My comments are that two persons decided to merge two articles without benefit of a properly noted consensus and I object to that action in that way, especially given the anti-Roberts content that keeps getting posted on this page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While more discussion may have been needed before the merger was completed, it has been completed and so it is nonsensical to have the merge tag still on the page - hence I have removed it. Wildhartlivie, do you have an actual problem with the merger, or are you just protesting the procedure? So far, I have seen nothing that says you think the merger shouldn't happen, whether it is now or after discussion. Protesting for the sake of protesting makes no sense, and is rather pointy. Dana boomer (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The tone of your edit summaries was threatening Wildhart. As for the BLP issue, it's more in the other direction -- there has been an ongoing problem with this article of folks wanting this to be made into a one-sided puff piece on Roberts, avoiding all controversy, but this is an encyclopedia, not free advertising.   I apologize if the merge was a bit abrupt, I didn't realize Dana's post was less than two hours old, but there really is no real reason not to merge the article.  Montanabw(talk) 23:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

text: It's not hasty when it appeared that the article was dead, a stub and forgotten.  It also appeared to be written mostly by an editor whose user name coincidentally was that of a member of Roberts' staff, which raises some red flags.   But the main issue here is that the main topic is the author, who has written several books.  We don't need an article on each book.  Most of the horse trainer articles that mention published works by the trainer don't have a separate article for the books themselves.  I checked the articles on other trainers that I know wrote books, and none that I found have links to the books.  I checked Mark Rashid, Alois Podhajsky, John Lyons (horse trainer),  Tom and Bill Dorrance, Buck Brannaman, Ray Hunt and Parelli Natural Horsemanship.  None  have separate articles on their books.  There are articles about books related to these people that were made into movies, but that's it. Montanabw(talk) 06:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I have no clue what your issue is about the BLP thing.  That seems unrelated to the article merge question.  Can you clarify? Roberts is controversial.  That is, of course, part of his story.  Not sure what the BLP concern is, but maybe that needs a different heading and a different discussion. Montanabw(talk) 06:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Who started the article is essentially beside the point, if it remains a COI, then it can and should be addressed. I'm unaware of any guideline or policy that forbids that an author have a separate article for each work. Could you please direct me to that tenet? My issues over WP:BLP are concerning the posting of links to anti-Monty Roberts text that has been posted on this page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus, if hasty and 2:1, was to merge. The material was placed in this article.  There were literally, what, two sentences that weren't already in this article?  This is just an endless circular discussion that fails to address the merits of the merged article itself.  A redirect was appropriate.  There were at one time about five really poor Monty Roberts-related articles, now there is basically one reasonably decent one. Montanabw(talk) 08:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

text: As for the links here on the talk page, they appear to be to verifiable sources, and when they went up, as you can see, I asked the poster to clarify the citations to be sure they were.  While critical or Roberts, a discussion of how much of the controversy surrounding Roberts should go into the article seems appropriate here.  After all, the links include Time Magazine, the Globe and Mail, Horse and Rider, all of which are far from the National Enquirer. (And actually, it looks like the Daily Mail link, while a tabloid, appears somewhat favorable to Roberts). All I see here is a discussion over a figure who has been at the center of some controversy and with some supporters who want that controversy not to be discussed.  No different from certain politicians who have their staff surf their bios on wiki to remove unfavorable material (and then get caught).  I've asked an admin who has a strong interest in proper BLP guidelines to come over here and surf our discussion.  Don't know if he will actually weigh in or not, but just an FYI that we are getting some other eyes on this.  Montanabw(talk) 08:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I can completely understand how editors coming to this page would be off-put by what is read on this page. The myriad links posted here were not used for purposes of discussion of any type, most of them have been in the category of "something for a given editor's work". If you are referring to me as an editor who doesn't want that discussion to occur, please think again. I have no opinion about this page other than a specific editor requested I keep an eye on it and related issues regarding it, which were not pro-Roberts. And what I've experienced since posting on this page has been less than stellar conduct toward an editor expressing concern over what appeared to be an a priori decision. So far, I've been accused of writing threatening edit summaries and being pointy. Gods forbid someone post here who actually goes against the mindset at work here. So go on, kill the messenger. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wildhartlivie, if you have no opinion about this page, why bring it up? No other editors have come forward with opinions that the merge shouldn't have happened, and if you have no opinion, then why bother with the argument? Also, I don't believe the links above are a BLP violation, and I'm not really sure what the problem is there either. Links (both for an against a subject) are often posted to the talk page to give opportunity for discussion, and they don't automatically need to be removed once that discussion has taken place. The talk page is a great place for links that should at some point be incorporated into the article as references - Roberts is not a squeaky-clean figure, the links are to reliable sources that state that, and so there is a place in the article for that side of the story. Do you have a specific problem with the unreliability of any of the sites? They are not a BLP violation; rather, they are potential references being put in a spot where they can be easily located when an editor comes along who has a true interest in a neutral article on a fairly controversial figure. Dana boomer (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

text: My initial objection was to posting a merger template on the article and two hours later, sans discussion regarding it, the articles were merged. I was protesting the process, which basically was absent. Along the way, I noted my concerns with the abject posting of links on this page which were not being used in any constructive way regarding the article and which were posted by various editors "for their project". I would note, in passing, that I'm the 2nd most active contributor to this page, and FWIW, I have the absolute right to protest ad hoc changes. I find it most disconcerting to find myself being attacked as I have been by passing editors about my motives or concerns. An editor with no biases is exactly what is needed on this article, not one with preconceived opinions on the subject. And I'll note, my specific question has not been answered. Please point me to the Wikipedia tenet that states a book by an article subject should not have a separate article. Please dial back the attacks on me, folks. They aren't helpful or productive. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Lar -- There appear to be two issues:   1)  We merged the article on Robert' book, "The Man Who Listens To Horses," into this article. I actually didn't notice that Dana had tagged it only two hours before I merged it (I can never figure out the UTC time stamps on Wiki, I know there is supposed to be a way to set these to local time, but I've never bothered to figure it out).  I just noticed that the article was tagged for merge by Dana, a trusted editor, was a paragraph long stub, and orphaned, with no significant edit history in over a year, and, as She and I have done with a number of other orphaned stub horse articles, just did the merge, assuming it was noncontroversial.  To that end, it was a bit hasty, for which I have already apologized once, but I still defend the actual decision for all the reasons noted above.  Wildhart had some pretty intense edit summaries at that article's history page when s/he reverted the merge, and I interpreted those comments as an attempt at bullying.  I am not clear that Wildhart has significant argument against the merge, just is upset that the merge had been done hastily.   I see no reason to continue beating this particular dead horse (if you will pardon the pun).  None of the other horse trainer articles have separate articles about their individual works; I think the only book article on all of wiki about a specific horse book is the one on Xenophon's On Horsemanship which is of significant historical importance.  (I could be mistaken and there are others, but a quick glance came up empty). Montanabw(talk) 00:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

text: 2)  The more interesting issue, totally unrelated to the merge issue, and why you were asked to look in on this article due to your known expertise on  BLP policy, is a BLP concern:  Wildhart is also expressing "grave concerns with the myriad sources posted here that are mostly anti-Roberts in nature" -- referring to discussion on this talk page, presumably the collection of anti-Roberts articles posted by user LilPeck, who has been a wikipedia editor on horse articles, on and off, for longer than I have. As is evident on the talk page and in the article history, in the past there have also been multiple, blatent attempts by people who appear to have a clear, direct connections to Roberts to remove any reference to the controversy over Roberts, and turn this article into a puff piece.  Further, a person with the same user name as a Roberts staffer appears to have been the primary editor of the merged article. So  I am not sure if there is a BLP issue here just because that there are links to the "horse whisperers and lies" set of critiques that appeared in the mainstream press about some of the claims in Roberts' book, but that's the more legitimate question.   Montanabw(talk) 00:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

text: All of the above works for me.  Truce, Wildhart???  Montanabw(talk) 19:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion 

message: Can we remove the neutrality tab.
I can see that there are some people that love Monty Roberts, and some that hate him, but we should be able to remove the neutrality tag, and only have information that meets Wikipedia standards for verification.
The talk page is now a lot longer than the article
This has been on for almost 2 years and looks bad.
RonaldDuncan (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, your own edits to the article provide clear evidence of why the tag is needed.  The article is constantly under attack by people who consider Roberts without flaw and attack his critics when in fact, regardless of one's personal position on the fellow, he IS rather controversial.  When the time comes that the article fully fleshes out both the strengths and weaknesses of this individual with full and proper sourcing, then it can go. Montanabw(talk) 01:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the neutrality tag should be retained.--Maximusbean (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Neutrality tag

message: Can we remove the citation tag
Both sides of the argument above, have put in citations for everything so I think that the tag can be removed.
RonaldDuncan (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is, though, that this is not being submitted as a good article and it is not required to meet those criteria to meet B-Class criteria. That there are tags for page numbers does not mean this template needs to remain. Here's your sign: those tags themselves are the indication that that the numbers are needed. I believe that insisting the citations needed template has to remain and closing off the discussion with a firm no is not an acceptable answer. That tag has been there for two years in August. At the time that template was placed, there were only two referencnes for the entire article. In two years time, the references on this article have increased to 28 cites to 21 separate sources, that is on a small amount of content, only 12,415 bytes. I think it's entirely pointy to insist a citations template remain on this article and I'm more than a little concerned with the way the article is controlled here. There is no valid reason to flatly refuse to remove the overall template when besides the page numbers, I see little content that is missing references. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be right about the citations template, but inline tags can stay as needed.  I can tweak that bit, fair 'nuff.  Montanabw(talk) 03:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for agreeing. I'm not advocating removing the inline tags for the page numbers. I just think it is time for the maintenance template to go. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That one's gone. You are right on that point.  The page citations can stay, sooner or later they'll have to be fixed anyway. Montanabw(talk) 21:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of the Citation tag

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:MRoberts portrait.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: This section could be expanded.  From the looks of cybersoup.com and jfkmurdersolved.com, there is quite a bit of controversy.  -KaJunl (talk) 04:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The trick is to find verifiable sources that pass WP:BLP and WP:RS.  Roberts is a living person and anything critical has to be well-sourced.  Montanabw(talk) 20:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies 

message: Substituted at 00:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Monty Roberts. 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/20101213144620/http://collegerodeo.com/downloads/Champions/National%20Champions%201949-1979.pdf to http://www.collegerodeo.com/downloads/Champions/National%20Champions%201949-1979.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081026094333/http://www.montyroberts.com/flag_corporate_events.html to http://www.montyroberts.com/flag_corporate_events.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) 18:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Monty Roberts. 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/20100403081340/http://www.montyroberts.com/jui_about.html to http://www.montyroberts.com/jui_about.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120416054120/http://www.sanluisobispocounty.com/media/facts-figures/ to http://www.sanluisobispocounty.com/media/facts-figures/
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120802023427/http://www.horseandcountry.tv/monty/join-online-equus-university to http://www.horseandcountry.tv/monty/join-online-equus-university
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081220154302/http://www.yourhorse.co.uk/The-Mag-Landing/ to http://www.yourhorse.co.uk/The-Mag-Landing/
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) 05:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)