Talk:Parelli Natural Horsemanship

message: All editors please be aware of two wikipedia policies:  1)  Neurtral point of view and What Wikipedia is not.  Wikipedia is not a place for promotional advertising and it IS a place where all viewpoints may have a place. To that end, please do not remove footnoted material from the article, and best practice is to add a  tag to other things that may be questioned.  Parelli has both supporters and detractors, both view have their place here.  Thank you.  Montanabw(talk) 04:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits to article 

message: The Parellis have had the Youtube video 'Natural Horsemanship the Parelli way' (ref #8) removed: 'This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Parelli Natural Horse-Man-Ship, Inc.'
While that's a shame (I think it's pretty counter productive because you immediately think they've got something to hide, especially as the video was clearly fair use for criticism under US & UK copyright law - poor show Youtube) I'm not sure how that loss impacts this article - anyone? James (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection from me if you want to make those changes.  Montanabw(talk) 22:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Youtube as primary source 

message: First time editor, I suppose mistakes are part of the learning process. 
So I did some research. It appears that the dispute tag thing requires a few rules of it's own. Specifically actionable discussion on the talk page.Wikipedia:NPOV dispute There was no actionable discussion given about how the neutrality of the article could be restored. Really the fact that I violated footnote removal rules seems to be the point being made. But the article is now flagged as violating the NPOV rule. How exactly is the inflammatory language used in the criticism's section neutral?
Can you provide a constructive approach to obtaining a neutral version of this article?
There is a link in the footnotes to Horsecity.com, that simply goes to the home page. How does that substantiate any of what it footnotes? 
I would also be very curious as to what it was that earned me the "promotional advertising" admonishment? Was it the link to their website? I thought that just substantiated the claim that I made about the home versions of their study programs. Would it have been better not to have included that reference? Is it better not to include those facts about commercial products where it could be stated less commercially? Sincerely want to understand the appropriate approach. Mbwplw (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am only critiquing that you removed all criticism of Parelli.  That you have done so and inserted disparaging comments about those with differing viewpoints reveals that you are not a neutral editor.  I am not touching most of your content.  I only ask that you leave the critical material in place.  You may tag the sources, of course, but do not remove them. When there is only one source, others can be requested if you wish.  But the neutrality of the article is in question, and yes, the subjects ' own promotional materials are sometimes suspect sources.  Robert Miller, on the other hand, is a good source here, but you need to cite to the page numbers in the book and be very careful not to take what he says out of context. Montanabw(talk) 01:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Montana, you can't just remove criticism because you don't agree with it. There are several publicised instances of pure undisputed abuse, including the half-blind Thoroughbred video, and no amount of cottoning can mask that. I also protest to the extreme tagging of "citation needed" on everything critical of Parelli. Is it not citation enough to see her slapping a horse repeated times in the FACE? I cannot see the need for a "citation" on the claim of rough treatment. Really. Personally I find this article very biased, but I cannot for the very life of me find the correct section to comment on the neutrality dispute. It's all too messy. Nimloth250 (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oops 

message: So, I tried some more edits. I guess I'll wait and see if I've done it right this time or if I need to take  a different approach.
Mbwplw (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Edits 

message: The criticism section of this topic has a lot of opinion without citations.  Where citations are present they appear to be from blogs and forum postings.
"There has been criticism against the Parellis by the mainstream equestrian world."
The article needs to offer a better definition of what it means by the "mainstream equestrian world" and citations of such criticism.  The Parellis are demonstrating their program at the British Open Show Jumping Championships .  That seems to suggest at least an equal amount of support from the "mainstream equestrian world".
"The Parellis have also been known to make negative comments about other riding disciplines, including dressage."
Linda Parelli is a dressage rider and the Parellis both train with Walter Zettl .  If they have made negative comments about Dressage it is about the treatment of horses in the name of the sport rather than the sport itself.
"Parelli supporters speculate that this criticism is partly due to the boldness of his demonstrations with some of his own horses, and possibly in part to the fact that he charges a premium price for his materials.[7]"
This is pure conjecture about what people may think, the citation goes to a forum posting, hardly a great source.
"By highly successful marketing of horsemanship information that, according to critics of Parelli's tactics, is widely available and has been passed down for generations and considered to be common sense by those knowledgeable of the horse, many competitors to Parelli consider his methods to be inappropriately described as exclusive to the Parelli system, particularly when re-named by Parelli..[citation needed]"
A citation is certainly needed because one of Pat Parelli's sayings is "what I teach is so old, it's new" .  It is not just Parelli's critics that say this information is widely available, it is the Parellis themselves also.  By not acknowledging this the article is misleading the reader by suggesting that the Parellis are misrepresenting what they offer.
Also, almost that entire paragraph is one run-on sentence.  Editing for grammar is required if nothing else.
"Finally, because some training techniques result in horses that do not respond to traditional horse-handling commands, when the horse is sold it may require either retraining of the horse or the new owner may need to learn (for a price) Parelli methods.[citation needed] The program, in fact, encourages sellers to sell their horses only to other Parelli users.[citation needed]"
I appreciate that this section is listing the criticisms of the Parelli program so all criticism has a place, but where is the balance in the article to put the defense against these criticisms?  Shouldn't wikipedia readers be offered both sides of this discussion so that they can make their own minds up?  In the case of the criticism above, the text could apply to any animal training technique.
Crayfish2020 (talk) 01:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The rest of the article is, arguably, the defense.  Usually other editors who want to rebut the criticisms just blank the section and refuse to allow any criticism at all, which is not good wikiquette.  There are some footnotes for the section, and the tags for the other material just indicate that more research is needed (much criticism of Parelli on user boards, but boards can't be a source on wiki).  It isn't perfect, but Parelli has critics and those views need to be mentioned.  The rebuttals can be given too, ideally in separate paragraphs.  Montanabw(talk) 03:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section of this article is misleading and biased 

message: Internet is filled with pro-Parelli websites - bad experiences are found on few forum postings here and there.. Hardly any source? 
One of those subjects that is in deadlock?
83.245.135.147 (talk) 11:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is Verifiability.  Biased sites, pro OR con, are both usually problematic on wikipedia, whether actual domain sites or blogs and forums.  There is a need for the mainstream world to publish more balanced material in either case.  A comparable situation are the wikipedia pages on actors or music celebrities; the fan sites and blogs are all a no-no to use.  Montanabw(talk) 22:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with Parelli Natural Horsemanship/Criticism: 

message: This section of the article reads like it was cribbed from a website or booklet for Parelli... not like sourced information from notable sources.  In fact, it has no sources.  842U (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, if it's a verbatim copy, then it's got to go.  Montanabw(talk) 21:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The three levels 

message: Paragraph 4
User removed the word "Finesse" which is the official Parelli term for that area of horsemanship.
User added the sentence "Though there is very little focus paid to actual rider skill" which is uncited and appears to be that person's opinion.
Paragraph 8
User added the sentence " Other criticisms focus on Parelli's disparaging remarks made against most mainstream equestrian training methods, equestrian sports and events. In addition to this the training methods are marketed towards inexperienced horse people who are simply unsuited to training a horse without direct assistance." in front of an existing citation implying that text was also cited. Whether the previous citation from a blog was valid is another matter but this insertion is clearly bad form.
Paragraph 10
User incorrectly changed the cited sentence "In contrast, Parelli openly credits his mentors" to "Occasionally Parelli credits his mentors."
Paragraph 11.
User added sentence "Other horses, who have been marketed and sold as being trained using the Parelli method, have turned out to have training flaws and behavior problems with cause the animal to become dangerous towards handlers and are in need of retraining." to an already uncited paragraph.  This is clearly opinion and not factual information.
User also added "among other things" to final sentence which is a call to unknown sources.
Paragraph 12.
User added factual information that the horse being discussed was blind in one eye.  The removal of the description that the horse was "dangerous and unpredictable" appears to be an attempt to push their own agenda however, especially in light of the other edits made to the page and their anonymous nature.
Crayfish2020 (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Kept some changes, but reverted others.  Most of the above material had been cited at some point.   Montanabw(talk) 17:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Those changes were not cited, the citation markers existed before the anonymous user added additional text.  Please review the notes I made carefully.  Also, you should be aware that citing blog posts is unwelcome on wikipedia.  They are not a reliable source.  If you believe I am wrong please refer me to the exact cited text.  Feel free to request a third opinion as dispute resolution for this. Crayfish2020 (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Some blogs are citable, depending on source material, see WP:NEWSBLOG.  We have a lot of Parelli POV-pushers on this article who try to sanitize and remove anything critical about him and his methods, I will, however, review the earlier versions of this article.   Montanabw(talk) 15:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you review the cited blog I think you will find it to not be of the quality or impartiality to be considered a good source.  I am now going to request a third opinion (3O) because I question your impartiality here.  It seems the edits you have made are making this article less impartial than it was before the anonymous user on IP address 74.75.21.100 came in with their biased edits.  I will wait for 24 hours for your response before making the 3O as I think if you review the facts objectively you will see my edits were fair and should be reinstated.Crayfish2020 (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted some edits made by anonymous user on IP address 74.75.21.100 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: This article would probably be a lot more stable if it didn't have such a negative slant.  I've gone back to point prior to the last round of attempted improvement and cannot blame anyone who is an advocate of the program for wanting to make it more neutral.  I think a lot of the criticism is unwarranted in this article, which is supposed to be encyclopedic, It should be pared back to only address the issues IN the article, such as the seven games are some considered some innovative technique and the concept of horsenality.  Why is there an "analysis" section now?  Wouldn't that be considered OR?  And the training video section is completely unbalanced.  Maybe over five years ago there was a controversy, but it has probably died down now and is not a notable enough event to remain in the article, pointing to two incidents out of probably dozens of hours of Parelli training on Youtube.  Maybe an RfC on the neutrality of the article should be initiated.  Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe some of the criticism could be removed, but the fact is that Parelli is controversial and the craziness over the videos did happen. They still get lots of negative comments on YouTube. I don't think the analysis is OR, because there's been broad coverage of the program's outline in a ton of magazines and some books, most of them not even by the Parellis. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 16:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an argument to be made that the video section is too long and could just be merged up into the criticism section. Someone could take a whack at keeping the crucial point, but trimming the detail. The argument was originally that these videos were evidence of the Parellis being actually abusive to horses, but the Parellis argued that people may have misunderstood how to deal with horses that were actually misbehaving.  I think they need to be mentioned because it's part of the program history.  As far as sources go, quite a few cites (both pro and con) are not ideal, but without them, we'd be down to an article that's about two paragraphs long and mostly critical.  As it sits, we have a comprehensive article that has a lot more content than it did, plus we spun off the biographical article on Pat Parelli himself. We most certainly could have this article reviewed at the RS noticeboard, but frankly, I have seldom seen much happen in those places, usually it's just a place where someone loses their temper and winds up blocked, and the other parties go back to editing as usual.  Montanabw(talk)|GO THUNDER! 18:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitely Slanted Point of View Here 

message: Parking sources here. Montanabw(talk) 10:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source material 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Parelli Natural Horsemanship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120318233432/http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/536/300317.html to http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/536/300317.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Cyberbot II. The source checks out, and it also has some further content that throws a cold light on the second sentence of the paragraph, "Some criticized Parelli for handling the horse in a rough manner," which is sourced to "Teambarney's Blog" — one person's opinion. The Wayback URL to Horse&Hound, by contrast, provides a much broader description of reactions to the incident, and a working link to the 154-page furore that broke out on H&H's forum. It makes "Some criticized Parelli" sound very bland and understated. That needs changing, but I have to run, I'll get to it later if nobody else does. (Always try to avoid blogs.) One last thing: the redirect to the archived page is very slow for me. I tried to input the archive link directly in the footnote, so that readers will be able to find it with reasonable ease (and without being derailed by the original link, "404 Sorry! The page you’re trying to visit is unavailable" — surely a pointless distraction). But I'm no good with those cursed cite templates — I never use them myself — and had no success. Perhaps someone else would like to simplify the footnote? Remember that the experience, and access, of the reader is paramount. The source should be one unambiguous click away. Bishonen | talk 11:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding: Oh, no, I was mixing up the two separate accusations — the H&H article that we can now read is about reactions to the "Catwalk" demo, not the "one-eyed horse" incident. That's what happens when unhorsey people charge in blindly. So, can anybody possibly find a stronger source than Teambarney's Blog for reactions to the "one-eyed horse" incident? Anything on Wordpress is really a very poor source. (The footnote still needs simplifying.) Bishonen | talk 12:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with this whole article is that ALL the source material is weak; the "pro" material is mostly from the promotional sites and hagiographic puff pieces, and the con is mostly opinion blogs.  The "hitting Barney the one-eyed horse in the face" situation was actually in one of the Parelli videos, and the clip was plastered all over the web for a while, until the Parelli organization made copyright claims (which was legal, the clip was copyrighted and used without attribution) and got most of the clips removed.  But it was also pretty widespread, , , , again to the extent that Linda published a clip explaining herself.  The European press is more willing to be critical in mainstream sources than the American press. Hope this helps. Montanabw(talk) 03:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. All this work based upon poor sources will be swept aside if good ones are ever found, and keeps the article quality very low in the meantime. --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a catch-22.  That said, I think that one reason we have all this drama is that  did just that -- tons of work based on weak sources -- and saw it swept aside.  What's there now is not ideal, either, but at least it's balanced.  Montanabw(talk) 00:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

text: All Wikipedia articles need to be written from secondary, third-party sources to meet our policies, especially WP:NOT. Sections that clearly violate WP:NOT, like "Endorsements and invitations" should be outright removed. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Some individual citations can be to primary or in-house sources, it depends on context. (i.e. someone's own site is probably a RS for their birthday, the name of their favorite dog and such)  The endorsements section was inserted to balance the criticisms section.  I think in this context, it's probably appropriate to keep some of it if not of undue weight (though I do think that the O'Connor "endorsement" is sketchy and must be phrased carefully.)  Jackie, in case you failed to notice, I'm actually siding with you for the premise that some favorable material is OK.  Montanabw(talk) 20:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I thought I'd raise a few topics for others' consideration:
*I think a more-detailed section on horsenality would useful, as it's an integral part of PNH.  Earlier material might be rehabilitated if it is cast as the program's "take" on the subject.
:No we need reliable third party sources, not their own "take" on the subject.Theroadislong (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This might be suitable for the Pat Parelli article but the press release cannot be used as a reference.Theroadislong (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Proponents call the movement revolutionary, noting that clinicians "consistently take horses with horrible behavior faults -- terrified horses, vicious horses, severely hyperactive horses -- and in remarkably short time change these horses permanently." (Here's the link to the whole book; I tried the "link" button to get just page 114, but it didn't work.  https://books.google.com/books?id=SZXEGcF48ZAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Revolution+in+Horsemanship:+And+what+it+Means+to+Mankind&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwimtN3zzK7LAhXCLmMKHTfiAiAQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Revolution%20in%20Horsemanship%3A%20And%20what%20it%20Means%20to%20Mankind&f=false 
Finally, if anyone has the nerve, I would suggest reverting BW's last manual edits.  In her last edit (the one she tagged with "Kept some changes, tossed some changes"), she went through and undid all of the edits I had made over the prior couple of days.  I don't know why she took the time to change, one by one, multiple punctuation fixes that I made (including my fix for a period in the middle of a sentence) back to being incorrect.  However, those punctuation fixes could be restored easily by reverting her manual changes. It would also change "horse...are" back to the correct "horse...is."
It would also change back some substantive errors, including:
*“Liberty” work had been wrong.  It had been described as working with a horse with the horse in a halter and lead rope/flank rope. That is unambiguously wrong. Liberty work is working with a horse at liberty. I changed it so it was correct. She manually reintroduced the error (to, verbatim, her earlier version).
*"Now called "Parelli Natural Horsemanship University"" is also incorrect.  The whole program isn't called that, just the vocational school portion (on site education).
That's not it, but that's it from me.  This was supposed to be a few-hour project, followed by a few other few-hour projects on Wikipedia in areas in which I had some expertise, but this environment is toxic as hell and it's just not worth it.
BW, although I imagine your impulse might well be to tell me to stuff it, I wish you peace.
Cheers, everyone.JackieLL007 (talk) 13:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

text: I can try to get some of this done, although it may not be soon because I'm handraising a litter of guinea pigs and they are taking up an incredible amount of time. However, I can probably squeeze it in between piggy feedings, other real life chores and other on-WP tasks sooner or later. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: And Peace to you Jackie; make no assumptions about my impulses, much of your whole problem here has been the assumptions you have made about the motivations and beliefs of others.  Here, we need to keep to WP:NPOV at all times and that includes balancing the negative as well as the positive. You are not the first editor who has come to wikipedia with the One True Way attitude and leaves complaining that people are mean to them. The environment here can be rough, it is often shocking to encounter a world where not everyone sees things the way you do.  I appreciate that others have been more patient with this user than I have been; and at the end of the day, your work motivated us to expand and improve the article as well as to create the long-overdue biography of Pat in a separate article.  So the encyclopedia has been improved.  Montanabw(talk) 19:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm leaving; before I go...