Talk:Aberdeen Angus

message: It's been suggested that Angus cattle be merged with Red Angus. I created the Red Angus page, and I don't think these two pages should be merged for the following reasons...
* Red Angus are acknowledged as a different breed, and has different breed associations.
* Red Angus also have a different studbook to Black Angus.
Even though the genetics of the two breeds are very similar, the fact remains that the breeds are separate breeds. Angus Australia talks about the 'red angus relatives' here, and Australia, as well as a lot of other countries, has an official website here.
This is also being discussed at the Red Angus talk page.
I should also mention that although the two breeds are similar, the reason they are classified as different breeds is because of different genetics and coat colour
Once more, I would like to stress that these are two different breeds of cattle, and I think that both breeds should merit separate pages on Wikipedia.
Please discuss this here. CattleGirl 02:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree and second your motion!  As a Black Angus producer (in the U.S.) I was appalled that the two articles might be merged.  The breeds are very distinct now and each deserve their own pages with their own history, which is why I removed the suggested merger.  Seeing the disarray this black Angus page is in, I will attempt to clean it up, expand, and generally "wikify" it.Dukemeiser 05:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Red Angus 

message: *Worldwide, red and black are considered the same breed. 
I grew up on a ranch in Argentina that only bred pedigree red Aberdeen Angus cattle. The name was never shortened to "Angus" alone and the red and black were and still are one breed. I have found out that here in the US most people (even among cattle breeders) don't know about red Aberdeen Angus. It is my understanding that early in the 20th Century, red cows were not preferred and hence the effort was put forward to propagate the black cows rather than red. 
*I think the question should be: Is Wikipedia focused on the US, or more worldwide? 
* If the answer is US, then the pages should be kept separated as the US has historically disavowed red Aberdeen Angus. 
* However if Wikipedia's focus is more global, the 2 should be merged since in Scotland and most of the world (save for US and Australia) they are considered one breed. 
Joining the articles (they are not too long) can also help those who don't know about the subject, learn that red Aberdeen Angus are out there too. The recessive red gene exists in this breed as it does in most others. Also from my experience in Argentina, red cattle are more resilient to certain deceases, like foot and mouth decease, than their black counterpart. Galloway cattle are very close to Aberdeen Angus and both the belted and non-belted have red and black variations. Reds are not considered a separate breed.
Please merge the two pages. TomasMFC (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: I believe Red Angus, should be merged with this Black Angus page, and renamed "Aberdeen Angus cattle"

message: :Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
*Support I think this would be for the best since Angus cattle is too general of a term.  I say if nobody else opposes this within a week, the change should be made.  Dukemeiser 06:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved.
Fred-Chess 09:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conclusion 

message: Though it wasn't really a Herculean task — and I have no idea whether the cattle of King Augeas were Aberdeen Angus or not — having seen that all the discussions about moving and merging ended in 2006 but the first part of this article was still a real mess in terms of the Categorical imperative (to decide what each of a set of terms means and then stick to it) it became apparent that the following were the case:
* the article floudered hopelessly between three different perspectives on terminology: the USA cattle breeders, breeders elsewhere in the world, and everybody else, namely the ordinary interested person wondering what an Aberdeen Angus was
* several of the voluble and no doubt knowledgeable contributors to this page were so close to the United States cattle breeding industry, and some of them for such a long time, that they seemed perhaps unable to take a wider view on terminology usage across the world. If someone says, with Dukemeiser, "I've never heard anyone refer to it as Aberdeen Angus." they may just be contributing to the discussion on the extent of use of that name in the USA; however, were this to be taken to be part of an argument against coverage of or emphaisis on the term, it would suggest an attempt to limit applicability of Wikipedia to the USA — which nobody should be seeking.
* the term Aberdeen Angus should not be hyphenated; I have only ever seen that done on this article and this talk page, and it's certainly incorrect. This is a dictionary term, and I have a large collection of the large editions of English dictionaries. Even the Danish association had its link here hyphenated and when I went there ... it wasn't! 
* this article itself made clear that the separation of red angus from the rest only happened in the 1950s, was a decision by the American association, and only applies in the USA. The vehemence of the assertions on this talk page that the Red was a separate breed with separate breed association etc. was from USA breeders, and it ignored, in what seemed to me a cavalier way, the different opinion still apparently held by breeders in other countries — most of the rest of the world, in fact — which as the article says "still register both colors in the same herd book". However, what I read here convinced me that we are in an era where the new red breed is gradually becoming established and it may well be that other countries will follow the American Angus Association in the future (maybe in another 50 years), so I would not for the moment suggest revisiting the calls to move to a different title or merge Black with Red.
Therefore I have:
* removed hyphenation of Aberdeen Angus
* rewritten the opening sections of the article to set out the precise position on the various versions of terminology in the USA and elsewhere. That the first words of the article proper, despite the title Angus cattle, were "Aberdeen Angus" was ludicrous; that is not Wiki. Taking NPOV means making simple statements of fact: the term is either a name for black only (USA) or a collective term covering red and black (rest of world).
If the article did not exist at all yet, I think I would argue that it should be called "Aberdeen Angus cattle" because of its historical importance as expressing the origin of the breed, and the continued wide use of that name everywhere in the world except the USA. I would also argue that, whether one breed or two, the place to discuss details of breed characteristics is the websites of those breed associations, not a general encyclopaedia. That the farmers in the USA have two different clubs (really that is what they are) for red and black varieties is a detail of their business/social circles, not necessarily a fact that merits separate articles in  general encyclopaedia; however, the fact that Wiki is on the web and thus hypertext, and that it has millions of what are mostly brief articles on specialized points, makes it not worth engineering a merge purely on grounds of page length and the ease of clicking.
So I trust everyone who looks here finds the new text OK. In any case, please do not revert to the shambolic previous version of the text! Why it had sat like that for up to 2 years since the debate about moves and merges beats me. I put it down to everyone being too busy, and none of them being expert writers. Iph (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article still seems overdominated by an American perspective IMO, so I dread to think what it must have been like before. --Ef80 (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  I cleaned out the Augean Stables 

message: It has been proposed to move Aberdeen to Aberdeen, Scotland or Aberdeen city, and to move Aberdeen (disambiguation) to Aberdeen.  The discussion about this is here.  The dab page notes Angus cattle are also known as Aberdeen Angus cattle.  --Una Smith (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That was vandalism which I have reverted.--Charles (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Notice of requested move

message: Shouldn't this article mention the common myth that Angus beef refers to the part of the cattle it comes from, like sirloin?  After all, Jack in the Box actually ran television advertisements in 2007 based on that myth and was sued by Burger King as a result. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The pun issue  

message: It says Black Angus is the most common breed in the USA, with 324,266 animals registered in 2005. But on 1 July 2012, there were 97.8 million cattle in the USA. Seems strange that out of 100 million animals only 325k would belong to the most populous breed. That would mean there are at least 300 breeds also with 300k each.  So I'm guessing this '324,266' figure is ambiguous: is that the total number of animals registered, or the total number registered during that year? Also, what percentage of total cattle are 'registered'? Leecharleswalker (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can these numbers be correct? 

message: In response to a request at WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, I just completed a copy-edit of the article. I have several concerns:
1) The article seems to be written in a curious blend of American and British English:
*the dates are written in American English style
*the -our spelling is used for words like "colour"
*the plural verb "are" is used to refer to the United States, which is clearly British English; Americans would say, "the United States is..."
It doesn't matter to me which style is used. Once a style is agreed upon, I'd be glad to make the necessary changes.
2) In the "Scotland" section under Angus cattle#History is the following sentence:
*The first herd book was created in 1862, and the society was formed in 1879. 
It's not clear which society is meant by "the society". I think it should be written out here.
3) In the second paragraph of the "United States" section of Angus cattle#History, we read:
*The first herd book was published on March 1885. At this time both red and black animals were registered without distinction.[italics added]
But in the second paragraph of the lead, we read:
*The native colour is black, but more recently red colours have emerged.
and in the middle of the first paragraph in Angus cattle#Characteristics, we read:
*However, in the middle of the 20th century a new strain of cattle called the Red Angus emerged.
If there were "red and black animals" in 1885, how can we say "more recently red colours have emerged" and "in the middle of the 20th century a new strain of cattle called the Red Angus emerged"? If the red Angus cattle in the 20th century are a different type of cattle from the red cattle in 1885, this needs to be explained. Also, what does "more recently" mean? 
4) In the first paragraph of Angus cattle#Genetic disorders, do you think "curly calf" and "water head" should be in italics while "Fawn Calf Syndrome" is both capitalized and in quotation marks?
5) In Angus cattle#Uses is the following sentence:
*This has led to many markets, including Australia, Japan and the United Kingdom to adopt it into the mainstream.
I wonder whether "adopt it into the mainstream" ought to be explained or re-worded so that the average reader will readily understand it.
6) In the last paragraph in the section Angus cattle#Commercial, we read:
*However, they must meet all 10 of the following criteria, which were refined in January 2007 to further enhance product consistency, in order to be labeled "Certified Angus Beef" by USDA Graders:
However, there are not ten items in the list; there are eleven. Also, I noticed that some of the items seem to refer to the animal itself and some to the meat. I wonder if the list should be grouped. If not, O.K., but I draw your attention to the last item. It is not clear whether it refers to the animal or the meat.
7) The first two sentences in Angus cattle#Commercial are:
*During the later part of 2003 and the early part of 2004, the American fast food industry ran a public relations campaign to promote the supposedly superior quality of Angus beef. However, the first of these campaigns was run by Back Yard Burger in 2002.
Clearly, these are out of chronological order, and, other than the word "however", it is not clear why they are out of chronological order or even why the need for "however". Corinne (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *Just a bit of a drive-by comment from me, , I'd opt for BrEng as the breed was founded and developed in the UK. I hope I've managed a quick fix to the Denholm ref? Currently ref #2 seems to be used to back up the William McCombie part but I'm not seeing any mention of him on that web page? SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some concerns after completing a copy-edit 

message: I have read through the talk page, article and breed societies, and there seems to be little consistency between the naming of this breed. Many countries refer to them as just "Angus", or "Black/Red Angus", however the UK-based and Irish societies refer to them as "Aberdeen-Angus", hyphenated.
Would it not make sense, given that the breed originated in Scotland, in the UK, that its name be listed as the name that is used by The Aberdeen-Angus Cattle Society? At the very least, the usage of Aberdeen-Angus throughout the article should be hyphenated.
Additionally, the remark that the breed is known by Aberdeen Angus in most parts of the world is not necessarily correct, as it appears that a very large number of breed societies refer to them as Angus, rather than Aberdeen-Angus. Slimestone (talk) 14:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: Could somebody please expand on King George's importation of cattle into America half a century after his death? 36.37.151.185 (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  King George III