Talk:Natural horsemanship

message: Just a few things.
1. It is not a method, just a community forum
2. Is it notable at all as such?
3. Is it relevant in this article?
4. Shall it be removed from the history and links section?
5. Shall other, more relevant Natural Horsemanship sites be added to the links? I'm wondering for example why there are no links to sites of people mentioned in the article, like Hempfling, Parelli, Roberts, Lyons, etc.
--94.44.0.45 (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Art of Natural Dressage 

message: What's the reason for the POV tag? Unless someone wants to address it here (as it promises), I'll delete it. The article seems rather balanced to me, with a balanced criticism section.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the interest of fair & balanced, I'm going to add a 'criticisms' section to horse bits, per your example: "This article is not an advertisement for NH, it is a neutral encyclopedia article that explains both sides."(montanbw)    AeronM (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I stuck it on there when someone (an anon IP) kept blanking the criticisms section.  If that little spat has died down, then I have no objection to tossing the tag. Montanabw(talk) 01:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got it on my watchlist now, so we'll only have to worry about the six-revert rule. --Curtis Clark (talk) 03:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tee hee, Curtis, you're so funny!  AeronM (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You say that now, but you seemed to totally miss my joke to Montanabw on her(?) talk page by taking it as an attack on you. As much as I might appreciate the compliment, I have no evidence of either your sincerity or your perceptual ability.--Curtis Clark (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Imagine my disappointment! AeronM (talk) 03:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

text: No, there are legitimate criticisms of the natural horsemanship movement, and the overview of them were removed as a result of this and other discussions.  They need to be restored with sourcing.  As it sits, the article contains no critique of the legitimate concerns within the movement.  In contrast, if you compare this article to Western pleasure, you will see that the WP article has both a neutral overview of the discipline but also a pretty thorough section that critiques the fads and abuses seen.  This article isn't horribly unbalanced, as at least it avoids the "every other time in history almost everyone people abused horses until [fill in the blank of living person] came down from heaven with the True Gospel", but it is unbalanced.  I can restore the criticisms section and see if that flies.  Montanabw(talk) 02:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why a POV tag? 

message: The caption for this image :Image:Camargue naturally approached 1a.jpg is grammatically incorrect.  I have corrected it. --AeronM (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image caption

message: I have added in-line text citations. Can page tag be removed? --AeronM (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Refs Added

message: The section "Criticisms of the Movement" is still wholly unreferenced. I propose to remove under POV. I am unable to find similar examples on other horse pages. --AeronM (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a month with no refs added or compelling argument to warrant keeping this section, so I am removing it.  If someone wants to reinstate it at a later date with proper referencing, that is fine.  --AeronM (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because I have been dealing with your good friend on other articles for the past month and forgot about it.  Will find some things.   Montanabw(talk) 03:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okidoki, I am going to remove, for the time being, this section as it is still wholly un-referenced after two months.  When and if refs are provided, it can be put back.  Open to discussion, as always.  --AeronM (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh, OK, but I'll tag for neutrality until I can get around to it.  Montanabw(talk) 04:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree, feel free to add it. Montanabw(talk) 02:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

text: The article is poor quality overall, but I did the bold thing and tossed the template.  We shall see if anyone kicks up a fuss and wants it back in.  Montanabw(talk) 16:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Section Needed?

message: The template points to this page but not a particular thread. The section is now refd, as discussed above, yet the NPOV was placed there long after that: 
Revision as of 16:54, 6 September 2010
User:Thumperward
m (Added  tag to article using Friendly)
The section strikes me as being balanced, and the banner unnecessary. I'll come by and remove it in a week or so if no-one comes by with a constructive reason to leave it, or does so first.  Trev M  ~  22:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is poor quality overall, but I did the bold thing and tossed the template.  We shall see if anyone kicks up a fuss and wants it back in.  Montanabw(talk) 16:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Propose remove NPOV Criticism banner dated sept 2010

message: Has a section of this page been archived?  If so, is there a link to the page? --AeronM (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how one would archive without it appearing in the page history. The article was created on 2005-09-03 and the first entry on this page was 2005-11-03, so there's no discrepancy.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived?

message: I don't think there is an archive, you can check the history if you want.  It should indicate every edit ever made to the page.  Montanabw(talk) 05:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Second, no you can't yet remove something that you tagged along with your 200-zillion other fact tags you have put all over, it could take WEEKS to source everything you want to have sourced, my god, just keeping the hackamore article intact is taking up way too much of my time.  My god, you don't think anyone criticizes the NH movement for basically just taking stuff that has been around for centuries, giving it a new name and calling it a new technique?  By the definition of "NH" every good horseman in history has been a NH practitioner, not just five cowboys from the Pacific Northwest (two of whom I have met before they were big names), a retired bronc rider, and an old movie stuntman.  I happen to be unable to spend 12 hours a day on wikipedia, Some things will be gotten to in their own time.  Montanabw(talk) 05:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Natural horsemanship is not new.  You will discover this as you round up some refs.  Meanwhile, I would echo Una's request that you source your material, then add, not the other way around. I will leave the "Criticisms" section up for now, but not indefinitley without adequate refs.--AeronM (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly what the criticism section says: "...simply applying humane methods of classical horsemanship that have been practiced for centuries to western riding and labeling them new." I must be misunderstanding your point.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, The criticism section says a lot of things.... I guess with the sentence you quote I have two small issues: 1) it implies western riding, prior to applying humane methods of late, was inhumane, and 2) that the whole "movement," purported by the article to be "hype," is new. It isn't. I"m happy to concede with sufficient refs. --AeronM (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I read it as saying that many techniques claimed to be new are not, but I agree that it's not clear.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for admitting that Natural Horsemanship per se is not new, you are the first NH-oriented editor to admit that!  THAT has always been my point -- the MOVEMENT is new, and some stuff (now removed) that claims that all other previous methods of horse training (um, like dressage) were mean and cruel is what gave rise to the criticisms section. I've seen the "mean and cruel" methods at work (remember, I once had to board at a rodeo barn, god almighty, have YOU seen a horse's face bloodied by a hackamore? I have! You remember stuff like that!), the movement is at least calming down some of the cowboys out here who were once a lot more brutal than they are now. But my point is that the methodology is NOT new, it is centuries old, and that people have been getting ripped off by certain flim-flam artists who claim to have invented the whole philosophy themselves). I have respect for the Dorrance brothers, Ray Hunt, and their direct descendants. I don't always fully agree with them, but they had/have legitimate methodology.  Independent of their teaching, I also like the works of Mark Rashid and Cherry Hill. John Lyons is heading in the right direction, especially in his more recent works. (He now "gets it" that the bit has a place) I've actually ridden horses that were trained by Brannaman and Curt Pate back before "The Horse Whisperer" made them megastar sorts, they are from around here, they did a fine job with a horse, though what happens once the horse goes back to their owners is not predictable. I'm leaving some people off this list because I feel rather differently about them -- One guru uses methods that screw up horses so bad that they now tell people not to sell a horse trained in that method to anyone other than fellow members of the cult, er, program. Another has been exposed in a public expose as a near-complete fraud. This article is better than it was six months ago, but it has to be understood that the movement has several branches, not all of them sweetness and light. Montanabw(talk) 03:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Answers

message: I have reinstated the Monty Roberts website as we have included several other 'official websites' of other trainers and need to be consistent.  Or, we could exclude all official websites, but I think it is beneficial to include them.  Open to discussion as always. --AeronM (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, pitch them all.  Wikipedia isn't a place for personal advertising. It's one thing to include links to internal pages in web sites that happen to have good data in addition to being commercial (I think several of the articles on barefoot trimming would fall into that category, as do several of the sources in articles like Icelandic horse, where truly third-party sources are few and far between), particularly in footnotes.  It's another thing to have huge lists of external links.  Montanabw(talk) 04:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Commercial website

message: This material below is from the old horse breaking article, which was mostly an NH article, but it has since been redirected to the main horse training article.  The content is posted here in case anyone wants to add it to this article, where it belongs, if it belongs anywhere.  Note:  NOT MY CONTENT.   Montanabw(talk) 18:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sandbox

message: The Horse Whisperer has a section on controversies which is almost completely unsourced. I have tagged this and will remove unsourced content from this section in another two weeks (a month after adding the tag as recommended on the template doc pages.) I have had less time than  I hoped to look for any sources myself, but I also point out in the talk page that I may not be able to reliably evaluate any references I find anyway. Can any watchers of this article help by improving the controversies section of The Horse Whisperer over the next fortnight? Even when removed, the material can be restored later if references are found, but by their very nature, descriptions of "controversies" must be carefully sourced. Mirokado (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the same bunch watching all of these.  I sourced the Lyons quote.  I sincerely recommend that instead of removing material, how about helping to source the rest of it? The criticisms are legit, the only need is to find refs.  Montanabw(talk) 03:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  References needed on "The Horse Whisperer" 

message: Popping the old "further reading" section here for anyone who needs the material for cut and paste refs or whatever.  Just for future use, no implied endorsement nor guarantees of results.  Montanabw(talk) 23:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: For clarity with any users unsure, i took these out of the article, as the list was inherently POV, with no proof that it linked to the article.  If any information in these books is relevant, it should be inserted as an inline citation.  Thanks! OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 09:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Whole article is a disaster, but some of the above books will be legit sources if anyone ever gets serious about upgrading it  Montanabw(talk) 02:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference sources 

message: William J.Long uses the word whisper when describing a man and a horse in his 1919 book _How Animals Talk_. In Chapter VI he writes "It was as if one were whispering a secret and the other [the horse] listening." I suggest this book  be referenced in an appropriate place. The book is still in print (2015), with the best edition IMHO being the 2005 from Bear & Co., Rochester Vermont. Am offering this FWIW. Those with a stonger interest in this page, please take what action you think appropriate. 50.136.206.38 (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can provide a link via Google books or Hathi trust, that would be great.  We need page numbers and such for a proper cite.  Montanabw(talk) 20:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Reference 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Natural horsemanship. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.animalsandsociety.net/assets/library/734_s1.pdf
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://horsesforlife.com/content/view/1687/1433/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Natural horsemanship. 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/20150703160819/http://www.markrashid.com/blog_archive.php to http://www.markrashid.com/blog_archive.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) 16:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)