Talk:Arapawa pig

Is this a breed?

I've just removed from this article some stuff about how it is not a breed but a "landrace" (a word we don't usually use in English); editors may like to note that this is exactly the same argument that was recently presented, and dismissed in short order, at Talk:Kiger Mustang.

I've no idea whether these pigs constitute a breed or not - they don't seem to be reported as such to DAD-IS - but the article has exactly one source at present, and that is entitled "Arapawa Pigs: A Rare Breed of New Zealand Origin". In Wikipedia we base articles on the sources, not on personal opinion or conviction; that source seems reliable (it's the Rare Breeds Conservation Society of New Zealand), and also incidentally links to the breed standards for the Arapawa Pig. If there are other sources that say this is not a breed but a "landrace" then please cite them so that they can be weighed against this one. I had a quick look and didn't find any such. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

First off, the word "landrace" is "usually used in English"; see the various sources already cited at Landrace and there are many others not cited there yet. You're making the same argument Montanbw made two months ago against use of this work in horse article, only find <oops> that Sponenberg, et al. clearly do apply this term to horse and other domesticated animals. It's a general zoology term, and it's not particular to horse or pigs or whatever. The very fact that it is applicable to pigs is proven by the existence of formal breeds called the Landrace [capitalized] breeds, derived from actual landraces as standardized breeds that breed-true the chosen "characteristic" traits of the landraces in question.

Secondly, you're misrepresenting entirely the nature of the RfC at Talk:Kiger mustang, which was a split or re-scope discussion; it did not challenge in any way the idea that the article in question covered both a landrace population and standardized breed (possibly two separate ones, that may be trademarked) derived from the landrace; the discussion concluded against the idea of treating them in two articles, or in significantly re-scoping the article to focus on one rather than the other. The article still need work, because much of it conflates the two populations, in what amounts to accidental original research.

The same things seems to be happening here, with WP:FILIBUSTERing of any attempts to differentiate between the actual feral, landrace population and the bare beginnings of an effort at standardized breeding (F1, with a tiny number of piglets, only 4; it takes several generations to establish a standardized breed, so no such breed yet exists, and many if not most attempts at breed establishment fail). Trying to spin this article as being about a standardized breed is a WP:CRYSTAL policy failure. The fact that the Rare Breeds Conservation Society of New Zealand have made up a "breed standard of sorts for these efforts[1] simply tells us they have a plan, something they are breeding toward. They're clear that they don't even know what they're really going to get and that the "standard" is a draft that may change: " NOTE: as domestic breeding and feeding continues, type may well change to resemble domestic type...[list of some predicted changes]". I.e., it's their goal to have the standardized breed differ from the landrace population it's being derived from (as is almost always the case in such breeding efforts - they want to capture a few particular traits, and ditch the rest). Come back in 10 or 15 years with a breed standard published and accepted by mainstream New Zealand Pig Breeders Association, and an actuall multi-generational, stable F4 or later breeding stock in notable numbers, then you've got something. And you definitely don't have that right now. Let's quote directly again [2]: "The Rare Breeds Conservation Society of New Zealand recognizes a number of geographically defined feral livestock groups throughout New Zealand as individual breeds unique to this country." I.e., "breed" is a desngiation being imposed by RBCSNZ for their own internal puprpose; it's not a scientific designation by outside observers, but internal jargon. "Throughout recent decades various ‘identifications’ of these animals, based almost entirely on physical similarities to known livestock breeds, have been suggested, along with their ‘histories’, few if any of which have been the result of valid research of original sources of information. Many of these have become accepted as fact by rare breed enthusiasts as well as members of the general public – both in New Zealand and overseas – although several have been proven recently to be incorrect. At no time has the administrative Committee of the Rare Breeds Conservation Society of New Zealand formally accepted any of these identifications or histories as having any official status or support – sometimes in the face of considerable pressure for it to do so. The Society disassociates itself from all such unofficial designations as applied to any of our feral animals...." I.e., even RBCSNZ is rejecting claims that these or another feral populations within their scope are identifiable as any sort of standardized breed at all or even clearly related to anyway. Claiming in this article that they aren't is just OR, it's OR directly against the very sources you're trying to rely upon.

Third, no one is saying in the dispute text that it's "a landrace not a breed"; I'm applying Sponenberg and FAO's term "landrace breed", i.e. a "breed" in the broadest possible sense (broad enough for RBCSNZ's usage too), that also qualifies it as a landrace under the criteria describes and reliable sourced in the landrace article, to distinguish the feral population from a would-be standardized breed. Editwarring away from this clarity is just going to confuse readers, for no reason whatsoever, except POV dislike of the word "landrace". You horse and pig people really need to get over the idea that every term that can be applied to such an animal has to be something that its own breeders prefer to use. There is nothing wrong with application of basic zoology terminology to pigs just because you don't like it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You're citing yourself again SMC, and again, accusing others of doing the thing that YOU are doing, in this case "filibustering." I see ZERO sources to support your position in either the article of the above rant. A one-paragraph plus one-sentence comment sets you off on a wall of text rant. This is bullying. So knock it off. Montanabw^(talk) 02:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Montanabw is again violating admininstrative orders to stop using article talk pages for personal attacks. Substantively: I can't cite myself, as I have written no published sources about livestock. Whether Montanabw personally allows hereself to acknowledge the sources or not is of no concern to me; the tag-team disruption on this article is going to stop one way or another, whether it be through ANI, an RFC, a WP:THIRDOPINION, or whatever.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Dispute regarding on "breed" and "landrace"

I keep being reverted not only on use of the word "landrace" in this article, despite the fact that this fits the definitions at Landrace, but on every change I make here, by the same two editors who follow me around and revert most of my changes to all domestic animal breed articles. It's not a "breed" except in the widest possible sense of that word, and it definitely qualifies as a landrace. The editors in question keep claiming that it's original research to use the term "landrace" here. I counter that it's original research compounded by POV-pushing to keep try to suppress the fact that this is not a real breed, it's just a feral, free-breeding population. I'm happy to have an RFC about this, or some other process for resolving this dispute, but it's not going to go away by WP:TAGTEAM revert-on-sight behavior.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You left this edit summary: "Landrace is perfectly well defined at that article. No evidence, at all, anywhere this is a standardized breed with a breed registry and a capitalized name "Arapawa Pig". Auckland Island pig is "pig" not "Pig", too". That displays a quite extraordinary lack of understanding of how we work here. To summarise:

• Wikipedia is based on reliable sources
• We don't care what's true, but what is verifiable
• Wikipedia cannot be a reference for itself
• Attempting to impose a personally-held point of view against the evidence of the sources is contrary to our policy of neutrality, which specifically "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic"; it "is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it"
• Your assertion that this breed "fits the definitions at Landrace" (a page largely written, by the way, by one editor, yourself) is what in Wikipedia we call original research.

I won't go on. I am, frankly, quite amazed that you that you do not know and understand those basic principles. You, on the other hand, should not be at all surprised if you "keep getting reverted" until and unless you start editing in accordance with them.

There's one source in the article. It (a) clearly states that this is a breed, (b) links to the breed standard for the breed, and (c) writes it as "Arapawa Pig". I've asked for comment on the reliability of the sources at WP:RSN#Arapawa Pig. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You just go right on incorrectly lecturing me, meanwhile I've been reliably sourcing the article better than you have, and the sources show that a <sarcasm>whopping</sarcasm> 6 breeders were attempting to establish a standardized breed from Arapawa stock, were changing it from the original in various ways their draft standard predicted, and we have no data at all on their progress or failure since 2008; that's 6 years in which the entire project could have collapsed, could still be struggling or could have succeeded; WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. Now you're going to tell me on what reliable sources basis you're going to continue pushing the angle this is a formal breed, and capitalized? Oh, by the way, I provided a realible source against capitalizing it as "Arapawa Pig", too. So SMcCandlish 2, Jlan 0. Shall we go for round 2? Or maybe you want to realize that you don't WP:OWN the articles and no matter what your distaste for terminology unfamiliar to you, or for me personally, this isn't going your way, not even with a coordinated WP:TAGTEAM to evade 3RR. You don't get to suppress science terms because they're not the terms you like best. To address your non ad homimem points, the article has more sources from the same publisher now, and they do not write "Arapawa Pig" except in title-case headings. Meanwhile they state clearly that labeling this as a "breed" is something they are doing for their own internal purposes; it's NRBSNZ insider jargon, is is not a fact they've pulled from any reliable sources such as zoology journals. If NRBSNZ decided to call them a "supermegabreed", WP would not follow suit, per WP:NEO and WP:NFT. RBCSNZ is reliable for all sorts of limited things, but not for redefining the meanings of zoological terminology on their whim. One thing they're reliable for is rejecting various claims that this is indentifiable as a standardized breed or even clearly related to any, because they've done the research and it comes up empty. They've even issued warnings that claims some breeders are making may be legally actionalbe as fraudulent. But I guess you missed all that.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

PS: You and Montanabw both really need to get it through your heads that people referring you to citations in other articles isn't "Wikipedia citing itself", a claim both you sport-argumention fans falsely make about twice per week; it's a pointer to where the homework has already been done for you, so you can just go spending two minutes looking at it and actually have some pertinent facts in hand, for a change. You two do clearly care what is "true", in your personal reality tunnel, vs. verifiabile, as you keep ignoring or selectively misquoting sources to try to get your way. Fortunately for WP, some editors like me will check your work and call "shenaningans" on source misuse like that, as I've done here and in so many other articles. I kind of specialize in it at this point. My policy analyst, tech writer and paralegal backgrounds make me good at it. It's how I brought the race-bating hatewars over Turkish Van, Van cat and Van cat naming controversy to a standstill, without even having to get anyone blocked under WP:ARBAA2.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

SMC, your mastery of accusing others of doing what you are actually guilty of doing is stunning in its toxicity. I've never seen the like of it. Montanabw^(talk) 02:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice personal attack. I seem to recall you were administratively warned against making those on article talk pages. This one seems to be self-descriptive, as usual.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it was a joint caution, which you ignored. And truth is always a defense. Montanabw^(talk) 05:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Montanabw was issued a joint caution by an administrator to stop using article talk pages as venues to pursue personal disputes, such as these psychologically projective accusations of psychological projection, and does not appear to be abiding by that warning, continuing to eject all manner of emotive, unsupportable accusations like "mastery of accusation", "you are actually guilty of doing", "stunning in its toxicity", "vicious personal attacks", "edit-warring" "exploding with vitriol", "accuses opponents of indentical psychological projection". This is not an isolated incident, but a long-term pattern on Montanabw's part. To get back to the substantive issues, I see that none of them I have raised have been addressed by Montanabw, by Justlettersandnumbers, or by anyone else.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

{[od}}SM raised a suCbstantive issue? I see no such thing, just more rants and attacks. Montanabw^(talk) 03:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Original research

SMC, as usual, you are engaging in vicious personal attacks,using walls of tl;dr text for edit-warring, and then exploding with vitriol whenever someone calls you on the reality that you create your own reality: You work on WP articles in one place (i.e. landrace) then edit-war to keep your version against anyone trying to disagree with you until you have run off everyone else, then use that article (filled with your own opinions and original research as well as mis-cited sources) to argue that article should be a source for another article. This will not hold up under scrutiny, and you need to stop this now. Here, there is ZERO evidence this pig breed is actually called a landrace by anyone, and absent a solid source, just the observation that it might parallel Sponenberg's definition of a landrace is WP:SYNTH at best and not acceptable. Montanabw^(talk) 02:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Quote me engaging in a "vicious personal attack". Do so quickly before I take you to ANI for making one yourself with that very accusation. Or perhaps obey the administrative orders you're under from admin Dreadstar at Talk:Landrace to stop personalizing disputes on article talk pages. I let you slide on that again and again and again, but my patience is running out. I work on many articles in many places. Unlike you, I do not have a particular focus. Try it; it gives one a broader perspective.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, you just did. Oh, and I am terrified of your threats, quaking in my boots. Beware the WP:BOOMERANG. Montanabw^(talk) 05:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Note that Montanabw interprets any criticism at all as a personal attack, and treats dispute resolution as a childish combat game. This is why these article talk pages keep getting mired in off-topic histrionics.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  15:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Note also that Montanabw attempts to insinuate something "threatening" about me noting problematic behavior patterns and running out of patience with them, but has been maintaining a "dirt list" on me, since 25 September 2014, at User:Montanabw/ANI sandbox 2. It's a dirt-file Montanabw has kept on various users for several years, and a good candidate for WP:MFD per WP:UP#POLEMIC, and routine deletion of such pages when they are not used for actual dispute resolution in a timely manner.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yup, and a previous one survived an AfD. Listing diffs is perfectly appropriate. Also, SMC has been making comments about the grand list of diffs he is accumulating on me. So all's fair here. Montanabw^(talk) 03:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Explaining reversion:

1. The New Zealand Pig Breeders' Association is just a trade organization and a non-profit; they aren't an official governmental agency that "recognizes" anything. They explain that the "primary focus of the Association is the encouraging the breeding and showing of pedigree pigs." Their focus is very different from the RBCS, it's apples and oranges, thus not a reliable source for anything about the Arapawa pig
2. I don't really care who wins the capitalization wars, I have no dog in that fight, but I defer to the person who started the article. However, the sources use capitalization, so it is reflective of the source.
3. Comments such as "Under a very broad definition of "breed"" are WP:OR, and inserting your own opinion into the article. This is improper in the landrace article (where I have given up beating my head against a brick wall with you) as well, but certainly there are no sources for it here.
4. I removed all WP:SYNTH - to state that there are attempts to create a "formal" or "standardised" breed is SYNTH.
5. Taking a breeders' list that clearly states that it only includes people "who have requested a listing in the Directory" and saying from that list that only six breeders are trying to create a "standardised breed" is SYNTH in the extreme - it is completely unverifiable!
6. The comments with the breed standard link are something of an out of context non-sequiter - yes type may change, but who knows? Putting in that note is simply out of context and a bit POINT-y.

There are more reasons your edits were problematic, but I will not create a wall of text, as I am quite certain you will dispute everything I have listed here and will not agree with any of it anyway. But if anyone else cares, here it is. Montanabw^(talk) 03:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

NB: The fact that I'll probably dispute much of it is means the content and sourcing and neutrality are disputed; QED. This is a reason to discuss toward consensus, not a reason to avoid doing so.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

1. Says who? I don't see that you get to determine that organization's reliability personally. They're certainly a source for the fact that no such breed is recognize by them. You're only too happy to rely upon organizations like this when they support points you like, as you often do in horse related articles. YOu're cherry-picking sources, and even from inside sources, and this is not permitted.
2. "Who started the article" has nothing to do with WP:AT policy. If you have no "dog in the fight" then don't put a dog in it. I provided, and you deleted, sources against that capitalization. Do it again, I'll see you at a noticeboard. I'm have had it with your "my opinion trumps reliable sources" nonsense.
3. Observing that a definition is broad rather than narrow isn't OR, it basic fact. Constantly using the fallacy of equivocation to try to hide the fact that you're trying to have "breed" me different things in different cases, as long as it supports your personal views, is what is WP:OR here. In particular, you keep engaging in WP:UNDUE, using one orgnization's odd-ball definition of something for its own internal purposes as if it were a well-accepted one that applied universally, and can be used by anyone in any context. I already shut you down on that at Landrace, and we go through the same process here if you like. I'm not sure what it's going to take to get you to stop it. At this point, I'm tempted to review a large number of horse and other articles you've worked on and verify their sourcing, because I see you programmatically, predictably playing very obvious games with sources, games we do not permit.
4. You need to re-read WP:SYNTH. I didn't mean what you think it means. When some pigs are taken for captive breeding to try to establish a breed, and few years later they issue a draft breed standard with note about thow they expect the nascent breed to diverge over the next few generations as teh develop it, there's not SYNTH anywhere in saying that they're attempting to establish a formal breed. The SYNTH is in you taking these hints of such activity and insisting that there is a breed already, and going out of your way (both you) to suppress any suggestion that the success of such an endeavor is open to question, adn that the result of it, by the very definitions in the breed standard, will be a standarized breed that differs markedly from the feral population. They even spelled otu what the the differences are that they trying to engineer.
5. It's not SYNTH, it's the information we have available. What you don't have a source for is anyone other than those breeders being involved. Given that breeders can't breed without stock to mate, it's unlikely that any breeders participating would not be listed there. The wording can be tweaked.
6. You just didn't or didn't want to understand them. I've already re-explained their import, so maybe you get it now. Not at all POINT-y, and not all at all out of context (ps: it's non sequitur).

There are more reasons my edits were not problematic, but your blanket reversions were, like WP:ENGVAR violation, etc. I'm not just going to blanket-revert you, but you need to stop engaging in that behavior yourself, of you know it's just going to escalate. PS: You're supposed to justifying, with clear rationales, what you're doing anyway, so all editors know what you're doing why. Has nothing to do with whether I personally will like your reasons, though I'm glad you think so highly of me.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

tl;dr again. You have no sources of your own, as usual, refuse to do more than provide your own rants and insults. Montanabw^(talk) 05:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Montanabw keeps deleting my sources. "Tl;dr" just means "I can't answer your reasoning, so I give up, and pretend that waving my hands around hysterically constitutes an argument". We have a page about this here, called WP:IDHT. Refusal to hear others and to address their view is an anti-consensus, non-constructive pattern of obfuscation and blocking of editing progress. I remind Montanabw of the WP:5PILLARS: "You will be edited mercilessly". Accusing me of making an insult without proof is another personal attack on Montanabw's part, after being administratively warned against misusing article talk pages for personal attacks. Now, back to the improvement of this article: I notice that zero of the points I raised have been addressed. So, all of my points still stand, and given that they were reasons why Montanabw's and Jlan's own were faulty, I have to conclude that support for the changes they want to make in the article are notably weaker than that for the ones I'm proposing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

After several more rounds, below, this still seems to be the case.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

No, you are not adding new sources, you are using the same ones and taking what is said out of context. I reviewed all the sources and AFAIK they are all included. NOWHERE does it say the are trying to create a standardized breed; they merely have said that piglets have been raised successfully in captivity. SMC, YOU need to re-read WP:SYNTH because that is what you are doing. And I am not engaging in a debate on your terms, so claim all the things you want, ranting and bullying others doesn't make them so. Montanabw^(talk) 04:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The issuance of a draft breed standard is by definition trying to create a standardized breed! Next.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

PS: Note how, after I point out that Montanabw and Jlan are have cherry-picked selected bits out of context from the same sources that contradict them, Montanabw projects this onto me, and then accuses me of the projection; this pattern has been ongoing in various articles for over three months now. It's a form of gaslighting. This is one of many reasons I think this article and several others involved in similar disputes need concerted third-party review.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yup, only it is SMC doing the gaslighting. IMHO, of course. Who has the time to go through the reams of bandwidth to figure out who said it first? Montanabw^(talk) 03:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not a "draft" standard, it is a breed standard created by request of the organization. Yes, it might mean they might start a registry later, but then they might not. This is one thing I mean by SYNTH - drawing a conclusion from the evidence where there is insufficient evidence for that conclusion. Now, WP:LAST. Montanabw^(talk) 22:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It clearly is a draft, as it discusses quite frankly that they expect the phenotypic details of the animals – the very points of conformation – to change in major but not entirely predictable ways, in the short term. All you have to do is read it, instead of make assumptions about it. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make linking to WP:LAST. This is not a personal opinion conflict, like an argument about which Led Zeppelin song is best, this is discussion of objective sourcing matters related to the article. That discussion continues as long as it needs to, with as many parties as care to participate, hopefully quite a few more. You don't get to declare the conversation over, nor dismiss a reasoned refutation of your assertions by simply claiming someone is trying to get the last word. There is no nanny-nanny-boo-boo here. Do you have an on-topic response to the point I've raised or not? And let's not forget you've failed to address the previous one, so I'll repeat it and omit the word you don't like: The issuance of a ... breed standard is by definition trying to create a standardized breed. I have now refuted two more of your positions, on this subthread alone. There are many other refutations, above, that you have not addressed, and they are not going away. We can open an RFC about each one individually if that's what it takes to come to a consensus on this article's content and accuracy. You keep labelling my refusal to allow you to ignore arguments you don't like as "bullying", but it's not. It's standard operating procedure in article accuracy and neutrality disputes. Discussion continues until consensus is reached.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Minor clarification: I DID remove "pigs.co.nz" because it has nothing to do with anything, it is an organization for pedigreed show breeds, and the conclusion drawn from it was pure SYNTH. I also removed the directory because it is an opt-in page and also did not verify anything - as people self-select to be included, it only stands to note that six breeders wanted to have a listing, not that there were only six breeders, or that ANY of the six were attempting to create a standardized breed. Again, SYNTH in the extremeMontanabw^(talk) 04:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It's the principal NZ registry for all pigs breeds, not just "show" breeds. Very few pigs of any kind are show-only or pet animals, and you know that. Please stop playing games. And especially stop misrepresenting sources. The only SYNTH happening here is yours.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

You are now showing your lack of background on agriculture matters. Livestock shows are all over the place, every county fair in any rural area has a pig show (additional material) and not just for "fancy" breeds.. The site itself lists only nine breeds of pig, and clearly says "A primary focus of the Association is the encouraging the breeding and showing of pedigree pigs." This is not a governmental organization and it is not involved with feralor landrace breeds - in fact, they even say they have diverged from breeders who are primarily interested in commercial (i.e. industrial strains) pig farming. [3] Montanabw^(talk) 22:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

You're making personal assumptions you cannot support, and which are in fact incorrect. I grew up in a semi-rural environment, with livestock, from a farming and ranching family. A funny story is that my mother had a favored lamb when she was in her early teens, and when it won the blue ribbon at the Curry County Fair, and was put up for auction she pitched a fit and my grandfather had to outbid everyone to buy it back. I entered chickens, rabbits and ducks in the fair myself. Standard livestock/poultry breeds, not "fancy", "show", "designer" breeds. Did you think I just woke up one day and though, "Weird, I have this sudden interest in animal breeding that I never had before"? Livestock shows are not comparable in much of any way to pet animal shows; you're using the fallacy of equivocation again. You went on at some length at Talk:Landrace about the alleged special genetic evils of "show breeding" and "designer breeding", clearly referring to pet breeding for non-practical traits. You can't redefine the word "show", in relation to breeding, on-the-fly to refer to livestock shows as if the term were synonymous. Livestock shows are generally for practical conformation breeding, to supply the agricultural market with stud and brood animals of high quality for productivity and work. (Yes, there are also now "designer" breeds of what were once formally only practical livestock and poultry, but we both know that's not what we're talking about here, and certainly isn't what the NZ pig breed registry is. The NZ registry is of standardized practical livestock breeds, not pet animals like potbellied pigs, and the showing going on is of those animals, for the purposes of the livestock trade, not "show breeds" a.k.a. "designer breeds", for pet-owner vanity. So, another refutation; do you care to address it? Afterward, get to the real point which you skipped: no breed registries anywhere consider the Arapawa a standardized breed. All three of us, I think (you, me, Jlan) have been looking, and it's just not there. I'm not imputing any motives to you, but it seems to me that you are refusing to yield on these points simply to be seen as WP:WINNING. I don't see how that serves the interests of article accuracy, encyclopedic integrity, and reader education.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Livestock shows are not for "pet owner vanity." 4-H alone disproves that. Please stick to reality and once again, please stop going off on flights of synth. Montanabw^(talk) 03:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

My real point: No breed registries anywhere consider the Arapawa a standardized breed, just a feral population. All three of us, I think (you, me, Jlan) have been looking, and it's just not there.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

A feral breed is not a landrace breed. We appear to agree that it is not a standardized breed. Beyond that, this is not a high school debate where one side gets to frame the argument and the other must respond to the first side as the first side frames it. This is a review of sources and accuracy, NPOV and RS. I also have no interest in going back to undergraduate philosophy and playing "gotcha" with assorted games of logical fallacies. Did all that 25-30+ years ago. Montanabw^(talk) 02:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Many feral populations are landraces, even your much vaunted Sponenberg says so; the terms are not mutually exclusive in any way. This population fits the definitions of an animal landrace. I don't care what you have an interest in; if edits are defended with fallacious reasoning, I will point it out. That's how real life works. At least, yes, we do now agree it's not a standardized breed. Will hold you to that. Have other stuff to do for now.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources

It's childishly simple to find sources that refer to this pig breed as a breed. I've added a couple. Perhaps SMcCandlish would now either cite some sources in support of his position (which, if I've understood it correctly, is that this is not a breed but a "landrace"), or agree to drop this particular twig? This search may be helpful. Or do we need an RfC here too? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Fallacy of equivocation. "Breed" has many meanings. You two are trying to use RBCSNZ's internal use of breed, which they say themselves is their own broad term for their purposes, so broad it even include "feral populations", a definition so broad, I don't think anyone else in the world uses it that vaguely, to suppress sourced information that no standardized breed has been established. it is a pseudoscience view, that if the points of a definition of landrace are met by a population - this one fits them all, item by item, right down a checklist of them - that the term magically can't be applied until a source uses it that that way. Science and its terminology don't work like that.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You are providing your own definitions again, theY are using the American Livestock Breeds Conservancy's definitions, in part, note the Bixby source. Montanabw^(talk) 04:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a reprint of a tertiary source that does not cite its own sources, and is making its own definitions up on the fly; note "Landrace, as used here, is..."  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, Sponenberg says something pretty similar and he is an advisor to that group, which is a RS on rare breeds. Please stop attributing motive to me, you are unable to read my mind and I am tired of your accusations that constantly twist my words or accuse me of doing precisely the behavior in which you are engaging. This is not a high school debate meet, this is a discussion of reliable content and I am tired of your failure to do any significant research, yet</> fling accusations at others who spend time and energy to provide rational, quality work Montanabw^(talk) 22:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

You cite "Sponenberg himself" here in relation to pigs, but elsewhere suggest it's only possible to apply his material to horses; cherry-picked out-of-context quotes. Same goes for treatment of FAO sources at Landrace, and the NZ rare breed group's website when it come to capitalization. We need totally independent eyes on these articles. I was looking into WP:THIRDOPINION but that avenue isn't available because Jlan's participation makes it more than a two-party dispute. The page is locked for now, so we can chill out about it for a bit.

Our dispute is about source interpretation and applicability – a core part of how we serve those best interests of the article, encyclopedia and reader, that we're both trying to serve. Stick to the policy matters and the sources. When I observe what I think is a SYNTH, UNDUE or POV problem, I spell out precisely what problem I see and upon what basis.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

See, this edit summary is incorrect, doing as it says is talking about editor behavior and not the editorial content of the article. I tried removing most of the comments about others in this one section, [4]. You really do need to stop commenting about each other on article talk pages, it's bad. Dreadstar ☥ 18:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dreadstar: I think you're conflating addressing editorial conduct/decisions/actions (and objections to them), with simply "commenting on editor" in a pointless, personally antagonizing way; they're different. I'm not sure how to address the problems with regard to how these sources are being used (and edited away) without addressing editing patterns. As I said, I'd have the same objections if it were some anon or Jimbo or whoever; it's not about this particular editor, as a person, it's about the series of edits and the effect their having, and the stated (not imagined) rationales behind them. How are we to proceed?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not conflating anything. See your key word there, "conduct", "decisions", "actions", followed by the end of your statement "it's about the series of edits and the effect their having, and the stated (not imagined) rationales behind them", this is not the venue for discussing conduct issues, which is exactly what talking about another editor's 'series of edits and the effect' of such. Try to separate the content and issues from the editor, comment only on content. If you think there are issues with another editor's decisions, or actions, or conduct, then take it off the article talk page per WP:DR. Dreadstar ☥ 23:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic. Dreadstar ☥ 15:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I provided rationales for my edits, they are clear, supportable and within the scope of the sources. SMC disagrees with them. However WP:BURDEN is on SMC, as he is attempting to add the material on landrace issues and such. I am willing to discuss anything "personalized" elsewhere, though I doubt it will be fruitful, previous attempts have failed. Montanabw(talk) 02:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC) I am un-hatting comments collapsed by SMC. This is highly inappropriate. SMC also ALTERED MY COMMENTS. He may strike them, but removing and rephrasing is inappropriate. I stand fully by anything I have said here, but . That said, in the interest of trying not to personalize comments, I have struck some of my statements that appear to be overly personalized on my part. I suggest SMC likewise do the same for his own comments here. That said, I'd be glad to assist in refractoring SMC's comments that I view as personalized toward me should SMC be unable to determine what he has said that I have found offensive. Montanabw(talk) 02:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Try paying attention to edit history; Dreadstar moderated both of our posts; you're now editwarring with an admin to reinsert antagonistic material he administratively removed. <sigh> I'm just going to ignore the rest of this for a while until your temper has cooled.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Please strikeout your own personalized comments that he missed, then. If you are filled with AGF, prove it. (hint: Start with every statement that includes the words "you" or "Montanabw" or "Jlan". And also read WP:BAIT. Then please cease doing so. Montanabw(talk) 03:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)