Talk:Charrería

charros versus vaqueros

Until the advent of Mexican cinema, but no earlier than the end of the Mexican Revolution, most of the ranch hands throughout Mexico were simply vaqueros. The only charros were the hacendados of Jalisco, some of whom evidently were descendants of men from around Salamanca in Spain. The typical vaquero---that is, 99.9% of the working ranch hands---was typically mestizo or indigenous, and could never afford the fancy outfits worn by the hacendados, nor is it likely they would have been allowed to wear them. The fancy outfits of the wealthy hacienda owners are what is taken as the "charro" costume today. These costumes lend themselves to the showmanship of modern charreada events more than the plainer, dusty, dirty, but practical outfits the real vaqueros wore at real rodeos. A charreada is just a fancy-dress rodeo where everybody plays the hacendado and nobody plays a vaquero. Tmangray 18:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you please explain why the statistical information about magana was removed. This is information that was verified by videos.

(````) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmj8757 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Two events in the last month with no injuries is comparable to the ancedotal stuff on the other side that's already there. We can keep some numbers, but in a summary, just as the other examples were summaries. As far as videos go, we really don't want to start down that road because one search of YouTube, particularly if linked from SHARK or PETA, would bring up all sorts of horrible, gut-wrenching things on the other side. (Thank me, I found them, but I didn't add them because I don't care much for hyperbole from either side) I'm really trying to help out here, but the bottom line is that wikipedia has a certain way of verifying things, (read WP:V article) and while your work documenting injuries is actually a really good idea, it's also really new, and so we have to summarize. Montanabw^(talk) 20:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Abuse controversy

You say the statements that were removed are promotion and the statistics are speculation. Then why is the Chavez letter allowed to remain that the informal statistics allowed to remain. It seems inconsistant and even discriminatory.

(Rmj8757 (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC))

I moved them down to be side by side with the animal welfare group's statistics. The idea is to keep the subjects grouped. Montanabw^(talk) 04:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I posted more statictics and some information about what the Charro response is. It was removed. Can You explain why — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmj8757 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC) (Rmj8757 (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC))

I posted statistics from Texas Charreadas, with a reference. They are not comming up. (Rmj8757 (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC))

Hi Rmj, per your comment on the 9th, I reformatted the material and moved some of it. Your earlier edits need to have "http://" with the web URL to work when people click on the reference. Some of your edits are not going to pass muster with wikipedia because they are too narrow to be statistically relevant. Beyond the one or two anecdotal reports you have been so kind to provide to balance the other one or two anecdotal reports, what is needed in the long run is not an event-by-event commentary, but instead at least a season's worth of legitimate statistics, not a report from three or four events. The PRCA studies I think covered dozens of rodeos over a fairly long time, the study was done in the 1990s, it was done by people independent of the PRCA, I think, and I believe veterinarians were the people who were on-site for the study and so on. Montanabw^(talk) 04:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

---

I just spent a fair amount of time looking up research sources on the animal cruelty issue and then sourced the section extensively. I attempted to explain each side's view, though material is rather scarce. If there are other viewpoints that can be properly footnoted, then they should be added. On this topic, it is important to have a fair argument for each side and not to just blank things people disagree with. Please remember WP:NPOV. Montanabw^(talk) 06:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Cesar Chavez

Did Cesar Chavez actually testify in favor of the Californian ban of horse tripping? He died well before the legislation was enacted, and - supposedly [1] - before it was even "submitted". - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The law was submitted in June and Chavez died in April. If you go to the material that was the reference, "The Cultural Defence", you will find that the article says that the "The California Equine Counsel" say that this Chavez opposed events in Charreada. Yet there is no reference to where he did this. The closet he came to criticising charreada is a letter to Eric Mills about the American Rodeo. If you google Cesar Chavez and rodeo, you can find the letter.

Mills, who is one of the first to condemn mangana and now cola, has finally conceded that Chavez never said anything about charreada and that few animals are seriously injured in Charreada. Maybe Mills did not conceded this, he just stopped saying that Chavez opposed Charreria, when I asked him to produce proof of his oposition.

I don't mind being fare about this issue. I have always said there is a danger to the animals in any sport using them. Steeplechase, Eventing and rodeo, all kill animals. Just like high school football kills children.

What upsets me, is when these fanatics call a beautiful tradition like Charreria a shaddow sport. What upsets me is when they compare it to dog fighting.

If you look at what the critics have, you can find one coleadero in Colorado, where two steer were shot by a couple of deputies suposedly becase they were seriously injured and the Doyle statistics, which if you read the actual report just mentions one horse that had to be put down and then these new statics that were from and unnamed source at an unnamed feedlot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmj8757 (talk • contribs)

OK, i don't know about Caeser Chavez, and to be honest i hadn't heard of him before looking at the article, but my take on this is that we have a citation for this claim, which seems to meet all the requirements of WP:CITE. If we are to remove the statement or place the opposite view, we would need an alternative credible citation which dismisses it, as per WP:CITE and WP:V. Unfortunately, someone no longer makign a claim doesn't seem to meet this criteria, although dependant on the original source, we could say 'claimed' or something similar. If the law there is anything like in the UK, it seems at least plausible that he could have contributed - the submission of an act is usually the culmination of a long process which lasts months or even years - they're not usually plucked out of thin air.

I am far more dubious of the data around the other statistics quoted by the animal advocacy organisations, and would really like to see some original data or reports. Does anyone have a link to the original Doyle report, as I don't seem able to find it?

Regards, OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 08:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I found the sources provided and tried to speak faithfully to what they said. In short, there just isn't a lot out there, but when some specific events are banned in seven US states, all of which are in rodeo country, is pretty significant. Note that my edits reflect that the problem is not with charreada in general, only with three specific events. We can certainly tag and discuss, but as far as WP:V goes, the sources meet the criteria. If people disagree, then it is their job to find other sources that contradict this one, not just state that someone, somewhere did so. Rmj may be right or wrong, but without sources, we don't know one way or the other. If we can find better sources for any of the above, that is all to the good. I know that both rodeo and Charreda are controversial, but most of the differences in the critiques between the two surround the horse-tripping events. I can't find anything on the steer tailing stuff, I do know that the PRCA eliminated steer-tripping in favor of team roping, except in a couple of states, due to animal injury issues. Owain, Cesar Chavez is a significant figure as a spokesman for the rights of Mexican-Americans and Mexican migrant labor for decades. I'd be interested in seeing his original comments if someone can source them. I believe his point was, basically, that even if something was "cultural," if it was also cruel, then it was an anachronism that needed to go, cockfighting was once an American tradition, too, especially in the south, but we still banned it. Montanabw^(talk) 16:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I dug a little deeper, clarified the quote from Cultural Defense, and found the actual statement of Chavez, updating the article to match better, I hope. The Chavez letter mentions rodeo and bullfighting, but not charreda, however, it DOES appear to be the document people are using when they state that Chavez opposed horse-tripping. In absence of other works, this is the best I can do for now. Hope it helps. Montanabw^(talk) 19:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

So if the letter does not reference Charreadas, why include it? Cesar Chavez was an American born labor rights leader for farm workers who were mainly immigrants that worked long days, they rarely participated in Charreria. US Charros are mainly first and second generation Mexican Americans who have established themselves in a favorable economic situation. Farm workers were being taken advantage of, I highly doubt Chavez was even aware that Charreria existed as a competetive sport. Being a vegan, I also see Chavez as having a biased view on any type of Rodeo, including a Mexican one. He was a Latino Labor Rights Leader who had more in common with Animal Rights Groups (whos underlying agenda is to push the general population's embrace of vegan-ism) than with true Mexican American Charros (who take pride in embracing and preserving their Mexican heritage). It seems to me that this is an apples to oranges type of comparison, Chavez being of Mexican descent is really of no importance. The important thing here is to dispel the belief that Chavez is a legitimate spokesperson for the entire Mexican American Community. This guy was anti-immigration, legal or illegal. That alone creates much animosity within the community. Charroescamilla (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

His critique was of rodeo and related sports closely related to and inclusive of charreada, so not at all apples and oranges. The people who oppose charreada often cite his work as support for their views. There is a wide range of views on the Animal welfare-Animal rights spectrum; the PRCA opposes horse-tripping-- I'd hardly accuse them of having a pro-vegan agenda. What is critical is that this article reflect all views. The last thing you want is for the editors on wikipedia who edit the animal rights articles to get ahold of this one and start an edit war that gets it locked down. My interest in this article, as well as the rodeo articles, is to try and keep a balance of views per WP's Neutral point of view policy. The Chavez piece needs to stay, at least until something better on that side comes along. Montanabw^(talk) 23:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If you really want to get into it, his critique was on the use or manipulation of animals outside of their natural state as being violent. "Rodeo and related sports" is not in his letter to Mills, Bull Fighting or Cock Fighting are not similar to Rodeo or Charreria in any way. The man was a labor rights advocate not a Charro and much less a Mexican American Equestrian. The Chavez statement on this article is anything but neutral and in fact unnecessary. The statement does not appear in the Rodeo, Bull Fighting or Cock Fighting article, which are referenced in the Chavez letter and I bet if it was added you would excuse it as a rant or even meaningless. I understand that you wish to keep the point of view neutral, but I find it unfair that you decide to keep this Chavez statment based on the fact that he was of Mexican decent, wrote a letter where he makes no mention of Charreria and a cited source exists. Charroescamilla (talk) 08:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorting out issues

The below, copied from my talk page to make sure everyone can comment,

Firstly, thanks to rmj for engaging - constructive work will make this article a lot easier!

---

Cesar Chavez

About Charreada, my god the man was dead. How can he testify. If you go to the source of this statement, “The Cultural De fence”, you see that it does not support the statement that Chavez testified. It says that Chavez was against Charreria. This is based on a statement of the California Equine Council, Cathleen Doyle's group. If you look at the footnote, you see it references a piece of propaganda from that same group. That propaganda, says that Chavez and the Mexican American Political Association oppose Charreria, without any reference. That is because Chavez never said it. He did write a letter condemning the American Rodeo.

OK, as discussed earlier, i hadn't even heard of him until this week, but his being dead at the time of the bill's submission doesn't necessarily preclude him from having contributed, as bills are usually discussed for quite some time before actually being submitted. But I am interested in making this article right and in line with the WP policies. This is being discussed above, so hopefully we can sort this out there.

What you are saying, is that if is someone makes something up and it is misquoted on Wikipidia, it is OK. That is pretty silly.

In this case, WP:V applies, and in this case, the source quoted is reputable. That said, i think we can improve the wording around it to relate the attribution to the source.

Statistics

I am told I cannot put up disputing statistics about Charreada. Yet it is OK, for Doyle's silly statistics to stay up. Doyle's statistics say that of 75 or 78, horses used in Charreada, only two did not go to slaughter. The fact is, they were going to slaughter, whether they were ever in a lienzo or not. If you go to the source, Horse tripping facts, they only one horse that was documented as being seriously injured.

The second set of statistics talk about 2 to 5 horses a week being seriously injured. When you go to the source, you find out that the source is an unnamed individual at an unnamed feed lot. I know you are from the UK, but this is the kind of thing Joe McCarthy used to do.

OK, as I said above, I'm dubious over the original statistics, and would like to see the original. Do you have a link? Failing that, given the POV of the source, I am tempted to disregard their statistics, in favour of the more generally provable aspects of their campaign (that they don't like it)

When it is pointed out that over 1000 manganas, 2000 colas and 600 piales were done at the National Finals in Pachuca Mexico, without any injury to the animals, it gets removed. When it is pointed out that during the five days of the State Finals in Texas, not one animal was injured, it gets removed. Both statements were supported with references.

OK, this would be a good statistic, but we've got no proof that 'not one animal was injured'. It might be true, but as far as I, or any other editor knows, it is equally likely that all of them were mortally wounded - i have no reference point without a citation. If you can find a reputable source, then this could go in, but as with the Doyle stats, if they come from a POV source, they might not be reliable enough.

Laws

You also let the animals rights fanatics point out that seven states have made laws against mangana, but you take out the fact that they failed in last three states where they tried to get laws passed. This was referenced to the Denver Post and the Carson City News. When it was pointed out that the PRCA and the United Horse Organization opposed the passage of the law, as stated in both the Denver and Carson City papers, the comment was removed. This did contradict the statements made by the critics, who maintains the PRCA, support the ban. The fact is the PRCA, did oppose mangana, but it has changed its mind. They finally came to the realization that if you stop the roping of one species, they you can stop the roping of all of them.

OK, so the laws are factual, so there is no reason to remove them. Do you have some citations that we can see for three states having rejected a ban? If you can post a few links here which show that, then we will certainly include it. The same goes for the PRCA - have you got some evidence in a source that they have changed their position - if so, then we will certainly include that too.

Shadow sport

You allow a blatantly racist statement about Charreia being a “shadow Sport and akin to dog fighting. When it is pointed out that the events are widely advertised and that anyone with a video camera can go in, it gets removed. This is true, even though there were multiple citations.

To an outsider on this topic, this doesn't strike me as particularly racist, but a comment on the sport supported by at least 2 citations, even the more sympathetic ones, which mention the unregulated instances of the sport, which aren't advertised, and have a charro disparaging them for not being part of the organisation. Maybe we need to draw a distinction, but a valid source has claimed this, and so it can stay. If you have a counter source then that's fine, but listings pages don't really cover it, we need an actual article, book or something similar.

Centre of gravity

One of the most ridiculous statement made in the criticism is the one about calves having a lower center of gravity. When it was pointed out that even calves in the American Rodeo are subject to Newton's law. This comment was removed even though, it was referenced to “rodeocruelty.com” which shows dozens of calves and steers being seriously injured in the America Rodeo.

OK, again rodeo is something I know very little about, but detracting from one sport doesn't help in an article about another. What I have read seems to suggest that this is true, with smaller animals being less prone to injury when roped, due to the fall distance. Why does this sound ridiculous?

If you really want to be fair, then take out the criticism, or post both sides.

Great, I would love to put both sides, so if you can help us by coming up with some references as noted above, hopefully we'll get a nice balanced article.

Original post: (Rmj8757 (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC))

Replies: OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 17:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for sources. If Rmj has them or will give us links to them, I have no problem adding them. I believe in having a fair and balanced article. On one hand, the whole "cultural defense" issue does raise a legitimate question if bans on charreada and not rodeo do reflect anti-Mexican/anti-immigrant racism, which is a serious problem in the American southwest. On the other hand, though, I will say that making an argument that charreada has fewer animal welfare concerns than rodeo isn't going to fly. Rodeo, also a sport with Mexican roots, is not without its controversy and legitimate concerns, but there is a lot more data out there and a lot more scrutiny. Montanabw^(talk) 17:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Edits

Thank you for your help. You have to understand that the animal rights fanatics in the US, just make things up. There are still problems with this article. The articles says that charreria is a shadow sport akin to dog fighting. That is an opinion and one that is not very widely held. Charreria is practiced by over three hundred teams in the United States alone. It has published calendars, numerous web pages and in San Antonio Texas, it is an integral part of “Fiesta”, where two are held one at the Start of the 10 day festival and one at the end. It is supported by multiple public officials from the mayor to the US congressman. The Sheriff and the Chief of Police show up, along with the District Attorney. The only people who think that it is a shadow sport are a few dozen animal rights crazies.

The rights fanatics, have conceded that Chavez never said anything about charerria, so why does a letter about the American Rodeo get referenced in this article.

The rights fanatics talk about teeth being knocked out and bones broken. In 20 years, I have seen almost 1000 captures in piales and mangana Not one horse has suffered either of those injuries. A horse can be killed in an improperly done mangana. Doyle say one, and I have seen another. Horses do not get hurt in piales. Charros do. If you want to see more about this, watch the video “charreada is not animal abuse “ on you tube. It has some technical problems, but you can see what I mean.

The problem of the statistics is still apparent. The ones about the 2 to 5 a week horses being so severely injured that they has to be destroyed are absolutely false. If you look at the reference, it is just not creditable. Furthermore, if a horse has to be put down, you have to pay for it. Even a small horse is going to weight 800 lbs. At $.50 a pound, that is $400.00. Then you have to pay the rendering plant to pick it up. That is anywhere between $100.00 and $300.00, depending on how far the truck has to come. If the Charros were putting down 2 to 5 horses a week, they would be bankrupt in a month. If you are wondering how I know this, I ran the San Antonio Charros for almost 10 years. We had to put down three horses. One because a board broke in a shoot, and the horse was impaled and two died because of heat prostration.

The other statistics are just as silly. If you look at the reference material, you can see that, only 1 horse is referred to as being injured. No where does it say that the other 74 were injured. Those horses were going to be sent to slaughter, even if they never saw the inside of a lienzo. Also why should unscientific “informal statistics” be part of an encyclopedia. Do you think “Britannica” would accept this?

I understand that the critics have a problem with Charreria, I just don't think they should be allowed to lie about it.

(Rmj8757 (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC))

The references are what they are. They are not "silly," they are anecdotal, just as are claims that animals are seldom to never injured are also ancedotal. Data is scarce for this sport. If a reference is not phrased to reflect its content, no problem with rephrasing so long as it's accurate in content yet isn't a word-for-word copy. If you have sources that provide the other view, all we need to do is to source them, so please provide links. My view is that "critics" are not telling "lies," they are just people with a viewpoint and who are working from the knowledge available to them, just like you and I. These animal sport articles are all pretty controversial, I've been working to keep the rodeo article balanced between the extremists on both sides for about five years now, and I try to be fair to all views. (I won't touch the horse slaughter article with a 10 foot pole, though; too many people with intense emotions there even for me! =:-O )

FYI, I found that Chavez letter -- it appears to have been written to an animal welfare group and is now used primarily by those seeking to ban horse-tripping (not all Charreda events, by the way), and has been noted for that purpose in multiple sources during anti-horse-tripping debates. Though he mentions rodeo, it doesn't seem to be used much by the anti-rodeo crowd. If you look at the actual document, Chavez opposed cruelty to animals generally, and I think the reason his letter was a big deal was that a person of Mexican descent disapproved of animal cruelty, "cultural" or otherwise. (He also condemned bullfighting, not an USA sport at all). As for statistics, neither you or I can trump the wikipedia WP:OR policy -- our observations aren't hard statistics -- I've probably seen a thousand calves get roped and not personally witnessed one be injured, but that doesn't mean it doesn't occur. I saw a bucking horse run into a fence and break its neck once, and another break its leg, but an anecdote isn't a statistic, it was a situation where idiots were in charge of an unsanctioned event. Montanabw^(talk) 03:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

this page-some degree of protection?

Just a thought but perhaps this article should be protected to some degree. the sheer amount of propaganda type stuff and reverts that are needed - mostly caused by rotating IPs Nirame (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's warranted yet, it's almost all one user, Rmj, who is kind of new to wikipedia and I think forgets to log in sometimes. Rmj has very strong feelings and at first was a bit disruptive and I was my usual "revert too fast" self ;-) , but he's getting the hang of how things work, and as we've been sorting things out he has actually found and contributed some material that helps provide info on both sides of the picture. I was kind of worried at first, but now that Owain is also on board, there are 2 or 3 more sets of eyes here than mine, I think it's under control. If the hardcore animal rights crowd shows up and things get overemotional or edit warring starts, then I'd agree that protection would be needed ASAP. But for now, I think Rmj is intense about the issue but is not really being disruptive. I am trying to take each of his edits and try to reformat them into something that will pass muster with WP:V. It's going to be tricky to keep this article neutral as clearly there are extremely intense feelings on both sides. Montanabw^(talk) 04:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

hmm i think this will keep people busy. pity pending changes never took off might have been good for the likes of hereNirame (talk) 10:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Sacharro figures

In regards to the figures being used to claim no injuries by the Charreada Charros of San antonio and bexar county. I was happy enough when it first went up, but I am now starting to have concerns. Firstly, the quote in the text doesn't match the figures shown, which say one Charro broke his eye socket, whereas the data shows 0 Charros injured. Secondly, it is starting to look a little suspect to me that in 188 events not a single rider or horse has been injured? Not one slightly lame horse? Not a single thrown shoe? Not one rider with a sprained ankle? If that's the case, then this is the safest horse sport in the world! In 188 instances of hacking a single horse out for pleasure i'd be relatively pleased if i didn't have one instance of foot soreness or something minor (and if it's my wife's horse, i'd been pleased if it got ridden out 188 times without causing someone a bruise!)

Ultimately, it seems likely (or at least WP:DUCK) that Rmj has some interest or knowledge of the publication of that source, and it therefore seems to fall in the realms of WP:SELFPUBLISH and isn't a reliable source. Even if no editor here has an interest in the site, it still appears to be both self published and dubious.

The solution? I think it still might be worth mentioning in passing that some regional Charros are claiming to collect data, and the source can stay for that, but I think having the figures in there gives WP:UNDUE credibility to the source, and its mention in the lead is also unwarranted.

Any thoughts?

OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 07:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm certain that there is a self-publish problem here, but as I am trying to balance the views presented, I have to admit that the other side has inadequate and self-reported documentation also, so the fix is in on both sides. I do think that all the stats on rodeo, etc., and probably here as well are primarily concerned with injuries to the "rough stock" -- the roping and bucking animals. I don't think even the PRCA keeps records of, say, bowed tendons on the barrel racing horses. I figure that as long as the info is roughly balanced, NPOV is met. My take is that we can say that a) Animal welfare groups have concerns, b) The Charro groups have begun to address these concerns by beginning to gather statistics this year, c) the only solid studies that exist anywhere were done on rodeo, which is analogous, but not quite the same. Maybe the stats themselves can be cut and replaced with a general statement that references the appropriate page on the other web site that is keeping the records. If you want to do some cleanup, I see no problem. Maybe a good idea to have a third party do a run-through. Montanabw^(talk) 23:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Charreada. 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/20110816195630/http://dnn.epcc.edu/nwlibrary/borderlands/10_la_charreada.htm to http://dnn.epcc.edu/nwlibrary/borderlands/10_la_charreada.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130315182541/http://www.idausa.org/facts/horsetripping.html to http://www.idausa.org/facts/horsetripping.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://lienzomagazine.com/wp-content/documents/FMCHSB364.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081123072049/http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=pp_en_rodeo to http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=pp_en_rodeo

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charreada. 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/20110903115809/http://www.ahdf.org/tripping.htm to http://www.ahdf.org/tripping.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.equinevoices.org/pdf/pdf/rodeosch.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charreada. 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://archive.is/20120719202616/http://www.americanhumane.org/animals/animal-welfare-news/american-humane-opposes-tail-grabbing-rodeo-to-be-held-in-jefferson-county-colo.html to http://www.americanhumane.org/animals/animal-welfare-news/american-humane-opposes-tail-grabbing-rodeo-to-be-held-in-jefferson-county-colo.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Title should be "Charrería"

I think the title should be "Charrería", not "Charreada". "Charrería" is used in the Spanish Wikipedia version of this article and seems to be more commonly used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1Trevorr (talk • contribs) 17:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your input. Please see Charreada at Encyclopedia.com first. [2]. dawnleelynn^(talk) 17:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC) And see [3] too. dawnleelynn^(talk) 17:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)