Talk:Cowboy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Negative associations

Am I supposed to post new discussions at the top or bottom?

Isn't this is against Wikipedia's policies / rules?

" Worldwide, the term "cowboy" can be used as an adjective in a derogatory sense to describe someone who is violent, impulsive, or who behaves in a hot-headed and rash manner. For example, TIME Magazine had a cover article about George W. Bush's "Cowboy Diplomacy," and Bush has been described in European newspapers as a "cowboy". "

I recall something about TIME Magazine writing it, but I did not see any sources cited. I am unsure how this is a neutral or relevant example. -Looks- more like a attempt to insult our current president. I think it is off topic. Anybody else? Dprabon 02:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

New topics are most easily created by clicking on that little "+" tab at the top. As far as "cowboy" as a negative term goes, it probably needs to stay. We can probably find a dozen sources for the GWB=Cowboy thing, maybe add a tag as a reminder. But remember, Wikipedia isn't just for Americans. it is worldwide. The section is relevant, GWB HAS been called a "cowboy," and it is a useful example of how the phrase is used. I suppose the paragraph could be softened up a little, but the bottom line is that it IS how the American president is described in some circles. I can see some wisdom to deleting the word "violent," from that sentence. That's a bit extreme for describing the use of "cowboy" in a negative sense. Rash, impulsive and hot-headed is pretty much standard description of "being a little too cowboy," though--even in cowboy land where I live. Montanabw 04:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Cowboy Page

I changed this page from a redirect to a disambiguation page, so as to match the "cowgirl" page. The woman on top postion is also refered to as the "cowboy sex position" (ride him like a cowboy), and that page already redirected to woman on top.

21:40 7 Feb, 2005

Strong disagree. "Cowboy", the occupation is iconic, that it is also the name of a sexual position by those who use such jargon is extremely minor. The cowhand article should actually be at "Cowboy". Quill 23:26, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I checked the links and there is no cowboy position. The editor is either misinformed or intentionally vandalizing. I'll go ahead and change the redirect back. There does seem to be a need for a disambiguation page though; to talk about how the term is used in the UK--I'll probably call it Cowboy (disambiguation). Frank101 04:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Cowboy page is, it seems, still redirecting to Cowhand - as of 23 Feb 2005. I have not changed it to the disambiguation page that Frank101 mentions as I dont want to interfere with the discussion going on here - However I would like to agree with Frank about the need for disambiguation - especially in the light of the faux pas made by George W Bush on monday (21 feb 2005) when he stated that he 'needed a new cowboy' to Jacques Chirac at the UN conference in Geneva. This comment of G. W. Bush has caused a minor diplomatic incident, and been covered by most UK press as an outrageous insult - as it implies that Chirac is incompetent. Perhaps if there had been a wikipedia disambiguation page G.W's advisors might have realised what a stupid thing to say that was.

Cowboy Artists

What of the Cowboy Artists of America, an exclusive organization of artists dedicated to portraying the lifestyles of the cowboy and the American West, both as it was and as it endures?

True or false??

True or false: although this word is masculine in American English, it is generic in other kinds of English. Please suggest moving the article to the gender-neutral term Cowhand, with both Cowboy and Cowgirl being re-directs. Any objections?? 66.32.95.180 01:20, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

I object. I think it would be a good idea to create the article Cowhand and the three should co-exist and link to each other appropriately. Cowboy and Cowgirl are both worthy of individual articles and can be expanded. I don't agree that the three should be merged. - Tεxτurε 04:23, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, currently cowgirl re-directs here. This certainly is sexist. 66.32.97.243 21:24, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. It seems to me that "Cowboy" refers to a popular and inaccurate conception (or icon, or characterization) of a person in the stereotypical "Wild West". Cows, I think, have nothing to do with it. Perhaps there should be two (or three) articles. "Cowhand" should be about the job of a cowhand in reality. "Cowboy" should be about the icon, noting that it originally refered to cowhands, but now is a sort of hyper-masculine, independent symbol. Sort of like neanderthal vs. caveman. Quadell (talk) 17:48, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

What does "hyper-masculine" mean?? 66.245.5.89 19:26, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Probably just a poor choice of words. "very masculine". Quadell (talk) 19:32, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

I for one would prefer a cowboy entry. for one thing the term 'cowboy' in the uk is iconic of a character from the wild west and the term cowhand is not at all applicable in the U.K. we have farmers that look after cows and cowherds but no cowhands. we do however have cowboys, they dress up in wild west style clothing and buy country and western music.

but my main objection to it is that it makes the addition of an entry for 'cowboy' (being an untrustworthy or unscrupulous tradesman in the U.K.)impossible. I considered wether this was simply a phrase and therefore not eligible but came to the conclusion that as there were more cowboy plumbers in the uk than cowboy enthusiasts and that both were equally recognisable to themselves and others, it probably should be in the pedia. as far as the reclassification being based on gender goes I agree with Quadell cowhand for the agricultural profession and cowboy for film genre, icon etc. after all John Wayne nor Yul Brynner were ever cowhands.

Cowhand is merely a subset of the diverse definition of Cowboy. Cowboys are more than cowhands, they are iconic legends of film, poets, presidents, farriers etc, to limit them to cowhand with redirects based on some gender issue detracts from the greater cultural and historic meaning of cowboy. --Loganis 19:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

_{Subscript textSmall Text}== Unclear line ==

I think the clause "Poor weather and management in the 1880s lessened the need in America for ranching cowhands" is unclear. Why did poor weather lessen the need for cowhands? And was it poor management, or just management? Either way, how did that lessen the need? I would rewrite this myself, but I'm not well-versed on the topic and so I don't know what information the author wanted to convey.

Sorry. I mean to sign the Unclear line comment. Noob alert! --Macchiato 18:32, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sexism Revisited

That's an interesting discussion under True or False, above. For the record, I weigh in against empty 'political correctness'; I don't know of any English speakers who would refer to 'cowboys' (or girls!) as 'cowhands' in their regular parlance; in fact, I can think of only one example of a use of the word 'cowhand' in popular culture. I do think that this is handled very well in the article, though.

If you want to bring up sexism, however, how about the fact that the entry at cowgirl says more about a sexual position than it does about female cowhands? Quill 20:40, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• What do you think is a better gender-neutral term?? 66.32.248.241 23:09, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• A better gender-neutral term for what? (NOT trying to be sarcastic or funny) If you meant for 'cowhand', I don't think that there is one and my point wasn't to find one; I just meant that I didn't think 'cowhand' was in common use. As I said, I think the treatment of the issue in the article is very well done. Quill 06:07, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Page is poorly named

Cowhand is a poor name for this page. It violates the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)—"Use the most common name of a person or thing". I know of no cowboy who finds the term cowboy offensive, even Indian cowboys (see All Indian Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association). If no one objects, I will move this article and its talk page to Cowboy in a couple of weeks. -Frank101 17:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, good luck with that. It won't bother me, but based on the issues raised regarding sexism, above, some folks will probably object. I'd read through the comments first--seems to me as though this might have existed at cowboy and then was moved. Quill 23:47, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually I did check the page history when I first happened across this article a few months back and thought it odd then. When I came across it again I did a bit more investigation and concluded it was improperly named. I don't feel that a consensus was reached in any case. Most talk appears to be about having two pages if a cowhand article is needed, not about moving the cowboy page here. A real indication that this page is wrongly named is that of the almost 200 article that point to this page, only two (2) are cowhand in the actual article and even those 2 probably mean cowboy. That's excepting the redirect pages of course. And more than 175 articles actually point to cowboy and are then redirected here. About the only time anyone actually says cowhand is to rhyme with Rio Grande. As for the sexism charge (prejudice on the basis of sex), someone who understands will have to clarify what that means as it applies to naming conventions at Wikipedia. The page has many errors that can't be fixed until it's determined if this page is to be about cowboys or about ranch workers in general. Frank101 16:07, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd support a move to Cowboy. violet/riga (t) 16:25, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I too support the move to cowboy

• Well it's been three weeks and looks like a unanimous vote to move to Cowboy; although I had hoped for a larger quorum. Frank101 15:55, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Done. violet/riga (t) 18:09, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A North American Phenomenon

After Reading through the text on the Cowhand page I have added the words North American as the 2nd & 3rd words because it seems clear to me that the term is a regional one, but had not been identified as one.

In fact the subsequent paragraphs go to some lengths to give other regional variants for Mexico, Spain and even Australia. The previous text gave the impression that cowhands or cowboys is the default terminology for one who tends cattle, whereas this is actually only the North American term.

perhaps the disambiguation page when it arrives could also list the counterparts from other nations.

I appreciate that the phrase is a bit controversial atm. and that the term cowhand simply refers to "one who tends a ranch" etc in America - Whilst the term Cowboy is fairly well internationalised as a genre of fiction and film. As it stands I believe that Cowhand in the strict definition of the term outlined on the page is far more regional than the term Cowboy which unfortunately does not seem to have an entry. until it does, Cowhand should not be misleadingly referenced to be an international definition. DavidP 18:27, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Overuse of Hispanic stereotypes

The Iberians were never the only cattledrivers of the Old World. In every country environment of Europe, there existed mass farming and herding societies of which cowboy life was exemplary. To be specific in the case of Southern American cowboys, they were of the Scottish Borders persuasion. These are the guys we see in Western movies, copied by John Wayne and Clint Eastwood. There is a severe lack of respect for the Southern cowboy here, with a total need for a rewrite. Read about Reive, Border country and Border Reivers. These are the real American cowboys who settled the backcountry. They did NOT get their lifestyle from Hispanics, which is completely ignorant! Whilst Spaniards introduced the lifestyle to Mexican Indians, Britons introduced it to American Indians. I know when I hear a Scottish burr in the Southwest! You know, that accent the Northern Yanks make fun of them for? So, learn to respect the South and don't y'all call them Mexican! Learn about Robert Roy MacGregor and tell me he's a Mexican! POV in the article is based upon American Civil War prejudices. Don't forget the European Union nicknames Americans as cowboys, when they are referring to the Southern United States' presence in national politics. ScapegoatVandal 07:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

More on the pioneering role of the American cowboy definetly needs to be added. The European uses can also be affectionate. -Wikipedia-fan

New Mexico Cowboys

Donald Chavez is a respected author in this field (see Origins of the First American Cowboys). I read his work when I first started to add to this article. My idea was that this article was to be about the North American cowboy only, and that Vaquero, Paniola, and other Spanish based ranching traditions were subjects deserving separate articles (such as gaucho, llanero, and huaso have). As such I left much out about vaquero history and tradition and spoke mainly to the American migration into the West. And I still think a Vaquero article would be better than expanding this article to include all of their history and traditions. However, that is just my opinion. Mr. Chavez, if you get a Username, other editors would be able to talk to you on your discussion page. Or if you prefer to use an anonymous account, those interested will talk to you here. Frank101 2 July 2005 20:42 (UTC)

Racial origin?

A guy I know, who's black, told me that the word "cowboy" originally refered only to black people. White people with the same job were "cowpokes" or some other term I don't remember. This sounds like it could make sense, seeing as black men were routinely and demeaningly called "boy" until relatively recently, but I've never heard this claim before. Does anyone else have info on it? Can it be verified or debunked?

Hello, Yes this is very true. Many people don't know this fact. White men were never referred to as boy or Cowboy they were called Cattle Ranchers. The Black men who did the same thing were called CowBoy because the White Ranchers could not stand to be at the same level of a Black man. But the term Cowboys to refer to Black Cattle Ranchers was somehow phased out when Hollywood enterred the picture. I guess Cattle Rancher movies aren't as appealing as Cowboy movies. I will have to do further investigation as to when this occurred. But Wikipedia needs to do more research of its own. Nita November 7, 2006 1:23pm

Geography

The article talks of the "North American" cowboy but the word Canada is not in the article at all. It is really about US cowboys. That's fine since the cowboy as icon is strongly associated with the US. However, in Canada, especially Alberta we also have cowboys. This area was once home to open-land ranching and is still a major cattle-producing area. Infact, there are more cattle in Alberta than people. As well, Alberta Hosts the Calgary Stampede and the Canadian Finals Rodeo among others. Canada should at least get a mention.Kevlar67 13:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

---

The main page states that calves are "branded or marked." I live and work on a cattle ranch in northern New Mexico (I suppose that makes me a "cowboy") and the state requires all cattle to be branded (which, I think, is true of most states in the USA): the "or" is therefore not quite correct for many parts of the USA.

Out of 365.25 days a year, a "cowboy" will work cows and calves about 70 days. In late winter and early spring of each year, the calves are ear-tagged and their gender noted; pregnant heifers who have never calved are separated and monitored several times a day and they are helped if they have problems calving. (This year we lost a five-year-old cow and her unborn calf when the calf got "stuck" and there were no people to help her: it is not only heifers who have calving problems.)

Then at the start of May the calves and cows are rounded up and separated: neighbor's cut out their cows (and of course the cow's calves follow) and drive them away to other ranches. The calves are then separated from the cows; the calves get branded on their left hips, and an ear tag crimped onto an ear: bullcalves get castrated and become steers. The cows get inoculated and/or get antibiotics. The bulls, if they will fit in the working chutes, also get inoculations. If pests are a problem, the cows and bulls get sprayed.

In mid-May the herd is driven to their spring and summer grazing. They stay there until fall, when it is once again time for fall round-up. Summer grazing is usually as high in altitude as the rancher can get them: above 8,000 feet is ideal since, with shade, cows and calves can live comfortably.

In the fall, the calves are separated from the cows; the bulls get sent to the bull pastures, the cows are sent to the fall and winter grazing areas, and the calves are loaded onto trailers and taken to the sale barn. Old cows and injured cows are some times loaded up and also taken to the sale barn; when that happens, heifers are selected from the year's calves and sent out with the cows to the fall and winter grazing areas as "replacements."

Every year or two the bulls are replaced for genetic diversity.

Most of a "cowboy's" time is spent mending fences, checking feed and water in the grazing areas, repairing ranch equipment, gardening, shoveling horse shit, grading dirt roads, fixing roofs, etc.... a "cowboy" they can go two or three months and not see a cow and still keep busy.

However, there is also a job known as a "Vaquero" or "calving hand" who spends all summer with the cows and calves, up on mesas or other lonely places. The Vaquero lives alone in a trailer, gets paid almost nothing, and has almost nothing to do but work cows and calves and mend fences. These "cowboys" are usually older men who have worked cattle much of their lives. --Desertphile 00:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Sir, I don’t need to wonder if I’m a cowboy or not and I’ll be damned if someone is going to say I “garden,” or “shovel dung,” or “repair fence." I imagine you’re pretty handy with a head shoot and a syringe and a four-wheeler, but some guys are still working like men and you’ve done them a disservice here by describing the absolute degeneration of the trade.

(HH, The Pitchfork, The Arapaho, The Spanish, The IL, The YP, 6666, ZX, Squaw Valley)

You sir, are a beef-farmer.

Cowpuncher

I'm not quite sure how to bring it into this article, but it seems Cowpuncher should me merged into this article. There's not much information there, but enough to at least make for a sentence or two. I've applied the proper tags according to WP:MM. - Chris 19:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Cowpuncher is a short-enough entry, and in my mind is just another word for cowboy, so I support this merge. Wisekwai 01:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• That sounds right, but a quick google points out there are other slang uses, listed on urbandictionary.com - however my network refused access (don't ask me why), so I can't check whether they actually make a difference. Fastifex 09:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Cowboy vs Knight ?

It seems to me the cowboy in US legends is equivalent to the knight in European legends. Any thoughts on that?Cameron Nedland 02:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hardly- knighthood (the 'real' one, not honorary orders) was an elitist social caste of warriors, soon mostly noble born and/or enfieffed, serving s crack cavalry and/or endowed with lordships of their own; the legendary 'knights' as in the Arthurian legends are rather anachronistically renamed paladins, romantic heroes that have little in common with real knights. Cowboys on the other hand always were ranchhands, either restricted to the humble hard work of the grazing range, often in pioneer country far from 'organized' civilisation and grand feudal tradition. Fastifex 14:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about both legendary versions.Cameron Nedland 22:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

So what? Which legendary knight (just a rmaticized version, a bit more noble and heroic) is like a cowboy, a wouldn't be mortally insulted to be even compared to what he (or his author) would doubtlessly consider an ignorant peasant? Fastifex 08:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Cameron on the premise that the cowboy, like the knight, is a highly romanticized and popular stereotype that is not entirely rooted in reality. This is why one is able to find few Western movies set in the last few decades and many that are set during the Old West. Like the knight, the cowboy is a fictional romanticization of times long since past. It is frequently argued over what a 'real' cowboy actually is, but the fact of the matter is that what people understand to be 'cowboy', that which they idealize and strive to be, is largely a fictional creation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_%28genre%29

Popular Culture

This section looks lost at the moment - suggest removing the image shack link to pictures rather than replacing it correctly formatted. The section seems to have been opened but with no text for some time, well I couldn't find any useful contribution in it, perhaps best removed altogether for now? 4wd 22:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)=4wd

Cheers - better now! 4wd 13 June 2006 (UTC)=4wd

A New Thread

Hi. The section on working cowboys is misinformed. On a “big outfit,” both cowpunchers South and buckaroos North – do NOT have individualy specialized tasks. they also very rarely do any feeding or fencing as that is the job of lowly “rosin jaws,” or farm crew.

A big outfit cowboy will spend his day riding circles (gathering and trailing cattle to fresh feed), working rodear (holding cattle in a group while one rider enters the herd and separates strays or sickly cattle or heifers about to calve, etc.), shoeing his string, roping and doctoring, roping and branding, roping for the hell of it ... running “shitters,” (mustangs) in the great basin so the B.L.M is reminded of its truck-bound incompetence; breaking colts, breaking legs, drinking hard, cashing 3 months of pay at the casino and blowing it all in one night at the whorehouse ... going out with the wagon ... fighting ... and most of all: a big outfit cowboy spends his day rejoicing in the absolute uniqueness and nobility of his craft .

Until that one day he finds himself on foot and dejected and lost in the modern necropolis, talking to space, and compared to people who cover themselves in corporate slogans and pervert and exploit what is not theirs. Until that time when every open space has been consumed by the goosestep of progress, and the ranches replaced by feedlots, the skilled and hearty replaced by opportunistic weaklings. Until that time when soft people dream of removing the death from life, comfortably numbed with i-pod/pop tart movie poster mind lollipops and downy dreams of unicorns. Until that time when humanity has eclipsed itself binary.

Use of the horse

I think it is worth pointing out that inherantly, a horse can go almost anywhere a cow can. It eats what a cow eats. Whereas a motor bike can get bogged or otherwise stuck where cows wont and it needs external supplies.Garrie 05:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Dubious: history section

"In the early 1600s, the Spanish crown, and later independent Mexico, began offering empresario grants in what would later be Texas to US citizens who agreed to become Mexican citizens and convert to Catholicism."

The passage raises some questions:

• Where did they find US citizens in the early 1600's? ha ha
• What were the stipulations before Mexico was independent (did they have to become Spanish citizens?)

A Pattern O 04:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point, wonder if that's a typo and should read "1800." I think Mexico became independent about 1821? If you can find a source, go ahead and correct the date and anything else that's inaccurate. I'm starting to clean up this article a bit too, but as I am personally more familiar with the post-civil war history of the cowboy, anyone who knows more about the Spanish stuff should feel free to dive in! I suggest we also start to try to improve the verifiability of this article by footnoting anything we add that can be attributed to a source. Montanabw 19:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

vaqueros

los vaqueros were and are great people in the mexican heratige —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.160.125.139 (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Colorado

While this section i had proposed could definitely use a rewrite, I think there are a lot of important pieces that are not addressed thus far in your article, particularly the tools of the trade, and more information on how the role of cowboy varies greatly from place to place.

From the 1800's on Cowboys in the state of Colorado played a slightly different if more robust role. A highly skilled and talented worker, cowboys influenced by the geographical diversity and extremities of climate in Colorado needed to hone a variety of skills including but not limited to; hunting, carpentry, ranching & roping, leatherwork, Farrier, etc.

The same could be said of cowboys in Montana, where I live. The same could be said for cowboys in New Mexico or Arizona. Or Utah. Or Idaho. Or Oregon. Or Eastern Washington. Or, for that matter, Alberta, Canada. Seriously, "my state is unique" stuff would never end if we start talking about the details and be fair to everyone. Next thing you know, folks from Georgia or Tennessee will want to weigh in because they have cows there, too.<sigh>

But the bottom line is that if you read classic texts on the cowboy tradition, everyone else's stuff derived from the vaquero tradtions that entered the USA first via Texas and California then spread from there. Hawaii and Florida got their own sections because they were so culturally unique.

Your point is taken, though, that perhaps we could perhaps add a bit more about how most cowboys did need to learn and use these other skills, and maybe we could generally speak of climate adaptations and how the cowboy of the intermountain west had to deal with the fact that it gets colder than crap and you have to deal with snow up to your keester every winter. Maybe rewrite the above to omit specific mention of Colorado and throw it in here on the talk page, then when we have the kinks worked out it can go into the main article. ;-)

Tools

I'll think on how to word this, but I think their specific tools of their trade are as important to defining the cowboy as any other. I'll get back to ya. The page could reference some cowboy literature as well.

(Remember to sign your posts with four tildes)

Be sure to read this WHOLE article first, there is already a long section on saddles, horses, clothing, pickup trucks, etc...one problem is article length. This article is getting bloated, though maybe further reorganization of sections would do the trick. IMHO, the cowgirl section could be a whole different article, except that it was, once, and someone merged it back into this one, so not going there for now. Montanabw 06:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Literature? Scholarly works or the genre? OH NOOOOOOO! Please, not Louis L'Amour! <grin>, though there may well be a place for a NEW article titled "Cowboy Literature" that could do this. (If there isn't a Cowboy poetry article, there should be!). Preferably with a link to Wally McRae's classic, "Reincarnation." <grin> Montanabw 06:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

It seems very unlikely that "buckaroo"" would come from Arabic for at least two reasons. First, so much else of cowboy lingo is derivative of Spanish. (Granted, some of Spanish comes from Arabic, but not vacca which is Latin). Second, the pronunciation of vaquero in Spanish, and especially, in the archaic Spanish which was prevalent in what is now the southwest US, was more like a "b" sound (baquero), very close indeed to the sound of buckaroo. The online etymology source is confused: they have bakara derived from vaquero! That ref. should be dropped. The second is inaccessible without a subscription, but the first page which displays gratis points to African languages and meanings which are not as close as vaquero clearly is. Tmangray 22:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If the phrasing is unclear, it can be clarified...the point is that Arabic language came to Spain and influenced Spanish, Spanish language came to America and influenced many English words. Buckaroo is derived from vaquero, which appears to be derived both from Latin and Arabic words for cow. Vacca in Latin and Bakara in Arabic. If you are correct about the "B" pronounciation in old Spanish, then this is even more apt to be correct. The online source is pretty light, it is more support for the other two, I'll take another look at it, though. The articles in question are annoying in only showing the first page, but the Google search had the necessary information in context, and the article can be obtained from a public library as well. The first one was arguing that the African words people thought applied to buckaroo were totally wrong and that the Spanish/Arabic origins were correct, the second article was basically a letter to the editor about the first article providing additional support. One or the other mentions that the OED also gives the origin of Buckaroo as bakara and vaquero, not the African words. The word Hackamore --> Jaquima --> Hakima is another example of an equine-related word that went from Arabic to Spanish to English. It's actually all quite fascinating. Arab culture also brought the Arab and Barb horses that crossed on the native Iberian animals to create some of the incredibly fine animals the Spanish were known for throughout the Middle Ages and Colonial era. the intermixture of the cultures is very interesting to track. Montanabw 06:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Spanish culture acquired a number of things from the Arabs, but the authoritative source for Spanish words, the Spanish Royal Academy, does not credit vacca to Arabic---and I might add, they are not slackers when it comes to giving etymological credit to Arabic when it is due. It might be that the Arabic word for cow derived from Latin as did the Spanish vaca. It could very well have happened in Spain. In view of the authority of the Spanish Royal Academy, I strongly suggest dropping the Arabic derivation. Tmangray 03:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, likewise the OED is usually the authority on the English language, but sometimes they get it just plain wrong when looking at American English words derived from things like Native American languages (for that matter, look how much someone screwed up "buckaroo," thinking it was African when it is actually Spanish). Given that Mexican Spanish and Castilian Spanish are not precisely the same, I feel it is acceptable to leave in both views, perhaps with language suggesting there are two views on the issue. Keep in mind two additional factors: 1) vaqueros and cowboys were not real high on the social scale and that the popular venacular may have differed (as it does now) from what is considered "correct." 2) The Arab influence on Spanish horsemanship was considerable. The animals, equipment, and riding style they brought to the Iberian peninsula all were nothing short of revolutionary; the way the two cultures merged and integrated is a fascinating study in itself--just comparing things like the la brida and la jineta forms of riding is fascinating. But enough for now. The citation is verifiable, the reference may be debatable, but as long as the reader is fully informed, he or she can make up her own mind on the matter. Montanabw 19:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What we need is someone or some source which deals with the Spanish Moorish dialect of Arabic. This dialect varied from standard Arabic which today has no such word even close to bakara meaning "cowherd". Recall that the Arabs of the middle ages excelled at preserving and developing elements of the ancient Greek and Roman cultures. You will, for example, find Arabic words relating to astronomy---names of stars for example---which are simply Arabized Greek names, taken directly from Greek texts. I suspect that the Arabs and their later Moorish cousins may have acquired the Latin word for cow and the cognate for cowherd from the Latin-speaking Iberians. The OED does not seem helpful in this regard. Tmangray 02:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Someday, like Cinderella's prince, our expert will come. In the meantime, I guess just sourcing every statement will have to do. Cheers. Montanabw 16:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

However, the online etym. dictionary is not supportive of the point made as it has bakara coming FROM vaquero, which is probably correct. So it's deleted. The extra stuff about Islamic rule in Spain is too POV in the context added. The counterargument that Arabic was influenced by Greek and Latin as well, thus being the origin of any Arabic dialect word for cow, could be added, but that would overweigh the section. I reduced the verbiage to a phrase at the end of a prev. sentence. Tmangray (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I"m OK with how you edited the article. It's well-phrased and gives some credit to Arab influence on horsemanship, which was my only real concern here. (And the Arabs obtained many of their horsemanship skills from the Ancient Persians, but I digress...). Montanabw^(talk) 04:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Cowboys wearing jeans?

A number of times i have see things with cowboys wearing jeans yet jeans were created by levi's in 1853 how does that work out Gaogier

Not quite. See Jeans#History. -- Donald Albury 21:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Cowboys today wear various denim jeans, most often Wranglers than Levi's, actually, as Wranglers have a smooth seam on the inside leg that minimize rubbing when in a saddle. Levi's actually have a think inide seam that can rub the leg pretty bad. Prior to the development of the modern blue jean, they wore whatever heavy, durable fabric was available in a given time or culture. Montanabw^(talk) 16:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What's the point?

It shouldn't be stated at the top that cowgirl redirects here. Don't you guys get it? There is already a dabnote on the section where cowgirl redirects.

The note at the top is misleading since there is not a mention on Cowboy (disambiguation) for cowgirl. And the note is basiclly saying "cowgirl redirects here for other uses see cowboy (disambiguation)." Again, what's the point? TheBlazikenMaster 13:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is probably room for grammatical improvement, but the point is to avoid confusion by folks looking for info on cowgirls. It keeps people from either re-starting an article on cowgirls (which was a separate article merged back into this one by consensus before my time), or from complaining here about why there isn't an article about cowgirls--it lets people looking for cowgirl info know they are at the right place. The dabnote at the subsection may useful because of how the cowgirl dab page redirects straight to that subsection, but if someone types "cowgirl" in the search box, they will get the cowboy page. There is a better argument to be made for tossing the dablink at the subsection header than the one at the top, if you really think that two are not needed. Frankly, I see no harm to keeping them both, it's all about people being able to find things they want to find, IMHO. But we can yak about this some more. Montanabw^(talk) 21:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It's still misleading. You see what I mean if you combine both the top lines into one sentence. I will change the note. TheBlazikenMaster 22:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done

I hope we can come on an agreement that my edit is much better than the older one. TheBlazikenMaster 22:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh honestly, yes it was an improvement and nicely done. But you really need not be so defensive about the topic. Montanabw^(talk) 04:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sensitive? I'm not sensitive at all, I just knew that the dabnote was misleading, so I had to do something. I'm not even watching this page, so I see no reason why I need to argue about this. TheBlazikenMaster 12:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and there is in fact no argument over the last change you made. But if you aren't watching this page, why are you replying? (grin). Montanabw^(talk) 23:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Because I'm looking at my contributions. TheBlazikenMaster 10:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Well, have a good day and appreciate the way you came up with an appropriate solution for the dual disambig situation. Montanabw^(talk) 05:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Cowboys were no gunslingers

The 'Tools'-section in the article states firearms (Rifles & revolvers) as being part of a cowboy's tools. This is completely UNTRUE. 19 th century cowboys almost NEVER carried firearms (Except, perhaps, on loan, to have their photo taken) for two 'Down-to-earth' reasons.

- They were far too expensive (A Model '94 Winchester was worth more than a years' wages to a cowboy).

- It was far too dangerous to carry a sidearm of the day while riding a horse.

A 'Cartridge-type' revolver, though cheaper than a rifle, was still way beyond a simple cowboy's means. True: Many did own one of the older 'Cap-and-Ball' style revolvers that had become cheap 'Second hands' after the introduction of the brass cartridge weapons. But they had them stored safely away with, perhaps chambers loaded with powder and ball, NO caps installed! It would be madness to ride a horse with one of those (Horribly instable) guns - ready to fire - in your pack; let alone in a side-holster! (And no: The hammer resting on an empty chamber won't do: ANY chamber, loaded, with a percussion-cap installed on the funnel won't probably wait more than a day - while on horseback - to blow your foot off!)

ONE man in the group though usually HAD a Winchester (On loan from the cattle-owner) in a saddle-holster to shoot predators and defend the hurd in general 81.245.177.43 (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If you read the full context, you will note that the list of cowboy gear is for modern cowboys, note there is also a discussion of the pickup truck, which did not even exist in the 19th century. Further, just because not every cowboy could afford state of the art weapons, they knew how to use them, at no point does the article imply that all equipment is universally issued. (Similarly, not all modern cowboys necessarily own a pickup truck) You may also want to note that the cowboy photographed in 1888 is carrying both a pistol and a rifle scabbard, and note that both tools are carried in working-style equipment. Black powder equipment predated the golden age of the open range. For anyone working alone or in a small group, protection from predators - both human and animal - was an absolute necessity. Further, your comments would be strengthened if you provide a reference source and spell check. (they call it a "herd"). Montanabw^(talk) 00:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

After reading your remarks and visiting your personal pages I can only come to the conclusion that you are just like me: A Grumpy Old Man (Seen the BBC2-program?) using a MAC. One main difference though: You know about horses (I don't: You can't hunt nor eat them), I know about guns (You have to (Know a lot about them) these days if you want the right to own them in Belgium). And yes, indeed: English is not my mother's tongue. I feel that arguments are NOT strengthened by a spell check (As I was taught in law school). That was an - unnecessary - agressive remark, very UN-Wikipedia. Are you capable of writing sensible text in five languages (Albeit NOT synthactically correct?). Now to the arguments:

Black powder may have predated the golden age of the open range but by the 1880's the majority of weapons in use were still of the 'Cap and Ball'-type, due to the prohibitive cost of cartridges and cartridge-type weapons; only gunslingers and ranch-owners had the more modern weapons. Cap and Ball was only phased-out by the advent of modern - smokeless - powder in the early 20th century.

TRUE: The article does not state that guns were standard equipment of the 19th century cowboy; but because of popular belief that this WAS the case (And no, I have no refference for this bold statement) it might not be a bad idea to clear this in the article.

I did not deny that it WAS necessary for SOMEONE in the group to carry a firearm in order to defend the herd (See: Got it right now), not even denied that most of the men were carrying them, only stated that, at most, they were carrying them - NOT ready to fire - in their packs and not by their side.

And as for the photographs of 19th century cowboys (Usually taken when they had become old, famous and retired): My grandmother also put on her best attire (One or two t's?) when she had her photo taken and NOT what she wore in day to day life. I have no PROOF that cowboys had their weapons on loan (By the photographer?) when they had their photos taken (Probably even their clothes too), just stated that the photos PROVE nothing. Don't you ever think that photos tell the truth, more than a tale or a hearsay.87.64.161.33 (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, so I apologize about the snarky spell check comment, but a knowledge of firearms doesn't make you an expert on cowboys. And I think you are still misreading the article - first off, the section you are upset about primarily deals with modern cowboys and their immediate predecessors at the end of the 19th century. Nonetheless, I do favor sources, and that is not a bad thing. Cowboy history is largely anecdotal (some of the old timers were illiterate), but I'll stick my nose into the Montana Historical Society and see what I can dig up. There may be room to clarify this, as apparently non-American west residents such as yourself must think that cowboys are an anachronism of the past (?) when there are still plenty of them today. Keep in mind that the "cowboy" was a generalist, not a specialist. A person in the late 1800's might work as a cowboy for a time, might do other work, such as military service or law enforcement, or market hunting, for a time. And whether you owned a gun at the moment or not, you knew how to shoot. There was no one single type of cowboy, cowboys ranged over an area larger than all of Europe with tremendous regional and ethnic variations. I am not familiar with, for example, the traditions of, say, the Rio Grande Valley, but I can speak to the Northern Plains. I'm a third generation Montanan who lived on a working diversified farm/ranch operation when I was a kid, complete with horses, branding, vaccinating, calving, etc. and while I'm not into guns particularly, I have lived all my life around them, we had a gun rack installed every pickup as soon as we got it, and so did everyone else. The late 1800's here had plenty of state of the art firearms up here.

Also, like I say, not every modern cowboy is issued a pickup truck, either, they borrow the ones owned by the ranch (and if they do own their own rig, they don't WANT to take it out in the field to get beat up and have the paint job scratched, they WANT to use the ranch's rig so they can jump stumps to their heart's content and let the owner pay for the repairs.) I will go and dig up some sources, but may take a while, I have other stuff to deal with too. I don't know if you will accept the evidence of Charlie Russell, who was noted for the authenticity of his paintings (not idealizing with fancy dress, but portraying the common man and working cowboy, which he himself had been for a time), and will look for other things but check out these: Russell, 1905, "In without Knocking", Russell, 1896, cowboy with holstered pistol, note holstered gun,note holstered pistol, note holstered pistol, etc. As I say, you may not accept these and I shall dig around for some text sources, but this is not on my "a" list of wikipedia priorities, may take a bit. Montanabw^(talk) 18:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Follow up, added source on weaponry, authored by a historian who worked for the BLM. Chapter from the book goes into extensive detail about all the makes and models of gun used in the 1880s and the evolution of preferences from one gun to another, far too much to include here, though I put in a summary that is a little more than on other equipment. Essentially, rifles weren't easy to carry on horseback while actually working cattle, but pistols were, rifles were and are carried at other times. Montanabw^(talk) 04:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

helmets in competition

in this article it says that helmets are not allowed to be used in rodeo competitions. i read an article recently that said that helmets were starting to be introduced but many people prefer their hat to the helmet. also, i was watching a rodeo on tv and i saw a few people wearing helmets. is this article just not updated or is my information incorrect? OGOLD (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll check. I don't think it a question of "not allowed," its more a problem of "not required." Also varies between sanctioning organizations, I think that Little Britches Rodeo may now require them, but I know for a fact that PBR does not. But I'll review how things are worded and clarify if needed. Montanabw^(talk) 03:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4