Talk:Parelli Natural Horsemanship

Edits to article

All editors please be aware of two wikipedia policies: 1) Neurtral point of view and What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a place for promotional advertising and it IS a place where all viewpoints may have a place. To that end, please do not remove footnoted material from the article, and best practice is to add a {{fact}} tag to other things that may be questioned. Parelli has both supporters and detractors, both view have their place here. Thank you. Montanabw^(talk) 04:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Youtube as primary source

The Parellis have had the Youtube video 'Natural Horsemanship the Parelli way' (ref #8) removed: 'This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Parelli Natural Horse-Man-Ship, Inc.'

While that's a shame (I think it's pretty counter productive because you immediately think they've got something to hide, especially as the video was clearly fair use for criticism under US & UK copyright law - poor show Youtube) I'm not sure how that loss impacts this article - anyone? James (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

---

It's a shame that this has now gone - does anyone have an alternative link to the video? My factual description of the events in the video..

"...apparently showing founder Linda Parelli striking a horse repeatedly with a rope, pulling hard on its halter, slapping it several times in the face with the palm of her hand and generally handling it in an ostensibly rough manner."

...has now been replaced with:

"showing founder Linda Parelli showing a student how to be effective[citation needed] with a rope."

I used "apparently" to enable justification of that statement and "ostensibly" as a qualifier; I would rather that the initial description of the video be rephrased rather than deleted and replaced with something less subjective than "how to be effective".

Sadly, I suppose that this may become moot. Perhaps a description of the video could be included alongside a mention that it was removed due to a copyright claim by Parelli - the video cause significant controversy at the time and is probably relevant to an overall discussion of their methods. Nervoustestpilot (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No objection from me if you want to make those changes. Montanabw^(talk) 22:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Oops

First time editor, I suppose mistakes are part of the learning process.

So I did some research. It appears that the dispute tag thing requires a few rules of it's own. Specifically actionable discussion on the talk page.Wikipedia:NPOV dispute There was no actionable discussion given about how the neutrality of the article could be restored. Really the fact that I violated footnote removal rules seems to be the point being made. But the article is now flagged as violating the NPOV rule. How exactly is the inflammatory language used in the criticism's section neutral?

Can you provide a constructive approach to obtaining a neutral version of this article?

There is a link in the footnotes to Horsecity.com, that simply goes to the home page. How does that substantiate any of what it footnotes?

I would also be very curious as to what it was that earned me the "promotional advertising" admonishment? Was it the link to their website? I thought that just substantiated the claim that I made about the home versions of their study programs. Would it have been better not to have included that reference? Is it better not to include those facts about commercial products where it could be stated less commercially? Sincerely want to understand the appropriate approach. Mbwplw (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I am only critiquing that you removed all criticism of Parelli. That you have done so and inserted disparaging comments about those with differing viewpoints reveals that you are not a neutral editor. I am not touching most of your content. I only ask that you leave the critical material in place. You may tag the sources, of course, but do not remove them. When there is only one source, others can be requested if you wish. But the neutrality of the article is in question, and yes, the subjects ' own promotional materials are sometimes suspect sources. Robert Miller, on the other hand, is a good source here, but you need to cite to the page numbers in the book and be very careful not to take what he says out of context. Montanabw^(talk) 01:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Montana, you can't just remove criticism because you don't agree with it. There are several publicised instances of pure undisputed abuse, including the half-blind Thoroughbred video, and no amount of cottoning can mask that. I also protest to the extreme tagging of "citation needed" on everything critical of Parelli. Is it not citation enough to see her slapping a horse repeated times in the FACE? I cannot see the need for a "citation" on the claim of rough treatment. Really. Personally I find this article very biased, but I cannot for the very life of me find the correct section to comment on the neutrality dispute. It's all too messy. Nimloth250 (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Nimloth250

More Edits

So, I tried some more edits. I guess I'll wait and see if I've done it right this time or if I need to take a different approach. Mbwplw (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section of this article is misleading and biased

The criticism section of this topic has a lot of opinion without citations. Where citations are present they appear to be from blogs and forum postings.

"There has been criticism against the Parellis by the mainstream equestrian world."

The article needs to offer a better definition of what it means by the "mainstream equestrian world" and citations of such criticism. The Parellis are demonstrating their program at the British Open Show Jumping Championships [1]. That seems to suggest at least an equal amount of support from the "mainstream equestrian world".

"The Parellis have also been known to make negative comments about other riding disciplines, including dressage."

Linda Parelli is a dressage rider and the Parellis both train with Walter Zettl [2]. If they have made negative comments about Dressage it is about the treatment of horses in the name of the sport rather than the sport itself.

"Parelli supporters speculate that this criticism is partly due to the boldness of his demonstrations with some of his own horses, and possibly in part to the fact that he charges a premium price for his materials.[7]"

This is pure conjecture about what people may think, the citation goes to a forum posting, hardly a great source.

"By highly successful marketing of horsemanship information that, according to critics of Parelli's tactics, is widely available and has been passed down for generations and considered to be common sense by those knowledgeable of the horse, many competitors to Parelli consider his methods to be inappropriately described as exclusive to the Parelli system, particularly when re-named by Parelli..[citation needed]"

A citation is certainly needed because one of Pat Parelli's sayings is "what I teach is so old, it's new" [3]. It is not just Parelli's critics that say this information is widely available, it is the Parellis themselves also. By not acknowledging this the article is misleading the reader by suggesting that the Parellis are misrepresenting what they offer.

Also, almost that entire paragraph is one run-on sentence. Editing for grammar is required if nothing else.

"Finally, because some training techniques result in horses that do not respond to traditional horse-handling commands, when the horse is sold it may require either retraining of the horse or the new owner may need to learn (for a price) Parelli methods.[citation needed] The program, in fact, encourages sellers to sell their horses only to other Parelli users.[citation needed]"

I appreciate that this section is listing the criticisms of the Parelli program so all criticism has a place, but where is the balance in the article to put the defense against these criticisms? Shouldn't wikipedia readers be offered both sides of this discussion so that they can make their own minds up? In the case of the criticism above, the text could apply to any animal training technique.

Crayfish2020 (talk) 01:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The rest of the article is, arguably, the defense. Usually other editors who want to rebut the criticisms just blank the section and refuse to allow any criticism at all, which is not good wikiquette. There are some footnotes for the section, and the tags for the other material just indicate that more research is needed (much criticism of Parelli on user boards, but boards can't be a source on wiki). It isn't perfect, but Parelli has critics and those views need to be mentioned. The rebuttals can be given too, ideally in separate paragraphs. Montanabw^(talk) 03:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

One of the sources (#6) references a forum discussion that is no longer available. Is this usual wikipedia policy? (To base a reference/citation on a user contributed discussion forum?) 75.149.154.201 (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Problem with Parelli Natural Horsemanship/Criticism:

Internet is filled with pro-Parelli websites - bad experiences are found on few forum postings here and there.. Hardly any source? One of those subjects that is in deadlock?

83.245.135.147 (talk) 11:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is Verifiability. Biased sites, pro OR con, are both usually problematic on wikipedia, whether actual domain sites or blogs and forums. There is a need for the mainstream world to publish more balanced material in either case. A comparable situation are the wikipedia pages on actors or music celebrities; the fan sites and blogs are all a no-no to use. Montanabw^(talk) 22:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The three levels

This section of the article reads like it was cribbed from a website or booklet for Parelli... not like sourced information from notable sources. In fact, it has no sources. 842U (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, if it's a verbatim copy, then it's got to go. Montanabw^(talk) 21:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Reverted some edits made by anonymous user on IP address 74.75.21.100

Paragraph 4 User removed the word "Finesse" which is the official Parelli term for that area of horsemanship. User added the sentence "Though there is very little focus paid to actual rider skill" which is uncited and appears to be that person's opinion.

Paragraph 8 User added the sentence " Other criticisms focus on Parelli's disparaging remarks made against most mainstream equestrian training methods, equestrian sports and events. In addition to this the training methods are marketed towards inexperienced horse people who are simply unsuited to training a horse without direct assistance." in front of an existing citation implying that text was also cited. Whether the previous citation from a blog was valid is another matter but this insertion is clearly bad form.

Paragraph 10 User incorrectly changed the cited sentence "In contrast, Parelli openly credits his mentors" to "Occasionally Parelli credits his mentors."

Paragraph 11. User added sentence "Other horses, who have been marketed and sold as being trained using the Parelli method, have turned out to have training flaws and behavior problems with cause the animal to become dangerous towards handlers and are in need of retraining." to an already uncited paragraph. This is clearly opinion and not factual information. User also added "among other things" to final sentence which is a call to unknown sources.

Paragraph 12. User added factual information that the horse being discussed was blind in one eye. The removal of the description that the horse was "dangerous and unpredictable" appears to be an attempt to push their own agenda however, especially in light of the other edits made to the page and their anonymous nature.

Crayfish2020 (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Kept some changes, but reverted others. Most of the above material had been cited at some point. Montanabw^(talk) 17:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Those changes were not cited, the citation markers existed before the anonymous user added additional text. Please review the notes I made carefully. Also, you should be aware that citing blog posts is unwelcome on wikipedia. They are not a reliable source. If you believe I am wrong please refer me to the exact cited text. Feel free to request a third opinion as dispute resolution for this. Crayfish2020 (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Some blogs are citable, depending on source material, see WP:NEWSBLOG. We have a lot of Parelli POV-pushers on this article who try to sanitize and remove anything critical about him and his methods, I will, however, review the earlier versions of this article. Montanabw^(talk) 15:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

If you review the cited blog I think you will find it to not be of the quality or impartiality to be considered a good source. I am now going to request a third opinion (3O) because I question your impartiality here. It seems the edits you have made are making this article less impartial than it was before the anonymous user on IP address 74.75.21.100 came in with their biased edits. I will wait for 24 hours for your response before making the 3O as I think if you review the facts objectively you will see my edits were fair and should be reinstated.Crayfish2020 (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

NPOV dispute - Criticism Section

Criticism - paragraph 3. Need some citations please because it is a serious allegation to say that horses trained within the Parelli program become dangerous to people familiar with traditional methods. Such claims demand to be backed up with some documentary evidence. Wikipedia is no place for views based upon anecdotal hearsay.Crayfish2020 (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Just some examples and more, yet more and yes, these are blogs and talk pages, but there are hundreds like them... In horse land, no one really likes to criticize another trainer very much, so I'm not surprised that sourcing is difficult. But Parelli is probably the most controversial of all the natural horsemanship practitioners. (Maybe along with Monty Roberts) It does a disservice to an encyclopedia to say otherwise and allow a free advertising puff piece to be called an article. Montanabw^(talk) 17:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Your first link addresses the scenario of a horse that was dangerous before being exposed to Parelli. The second link is to an eight page topic of general Parelli criticism in which I cannot spot the allegation that Parelli training cuases horses to become dangerous. The final link again is an account from someone who thinks Parelli should not be seen as a solution for horses that are already dangerous. I have no issue with the articles you linked, but none support the criticism in the main article text that I have highlighted as untrue, unfounded and unsupported by any citable work. Also your last link does not work from this talk page, I had to manually extract the URL to see it. Crayfish2020 (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

You have also failed to address my primary concern, which is that you are an affiliate of Parelli attempting to sterilize the article. Please disclose your affiliations. Montanabw^(talk) 17:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I missed where you previously raised your primary concern, this is the first time I've noticed you mention it. My affiliation to Parelli is that I am married to a woman who follows the Parelli programme and has found it to be in most respects an excellent foundation for her horsemanship. I have no official affiliation with the Parelli organisation, nor do I agree blindly with all of their methods. I am a software developer with a strong interest in IT which is why I dislike seeing Wikipedia used as a platform for biased views on any particular subject. Crayfish2020 (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, the point is WP:NPOV. Making an article about a person as controversial as Parelli into a promotional puff piece is a violation of NPOV. If you couldn't see criticism in the above links, you must not have read them. A little Parelli can be OK, a lot of Parelli is often very bad for some horses; I've personally encountered horses that have become very dangerous to handle due to their owner's use (arguably misuse) of Parelli techniques. You write in UK English, so you may be unfamiliar with the misleading marketing and cult tactics used by the Parelli program in the USA. Montanabw^(talk) 19:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I think we will have to disagree here on the definition of NPOV. In my mind it should not allow unfounded allegations in an encyclopaedia unless they can be supported by solid citations. Your reply here shows a clear bias against Parelli gained through your own experience, yet the only evidence you can provide to support that perception are echo chambers of people with a similar opinion. The Parelli programme is constantly evolving, particularly here in Europe with highly respected traditional trainers supporting the use of Parelli techniques on the ground . Perhaps it is time to leave the baggage behind and start working together, criticising where appropriate, but not attacking. Crayfish2020 (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Likewise, these articles cannot be a biased promotional piece for a for-profit entity; your edits and comments indicate that you are a fan of the program and thus possibly an uncritical apologist for the techniques. There's an "echo chamber" of fans as well. We could as easily disallow as biased any sources from Parelli's own website and those of any satisfied clients. Per WP:RS, all sources have problems. So we are at an impasse unless we can agree that we need to balance positives and negatives. Montanabw^(talk) 18:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The important difference here is that I'm not the one who has added uncited allegations against the programme and presented them as facts. Every edit I've made on this page, including some reverted by yourself has been factual and substantive. For example you removed a citation I added for the term "the seven games" presumably because it cited the Parelli web site where they explain the term. I cannot understand any objection to that factual citation. You have admitted bias against Parelli and yet you have made yourself the guardian of what is correct here. Regarding your suggestion that I am an "uncritical apologist", I could certainly add criticism of Parelli to this page but there is already more criticism on the page than there is information that would be useful to someone who wanted to find out what Parelli was about. Crayfish2020 (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I would like to emphasise from the very link you just quoted to me:

"Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Crayfish2020 (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you happy for this disagreement listed on the 3O dispute resolution page? It is important that we only do so if we cannot come to an agreement between us and both feel that process is now the only way to an appropriate resolution. Crayfish2020 (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a BLP, it's an article about the program. There's a difference. I don't have time for this silly drama. The criticism is about 1/4 of the article,1/3 at most. If you want to add the critical material you claim you are willing to add, I'm willing to help format and such. But I'm prepping another article for a GA run and frankly don't care enough about Parelli to want to put a lot of work in here. 3O just introduces a random person into the mix who is not going to resolve the core issue, which is if Parelli's methodology, improperly applied, can be dangerous and damaging to horses and their handlers. The Parelli cult is a lot like Scientology and they go to great lengths to hit anything critical about the program, anywhere it occurs, so finding sources is always a bit of a challenge. Unlike Monty Roberts, who is another huckster with a marketing schtick, but at least he teaches mostly proper horsemanship and not weird stuff that ruins horses for normal use, no one has yet to publish the "Horse Whisperers and Lies" type of expose on Parelli. Montanabw^(talk) 16:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I did consider whether BLP applies in this case but Pat Parelli puts his name to the programme and "Pat Parelli" redirects here. I think it is an edge case where the rule should be applied unless someone can provide good cited sources. The criticism section is 1/3 of the article, but the next section is "Training video controversy" which is also critical. That means about 2/3 of the article is critical opinion compared to 1/3 of information that might be useful to someone who wanted to find out more about the structure of the programme. That does not seem very balanced. I would like to develop this article to redress this imbalance and give more general information to people who are interested, I am cautious about putting a lot of effort in though as I am worried you will simply undo any changes I make as you have done previously. I have no desire to get into an edit war with you. Crayfish2020 (talk) 10:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your dismissal of my proposal to settle this with a 3O, I have submitted the request anyway. You state that the core issue is "whether the programme can cause horses to become dangerous". That is not the core issue, the core issue is impartiality and a NPOV. That issue is separate from the content of the article and can be judged by a "random person". Crayfish2020 (talk) 11:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Normal procedure is to provide the courtesy of an alert on my user talk and provide a link to the request. I have looked at your contributions, and since 2007, you have only made four edits to any thing but this Parelli article or talk. I believe you may have a WP:COI issue here, and again, I insist that you provide your affiliation with the Parelli movement. Montanabw^(talk) 20:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I followed the protocol as instructed in the directions for requesting a 3O. I attempted to work with you to list the dispute together which you resisted. I was not aware it would be courteous to list the dispute on your talk page, that seems somewhat discourteous to flag publicly to me, but I will bear that in mind for future. Assuming good faith is a tenet of this service and all I can do is claim that I made the request in good faith. We covered my affiliation to Parelli and lack of such in the past. I do not see how I can provide you with something that I don't have. Crayfish2020 (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, the request appears to be met with a resounding thud. I am still puzzled why the only edits you make on this account are to this article. Is this a sockpuppet account? Montanabw^(talk) 04:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

As you've already noted I also contributed to the page for a massively multiplayer computer game in 2007. I only feel the need to make contributions where I see information lacking or incorrect in my areas of expertise. Along with most users of Wikipedia I am usually a consumer of the service rather than a contributor. I am not a sockpuppet and your repeated unfounded claims that I am concealing a conflict of interest have nothing to do with my original concern which would still stand even if my name were Pat Parelli - see WP:VERIFY. What would your approach be to resolving this concern? Crayfish2020 (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be useful here to restate my concerns and take opinion upon specific questions that I have.

• Does anybody have any citations that back up the claim that horses trained using the methods taught by Pat Parelli can cause a horse to become dangerous?
• Is claiming that a person is teaching dangerous training methods with no evidence to back up that claim suitable for a Wikipedia page?
• Is an article about a training methodology that is one third information about that method and two thirds criticism of that method a fair and balanced article?
• Are editors with a self proclaimed bias against a topic suitable people to be deciding the appropriate information to be included or should they declare their own WP:COI and limit themselves to edits that are not controversial?

Crayfish2020 (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, yes, perhaps more detail would be helpful, but it was there before and someone else (not me) cut a bunch per WP:NOADS WP:HOWTO and possible copyvio, and yes (negatives are particularly important to balance per NPOV.) More to the point, editors with a self-proclaimed bias FOR the issue are equally suspect. Montanabw^(talk) 16:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, when should we expect those citations to be listed on the page? I would be happy to do it but I cannot find any evidence anywhere to back up the claim. I'm glad you say that my bias towards Parelli, gained because of the excellent results I've experienced with our horses, is equal to your own bias against it. I think we are getting somewhere now. Crayfish2020 (talk) 08:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that you do a little work and REMOVE all refs to Parelli's self-promotional web sites, replacing the with neutral, third-party sources that explain the methods. The critical material can be tagged where citations are needed. I have an article I'm working on for and FAC run and my time is limited here (I also don't really give a flying F--- about Parelli other than seeing this article remains balanced is not made into an uncritical puff piece). Montanabw^(talk) 15:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello! "random person introduced into the mix" here! I'm User:Howicus, and I think I'll give it my best shot to try to resolve the dispute. I'm going to read over the article, and then I'll get back to you. Howicus (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, as it is, the criticism section is not adequately sourced. The first source [4] is a blog, with no indication that the blog is anything more than the personal opinions of the authors. The second source [5] gives me a 500 internal server error. The third source I managed to find online [6], but without a page number, I can't see if it supports the claim. Howicus (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Howicus. The bigger problem I see is that most of the main article is also poorly sourced, mostly to Parelli's self-promotional web sites, and to other puff pieces. (There was a bigger chunk someone else removed a while back that was a near-verbatim copyvio) Can you look at the article in total? Frankly, the whole thing is poorly written and poorly sourced. That said, some of the sources we've discussed at talk do meet WP:NEWSBLOG standards, IMHO. The biggest problem at the moment though, is that we have a Scientology=type movement here - I'm also concerned that Crayfish has only edited THIS article and talk throughout most of his edit history - other than a few edits to a video game article, made years ago. This is, in my view, at attempt by Parelli supporters to sanitize this article of all criticism and make it into a self-promotional puff piece. There have been other sources, but some of the links have gone dead, and most of the videos showing Parelli or his associates abusing horses have been removed, presumably due to threat of lawsuits or something similar. Montanabw^(talk) 18:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Follow up: I've added some better sources to the criticism section, with a hidden text break between what I've revised and the older material. I will continue to work on this as time permits. Montanabw^(talk) 19:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright then, I've taken a look at all the sources. Numbered list for convenience:

1. Parelli's website, certainly not neutral, but I have no objection to its use here as a source for the names and descriptions of his techniques.
2. "Ranch and Country" appears to be a real estate company (?). The article is just gushing with praise for Parelli. Used to prove that some "noted member of the mainstream equine industry" uses this method. Probably not a good source.
3. I'd have to register to thehorse.com to read this one in full, but it seems to be used for the same purpose as source 2: making Parelli's seem like a good method because of the people who use it.
4. From the introduction to this book found here [[7]] (page xviii), it is made explicit that Natural Horsemanship Explained is written by Natural Horsemanship practitioners, for Natural Horsemanship practitioners.
5. Seems promotional, but acceptable since it's just sourcing the terms used by Parelli.
6. It's a good source, but I think the claims made in the book are much more general than the claims it's used to source. The book never singles Parelli out, instead talking about natural horsemanship in general. But the way it's used in the article makes it seem like Parelli is being specifically criticized. This would be a good source for the Natural horsemanship article, but not so much here.
7. This one's a good source. Your wording is a bit more critical than the source's, but the source itself is good.
8. Good source, well used. No problems with this one that I found.
9. Again, I managed to find this one here [8]. Written by the same guy who wrote source 4, but not used in a promotional way.
10. A blog, and a scathingly critical blog at that. Just the opinions of the people who wrote it.
11. This one gives me a 500 Internal Server Error.
12. Video was taken down, a search for that title doesn't find it. No way to tell what actually is in the video.
13. I think I found this one here [9] No, it just directs you to their website. I guess a citation to their website could be appropriate here, just to establish that there was a video and that they did issue a response to it.
14. This is a youtube video and an "eyewitness account" describing it, but I can't tell if that account is accurate or not. It establishes the existence of a video, but that's about it.
15. This one's strange. It's a transcript of a statement by Parelli, but why is it a video? Could we find this somewhere else? Here it is on his website [10].
16. This one looks ok, I guess. Kinda short. Is that a reputable group?
17. No problem here. This is a fairly neutral news article.

Howicus (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your assessment. British Showumping is reputable and mainstream; much like the US Equestrian Federation in the USA. I will speak well in general of Robert Miller, who is a generally credible advocate for the Natural Horsemanship movement. (nod to Crayfish) I've heard Miller (who is a veterinarian) speak in person and have met him at a seminar, while I do not agree with everything he says, I will defend his work as a solid RS on Natural Horsemanship. (I think he is over-fond of Parelli, others are actually better horsemen, particularly Brannaman, but that's neither here nor there) On the other hand, I'll also defend ref # 6, as though general it dovetails with other source material, Parelli is actually the highest profile of the people the author mentions. But I will look for some additional sources to provide backup to it, I found it in about 10 minutes of searching, so should be able to dig up some other info sooner or later. You admit that the one blog does support the "scathing" assessment, eh? (grinning) I would encourage Crayfish2020 to address the concerns about the pro-Parelli sources. I have little interest in this article, so am not going to do a lot here other than to clean up the source material in the critics section. Let the fans clean up the other stuff. Montanabw^(talk) 23:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'll wait a couple days for Crayfish to voice his opinion. One thing though: I still don't think the blog's a good source. Howicus (talk) 01:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to find something better. Should be able to. Montanabw^(talk) 17:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks Howicus for your input and thorough review of sources. I will run through and see if I can find better sources where needed. Also thank you MontanaBW for your work in improving the quality of the article. Crayfish2020 (talk) 10:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

References

NPOV dispute - 2016 - Deletion of Only Positive Material

I had been informed by Montanabw that my talk page was the appropriate venue to discuss my serious concerns about her substantial deletions of positive material from this page. We had a very unproductive interchange. I have recently learned that, apparently, *this* page is the proper forum for that discussion as well as a prerequisite to asking for dispute resolution. Consequently, I am copy/pasting the discussion from my talk page to this page. I hope that is the correct thing to do. I am still new here, so I offer my apologies if my understanding of dispute protocol is incorrect.

It's probably easier to discuss WP editing on your page than my rather busy one. While anyone can edit wikipedia, anyone else can also alter, delete, or otherwise change what you write. I'd like to see if you are willing to work within the standards of wikipedia and if so, both myself and White Arabian Filly would be willing to guide you along.

1. The first problem you are running into is that you clearly have only one article you are interested in, and you wrote in a very promotional tone, which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, where we have neutral tone and a balanced view.
2. Next, you are making your case by arguing that you have extensive expertise (with the implication that the rest of us are stupid, which is not winning you any friends). This has two problems. The first is we don't allow original research or any kind of copyight infringement, we have to source information to outside, reliable sources, usually secondary sources. The second problem is that On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog; many people come around here trying to argue that they should be listened to because they are experts. Sometime they are and sometimes they aren't; but the rules apply to both. (We get a lot of hoaxers and scammers trying to edit wikipedia) You have to make your case and not spend your time attacking other people about how they don't understand.
3. Finally, we all have our viewpoints as to various schools of thought; they can be discussed at talk, but promotional tone doesn't belong in the articles themselves. My view is that there are a lot of people out there training who are more talented horsemen than Parelli, and I provided two popular examples. (I forgot to mention Buck Brannaman, who actually learned from Ray Hunt and has the closest connections to the people who started the NH movement; he's probably the most talented of the entire bunch) I do think that Parelli must be acknowledged as the most "savvy" marketing specialist, and quite the entertainer, particularly since he married Linda. But don't waste your time posting videos of people playing the seven games... I'm quite familiar with how it's done, and am not interested in becoming a Savvy Club member, thank you.

To reply, you can just click the "edit" tab and open the entire page if the section editing link isn't visible to you; I am sincere in being willing to help you learn to edit WP; I am equally sincere that WP is not a platform for a single-issue writer who only wants to use this site to "preach the gospel." It's your call, we are all volunteers here. Montanabw^(talk) 19:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Montanabw,

Whom did I attack? And why can't I edit just one article, especially to start with?

And what it the world is wrong with edu-tainment? There's a lot of "edu" in what is taught in PNH. Is it a blemish that it's also interesting?

Next, being a novice isn't tantamount to being stupid. One of the first things I did was admit to being a novice on WP, for gosh sakes. In response to that, you tagged me with "talk page stalker" because I wasn't sure how to reply to a message correctly. Was that nice?

Moreover, having expertise isn't the same as being "smart." It simply means you've put in quality time developing understanding of/facility with something. The article that I initially encountered did not have anything resembling any depth of understanding of PNH. One would hope that those editing articles would have familiarity with the subject.

I didn't "preach the gospel." I described the 7 Games briefly. I described the four savvys briefly. Why were these deleted? If there were parts that had an overly positive slant, those could have been clipped, instead of the entirety of my contribution being jammed in the trash can.

You mention "neutral tone and a balanced view." How is it balanced to have 1 sentence of barely positive perspective followed by 7 *paragraphs* of blasting PNH?

I appreciate that WP means a lot to you and that you want it to be neutral. I would point out that your bias against Parelli is interfering with a balanced presentation.

JackieLL007 (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

In the controversy/criticism section, we have to teach the controversy. Meaning, we have to simply list the criticism and then the response in an unemotional tone. This has to be done on all the articles about topics that multiple people have criticized. But if you can find where somebody like Dr. Robert M. Miller wrote an article in support, we can definitely cite that and make it neutral. Also, if you're making money training horses or people using the Parelli methods, you should create your userpage and disclose it there to avoid COI allegations. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 19:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

WAF,

Thanks. That sounds reasonable. I'm willing to put in controversy as long as rebuttal can be included as well. As for COI, I don't make any money training horses or people on PNH.

JackieLL007 (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

By the way, the "talk page stalker" thing was not referring to you; it was Montanabw referring to herself. Talk page stalkers are people who check out others' talk pages to read or contribute to discussions that interest them. I would have replied, but I was outside feeding animals at the time you posted the message. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 20:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The controversies are pretty much already noting the rebuttals, but we can look at additional content. Miller is a big Parelli fan, but we have to put it in perspective, not as a simple endorsement. We can't be hagiographic here. Montanabw^(talk) 04:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we can find a newer training book from somebody who is not particularly into PNH but is experienced in their methods to cite and give a brief overview of the program. I may look on Google books later or tomorrow. I have a brand-new article and a couple of drafts, but I'll try to help out here too. And maybe give a little background on Parelli himself...? White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 23:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@White Arabian Filly: Rick Lamb and Robert Miler's "Revolution in Horsemanship" has a big Parelli section. A bit too uncritical and hagiographic and a little dated, but actually, we need a stand-alone biography of Pat Parelli separate from the PNH article and this would be a good RS for his early years. The bios of the other people also would be good sources for their assorted bios too. [11]. I was delighted that this book had a section on Monte Foreman, who also needs and article. Montanabw^(talk) 05:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I can probably unredirect Pat Parelli to make his stand-alone article later today, maybe this afternoon. Surely there are newspaper sources on him too, even if they're just "PNH demo at the town arena tonight" things, they usually give a little background. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 17:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I made him a separate article. Linda may or may not be notable herself, but I did add a personal life section with a little of her background. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 23:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Linda is tricky; on on hand, she's probably the better rider of the two, and definitely his career went from good to mega after they married, on the other hand, WP discourages articles on people who are famous mostly due to their spouse. I suppose we could do Pat and Linda Parelli, sort of like I did Ken and Sarah Ramsey. But I don't want to hijack Jackie's talk page here... Montanabw^(talk) 09:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Montanabw,

After deleting essentially the entirety of my additions on the Parelli NH page, you (inter alia) offered your help. I asked some questions and, while you have commented since on this page, you largely ignored my questions.

Will you answer them, please?

JackieLL007 (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

To help answer some of your questions, you can read this essay I'm writing: User:White Arabian Filly/Editing horse articles. I'm still working on it, but it gives you a brief overview of our style here.

You said Montanabw didn't like Parelli and that was affecting her edits of the article. We all have things we dislike in the horse world: trainers, breeds, gear, etc. That's irrelevant to our Wiki editing. I've never done Parelli, but I do know the games and some of the philosophy behind it. I don't do it because my horse (Mustang x Quarter Horse) doesn't fit any of the Horsenality types.

Your most recent edits, from earlier today, were fine, although I did add a reference and changed some of it (minorly) to reflect a more encyclopedic tone (changed her to their, thing to object). White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 22:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Jackie, the only thing I think is needed here is to explain to you that wikipedia policy has "five pillars" of core policy, and you ran into two of them: Neutral point of view and verifiability from reliabl sources. We also have to avoid "how to" style (that's for wikihow and other wikis, not this one). Liking or disliking something is irrelevant, the article itself needs to read in such a way that a reader has a complete picture of both the plusses and minuses. The Parellis are widely admired (or criticized) for their marketing and branding skills, everyone gives a nod to their immense commercial success; However, their horsemanship is, at best, average, and their marketing is premium-priced. Their "science" of "horsenality" is completely unproven and properly dismissed as a hypothesis at best; there is no independent scientific study to support their claims that I know of (any more than the people who believe in hair whorls or facial bone structure as guides to horse personality). The comparisons to other cult of personality programs is apt; they've clearly borrowed from the best. Montanabw^(talk) 03:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Montanabw,

I’m sorry that this is your approach to new contributors to Wikipedia.

Let me address your response to my questions by way of analogy:

A prosecutor walks into a grand-jury room and asks the grand jury to indict Defendant for theft.

Prosecutor: Theft is wrong! Everyone knows it’s wrong. It’s also illegal under Sections xx-xx and xx-xy of our state code. Please indict Defendant.

Grand jury: What did Defendant steal? When? From whom?

Prosecutor: The only thing I think is needed here is to explain to you that Defendant committed theft by violating two laws, xx-xx and xx-xy and should be indicted for those crimes.

What I’m saying is this: evidence matters. If you can’t support your assertions, don’t make them.

About a week ago, I made my FIRST-EVER edit to a WP page, which took a couple of hours to write. Two days later, you apparently deleted the entirety of it. You also threw quite a few unsupported - and untrue - accusations my way. I asked what you meant, as in “please provide a factual basis for your assertions.” You didn’t bother to answer, instead resorting to more general statements about policy.

Next, in the same breath that you extol the principle of “neutral point of view” (which is unquestionably crucial to an encyclopedia), you also present as fact your opinion repeatedly, including, “the comparisons to other cult of personality programs is [sic] apt” and “their horsemanship is, at best, average.” You clearly believe those statements and, from your actions (deleting positive material while leaving uncited negative material intact), I suspect you would like the WP page to reflect your bias.

Finally, I would like to point out three other WP links with which you may be familiar:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith

Respond to this if you must but my impression is that you fancy yourself the “old guard” and therefore superior in right to any newcomer, especially one with whom you disagree so fervently. I came here for “writing and citing” not “writing, citing, biting, inciting and fighting” and, thus, I cannot assume that further conclusory unpleasantness will warrant a response from me.

JackieLL007 (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPA and re-read WP:COI. If you feel that I "bit" you, then also read WP:SOAP. We get people coming by wikipedia all the time hoping to use it for free advertising or uncritical promotion of a commercial product. Our WP:NOADS is policy. If you are merely an enthusiastic volunteer and aren't making money as a paid certified Parelli instructor, then I apologize for accusing you of being a paid editor. But beyond that, you still have a clear Conflict of Interest and need to learn how to edit wikipedia -- anyone can edit and anyone can change what you edit. Just as ignorance of the law doesn't get you out of a speeding ticket, being a newbie doesn't excuse you from following the policies and guideline of wikipedia. You can ask White Arabian Filly about the "right way" to handle oneself as a new editor, she's doing a fantastic job and I have developed a lot of respect for her. She also has a lot of patience with fellow newbies and you would do well to listen to her advice. Montanabw^(talk) 19:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

If by "old guard" do you mean have I studied all forms of horsemanship for decades? Then yes. But your credentials or mine are irrelevant (see On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. FWIW, I've even read Parelli's book and took a serious look at what he is trying to do, which is why I noticed that one of the big problems with the Parelli program is that they give a very quick head nod to the Dorrances and Ray Hunt, but then go on to classify almost all "traditional" training techniques as inferior to theirs, which is nonsense; and their acolytes are even more of a problem in this department than the Parellis themselves. One of my biggest criticisms of the Parellis and their acolytes is that they set up straw man arguments. One example is what you added to the article about the "circle game" being different from longeing, and demonstrated by it that the source doesn't really understand longeing as a training technique. They merely take an example how how some people abusively use longeing and then attack that. As I have said, you have to give a nod to the Parellis' brilliance in marketing and self-promotion. But most of what they do is not particularly new or innovative, just repackaged, and much of what might be somewhat new (their fondness for leadrope shaking, as an example) is really not a real improvement on classic techniques of humane horsemanship. (I don't see a single rope halter or carrot stick at the Spanish Riding School, just to take one example) Montanabw^(talk) 19:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Having your first efforts reverted or critisized happens to virtually every new editor. Many of my first edits were reverted and the first 5 or 6 articles I created were proposed for deletion. The thing to do is carry on and learn the ropes, and it'll stop. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 20:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Montanabw,

When I used the term "old guard," I contrasted it with term "newcomer." As I have already stated that I have significant horse experience covering many years, I would have expected it to be clear that I was again referring to my status as a newcomer to WP.

I notice that my questions remain unanswered.

In other news, I have the afternoon off. I'm going to go play with my mare. Have a nice day.

JackieLL007 (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

WAF,

Thank you. I'll keep on keepin' on.  :)

JackieLL007 (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Jackie, I've said what I am going to say in response to you, I do not engage in tendentious, fruitless, arguments. As for being a newcomer, like anyplace else, there are right ways and wrong ways to approach things. We have explained here where you went wrong; it is your decision how to address constructive criticism. Montanabw^(talk) 05:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Montanabw, For someone who edits an encyclopedia, you are startlingly and conspicuously unwilling to discuss any factual basis for your unpleasant assertions. Instead, it is apparent to me that my grievous error consisted merely of posting facts (documented, cited, basic and *undisputed*facts*) about a training program that you obviously hold in contempt. I agree that discussions with you are pointless. As for constructive criticism, I believe that I addressed it just fine when I thanked WhiteArabianFilly -- twice -- for her constructive input.

Next time you consider deleting in toto paragraphs of new, solid material just because it doesn't agree with your personal view of the world, I suggest you think twice.

JackieLL007 (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:SOAP and WP:NOADS. Your material was not at all "solid," it was mostly promotionalism. You've stated your case. The content you proposed was reverted, discussed and some of it was re-added to the article with better sourcing and formatting: There is now an overview of the "four savvys" and the "seven games" that was not in there before, and the sourcing has been improved. Your work proved a motivating factor, and the article is better than it was, even if not quite in the manner you preferred. Also, the Pat Parelli article was created, which is also an improvement to the encyclopedia. That's how it works here; we call it be bold, revert, discuss. We did. Montanabw^(talk) 22:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Montanabw,

You said, "Your material was not at all 'solid,' it was mostly promotionalism."

That's utter baloney and I think -- and genuinely hope -- that you know that. My guess is supported by the fact that you repeatedly and completely refused -- despite my repeated requests -- to be courteous enough to cite any SPECIFICS at all to support your accusations. Why didn't you? You couldn't. There weren't any.

Instead, you just provided link after link to WP policies. I don't have any problem with WP's rules. If, however, you're going to accuse me of breaking rule after rule -- well, it would be helpful if you could list a single example, and especially an example of conduct worthy of a multiple-paragraph deletion.

However, it's now a moot point. But, because you like citing WP policies, I will share this one with you from WP's BRD page:

The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus.... Care and diplomacy should be exercised....Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting.... When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary."

I certainly do hope you are done insulting my work and impugning my character. I suggest we both go back to doing something constructive.

JackieLL007 (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• I am not arguing with you more here, I shall compare your edits against the sources cited and remove promotional tone and inaccuracies. Montanabw^(talk) 23:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

That’s fine. If you decide you’d like to disagree constructively without being disagreeable, you’re welcome back anytime.JackieLL007 (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Ownership of article

Recent edits by User:Montanabw are NOT an improvement adding blog references, Youtube links, forum references and primary sources whilst reverting many other useful edits by a number of editors. Theroadislong (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The Parellis also have a blog and youtube links. People who have a COI as to Parelli methods do come by from time to time to try and whitewash this neutral article of all criticism and insert only favorable material, it's appropriate to remove such material. Montanabw^(talk) 22:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Montanabw,

You have once again deleted factual, relevant material from the Parelli page. Your deletions are entirely of positive material, as has been true in the years that you have modified this page.

• I added a statement of the core, founding principle of PNH. This is the principle on which the entire program is based. You deleted it.
• I added that the PNH vocational program was the first of its kind. You deleted that.
• I added a two-sentence description for each of the four horsenalities. Another editor modified a few words of that section and, in doing so, improved it. You deleted it entirely.
• I added a brief parenthetical after several names of those expressing support, including multiple Olympians who support PNH, to orient a casual reader regarding the relevance of the opinions of these individuals. Another editor changed my text to omit a dash and add a word (i.e., "Olympian - Eventing" to "Olympian in Eventing"), which was a reasonable edit. You deleted all of the brief introduction except for the names.
• I added a brief sentence regarding (and citing) the support of an Olympic coach in dressage, Walter Zettl. You deleted that.
• I added and cited a university study that supported the usefulness of the Squeeze Game. You deleted it.
• Prior to my edit, the text had read only that "The concept of Horsenality has thus been dismissed as 'nonsense.'" I cited a magazine article supporting that others had found it useful. You deleted the positive material, reverting that section to its prior one-sided state.
• Prior to my edit, the text had read, "Concerns are also raised that Parelli's methods may be 'problematic' when used by less experienced horse handlers." I added the counterbalancing notion that it was not merely training with Parelli that can result in a novice being injured when handling a large animal such as a horse and that *any* novice is benefited by in-person help by someone with more experience. You deleted that.

This is just the latest in a long-standing pattern I see with you and this page. You insert as much negative material as you can. You leave in negative material, even if it is snarky and uncited. As an example, with one comment -- about how Parelli horses can only safely be sold to Parelli students (untrue) unless a buyer chooses to learn Parelli "for a price" -- the extremely unencyclopedic "for a price" was left on that page for *years.* [Edit: I just found the initial entry of this snarky comment -- you left it on February 20, 2012 as part of the following biased, uncited and derogatory paragraph:

Finally, because some training techniques result in horses that do not respond to traditional horse-handling commands, when the horse is sold it may require either retraining of the horse or the new owner may need to learn (for a price) Parelli methods. The program, in fact, encourages sellers to sell their horses only to other Parelli users. This has led to criticism that Parelli is creating a cult.

Finally, and most egregiously, you flush others' work down the toilet if it doesn't agree with your prejudiced notions. If they object, you respond but without addressing the substance of their concerns, resorting instead to unfounded accusations of (for me, at least) copyright infringement (wrong), concealed COI (wrong), NPOV infractions (probably for a de minimis proportion of my material), and that I posted "mostly promotionalism" (nonsense). I asked REPEATEDLY for specifics relating to your various accusations. You ignored that request and instead continued your deletions of positive, factual input.

Quit accusing everyone, including me on my talk page, who adds something favorable of having a COI -- even to the point of "insisting" that someone "provide [his] affiliation with the Parelli movement." The target of that particular demand, along with miscellaneous other invective, was a gentleman who was an IP specialist with no COI. He merely had knowledge of, and a positive experience with, this particular training program.

Quit deleting relevant, factual, well-sourced material simply because you do not, in the abstract, agree with PNH training.

Quit thinking that conclusory remarks such as "very promotional" suffice. They don't. If you delete something, be prepared to meet a challenge with some specifics to support your position. As I said in our discussions on my talk page: evidence matters.

You clearly hold Parelli in complete contempt. There is an abundance of evidence for this. You called it a "cult a lot like Scientology,"; you called Parelli another "huckster with a marketing schtick [who teaches]… weird stuff that ruins horses for normal use." That is just the start. More recently, your derision was evidenced by your non-posted snark listed by each of the 7 games on an edit page. Those comments demonstrate a level of understanding that one might achieve in half an hour of study. Some who have spent years with the program -- many with outstanding results to show for it -- might gape in disbelief at your bold, snide tone juxtaposed with an utter lack of understanding of your topic.

Your patent vitriolic feelings towards the Parelli program, and your clear, years-long inability to promote a NPOV, disqualifies you from further affronts to this page. It's too bad that I'm still a newbie. Otherwise, I might know how to effect a remedy for your longstanding inappropriate behavior.

(As an aside to those other than Montanabw who might think that this post "came out of nowhere," I would refer you to my talk page, where Montanabw directed me to discuss her earlier deletion of the entirety of my entries on this page. I attempted to have an amicable discussion regarding this *first* mass deletion of hours of my work. My attempts were futile. Instead of having a discussion on the substance, she instead flatly refused to discuss the facts and instead resorted to ad hominem remarks such as COI (again, wrong), copyright infringement (also wrong), etc.) JackieLL007 (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I have reviewed the WP page for "Responding to a Failure to Discuss" and I find that, in responding to Montanabw's accusations that I have a COI (I do not), that I post "very promotional material" (which I believe is patently false) and her other unnecessary and untrue unpleasantness posted to my talk page, I have made the mistake of mirroring some of the accusatory tone that she has directed towards me and others. In doing so, I have violated the guideline to discuss only the edit (or, in this case, a long series of edits by Montanabw). I am uncertain precisely how to remedy this error, as I have found most of her edits, which comprise 21.98% of the PNH page and which date back to 2007 (the year that the page began), to have an overtly negative viewpoint (for details, please see my earlier post) and to reflect her admitted contempt of PNH. Thus, it isn't any given edit that is the problem. So, I am uncertain how to phrase my concerns. Regardless, it is always my intent to follow WP guidelines and, for any breach of protocol, I apologize.

The substance of my concerns of Montanabw's years-long campaign to delete positive material from this page (again, please see my earlier entries) remains unaltered. JackieLL007 (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Issues with Parelli claims

OK, to respond to all of the above, here are the core issues:

1. The Parelli program renames traditional horse training and handling elements to create an "in-group" language for their followers. (Carrot Stick for a stiff stock whip, "savvy string" for a lash, "Friendly Game" for petting the horse and getting to know the animal, etc...) This needs to be pointed out, as these activities and tools are not unique to the program, this is mere branding and marketing. (and in passing, some tools certainly are not of the superior quality claimed to justify the extra price: [12] )
2. The Parelli program sets up straw man criticisms of mainstream horse training and then knocks down the straw man in order to promote their own methods as superior. (the "Circle game is not longeing"claim is a good example [13])
3. The Parelli program has a tendency to exaggerate itself: this article's editing history shows a very good example: The "university status" claim is a flat-out lie [14] and the "first program of its kind" claim is wrong (dozens of horse programs with training components are licensed in various states, e.g. Northwest College, Meredith Manor, Pacific Horse Center, the Al-Marah apprenticeship program, to say nothing of four-year university-based horse programs) The sources cited do not support the "accredited" claim (the source says they are beginning an accreditation process) here. The sources I located verified that Parelli "University" is merely a licensed trade school in Colorado. "Accreditation" is a term of art that refers to very specific criteria; absent a link to the specific "accreditation" program (such as Regional accreditation) the claim is worthless.
4. And "horsenality". Oh please.

I am not attempting to remove "true" information from this article. I am attempting to uphold the policies of WP:V, WP:NOADS and WP:NPOV. The Parelli program rightly deserves credit for its brilliance in marketing and branding. It deserves criticism for its use of cult tactics (I am reminded of the techniques of Scientology) to gain supporters. Its actual superiority to other methods is most definitely in question, and the penchant of its supporters to whitewash all that is negative and to over-state many claims is an ongoing problem. Montanabw^(talk) 23:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I realize that the legal system is premised on an adversarial process. One attorney or team takes on side; another takes the other side. The hope is that justice is done. That approach is wholly inappropriate here. Why? Because we should all be genuinely be seeking the whole, honest truth. In contrast, the adversarial system, which you have adopted as your approach, perverts facts. Each side "spins" their story, omitting the harmful and exaggerating the positive.

You seem to assume that everyone who puts something positive on the PNH page is a paid shill, a liar, a PNH insider and/or simply too stupid to hold the same immutable opinions that you do. You delete the positive, you manufacture the negative out of your own demonstrably uninformed opinions, you accuse and accuse some more, you scoff ("4.And 'horsenality'. Oh please.") as the entirety of a reply on a topic, and you outright ignore a large proportion of legitimate disputes raised for discussion. And you do so repeatedly.

I know it will get me exactly nowhere with you, but nonetheless, I will do you the courtesy of addressing your issues, despite that you did not do me anywhere close to the same courtesy.

• Regarding "university status": from the cited Horse Magazine article, "Key to the unanimous approval given by Colorado's division of private occupational schools was the sound curriculum and acknowledgment of the program's 'university' status." You obviously take issue with what Horse Magazine said. However, Horse Magazine is a mainstream publication and that is what they printed. The article was cited. Did Horse Magazine get something wrong in the details (i.e., "occupational school" vs. "university")? Maybe, I don't know. But to characterize it as a "flat-out lie" when the information was taken directly from a cited mainstream source is absurd.
• The "first program of its kind" portion of your questions can be answered by reference from the same cited Horse Magazine article, which was titled, "Parelli Natural Horsemanship University is Country's First Approved Private Vocational School of Its Kind." (Emphasis added.)
• That article was from 2003 and announced only the initial approval. That, in turn, explains why the accreditation was not indicated there; namely, there is a 2-year probationary period that had just been entered in 2003 when the article was published. Another link was provided to the State of Colorado page to a list of the educational institutions currently recognized by Colorado (http://highered.colorado.gov/Data/InstSelect.aspx). This site lists Parelli Natural Horsemanship University.

I am unsurprised that the majority of my concerns went unanswered, as they have been in the past. I will be seeking dispute resolution.JackieLL007 (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The reason some your concerns are going unanswered is because they are tl;dr and yet say nothing other than demands that the promotional language of the Parelli web site and program be taken at face value. I answered a great deal of your concerns with specific examples. Now please stop with the personal attacks and focus on the facts. Montanabw^(talk)|GO THUNDER! 04:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

But to the point, just a few things:

1. Yes, The Horse got it wrong, probably because they uncritically reprinted a press release. I attribute the wording to the Parellis, not The Horse. I went to the State of Colorado's web site (and that is the citation in the article) and found that Parelli "University" is merely a trade school -- with tuition of $45K in 2003... that's pretty pricy.
2. "First of its kind" is a totally meaningless puff phrase. What "kind"? If you mean Natural Horsemanship, then Monty Roberts has a "University" (Monty Roberts Equus Online University) too... if you mean colleges or vocational schools with horse programs, there are dozens, many dating to the 1960s -- Meredith Manor jumps to mind immediately (1963), but there are many others. First in Colorado? Colorado State University has an equestrian program that far predates Parelli's. So first of... what?
3. Nowhere in the Colorado site does the word "accredited" appear. Again, someone who wrote a press release got overly enthusiastic. The school is apparently approved under "DPOS - Division of Private Occupational Schools" and, in fact, their website states explicitly that they only regulate these schools, they do not "accredit" them. From DPOS: "Accreditation is a non-governmental, voluntary, peer evaluation process whereby a school may elect to seek accreditation status by an independent accreditation body recognized by the U.S. Department of Education." I went from there to the U.S. Department of Education site, searched for Parelli, Parelli University, the whole list from Colorado and a couple other search terms, and got nothing: [15]. As far as I can tell, the program is NOT "accredited" by any entity recognized by the U.S. Department of Education, and it would be fraudulent advertising if the Parelli claimed it was.

• So that's another round of examples. I have said -- repeatedly -- that the Parelli organization has brilliant branding and advertising, but they also use cult tactics to encourage groupthink and nothing they do in the realm of actual horse training is particularly new or innovative, they only create insider language for classic principles of training. The more research I do to try and improve the sourcing of this article, the more evidence I find this to be true. I realize you disagree, but my opinion is based on evidence; I've read Parelli's book, I read Robert Miller's book, I've read Monty Roberts' book, John Lyons' book, several of Mark Rashid's books, watched Richard Shrake's videos, and so on. I've also attended clinics by Don Burt, George Morris, Gordon Wright and Paul Belasik. I do know what I am talking about here. Parelli probably does help educate some people who don't know a lot about horse behavior and training, but he isn't god and he isn't even particularly innovative other than in his marketing skills and charismatic clinic production. Montanabw^(talk)|GO THUNDER! 04:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Montanabw,

I appreciate that, at the least, you have done me the courtesy of a response that included specifics. I am not going to spend my time disagreeing at length with your opinion of Parelli, other than to state that you have a demonstrably simplistic view of the program.

As just one brief example, is the Friendly Game "petting the horse and getting to know the animal," as you have characterized it? Well, at its most basic, that is indeed part of it. However, a more advanced version could be standing directly behind a horse who is at liberty and hitting the ground with your stick/string as hard as you'd like -- and having a horse who is entirely unconcerned. But, no, one shouldn't start with that. And, no, it isn't particularly dangerous if introduced and done correctly. [I would also like to add that this "unconcerned" horse is very different from a merely "dull" horse. The "unconcerned" horse knows that this is motion that doesn't require a response; she can differentiate it from motion by the human that does require a response.]

"Friendly" could be a horse who will come to you at liberty at a canter when asked. "Friendly" also includes probably at least a thousand other things that a person might want her horse to become confident with -- from wearing a Halloween costume to having ropes suddenly wrapped around her legs (because cow work doesn't always go as planned) to having a gun shot off her back. I recognize that these things can be accomplished without PNH. However, PNH provides its own framework for building confidence in a horse -- and it's much more than "petting the horse and getting to know the animal."

As for "University," I think "private occupational school" is a reasonable and perhaps more accurate substitute, despite what the article in The Horse indicated. As for accreditation and "first of its kind," your analyses may be correct. However, each is original research and/or synthesis. Please stick with material that can be directly cited.JackieLL007 (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic with the hidden text crack about the friendly game, and I have removed it, but basicially, it is a great example of Parelli renaming as something special the groundwork that is a part of all good training. It's just standard desensitizing and training the horse to have confidence in its rider/handler. And frankly, horses have had firearms shot of from their backs since the invention of gunpowder, there is absolutely nothing special about Parelli, and it is the insistence on renaming ordinary things and claiming they're better that is the reason that he gets accused of using cult tactics... [16] (that example is about religious cults, but take out Jesus and you're there) Montanabw^(talk)|GO THUNDER! 01:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

And OR and SYNTH refer do not mean you can't go out to find actual resources to verify or disprove a claim made in a press release. You really don't want me to say, "while '"The Horse reported in 2003 a claim by Parelli that ... (university, first of its kind, accredited...) the State of Colorado defines the program as an occupational trade school (cite) and specifically states that they do not grant accreditation to its licensees.(cite) Seriously. You really don't want to go there. Montanabw^(talk)|GO THUNDER! 01:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Definitely Slanted Point of View Here

This article would probably be a lot more stable if it didn't have such a negative slant. I've gone back to point prior to the last round of attempted improvement and cannot blame anyone who is an advocate of the program for wanting to make it more neutral. I think a lot of the criticism is unwarranted in this article, which is supposed to be encyclopedic, It should be pared back to only address the issues IN the article, such as the seven games are some considered some innovative technique and the concept of horsenality. Why is there an "analysis" section now? Wouldn't that be considered OR? And the training video section is completely unbalanced. Maybe over five years ago there was a controversy, but it has probably died down now and is not a notable enough event to remain in the article, pointing to two incidents out of probably dozens of hours of Parelli training on Youtube. Maybe an RfC on the neutrality of the article should be initiated. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe some of the criticism could be removed, but the fact is that Parelli is controversial and the craziness over the videos did happen. They still get lots of negative comments on YouTube. I don't think the analysis is OR, because there's been broad coverage of the program's outline in a ton of magazines and some books, most of them not even by the Parellis. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 16:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

There's an argument to be made that the video section is too long and could just be merged up into the criticism section. Someone could take a whack at keeping the crucial point, but trimming the detail. The argument was originally that these videos were evidence of the Parellis being actually abusive to horses, but the Parellis argued that people may have misunderstood how to deal with horses that were actually misbehaving. I think they need to be mentioned because it's part of the program history. As far as sources go, quite a few cites (both pro and con) are not ideal, but without them, we'd be down to an article that's about two paragraphs long and mostly critical. As it sits, we have a comprehensive article that has a lot more content than it did, plus we spun off the biographical article on Pat Parelli himself. We most certainly could have this article reviewed at the RS noticeboard, but frankly, I have seldom seen much happen in those places, usually it's just a place where someone loses their temper and winds up blocked, and the other parties go back to editing as usual. Montanabw^(talk)|GO THUNDER! 18:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Point by Point

Here's the latest round of what I removed and why:

1. The Danish study [17] did not specifically examine the Parelli "squeeze game"; It was an analysis of a training technique that has been well-known for decades and in no way invented by Parelli. (I can recall the books of Margaret Cabell Self advising the same thing, and she started writing in the 1950s or so...). Equitation science has been conducting a number of studies on various training and management techniques, sometimes verifying things that have been known for centuries, but in some cases completely debunking certain methods (Monty Roberts' "join up" got pretty thoroughly trashed, for example).
2. "First program of it kind"[18] is actually wrong, at least without a qualifier; it is not the first private vocational horse school (Meredith Manor might be, but there could be older ones), it is not the first vocational program to teach horse training (the Al-Marah apprenticeship program far predates it) it is not the first program to teach "natural horsemanship" (Monty Roberts did it first, though I don't know if his has any kind of licensure). So absent something that verifies what kind of "first of its kind" that it is (First trade school that offers no college credit but charges tuition that approaches that of Harvard University?) the statement is mere advertising puffery and means nothing.
3. The structure of using a section heading labeled "Analysis" with subheadings of endorsements versus criticism is a style decision, but I think here it is a better one that makes the TOC more neutral in tone.
4. The endorsements of famous people are in the article; there is no need to include their resumes because the notable ones have their own wikipedia articles, and those that aren't either should, or maybe they aren't notable. Also, just because someone like Craig Johnson lists Parelli on a list of about 20 other people he studied with is not precisely an endorsement, it's more a SEO tactic to get his web site listed in Google results. It wasn't removed, it was just trimmed.
5. There was no need to separate the criticisms of Parelli into separate subheadings. (One could, but that actually puts MORE emphasis on the criticisms, which gives them more weight than needed.
6. The long discussion of "Horsenality" from the Hors & Rider article was too close a paraphrase to Linda Parelli's wording and too lengthy. My edit condensed and consolidated the description without going into a ton of detail. Frankly, if someone wanted to create a separate article on the theory, they could, but it probably would draw the attention of the WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE crowd (with whom I have recently interacted) and they'd trash it worse than I am.

• Hope that helps. Montanabw^(talk)|GO THUNDER! 18:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Kudos for your work here. As long as editors are trying to heavily rely upon self-published sources, primary sources, and non-independent sources, progress will continue to be slow and the article will be little more than an advertisement with some false balance thrown in.

The article needs to be fundamentally rewritten from an encyclopedic viewpoint, identifying and stressing the areas of encyclopedic notability. Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion. --Ronz (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

To respond to your points, Montanabw:

1. The article didn't say that PNH had invented the method. It merely stated that the method was supported by a study. It is essentially saying "PNH has been doing this for years [as have others] and the approach was later shown in a trial to be effective." I don't know what "invention" has to do with anything. This section was improperly deleted.
2. I did include a qualifier, something to the effect of "stated to be the first of its kind." I think this section was improperly deleted, too, but in light of the fuzziness of the statement, I am okay with omitting it.
3. "Analysis" is indeed a style decision but not an unreasonable one.
4. A few-word introduction of various equine industry notables is not a "resume" and should be included. The goal of WP is in large part to act as a useful reference tool and that goal is promoted by not forcing a reader to click through on numerous links to ascertain "who is that?" for those notables with whom they may not be immediately familiar. For example, if a 13 year old kid who likes barrel racing comes to the PNH article, you can't necessarily expect her to know who Walter Zettl is. Why make it difficult when a couple of extra words solves the problem? This section was improperly deleted. Also, because you mentioned it, Craig Johnson was included not because Johnson lists Pat Parelli on his website (for SEO or other) but rather because Johnson has ridden in PNH events.
5. Either way is reasonable regarding the headings. The substance needs a discussion, though.
6. This was NOT a paraphrase. I typed most of it in from memory. This is evidenced by the fact that I typed in the general and "negative" sides first, because I remembered those more thoroughly, while I left the "positive" side undone until I found a good source a day or so later. The "positive" side consisted of choosing a word or two (literally) for each of the horsenalities and building a sentence around each of those positive words. None of that remotely qualifies as paraphrasing. "Too lengthy" is a style choice and not a proper one in this case, given that it was a brief summary of each of the four horsenalities. This section should be restored.

I have other concerns, too, but this will do for a start.JackieLL007 (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Jackie, per WP:SOAP, a long list of "these very famous people recommend Parelli" is not appropriate for Wikipedia. It's mere puffery and promotional language. Plus, other than maybe Miller and Zettl, most of these "endorsements" are just people saying nice, polite things, (or in the case of Johnson, using SEO to promote himself by linking his name to that of more famous people), or perhaps a bit of mutual back-scratching. The wording that the squeeze game was supported by a study is an inappropriate correlation, unless you REALLY want me to go back and actually add "here is what normal people call this method that has been used for centuries" material with citations for each of the seven games. You would probably consider that to be a hatchet job. I suggest you drop that stick. "I typed it from memory" is still a close paraphrase, I read the source material. WP:COPYVIO is clear, and it is policy. Montanabw^(talk) 20:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Ronz, can you tell me what specifically you think qualifies as an advertisement?JackieLL007 (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The dependence on the self-published sources not independent of the subject. --Ronz (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I have removed a number of these. Theroadislong (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. Cites to the subject's own materials can be appropriate for some things (when they were born, their own statements, etc.) but uses are limited and best to find third-party stuff where possible. Montanabw^(talk) 22:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The lede section

The lede section should summarise the articles content. The sentence "and now considered as co-founded with Parelli and his wife, Linda, a native of Australia, who met Pat at a clinic he conducted there." is unreferenced and NOt mentioned in the article can somebody clarify please? Theroadislong (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I tweaked that bit by adding the origin material in the body text, it probably was undue in the lead, moved the personal life bit to the Pat Parelli article. Much discussion in the blogosphere about all that... ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 20:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out and removing it. Just one glaring example of the article being used as a soapbox. It's totally inappropriate for the lede. --Ronz (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

In general, I tend to not work much on the lede until the rest of the article is stabilized, lest we wind up rewriting the lede a gazillion times, but the stuff not apt to be in the article at all certainly can go, particularly when it's not entirely accurate; looks like his first wife also claims co-founder credit. (And oh my the blogosphere discussion about all that). Montanabw^(talk) 22:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, we can't create a sound lede until we agree on the article contents. However, the lede should identify the areas of notability of the topic, and the article should be written around them. Are we in agreement on the areas of notability? If so, neither the lede nor the article indicate it clearly. --Ronz (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

He's probably the most famous of the Natural horsemanship style trainers, and most likely the richest as well. Anything we are missing about that? Montanabw^(talk) 09:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

This article isn't Pat Parelli. What notability does PNH have on its own? --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

It has been written about (extensively) separately from him and is probably the most prominent of the "natural" programs. It's a rare horse magazine that doesn't have at least some mention of PNH. If you don't believe it, go to a farm store, pick up a random horse magazine and look at it. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 16:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm saying that the notability needs to be clearly identified and properly sourced in the article, and introduced in the lede. --Ronz (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I can maybe find some stuff in print and source it, but I'd have a hard time doing so from web sources, unless there are old newspaper reports or stuff in Google archives. The problem is that everyone either loves it or hates it, and most sources are not going to be neutral or very reliable (There are a lot of YouTube videos of 14 year old saying how much they love Parelli.). White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 17:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Ronz, can you clarify? Are you questioning the notability of the topic or just trying to help improve the lead? Multi-million dollar business... what sort of things are you looking for? We pretty much need to split off Pat and the Program into separate articles. Montanabw^(talk) 09:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm saying that the lede doesn't make it clear why Parelli Natural Horsemanship is notable, nor the article overall. As it's written, the notability is assumed and linked strongly to Pat. --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I see. You aren't concerned about the "what it is" so much as the "why should we care?" (yes?) That makes sense to me now. That said, I'm probably too close to the article to figure a way out of that quandary. Do you have suggestions for how we can expand/rewrite? Everything I can think of at the moment is more "what" and "how." As a non-horse person, what sort of info are YOU looking for? (help my brain out of the logjam here... LOL) Montanabw^(talk) 18:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

It comes down to what sources can be found that are academic and historical. --Ronz (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

So if I find a mainstream newspaper's article about a Parelli demo, that says something like, "15,000 horse owners attended this" it could be used to show the scope this program has in the real world? I'm not a fan of Parelli or actually most of the "natural" trainers, but I have seen the program done and seen half a million ads for it over the years. I guess where I and Montanabw are coming from is that pretty much everybody involved in the horse industry knows who Pat and Linda are and what PNH is, even if they don't like the program. To us, it's sort of a slam dunk for notability, once you've seen 500 magazines with full-page ads, seen all the interviews with the Parellis in same magazines, seen the books written by other people bragging on PNH as the way to go, seen all the people on the forums who use the program, etc. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 22:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

That could get us into WP:OR problems unless the newspaper article compares the attendance to other events or otherwise tells us that the number attending is important and why. Parelli clearly has a very successful marketing machine, that's clear, and we need to find sources outside the marketing campaigns. --Ronz (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Horse stuff generally is kind of a problem because most of the material comes from magazines, not a lot of outside coverage. But we can look. One problem is that the SEO for the Parelli site means you go through five screens of in-house results before getting to third party stuff. Montanabw^(talk) 09:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey Ronz, your thoughts on this as an outside source saying PHN is well known? I can find more like this if needed. [19]

That is part of the PNH marketing campaign. It's an announcement for an upcoming free clinic. --Ronz (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Where I'm going here is that I'm puzzled as to where we go with the lead... what are you looking for? You appear to acknowledge both Parelli and the program as notable, and there is enough difference in content to create two articles so... I'm kind of in the middle between everyone. Jackie is sad because I'm with you on toning down the commercialism, but you appear displeased with what's left... and I'm feeling rather stuck. Help? Montanabw^(talk) 10:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

We can only work from what sources are available to us. I'd assume somewhere in the world there is research being conducted and published on the training of and interaction with horses. I've made some preliminary searches, but found nothing. Where ever it is, it's overwhelmed by the popular press.

Meanwhile, we should at least be able to identify exactly what sources meet notability criteria, and how those sources present that notability. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

LOL! If you want info on training or natural horsemanship training generally, there's tons; but Parelli's brand in particular you mostly have self-serving endorsements, testimonials, and reams of blog chatter. Parelli's SEO is making it hard to find ANYTHING! As you can see from the edit-warring above, the problem is that there isn't a lot of independent stuff out there, people love the guy or hate his guts and very little in between. If notoriety establishes notability, he's golden! Montanabw^(talk) 05:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

First off, Jackie is not "sad." Jackie is disgusted.

Ronz, you make an excellent point about notability. MBW, please explain why you deleted a positive excerpt from a book entirely about natural horsemanship written by an equine veterinarian and behaviorist who has his own WP page and has for years...but you repeatedly insert or revert material verbatim -- including the slur "cult" -- from a random person who wrote a book that is far more about farming, forestry and fishing than horses (let alone the natural-horsemanship subsection of the topic).JackieLL007 (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

It failed verification, you linked to the whole book and a word search on "vicious." If you can cite it properly to the correct page (which appears to be page 114) and clarify that it is the work of Robert Miller (who has a wikipedia article, you can find it and link to it) it can stay. (By the way, FWIW I own and have read that book and met Miller in person once. I know Miller is a strong Parelli advocate, but the work is, nonetheless, a generally reliable, if somewhat uncritical, source about natural horsemanship.) Try again. The other book that notes the "cult" criticism is clearly a very neutral source with no axe to grind, it is a book about professions and careers, with a caution to keep people from spending their money on worthless "certifications" that won't actually get them remunerative employment. Really, compared to the criticism of Parelli in the blogosphere, [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], it's pretty mild. Montanabw^(talk) 18:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? You went to the trouble of finding the cite (which I apparently linked incorrectly) and reviewing it but, instead of adding the link that was sitting right in front of you, you deleted the quote, which by your own admission is relevant, entirely?! How is that constructive?

As to whether or not the author of the "cultlike" comment has an ax to grind, I cannot say -- nor can you. I can say, though, that her book is the furthest thing from an authoritative -- or even useful -- work on PNH...or natural horsemanship...or even horses in general. Lack of notability alone should tip against elevating her offhanded remark to being worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. The fact that it's also 1) a pejorative and 2) not even a particularly descriptive one at that, should clearly bar it from inclusion. And, as if more needs to be said, this particular word ("cultlike") was applied by the author to all natural horsemanship, not just PNH. I tried to change "cultlike" to a description ("unduly devoted to the training method"); at least that provides information instead of just an insult, but it got reverted.

Finally, it's also of note that your characterization of what that author said does not match what she actually said. She didn't "caution" people about obtaining "worthless certifications"; she said that "such a specialization will close certain doors even as it opens others."

WP is no place to air bigotry and insults. Please adjust your editing accordingly.JackieLL007 (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's also add more from the blogsphere, [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]/[30], [31], and from a mainstream author, this. There is no "bigotry" here... unless flimflam artists are a protected class? Montanabw^(talk) 00:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

First off, I notice that my serious concerns were ignored. Instead, you addressed only one sentence of my multi-paragraph response. I am not surprised. Please answer those concerns. In the interim, I will address your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackieLL007 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I never said that PNH was universally liked. Quit implying that the fact that it has detractors is news to me. I suspect you already know that.

As for bigotry, "protected class" has nothing to do with it. If I called all rich, white men racists or rapists or murderers, that would make me a bigot (as well as a mean-spirited fool), irrespective of their failure to qualify as a protected class. But I bet I could find a heap of forum posts calling them those slurs and more. I suspect you already know that, too.

Do you really mean the things you type? Or is it simply gamesmanship? Is slinging disingenuous unpleasantness -- and seeing if any of it will stick -- your approach to getting your way? It certainly isn't constructive.JackieLL007 (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Jackie, you are the one who is not being constructive. You edit nothing else and behave as if you are blind to legitimate mainstream thinking on the matter. Basically, there is an article called WP:STICK. I suggest you read it and drop the stick. We have expanded this article significantly from what it was, expanded sourcing dramatically, and it is far more favorable to Parelli than it was. So please accept that you will not succeed in whitewashing this article so it is a puff piece. WP:NPOV is policy. Montanabw^(talk) 20:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Source material

Parking sources here. Montanabw^(talk) 10:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• http://theridinginstructor.net/209/wear-a-riding-helmet/ On the helmet issue and Linda's concussion

Moved from my talk

Discussion of this article wound up at my talk page, so moving the discussion over here in its entirety. Montanabw^(talk) 20:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of Parelli Natural Horsemanship, don't you think "horsenality" deserves its own article? (Introduced here, actually as "Parelli Horsenality™".) What a valuable concept! Incidentally, Google shows a surprising number of Parelli mentions on Swedish pages, and especially of horsenality. Mainly blogs, I guess. Horsenality is there translated as — are you ready for this? — hästonlighet. Sounds even better in Swedish, doesn't it? Bishonen | talk 17:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC).

• No, no! Not me! Darwinbish wrote that! The little poltergeist had figured out my password. (Changed it now.) Naughty anklebiter! Bishonen | talk 18:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC).
  • Baaad Darwinbish! Baad Darwinbish!!! Thanks for catching the typo, by the way! Montanabw^(talk) 18:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Googling Parelli is an interesting experiment in extremely good search engine optimization, it takes about four pages of results to get a hit that's not to the "savvy club" or something. The man (or more likely, his former-cosmetic-company-salesperson wife) is a true genius at branding and marketing. Gotta give them credit for that. Montanabw^(talk) 18:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Speaking of marketing genius, horsenality being "described in the press as providing 'valuable insights'" is not sourced to some third party. It comes from an interview with Linda. Not, admittedly, directly quoted to Linda, with quote marks; but it comes from the reporter's introductory background summary, which clearly comes from Linda. It's Linda's opinion. "Described in the press", indeed. I hesitate somewhat to edit the article, since DB already has, but what the hell, hers was just a typo correction. Done. Bishonen | talk 18:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC).
        • I think the problem with the Horsenality is that probably fewer than 1 in 10 horses are going to fall into one of the four categories, which probably stems from the fact that Linda, the apparent creator, didn't have much horsey experience before she married Pat. A few years of Pony Club and then some low-level eventing are not going to prepare you for dealing with the spectrum of issues you get with problem horses--and the problem horses are the ones that get sent to trainers! I've seen a bunch of horses, seen horses that tried to kill people and horses that were like big puppies, and most of them just don't fit her categories. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 21:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
          • • She also wasn't a psychologist, either. However, she DOES have a background in "industrial psychology" (i.e. how to sell stuff to people) and I would suggest she is a genius in that department. One of the many bbs discussions of the method calls it "the horse world's answer to Scientology." Montanabw^(talk) 22:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Googling "Parelli Natural Horsemanship" may give a different set of results - and you have to remember Google tailors results to the searcher - as I get http://www.equiportal.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?id=524 as hit number 5. It's not as popular as our article would have you believe. Should we ask Jimbo if he knows any "toxic horsenalities"? --RexxS (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

And Bishonen, have at it. I'm really getting tired of that COI editor and her POV pushing, but when it's only two people involved, outside viewers think you're both crazy and she thinks I have an evil kitten-eating agenda to be a big meanie. (OK, in crazy land, I'm maybe a few beers short of a 6-pack, but only in my own special way). Montanabw^(talk) 22:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Very puffed-up article. I thought at first I should hang back in case an admin was needed to deal with the promotional editor and their COI, but I've removed some stuff now, so I obviously can't act as an admin wrt the article. (Can't be helped. It was a pleasure to remove the sentence about how the school maintains an online site — who'd have thought it!) Bishonen | talk 23:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC).

And the puffing was a sincere attempt to be fair to the editor in question, but because I massively toned down what was originally added, that editor still feels that we are "slandering" a great man. Better you than me.  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 23:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't much care what you say about Pat Parelli. Same with Linda Parelli. They're big kids and can take care of themselves. So, kindly don't put words in my mouth -- this isn't the first time you've done it and I'll thank you not to do so again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackieLL007 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Somewhere in my boxes of already packed books .. I have a book by Anne Wilson titled Top Horse Training Methods Explored which I've only ever managed to skim. It did not appear to be a very fawning work towards any of the big name trainers. Looks like it's going for a cent on Amazon (plus shipping). Might have useful info. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, that sounds like a good one to have. I guess what I don't love about most of the big name guys is that most of the horses never DO anything. I mean, they stand out in somebody's backyard and eat and go on 3 trail rides a year. If the methods are so great you'd think they'd use them on big stakes racers or high dollar show horses or something. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 16:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

As the "COI editor" in question, I thought I'd chime in here.

WAF, my experience with horsenality is that about 80-90% of horses fall fairly clearly into one primary horsenality. (That doesn't mean they're 100% in any given category, but most of their behaviors are.) The other 10-20% are 1) "more complicated" (ha, ha) but 2) horsenality still helps out with the training. Just my 2c, given experience with many horses over the years (as well as a fair bit of familiarity with the horsenality concept).

Bishonen, the text you referred to was originally "offers education online," not merely that PNH has a website. The educational element was deleted somewhere along the way and, thus, the remainder became, as you noted, an expression of the obvious.

Finally, as a general note to those late to what appears to have devolved into mud-slinging, I will add this: I understand why, at first glance, you would think I am a COI editor. I add a fair bit of positive material. What is not immediately obvious, though, is why that is not unreasonable under the circumstances.

When I arrived at the article in late December, it was a smear piece. It had two sentences of bland praise (something akin to "Notable people A, B, C and D have utilized similar methods and have said assorted positive things about PNH. Robert Miller has supported PNH for decades."). That, in turn, was accompanied by 7 paragraphs blasting PNH in colorful, nasty (and sometimes untrue) detail.

That was not balance. Moreover, as a person with a decade of PNH experience, I can say that nontrivial amounts of the article were factually untrue (i.e., not a matter of mere opinion). I would invite anyone to look at that version of the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parelli_Natural_Horsemanship&diff=prev&oldid=697283256

I have no COI. I am merely a student on PNH who wants both the negatives and the positives to be reflected accurately on the page.JackieLL007 (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

New header for discussion added after the move

Per above, this individual needs to drop the stick and let it go. Someone else explain it to her, I'm quite tired of hearing the same arguments repeated over and over again. Montanabw^(talk) 20:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

"Drop the stick"?! It is my shield arm that has done most of the heavy lifting in my conversations with you. As for tired, I am tired of addressing accusation after accusation. Ad hominem remarks are not appropriate. Such remarks repeated over and over are all the more inappropriate. I will be happy to discuss specific edits with anyone.JackieLL007 (talk) 14:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• Mmm. When you say the text originally said "offers education online," JackieLL007, I think you must mean it said "maintains an online site to provide instruction"? You added that wording here. The Wikiblame tool, that I used to find that diff, didn't find the phrase "education online" in any version of the article. [32] (I hope that huge URL works for you. The full search takes some seconds to load, please be patient.) In fact, I haven't been able to find the word "education" in the text at all. It may appear in some versions — I can't be sure, as the search tool is confused by the appearance of the single word in some footnotes — but I haven't found it. (I found "educational framework" here, added by an IP.)

I'm not saying these things as some kind of "gotcha" — I don't mean to fault you for not remembering the exact wording. At the same time, "maintains an online site to provide instruction" doesn't seem a very forceful or clear way of speaking of offering education. I see Montanabw removed the "to provide instruction" here, apparently in passing, while replacing a reference to www.parelli.com with a third-party source (a virtuous act). Presumably she thought it pretty pointless padding, and I'd be inclined to agree. Anyway, that's perhaps a lot of words for one detail. More to the point: I don't agree the version you link to was a "smear piece". There is both negative (in the "Criticism" and "Training Video Controversy" sections) and positive (in the "Program" section) information. Indeed "Program" is written in a promotional style, completely from the "inside" — as if written by a representative of PNH — so to speak from the horse's mouth (sorry). What you call "two sentences of bland praise" is technically two sentences, but that is nevertheless a pretty misleading description: the sentences are mere scaffolding, from which hang four references, three of them online (those are the ones I've been able to consult) and extremely promotional. Talk about "written like an advertisement" — look at this one, sacharinely entitled "Naturally Parelli". It's a fawning fan piece — check out especially the build-up to, and placement of, the three-word paragraph "Enter Pat Parelli." I'm sorry if I offend all you horsey lasses, but is that a normal way of going on in the horse world? If so, I suppose it's what we have to use in lieu of "reliable sources", but it's a sad state of affairs for all that. It's not about the number of sentences, Jackie. That's not to say I'm enamoured of the "Criticism" section, either. Some of it picks bits of the sources in a way that makes it sound even harsher than in the original. I'm thinking of doing a little rephrasing there. Bishonen | talk 22:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC).

Yep, the love or hate is pretty much uniform throughout the whole horse industry, not just for NH or other training methods. It goes for breeds, saddles, tack, everything. "I hate xxxxx breed because they ____." Fill in the blank with "freak out all the time", "are ugly", or "are stupid". Of course, most of the time it's that a person is misusing the horse, like those people who buy a Border Collie and can't figure out why it's unhappy in their city apartment, but I digress...

The stuff about the online site could be reworded according to what kind of education is available throught it. I know Monty Roberts has a kind of online university, probably that you have to pay for, and I'm thinking that a couple of the reining trainers have similar sites. Maybe it's similar to a non-horse course like what's put out by community colleges, or something?

I agree that some of the criticism could be reworded, since some of the sources are not that critical and simply state they don't love the program. I didn't see some of the stuff in the sources, and mostly what I saw was merely of the "It's too expensive, I didn't like the Catwalk video, I think the equipment is overpriced". White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 00:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

No one wants to slander a group that is as quick as Parelli to file legal claims (like they did to get the Barney videos taken down.) For all that horse people whine and gossip, when it comes to actually taking a stand, they are awfully spineless. (this includes the equine press) Monty Roberts "online university" is also overblown -- I don't think his outfit even has the state licensure Parelli got... and as far as I can tell, neither actually offer real college credit. (In contrast, places like Meredith Manor do). Montanabw^(talk) 04:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Bishonen, thank you for taking the time to look at the page and some of its history. I also appreciate the technical insight. I'm not terribly familiar yet with WP tools and some of the related functions (for example, do you happen to know how to link to a single page of a Google Books book vs. the entire book?), so I guessed at the approximate wording of the "online education" phrase. I thought that a few sentences explaining how the organization interacts with its students (franchisee-type/PNH licensed instructors, DVDs, online and courses) would be a useful addition. I got dinged before for adding too much detail, so I wasn't trying to go for forceful or detailed but instead just brief. Any suggestions for improvement are welcome.

Regarding the "smear piece" comment, I'm not sure how to address that on a talk page without writing several pages. As I read the entirety of it, every few words I found myself thinking "inflammatory language; misleading; outright wrong; unrebutted (but rebuttable) criticism; etc."

I'll try to provide a useful example with just the first "criticism" paragraph from that earlier version. Here's the paragraph:

• There has been criticism, sometimes scathing, of the Parelli program and similar Natural Horsemanship programs by the mainstream equestrian world. The primary criticisms are the programs are cultlike, gimmicky, sell overpriced materials, and charge "exorbitant" prices for clinics, particularly to obtain "certification" as a Parelli practitioner.[7] Parelli is criticized for renaming traditional training techniques such as longeing, and rebranding standard horse training equipment that he sells for premium prices, when in reality the Parelli and non-Parelli versions are virtually indistinguishable.[8]

Analysis:

• The first source is a book on "Outdoor Careers." It has nine topic chapters covering 110 illustrated pages -- forester, organic farmer, rancher, horse trainer, fishing vessel operator, adventure travel guide, outdoor sports instructor, plant nursery operator and dog trainer -- making the book about 1/9th about horse training. A subset of that is the natural-horsemanship variety of horse training. In turn, a subset of that is Parelli Natural Horsemanship, which the author mentions, but never considers separate from other varieties of NH. This book lacks the notability to warrant so much space in an encyclopedia. (This is truer still when considering that references noting support from multiple Olympians and other champions were modified/deleted as unnecessary/promotional/POV.) Most of the criticism cited was directed at NH in general. No positive elements from this book, e.g., that NH "is a positive development in horse training because...," were included along with the criticism.
• "scathing" [criticism] -- This is not encyclopedic.
• "mainstream equestrian world" -- What is "mainstream"? [As an aside, I would suggest that the support PNH has received from multiple equine world luminaries has made PNH itself "mainstream"; regardless, "mainstream" is a weasel word and is not encyclopedic.]
• The word "cult" is a pejorative, although I will certainly concede that those who see no value in the program have used the word as an insult. Does the fact of the slur mean that it is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia?
• "cultlike, gimmicky, sell overpriced materials" -- was applied as a generality to all NH. That doesn't seem specific enough to warrant inclusion on the PNH page.
• "'exorbitant' prices for clinics, particularly to obtain 'certification' as a Parelli practitioner." -- this is not what the source says and it is misleading. The source says that the price to become certified as a trainer in the well-known NH styles (not just PNH) is exorbitant. Fair enough -- becoming a PNH professional is costly. "Certification as a Parelli practitioner" is nonsensical. Practicing it with a horse costs as little as nothing (borrow some equipment and DVDs and practice to your heart's content).
• "Parelli is criticized for renaming traditional training techniques such as longeing." There are significant differences. I added a section explaining the most basic differences between the circling game and longeing.
• "rebranding standard horse training equipment that he sells for premium prices, when in reality the Parelli and non-Parelli versions are virtually indistinguishable." "When in reality"?! If that's not obviously some editor's (incorrect) opinion, I don't know what is.

That is from just one paragraph. The rest of the article was (and, to a lesser extent, is) rife with similar -- and, sometimes, worse -- issues. Have I made positive additions to the PNH page? Yes. But I hope I've demonstrated a small sampling of why those changes were appropriate.

Critics of PNH criticize. Fair enough. That's the way of the world and notable criticism should be included. But I think having an entire section of unrebutted "criticism" is inappropriately one-sided. Because I would like this post to result in something productive (other than a defense of the repeated insinuations that I am a paid shill or somesuch), I would propose this:

1. Rename "Criticism" to "Controversy"
2. Include neutral subheadings (e.g., "pricing," "recasting traditional training techniques as NH")
3. Include both sides under each subheading.

Thoughts, concerns, suggestions?JackieLL007 (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I looked at the article that you linked, Bishonen. That was the first time I'd seen it, as I haven't gotten to checking all of the links yet. It certainly is puffy -- no argument there -- and the tone would be completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. On the other hand (and this is a genuine question), are you saying that, because the article has a clearly positive impression of PNH, it can't be used as a fact source?JackieLL007 (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Theoretically it can, but we must be careful of using a puff piece for facts that are available elsewhere, because that would look like we were dragging in the puff piece just because… well, just to get Wikipedia's readers to read it and be influenced by it, you know. (Promotion.) Let me check what the reference, which occurs twice, is actually used for. Hmm. "The program is currently headquartered in Pagosa Springs, Colorado." Ouch. Currently? "Naturally Parelli" is from 2002! Really pretty old to be used for any facts about PNH, which I bet isn't exactly the same now as fourteen years ago. Secondly, it's used for sourcing that Karen and David O'Connor "have said positive things about Parelli." Well, "Naturally Parelli" says that they use PNH, not that they've said anything about it, to be carping. But more importantly, the information is just really old. Do they still use it now? Try to find something newer, and perhaps also anything at all for the other people in the same sentence, Julie Krone and Lauren Barwick. (Walter Zettl is sourced in the next sentence.)

BTW, we don't use "currently" altogether, see WP:CURRENTLY, because "current" information immediately begins to age. Use precise language. Bishonen | talk 20:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC).

Here's my take:

1. Rename "Criticism" to "Controversy" --Potahto, Potayto. Same difference, but I agree with Bishonen that the "Program" section contains the positive bits.
2. Include neutral subheadings (e.g., "pricing," "recasting traditional training techniques as NH") --Nope, that was tried, I reverted it, and it actually draws even MORE attention to the negative, which, I suspect, is not what JackieLL007 wants
3. Include both sides under each subheading. --Nope, the rebuttal statements are already with the various bits.

Frankly, the criticism section doesn't need to become half the table of contents, which is what a bunch of subheaders would do. Even though I am critical of Parelli methodology, even I think that would be undue weight. Montanabw^(talk) 04:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I offend all you horsey lasses, but is that a normal way of going on in the horse world? No, Bish, no offense at all! The It's a fawning fan piece problem is an issue in the specialty press in general (advertising dollars drive editorial content). This is one where we basically will never get this article to GA for the very reasons you mention, but we have to make the best of what there is. Horse training methods are kind of like diet books, IMHO... always a new flavor of the month, some sound, some loony, and nothing new under the sun. We know that no one will sell a million copies of something that says, "eat a balanced diet of fewer calories and exercise more" but they will if it's a "revolutionary new way to melt fat instantly by eating only saltines and drinking water (OMG!!!!)" Same with horse training. A book like Complete Training of Horse and Rider is passé; something like Revolution in Horsemanship is hot. (Actually, that's a decent enough book as far as it goes, so long as you realize it is only about the Natural Horsemanship movement and has nothing about the rest of the world) Montanabw^(talk) 04:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• @JackieLL007: I agree with some of your comments on the criticism section, but your problem with the term "mainstream" as a weasel word and unencyclopedic is surprising — certainly an unusual angle. "Mainstream" is a widely used word here, as a convenient shorthand, both in articles and discussions. See WP:MAINSTREAM. Montanabw, yes, I noticed the sourcing is lousy on both sides. For that reason, it was particularly pleasing that the bot was able to retrieve the archived link to Horse & Hound,[33] apparently a very decent journalistic source (note also that it has a Wikipedia article). (Again, could somebody please fix the footnote to point directly to the archive link? Montana?) I suppose advertising dollars come into it for all the specialty press, but their article about the Catwalk incident seemed very balanced, in strong contrast to all the blogs and youtube clips. Perhaps you people can find more good stuff in their archives? Naturally it would be better still to have a good fair American source about this American phenomenon. But, as you suggest in the section below, it's probably easier for the European press to be, well, less influenced by special (American) interests. Bishonen | talk 12:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC). Bishonen | talk 12:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC).

I think the YouTube clips can be tossed if they are even still on there, unless we can find the raw videos showing what happened so people can make up their own minds. The "Linda Parelli beats horse" was by Rick Gore, who is sort of off-the-wall as far as training practices go and annoying. (Actually, he has both a horse and gun channel on YouTube, and on the gun one he comes across as really paranoid. Maybe he thinks the horse people are going to come after him.) We don't need his opinions on here, and it would be better to include the raw video if possible.

I don't know about the Horse & Hound stuff; it's certainly a good source, but the problem is that a lot of magazines require subscription to access the archives. Maybe this one doesn't. I can look. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 15:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Bishonen, I see your point on the term "mainstream" in general -- experts and their opinions should be the main source of information on an encyclopedia. That works well in the sciences, etc., but in horses (as you may have gathered) just about everyone thinks they're an expert. ("I bought a horse and I rode her once without flying off into a fence = I'm an expert." Yes, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but not as much as you might think. Ugh.) That's one of the reasons that I started (before it was deleted) to expand the section on the Olympians and other Hall of Fame folks who support PNH and/or have incorporated it into their interactions with horses. To me, those seemed like people who easily pass the "expert" hurdle. I haven't made the changes I wanted because I seem to have somehow wound up spending ~90% of my time on talk pages defending myself against a whole lot of ad hominem remarks and unfair wiki-invective.

Anyway, as you may also have gathered, opinions in horses can be strong -- really, really strong at times. For example, Montanabw indicates that she read Pat Parelli's 1993 book and concluded that PNH is useless/obvious/nonsense/whatever. I've studied and practiced PNH for many years (after having studied more "traditional" horsemanship for many years prior to that) and my results with NH have been astonishingly good. Those differences should be no big deal...and really should be irrelevant to editing WP. I don't want the PNH page to reflect a pro-PNH view. I don't want it to reflect an anti-PNH view. I want it to be the *whole* picture. There are many widely held and expert-held beliefs and I think we can agree that they should all (subject to notability, etc.) be included. Again, thank you for joining us "horse enthusiasts" to sort this unpleasantness out.JackieLL007 (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Dammit, there you go making assumptions again, Jackie, this is the problem we all have with you. Truth is, when I first read Parelli's book ( and Miller's book, and Lyons' book and so on...) I found it interesting at first. I only changed my views after observation and reflection, primarily over the rebranding issue and after seeing a lot of problems with horses that have needed to be untrained from certain aspects of the method. I also take issue with the constant "this method is better and different from all the bad old things" nonsense. The Horse & Hound example is a good ref, I wish we had more of this stuff, as too much of what we have to work with are advertising-driven puff pieces opposed by blog posts by the disgruntled. Neither is ideal. Montanabw^(talk) 00:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't a mere assumption; you've repeatedly cited your reading of Pat Parelli's decades-old book as a credential. If you now want to share new information about your bona fides, fine, but it really isn't about credentials, is it? (I appear to be an exception to that general rule, as one person has effectively demanded that I qualify myself as an "expert" to contribute.)

Regarding your comment "I also take issue with the constant 'this method is better and different from all the bad old things' nonsense" -- this article is not about our opinions, not mine and not yours.

As for "this is the problem we all have with you," that smacks of Wikibullying.JackieLL007 (talk) 14:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Parelli Natural Horsemanship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120318233432/http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/536/300317.html to http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/536/300317.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Cyberbot II. The source checks out, and it also has some further content that throws a cold light on the second sentence of the paragraph, "Some criticized Parelli for handling the horse in a rough manner," which is sourced to "Teambarney's Blog" — one person's opinion. The Wayback URL to Horse&Hound, by contrast, provides a much broader description of reactions to the incident, and a working link to the 154-page furore that broke out on H&H's forum. It makes "Some criticized Parelli" sound very bland and understated. That needs changing, but I have to run, I'll get to it later if nobody else does. (Always try to avoid blogs.) One last thing: the redirect to the archived page is very slow for me. I tried to input the archive link directly in the footnote, so that readers will be able to find it with reasonable ease (and without being derailed by the original link, "404 Sorry! The page you’re trying to visit is unavailable" — surely a pointless distraction). But I'm no good with those cursed cite templates — I never use them myself — and had no success. Perhaps someone else would like to simplify the footnote? Remember that the experience, and access, of the reader is paramount. The source should be one unambiguous click away. Bishonen | talk 11:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC).

Adding: Oh, no, I was mixing up the two separate accusations — the H&H article that we can now read is about reactions to the "Catwalk" demo, not the "one-eyed horse" incident. That's what happens when unhorsey people charge in blindly. So, can anybody possibly find a stronger source than Teambarney's Blog for reactions to the "one-eyed horse" incident? Anything on Wordpress is really a very poor source. (The footnote still needs simplifying.) Bishonen | talk 12:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC).

The problem with this whole article is that ALL the source material is weak; the "pro" material is mostly from the promotional sites and hagiographic puff pieces, and the con is mostly opinion blogs. The "hitting Barney the one-eyed horse in the face" situation was actually in one of the Parelli videos, and the clip was plastered all over the web for a while, until the Parelli organization made copyright claims (which was legal, the clip was copyrighted and used without attribution) and got most of the clips removed. But it was also pretty widespread, [34], [35], [36], again to the extent that Linda published a clip explaining herself. The European press is more willing to be critical in mainstream sources than the American press. Hope this helps. Montanabw^(talk) 03:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep. All this work based upon poor sources will be swept aside if good ones are ever found, and keeps the article quality very low in the meantime. --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a catch-22. That said, I think that one reason we have all this drama is that JackieL007 did just that -- tons of work based on weak sources -- and saw it swept aside. What's there now is not ideal, either, but at least it's balanced. Montanabw^(talk) 00:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

My sources on the PNH program were primarily...the PNH program. "Straight from the horse's mouth," as it were. The material is fine. If the citing needs work -- some of others' material definitely needs to be cited better, and some of mine could use some improvement, too -- that's another matter entirely.

And, on the off chance that pointing fingers is the way to go here, I think all the drama is because Montanabw has spent the last nine years deleting others' material so that this piece will reflect her own views (i.e., that PNH is [insert the negative word of the day here])JackieLL007 (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Except for the most basic of information such as location etc. Wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources for all content, we are not concerned with what Parelli have to say about themselves. Theroadislong (talk) 14

10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

All Wikipedia articles need to be written from secondary, third-party sources to meet our policies, especially WP:NOT. Sections that clearly violate WP:NOT, like "Endorsements and invitations" should be outright removed. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Some individual citations can be to primary or in-house sources, it depends on context. (i.e. someone's own site is probably a RS for their birthday, the name of their favorite dog and such) The endorsements section was inserted to balance the criticisms section. I think in this context, it's probably appropriate to keep some of it if not of undue weight (though I do think that the O'Connor "endorsement" is sketchy and must be phrased carefully.) Jackie, in case you failed to notice, I'm actually siding with you for the premise that some favorable material is OK. Montanabw^(talk) 20:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Parelli Natural Horsemanship founded by?

User:JackieLL007 has stated that “The program was co-founded by Pat Parelli and his second wife, Linda.” but here [37] their website says “Founded in 1981 by lifelong horseman, horse trainer, rodeo rider, cowboy and teacher Pat Parelli – who was joined by his wife Linda Parelli in 1993" They can’t have co-founded it in 1981 if she wasn’t around then? Theroadislong (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I do have some questions on that, as I mentioned in my tag to that edit (""Founder" credit - who other than Pat and Linda Parelli claim that they founded it? Swan? First wife, Karen?"). I think my edit is reasonable because 1) it's what the article said, 2) regarding the book, Swan was a horse-industry wordsmith not the creator of the ideas inside (the front only says "Pat Parelli" and inside it says "PP with Kathy Swan") and 3) Linda Parelli helped translate the program into something that could be shared with students at a distance. From http://www.quarterhorsenews.com/index.php/260-reining/reining-outside-the-pen/11413-kathy-swan-passes-away :

Swan, a former executive editor of the National Reining Horse Association Reiner publication, had worked over 30 years within the equine magazine and book publishing industries. Among the publications she worked for were Quarter Horse News, Western Horseman and Horse & Rider. She was the author of several books, including Reining, the Art of Performance in Horses by Bob Loomis, Shawn Flarida’s and Craig Schmersal’s World Class Reining and Western Horseman’s Natural Horsemanship by Pat Parelli.

I don't think Karen Parelli (pictures) or Kathy Swan really merit a mention. But reworking the wording to reflect Linda Parelli's later appearance might work better.JackieLL007 (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I would like to point out that the "Jackie has stated that..." is not exactly the whole story. I modified it from "The program is now promoted as co-founded" to "The program was co-founded," so not exactly a substantive change, and then I tagged it with the question.JackieLL007 (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Probably it'll work best to say that Pat was the primary founder in 1981, and then Linda began helping/assisting/whatever when she married him. He seems to have really begun his program when his articles first got published in Western Horseman, and that was in 1981. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 00:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I changed it to "Later elements of the program are considered to have been co-created by Pat Parelli and his wife, Linda." (That wording eliminates needing a word like "current.") — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackieLL007 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Parelli's first wife also claims co-founder credit and helped him with his first book. We can't whitewash Pat's personal life to reflect current PR literature. Clearly, behind the "great man" are several hard-working women. JMO Montanabw^(talk) 20:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm leaving; before I go...

I thought I'd raise a few topics for others' consideration:

• I think a more-detailed section on horsenality would useful, as it's an integral part of PNH. Earlier material might be rehabilitated if it is cast as the program's "take" on the subject.

No we need reliable third party sources, not their own "take" on the subject.Theroadislong (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Pat Parelli also was part of a National Geographic special to round up and get DNA samples from a group of (wild) mustangs. Here's one source (a press release) but other sources may be better: http://www.naturalhorse.com/archive/volume2/Issue8/article_25.php

This might be suitable for the Pat Parelli article but the press release cannot be used as a reference.Theroadislong (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• I think a section on PNH and dressage would be interesting. On the one hand, dressage is the discipline that has come under the most fire from PNH in that PNH objects to some of the forceful practices in current (but not necessarily widespread) use (rollkur, etc.). On the other hand, Linda Parelli is a dressage rider/enthusiast and PNH has participated in several dressage endeavors with some notable folks. E.g.: http://www.chronofhorse.com/article/2013-dressage-summit-%E2%80%93-rare-opportunity-dressage-enthusiasts-engage and http://naturalequipment.com.au/catalog/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=1215 .
• BW has given her blessing to the following Miller quote. ("If you can cite it properly to the correct page (which appears to be page 114) and clarify that it is the work of Robert Miller (who has a wikipedia article, you can find it and link to it) it can stay.") I did inadvertently link the quote to the book as a whole, so she deleted the quote. I think it would be a solid counterpoint to the (uncited) "markets horsemanship information that is widely available and has been passed down for generations, considered to be common sense by those knowledgeable of the horse." The sentence with the quote is:

Proponents call the movement revolutionary, noting that clinicians "consistently take horses with horrible behavior faults -- terrified horses, vicious horses, severely hyperactive horses -- and in remarkably short time change these horses permanently." (Here's the link to the whole book; I tried the "link" button to get just page 114, but it didn't work. https://books.google.com/books?id=SZXEGcF48ZAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Revolution+in+Horsemanship:+And+what+it+Means+to+Mankind&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwimtN3zzK7LAhXCLmMKHTfiAiAQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Revolution%20in%20Horsemanship%3A%20And%20what%20it%20Means%20to%20Mankind&f=false

Finally, if anyone has the nerve, I would suggest reverting BW's last manual edits. In her last edit (the one she tagged with "Kept some changes, tossed some changes"), she went through and undid all of the edits I had made over the prior couple of days. I don't know why she took the time to change, one by one, multiple punctuation fixes that I made (including my fix for a period in the middle of a sentence) back to being incorrect. However, those punctuation fixes could be restored easily by reverting her manual changes. It would also change "horse...are" back to the correct "horse...is."

It would also change back some substantive errors, including:

• “Liberty” work had been wrong. It had been described as working with a horse with the horse in a halter and lead rope/flank rope. That is unambiguously wrong. Liberty work is working with a horse at liberty. I changed it so it was correct. She manually reintroduced the error (to, verbatim, her earlier version).
• "Now called "Parelli Natural Horsemanship University"" is also incorrect. The whole program isn't called that, just the vocational school portion (on site education).

That's not it, but that's it from me. This was supposed to be a few-hour project, followed by a few other few-hour projects on Wikipedia in areas in which I had some expertise, but this environment is toxic as hell and it's just not worth it.

BW, although I imagine your impulse might well be to tell me to stuff it, I wish you peace.

Cheers, everyone.JackieLL007 (talk) 13:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I can try to get some of this done, although it may not be soon because I'm handraising a litter of guinea pigs and they are taking up an incredible amount of time. However, I can probably squeeze it in between piggy feedings, other real life chores and other on-WP tasks sooner or later. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

And Peace to you Jackie; make no assumptions about my impulses, much of your whole problem here has been the assumptions you have made about the motivations and beliefs of others. Here, we need to keep to WP:NPOV at all times and that includes balancing the negative as well as the positive. You are not the first editor who has come to wikipedia with the One True Way attitude and leaves complaining that people are mean to them. The environment here can be rough, it is often shocking to encounter a world where not everyone sees things the way you do. I appreciate that others have been more patient with this user than I have been; and at the end of the day, your work motivated us to expand and improve the article as well as to create the long-overdue biography of Pat in a separate article. So the encyclopedia has been improved. Montanabw^(talk) 19:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)