Talk:Stallion/Archive 1

Archive 1

Health section

Dlh, you want to add a section on "health issues related to stallions? Could get pretty long, but maybe some basics on fertility, undescended testicles, a few of the usual things? Montanabw 20:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Categories

Any reason this article is in Category:Types of horses? Ealdgyth | Talk 19:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Same as mare, gelding, yearling, etc... no real place for "ways of describing horses that aren't described by breed or color." "Types" is sort of a generic catch-all category. Montanabw^(talk) 04:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Stallion Report I NEED YOUR HELP!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok I need your help with some Q's! First one: How big do Stallions get? Second One: What do they eat and how much a day? If you know any of these please help me out! And HELP ME!!!! Thank You For your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.36.98.225 (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Stallions vary by breed, there is no one set of guidelines. You might want to read horse for the information you are looking for. Montanabw^(talk) 06:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Entire

I thought I had heard a horse referred to as an entire(spelling suspect) Can you enlighten me

Yes, it's a sort of obscure term for a stallion (as opposed to a gelding, which is castrated). Not used much in the real world, but you come across it every now and then. Usually in the same circles that use the word "horse" to only refer to male horses. I've seen it is print here and there, I don't think I've heard a live person here (western USA) ever say it out loud. Maybe elsewhere. Montanabw^(talk) 06:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh! I haven't read this page through for a while, have i?! We use "entire" quite often in the UK to mean "stallion" - in ordinary conversation but restricted to horsey-types. The general public would be more likely to call him a "stallion", but "entire" does get used. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

cleanup tag

This article start talking immediately about horseback riding and handling and all that. A horse is an animal, not a sports utility. Usage by humans should be some section but is way too dominant in the lead now, imho. I'm no expert on the subject so {{sofixit}}'ing it is not my cup of tea, but I did add the cleanup tag. Love, --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 20:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Um, it is clear that you don't know much about horses. They are domesticated animals and have to live in close cooperation with humans. Stallions are animals that weigh on average 1000 pounds, yet are routinely handled by people who stand right next to them, so management and handling are crucial safety issues. So usage by humans is of considerable importance and by no means of undue weight. I won't argue that the article has ways it could be improved, but not in the manner you suggest. Montanabw^(talk) 04:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Stallion Group Keeping and Geldings

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please. This page is about Stallions. Let's include information about how stallions should be kept and managed properly, appropriate to the species. This includes keeping stallions in stallions-only "bachelor" groups. I've added a few sentences about the nature of the horse, that stallions don't usually kill each other in wildlife when fighting for mares, and that many stallions who can't win their own harem of mares live in stallions-only "bachelor" groups. I've also added a paragraph about stallion group keeping, which is more than appropriate in regards to the space committed to keeping stallions in a harem or in isolation management. In this paragraph I added two links to actual working public content, one, a report about a stallion group keeping and the other a general educational article about stallion group keeping. This in contrast to the already existing reference to "Pasturing Stallions Together Can Work, Says Study". That reference is functional, however, it points to protected content that can be accessed with a membership of the publishing web page only. So really, there is *no* truly public accessible resource at all about stallion group keeping other than the two references I added (also the Swiss study is extremely briefly written, even in its original German publication). For reasons I don't understand (except that some people are so much pro-castration and anti-stallion that they wish to censor information on how to keep / manage stallions properly), this paragraph along with the two references to public information about stallion group keeping were repeatedly deleted, without giving any (proper) reason. Please stop vandalizing this article by deleting relevant information about stallion group keeping and management.

Also I noticed that in the "Geldings" section there were some extremely biased and sexist comments against stallions to the notion of: Stallions are much happier when they are castrated than if they have their natural male needs. Please, if you don't like stallions and prefer them to all be castrated, which I must assume by such comments, that's an opinion and extremely biased. Please don't post it here. There are many stallions that are very happy just the way they are. Even if they are not used for breeding. Also perhaps "Geldings" should be on an own page.

Disagreement is not vandalism: stop characterizing it as such. Acroterion (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

No, disagreement isn't. But deleting relevant content and resources is. Especially without giving any (proper) reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.78.114.68 (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It isn't vandalism: it's a content dispute. Claims of "censorship" while advocating fringe positions are unlikely to garner much support. Acroterion (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a content dispute. I thought I had read somewhere in the rules of Wikipedia that deleting relevant content or resources of an article, without giving a reason, was vandalism. I tried looking it up again now to show, but couldn't find it again, so I stand corrected. I don't see how stallion group keeping is a fringe position. It's not a position at all. It's a form of keeping stallions. You might like it or not. To the contrary, if someone thinks there should be no mention, or no proper mention with references, of keeping stallions in stallions-only bachelor groups, I think that is a position. A position against stallion group keeping. Being natural for many stallions in wildlife, it would be biased not to mention that form of keeping stallions with relevant information and references. As I can see no other reason for not mentioning stallion group keeping with equal amounts of information and references as other forms of keeping, the term "censorship" comes to mind. Agreed, perhaps a little "strong", but it does come to my mind. Even if caused by different opinions / positions.

You misunderstand Wikipedia's policies on neutrality and balance. Wikipedia operates by consensus, and it is plain that you have not gained a consensus for your edits so far. That is why I protected the article: you must convince other editors that your suggested additions are appropriate. So far, other editors feel that you're advocating a fringe position, and have said so. You appear to be pursuing an agenda of animal rights advocacy that is at odds with general horsekeeping practices. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy: it is a place where mainstream thought is presented, with other views in due proportion to their prevalence. "Equal amounts of information and references" are not required for alternative views: such a presentation would be in violation of WP:UNDUE and thus inappropriate. It appears to an outsider to the subject that your sole agenda is to denounce gelding as a practice. Acroterion (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Aha. Thanks for that information. I guess I did misunderstand that. So that means, if only 1% of all stallions are kept in stallion group keeping, any information and resources devoted to mentioning stallion group keeping should also only consume 1% of an article about stallions? And if only 1% of stallions are kept in stallion group keeping, but the information and resources about stallion group keeping is more than 1% of an article about stallions, that is advocacy? In this case of a fringe position, because it's only 1%? In that case, as I understand now, Wikipedia is not about complete or relevant information, but only about repeating common knowledge, about repeating what most people know about a subject, I suppose you are right. In that case however, given that stallion group keeping of adult stallions is practiced only by an estimated 0.00001% of all horse owners. Or even far less, I believe, according to the policies of Wikipedia on neutrality and balance as stated by you, there should be no mention at all about stallion group keeping. Correct? At least not in excess of an estimated 0.00001% of the article. Correct? I'm not trying to come across as a smart-ass here, but I think this bears mentioning / considering. As a side-note: Has anyone who keeps deleting the references about stallion group keeping actually bothered to even check the references and read the articles? I doubt it. -- Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.78.114.68 (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

User IP 83.78.114.68, you fail to understand that all the material you are adding is cited to a single source, the animaldignity.org web site, which I have reviewed and it appears to be the views of one single individual, with no actual scientific backing, or even support from within the animal welfare community. Thus, it appears to be a WP:FRINGE view. Now, if there is material that is peer-reviewed, or at least reliable and verified by independent third-parties that supports this information, then it would be something to discuss adding -- with those more reliable sources. However, as it sits, these hypotheses are untested and fly in the face of mainstream studies. As it is said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." For example, a google search shows that only the animaldignity.org site uses the term "stallion group keeping" -- other than what look like temporary links to previous versions of this wikipedia article. You might also want to review wikipedia's policies on No original research, which the animal dignity site unquestionably seems to be. Montanabw^(talk) 05:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Montanabw's above comments. You may also find this page useful: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. What we are trying to do here is create an encyclopedic article. One of the first milestones that should be eventually reached is a Good Article which most relevantly states that it should "provide in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines" and "it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each." As for the vandalism page you were looking for earlier, this might be helpful. So, each viewpoint should be treated fairly and with equal weight to both sides. Let's also strive to also keep citations for all the statements, otherwise they have very little credibility in the article. See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Jessemv (talk) 06:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but all this talk about being non-scientific is entirely misplaced and a mere excuse, a hoax, in order to create a biased article based on the personal views of some people about an off-topic subject. Namely, that castration were not a physical mutilation. I will explain why this is so:

Yes, indeed, the material I'm adding is cited to a single source, the animaldignity.org web site. It's also true that all cited material was written by one single Individual, Mark Schmid. Just like other resources cited by Wikipedia are written by one single person, such as McDonnell, Sue. Just because a resource was written by one person alone is no grounds for flat-out disqualification. Have you even read the articles or just took a quick glance at the website and found you don't agree on Mark Schmid's views on castration? It appears to be the later.

As to no scientific backing, that is an entirely false claim. What is "scientific" backing? And is it really a requirement by Wikipedia? Does every information on Wikipedia have "scientific" backing? Many things which are common sense have no scientific backing at all. Just because an article is not posted in scientific journal, does not mean it has no "scientific" backing or were a lie / false.

The Swiss national stud confirmed in a study that stallion group keeping, even with adult breeding stallions is possible. Yet you still claim that Mark Schmid's reports and information about stallion group keeping is to be disregarded on grounds that "there were no scientific backing". That's plain ridiculous and tendentious. The fact that the Swiss national stud proved all of Mark Schmid's information that Stallions can be kept in groups makes Mark Schmid's claims peer-reviewed, reliable and verified by independent third-parties that supports that information: Yes, indeed, stallions can be kept in stallions-only "bachelor" groups. If you do not believe that information, to be consistent, you must delete all mention of keeping adult stallions in stallions-only bachelor groups, including the citation of the Swiss study on pasturing stallions together. If you believe that source, which is just as unscientific, it's just a stud trying things out, you have no grounds claiming that what the sources on the animaldignity.org website report, namely, that keeping stallions in stallions-only bachelor herds works, were false. That's just judgmental and prejudice. Anyone can come along and delete any source, claiming that he or she doesn't believe it. Again: I can't help but think that you are very opinionated and biased against the animaldignity.org website, despite its very informative and valuable resources, which unfortunately are not available elsewhere. Certainly not in the same quality and public. You claim that the "hypotheses are untested and fly in the face of mainstream studies". Yet you don't oppose the citation of the resource "Pasturing Stallions together can work, says study" which claims *exactly* the same things as Mark Schmid's articles on the exact same subject, more so, goes even beyond what Mark Schmid claims by claiming that keeping not only adult stallions together can work, but even breeding stallions who have bred before. That's a much steeper claim than any of the claims in the resources on the animaldignity.org website which I've added. If you would have even read the resources, which obviously you didn't, by your belief that pasturing stallions together doesn't work and is a hypothesis that flies in he face of mainstream studies, you'd see this. Again: You are extremely judgmental and biased, all your arguments boil down to the claim that the information given in the resources of the animaldignit.org website were untrue. Again, there is no rule by Wikipedia that any resource must be "scientifically" proven. You state: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". That's what the resources which I've added are. I claim that it is possible to keep stallions in groups, and the evidence are reports about it. There are two valuable resources on the animaldignity.org website, and there is the resource about the Swiss study about pasturing stallions together. However, the resources on the animaldignity.org website are much more valuable, because they can be verified by actually being able to even read them. The other resource links to protected content which requires membership and as such, is not even available for review. Again, if you believe stallion group keeping, as the animaldignity.org website terms it, or pasturing stallions together doesn't work, you would have to also delete all information about and references to the "Pasturing stallions together can work" resource, which unlike the animaldignity resources, is not even available for public review to non-members of that site. If you don't you're simply being biased against one particular resource (or person), namely, the animaldignity.org website, which happens to have a very non-mainstream opinion about castration which you don't happen to share.

In effect, because you don't think that castration is a bodily mutilation, which the animaldignity.org website states, you keep on deleting valuable information and resources of the same resource, on entirely different topics. Namely, keeping adult stallions in stallions-only bachelor groups. That is biased, tendentious and extremely unscientific on your part. And as such, no grounds for your claims that all information given on the animaldignity.org website were untrue. If you believe castration is not a bodily mutilation, that is your opinion and no grounds for roundabout denial of information coming from sources who state that it were. Perhaps we really should talk about the subject matter which seems to lie at the base of this conflict: Is castration a bodily mutilation or not? But that in fact belongs on the geldings page and has nothing to do with keeping stallions in groups, which is why I asked to separate the Geldings information to an own article. Then perhaps we could discuss the subject matter at hand: Whether or not it is possible to keep stallions in groups or not, and whether or not, depending on your limited information, claims of such are lies or not.

Also, your position doesn't make any sense at all: If you highlight and cite the position of the animaldignity.org website, that castration were a bodily mutilation, despite the fact that it is NOT mainstream or popular belief, and then go on an delete all references to the animaldignity.org website which feature valuable information and content about keeping stallions in groups, on grounds, that were *NOT* mainstream or popular belief, you are being extremely inconsistent. Not to say hypocritical. How can you delete one link (or two actually), claiming that they were not popular belief, but, on your own accord, add another link, that is actually off-topic, pointing to a resource which, we all agree on, is also not mainstream and popular belief (namely that castration were a bodily mutilation). Your argumentation comes across as simply false and without any valid grounds, due to the fact that you apply your argumentation in such an inconsistent way, which makes it appear that you apply it only to enforce making Wikipedia spread and state your personal views, apparently in connection with castration, which is off-topic.

If you believe keeping stallions in groups does not work, and the animaldignity.org website is lying, why don't you permit the links in question with a remark same as with the one on castration: Some resources claim that keeping (pasturing) stallions together can work?

Really, there are no grounds at all for your roundabout claims that pasturing stallions together does not work, or that the resources cited on the animaldignity.org webpage were not true / lies, just because you do not agree with that resource on an off-topic subject, namely that castration were a bodily mutilation. And hence, no grounds for deleting information and resources about the topic at hand: Keeping stallions in groups.

If castration is a mutilation or not, is not scientifically proven either, and not reviewed by third parties. All the same, you and others specifically allow information and a link to a resource about it. So all your claims, that you deleted said information and links because they were unscientific or not reviewed by third parties are nothing but excuses to advance your own position and censor relevant and valuable information and resources about keeping stallions in groups. Which is the topic at hand here, not whether or not castration is a mutilation or not, which seems to be your true irk with the animaldignity.org resource. Again, that has nothing to do with keeping stallions in groups. I see you are mixing not only unrelated content, but also doing so to advance your personal position about castration. That is off-topic and misplaced in this article. Please allow information and resources about keeping stallions in groups. If you do not agree with the animaldignity.org website on other topics, such as castration, please remove information and resources about those, not about keeping stallions in groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.79.154.212 (talk) 06:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, that's a very long answer, but the central fact still remains that articles must be based on reliable, provable sources. It is not what is true that belongs here, but what we can prove is true - utlimately, personal opinion counts for nothing, and publications count for everything. That standard has been set at published books, journal articles and reliable media outlets for most things. You can find out more about this at WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:OR.

I see no reason why this topic can't be mentioned (which it still is in the stable version of the article), but self published websites are not considered reliable, and there is a specific policy on this too at WP:SELFPUBLISH. You mention several times the presence of peer-reviewed information, and if you would be kind enough just to list those sources below (whether or not they are protected on the web, as many of us have extensive library access), then we can help draw out the salient information, and it can go in the article.

Editors here don't revert for no reason, and the policy means that we can now discuss the issues, and hopefully come to a satisfactory resolution. Regards, OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 07:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems very much like it's *exactly* the other way around in this instance. It seems like personal opinion, that keeping stallions in groups is not possible, and anyone claiming so, such as Mark Schmid thus is a liar or an unreliable source, counts for everything here and publications about keeping stallions in groups, such as by Mark Schmid, count for nothing.

Obviously several people here believe keeping stallions in groups is not possible, or that Mark Schmid is not a reliable source or a liar because he reports about that. Inconsistently, they allow a link to a related resource, but ONLY one which has no public content, in other words, one which gives no information at all to the public because it is reserved for members. Publications available to the public on the other hand, are flat-handedly disregarded, for the sole purpose that they come from an individual, namely Mark Schmid, who states something that has no relevance for the topic at hand, namely that castration is a bodily mutilation, which is in opposition to the prevailing opinion of those censoring the information and resources on keeping stallions in groups.

In other words, it remains a fact that information on stallion group keeping is being censored in this article, very very heavily so, because the difference between my changes and the previous version consist of very substantial and extensive information, that was previously simply not contained, based on personal opinion about Mark Schmid. This, on the sole grounds, that Mark Schmid has a non-conformist opinion about castration, namely, that castration consists of a bodily mutilation. Because that does not agree with the opinion of the administrators in power here, all content and information by Mark Schmid on keeping stallions in groups, except his position on castration, which is irrelevant for the topic at hand, are being censored on ground that, they were lies, untrue, self-published, not peer-reviewed, all from one individual, etc. etc. All a bunch of excuses to exclude, in my opinion, extremely valuable and valid information for no proper reason other than personal disagreement with Mark Schmid on whether castration is a bodily mutilation or not.

This is biased and unscientific to a high degree. Despite the fact that Mark Schmid might or might not be an advocate for animal rights. But I admit, it takes a little brain power and effort to realize this and might be asking a little too much for laymen as we have them in a majority here on Wikipedia. No pun intended. That's just the sad but true facts unfortunately. If it's not main-stream, it's censored on Wikipedia.

It seems, the majority of administrators here would rather *NOT* have *ANY* in-depth information and resources about keeping stallions in groups AT ALL (!), not even one single paragraph with two linked resources, than having such information assembled and published by an individual which they do not agree with due to personal opinion on another, not related subject matter (castration). I see no such opposition to reports by other individuals, such as Sue McDonnell for instance. Because she does not offend the personal opinion of administrators here by stating that castration is a bodily mutilation, no claims are made against her, that all that she reports about stallions were lies, untrue, self-published, not peer-reviewed, etc. etc. Even if, admittedly, some of those things do not apply in the same manner.

About the policy on self-published websites: I agree, Mark Schmid published his reports on his own website and thus the animaldignity website does qualify as a self-published website. However, there are many instances where the person who has written an article and the webpage where the articles is hosted are one and the same person, or at least in a very close and non-third-partyish relationship. Wikipedia has no problem with that, as long as said individual does not have an opinion which differs from the main stream. Such as that castration were a bodily mutilation, even in horses.

About peer reviewed information that keeping stallions in groups is in fact really possible, there are several resources, but unfortunately not all available as webpages in the Internet. Here are a two:

http://www.news.admin.ch/message/index.html?lang=de&msg-id=28353

http://www.kavallo.ch/artikel.asp?artikelID=650

After reading these texts, which are in German, it is simply proven that it is nothing but personal opinion to disregard Mark Schmid's reports that keeping stallions in groups is possible as untrue or unconfirmed. The Swiss national stud fully confirmed Mark Schmid's claims that keeping adult stallions in groups is not only possible, but even true with breeding stallions. The Swiss national stud does not publish extensive information about keeping stallions in groups in English. That’s why no such resources are available to the article. But Mark Schmid does. That's why I vote for including the valuable, and confirmed findings of Mark Schmid, that keeping stallions in groups is possible. Along with the information assembled and given in the report and article by Mark Schmid.

Personal disagreement with Mark Schmid on the topic of castration, and whether or not that is a bodily mutilation or not, should not play a role in deciding whether the information given by Mark Schmid about keeping stallions in groups is relevant or valuable for an article on Wikipedia or not. You ask extremely high standards of being "scientific" and "peer-reviewed" and "published-by-third-parties" from Mark Schmid, but I see no such demands being made in likewise manner against other resources and individuals. This is not helpful for the article and topic at hand: Stallions.

Obviously I am in a minority position here and the majority prefers to have no information about keeping stallions in groups at all, or only extremely limited information, than to include information and references to extensive free public information on the subject that is confirmed and peer-reviewed, at least partially, in those parts that matter, by the Swiss national stud.

Keeping stallions in groups really is possible, the Swiss national stud proved it, and Mark Schmid writes about it extensively. I find it sad that Wikipedia refuses to give information about this, even with just one paragraph and two resources to content provided by Mark Schmid, claiming non-approved legitimacy of information on grounds that the individual which published them has an opinion on castration which does not comply with the main stream and should thus be disregarded.

I see this as an abuse of otherwise valid guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. An abuse of Wikipedia's primary purpose, to give free public information about as many subjects as possible. Censoring Mark Schmid's publications stands in direct contradiction to the primary purpose of Wikipedia. Even if all allegations about policies, etc. might or might not be true. The fact remains: Without Mark Schmids' publications, and without the paragraph that I added, the article on stallions contains significantly less relevant information about stallions. It's up to the people who are in power at Wikipedia, or are the majority, to decide if that is what they want. -– Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.96.235.11 (talk) 10:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The summary of my objection against deletion of information and resources about keeping stallions in groups is this: Mark Schmid offers free information. Information which I believe is relevant for stallions. If Wikipedia does not like free information, then so bit it. There is nothing more I see that I could say or do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.76.247.207 (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

First off, WP:CENSORED is not the end of the discussion, but WP:FRINGE is. Here, both IP addresses posting here geolocate to Switzerland, and Mr. Schmid's organization is also located in Switzerland, so these two IP users may have a WP:COI problem, as Animal Dignity is Mr. Schmid's two member organization. One of these two IP addresses could also be Mr. Schmid himself, the other could be the other member of the organization. Second, Mr. Mark Schmid's web site is unquestionably WP:FRINGE. For example, on this page, Mr. Schmid admits the fringe status of his movement. Quote: "Hardly anyone is willing to participate, donate or even talk positively about this project." Third, some of the content on the rest of the site is truly quite fringe: "Horse-women are criminals", "The Smear Campaign and Witch Hunt against Mark Schmid Concept of the Enemy: "Sexual Animal Molester" ", and this individual apparently is trying to file a lawsuit against the Animal Hospital of the Vetsuisse-Faculty of the University of Zurich. And, quite frankly, this web site also appears to advocate for actions that fall under the beastiality statutes of many nations. So, the point is that the views of this group are appropriately mentioned in this article in one sentence in the section on those who oppose Gelding, and to the extent that Mr. Schmid's views are mainstream, in that yes, stallions can be kept in social herds, at least sometimes, the article already mentioned various forms of "natural" or "herd" stallion management that clearly are already accepted by mainstream horse management, with examples given, and a link to the findings of the legitimate Swiss study, which was widely reported. And all of this long before User 83.76.247.207 came along. Montanabw^(talk) 19:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Montanabw for finally stating your true reasons for deletion of relevant information and resources about stallions added by me (user 83.76.247.207). First off: "yes, stallions can be kept in social herds, at least sometimes, the article already mentioned various forms of "natural" or "herd" stallion management that clearly are already accepted by mainstream horse management, with examples given, and a link to the findings of the legitimate Swiss study, which was widely reported". This is indeed correct: The article did already mention the Swiss study and various forms of "natural" or "herd" stallion management that clearly are already accepted by mainstream horse management. However, keeping stallions in stallions-only "bachelor" groups is not mainstream horses management at all though, as you falsely claimed. In my eyes, the article did *not* mention keeping stallions in stallions-only "bachelor" groups with an adequate amount of information before I (user 83.76.247.207) came along. I (User 83.76.247.207) changed that, because in my opinion, giving hardly any information at all, other than a non-public resource, which confirmed only the title existed on another webpage, about keeping adult stallions in natural stallions-only "bachelor" groups was not adequate to the topic of the article: Stallions.

An article about stallions should reflect all possibilities of keeping and management, even such which are not or not yet widely know to laymen such as keeping stallions in stallions-only "bachelor" groups or herds. And, if this is done, as I feel it should, it should be done with sufficient information and resources, no matter what the background of those resources might be. It should not be the source of information and resources that matter, but the quality. This primary principle is being violated severely here. The quality of the information seems to be completely irrelevant, due simply to the source which holds non-mainstream views on generally unrelated topics. That cannot be it. Just because the article previously already mentioned, but without any substantial information or resources available to the public, that stallions can indeed be kept in stallions-only "bachelor" groups, that is no grounds at all, to the contrary, to delete additional, valuable and relevant information and resources about keeping stallions in groups!

All the other reasons given by Montanabw for deletion of relevant information and resources about keeping stallions in stallions-only "bachelor" groups: None of the other things stated by Montanabw are disputed. They are all well-known and openly available to be reviewed by the public, by anyone, free of charge at the original source, the animaldignity.org website. Everyone who wishes can review them and have a chance to build his or her own opinion, based on his or her own review of stated original resources. As such, everyone can form his or her own, personal opinion about the author of relevant information about keeping stallions in groups, namely Mark Schmid.

It does not appear to me that it is Montanabw's, Wikipedia's or anyone else's position to, with paternalizing claims for the better good of the public or the reader, remove and withhold from them, the valuable and relevant information about keeping stallions in groups, authored by Mark Schmid. The sole purpose of insertion of Mark Schmid's resource about castration of animals in the article, seems to be, to give an explanation why valuable and relevant information by Mark Schmid about keeping stallions is being censored. Namely, only and alone on grounds of his non-mainstream views such as that castration were a bodily mutilation. If it were true what Montanabw arguments, namely that Mark Schmid's valuable and relevant information on keeping stallions in groups could not be permitted on Wikipedia due to his non-mainstream position on other, totally unrelated subjects, then also, any other information and resources from Mark Schmid, including the resource about castration, spaying and neutering, which is accepted and undisputed, could then not be permitted either. So it appears much more, that it is simply a question of personal taste and disagreement that is the true cause of censorship of the valuable and relevant information which Mark Schmid publishes about keeping stallions in groups, *not* the quality of the information and resources. More so, it seems to become obvious now, that nobody here has even reviewed said resources, has actually read the two articles about keeping stallions in groups by Mark Schmid. Montanabw seems to have been very busyly reviewing Mark Schmid's positions on other, for the topic at hand here totally unrelated subject matters, but continues to make no statement in regards to the quality of the information and resources under discussion here, those which are at dispute here: The two resources about the keeping of stallions in stallions-only "bachelor" groups, authored by Mark Schmid and made available to the public by the animaldignity.org website run by him.

Again: Montanabw arguments that because she, others and / or the mainstream do not agree with Mark Schmid's views on other, unrelated (or even related!) topics, that alone were sufficient grounds to roundabout disqualify any information coming from Mark Schmid. Not based in any way on the quality of said information itself, namely, of keeping stallions in stallions-only "bachelor" groups, but only and solely on Mark Schmid's views on entirely different, in my view unrelated subjects which are no part of the information and resources under dispute here.

I feel it should not be Montanabw's or Wikipedia's decision to, in-place-of-the-reader, based either on personal or on mainstream opinion, censor information and resources, which is indeed being done here, strongly so, simply because the source and author of said information hold views and opinions which are "fringe" or non-mainstream, but which however, are not related to or even relevant at all to the subject matter at hand. Namely, keeping stallions in stallions-only "bachelor" groups or herds.

All claims made by Montanabw, that Mark Schmid holds various non-mainstream positions, such as advocating bestiality, trying to file a lawsuit against a veterinary clinic for castrating animals, etc. all might or might not be true. That is not the point here though, or should not be. The point that should be relevant to decide if information and resources are included in a Wikipedia article should here only be, if that specific information is valuable and relevant for the article in question or not. And I argument, the information given by myself (user 83.76.247.207), along with the resources linked to on the animaldignity.org website are indeed valuable and relevant for the topic at hand here: Keeping stallions in stallions-only groups, and thus for an article about stallions.

Please keep in mind, Mark Schmid posted free public information about keeping stallions in groups several years before the Swiss national stud did its study. Namely on his former project, the Hengstseite.ch in 2003 (exact date visible in the original German publication of one of the two articles). As such, Mark Schmid is, despite his perhaps controversial views on other topics, which stands undisputed here, not an uneducated layman that has nothing of value or relevance to offer to the subject matter at hand here: Stallions and their keeping in stallions-only "bachelor" groups.

Censoring information, that was both confirmed by third parties (the Swiss national stud confirmed Mark Schmid's report and claims that keeping stallions in groups is indeed possible, even upped it one by proving so with breeding stallions three years later), as well as being relevant (there is no other, comparably valuable and extensive information on this subject matter), such as is done here, on the sole grounds that the author of said information holds, in other, in my view totally unrelated matters, views and opinions which are indeed not mainstream, does not appear to be an appropriate reason for an open information platform and dictionary like Wikipedia.

It's like saying that confirmed and relevant information about child care for instance, just to make an unrelated example for illustration, should be censored, on the sole grounds that the author of that information is an open homosexual, perhaps pledging for gay rights and that homosexuality is a fringe position and not mainstream, which it indeed is. If said information about child care is in and of itself valuable and a relevant and a helpful addition to an article on Wikipedia about children, despite the fact that the author might be a homosexual, I feel, it is not correct to censor such information on the sole grounds only, that the author is a homosexual and thus "represents a fringe position". At least certainly not in extreme cases such as here, where the same information can in no way be obtained or linked to in a quality that is even remotely similar to that of the author.

Admittedly, Mark Schmid does, as was elaborated here, in very many instances, represent a "fringe position" on various topics that is indeed not mainstream. And admittedly, keeping stallions in a stallions-only "bachelor" group is "fringe", simply because the majority of stallions are not kept that way. But all that does not mean the information and resources from Mark Schmid about this topic cannot be relevant for an article about stallions and should thus be censored on the sole ground, that Mark Schmid holds non-mainstream views on other, in my eyes unrelated topics which, in the vast majority, are not even mentioned in the relevant resources / articles. But that is what is being done here: Because Mark Schmid holds various, related or unrelated "fringe" positions, his valuable and helpful free public information on keeping stallions in stallions-only "bachelor" groups is being censored, one the sole ground that Mark Schmid holds "fringe" positions in totally unrelated other subjects.

And all that was said applies to my identity as well: If I myself am Mark Schmid, or another member of the animalditnity.org website, or any other person sympathizing with his views or not, should and is, in my view, totally and completely unrelated and irrelevant to the subject matter at hand here: Whether or not the information and resources about keeping stallions in stallions-only "bachelor" groups that I added, authored by Mark Schmid are, or are not, valuable and relevant for the article at hand: Stallions.

This true and primary question, as it seems it must be to me, was not even addressed in this entire dispute so far. Which I feel strongly enforces my claim, that it is not the quality, nor the relevance of the information and resources that I have added, but only unrelated views and positions of the author, which those who repeatedly deleted my additions, object to on a personal, and for the subject matter at hand, unrelated level. Instead, the non-mainstream views on unrelated subjects of the person authoring the relevant information was deeply elaborated and pointed out. As an excuse or reason to dismiss his valuable and relevant resources on the subject matter at hand: Keeping stallions in stallions-only "bachelor" groups.

The relevant question here is: Is the information which I added, along with said resources, valuable as information about keeping stallions in stallion-only "bachelor" groups or not? To be able to answer this, obviously, one must have first read said resources. Something which, as seems to become obvious now, neither Montanabw, nor any other of the administrators who vote for deletion did, or have done so far, based solely on their personal disagreement on, or due to the non-mainstream position of the author on other, non-related topics. As such, in my eyes, no such people have any valid ground to judge whether or not said resources are valuable or relative to this article or not and therefore, whether or not they should be linked or not. Read the said articles first, and then judge based on that. The fact that Mark Schmid indeed has non-mainstream views on other, unrelated topics, is not sufficient ground to qualify information that is completely unrelated, as non-relevant or non-valuable for the article at hand. No matter whether the author holds "fringe" positions on other subjects or not.

It bears mention, that every single person alive has views which are non-mainstream on one or the other topic.

If having a view that does not correspond to the mainstream, in other words, if having a "fringe" position on *any* subject whatsoever, were sufficient grounds to disqualify information and resources of that person as non-relevant, not valuable or not good for Wikipedia, then Wikipedia would have zero information and zero articles.

Judging another person to have non-mainstream views on any topic can and should not be sufficient grounds to censor information from that person which is relevant for a topic at hand. In this case, the information which is relevant is *not* Mark Schmid's views on castration, bestiality or any of the other, non-related subjects that were elaborated, but Mark Schmid's valuable, extensive and relevant information on keeping stallions in stallions-only "bachelor" groups. And this information and resources, unlike his views on castration, was repeatedly removed, which I see as acts of vandalism and / or censorship.

I feel Mark Schmid has done a tremendous job and a great effort to assemble said information and offer it to the public at his expense. I see his information as a true, valuable and relevant contribution to the general knowledge of keeping stallions in stallions-only "bachelor" groups. If you disagree, you should at least read said articles first. Certainly before you delete their links. And as such, Mark Schmid's resources, along with the short, brief and to-the point information / paragraph that I added, bear mentioning and being a part of a non-biased article about stallions in a world-wide dictionary such as Wikipedia. Irrelevant of the author's other, in my eyes completely unrelated, and for the question at hand, irrelevant non-mainstream views. That, is being "scientific" and correct.

-- Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.77.224.209 (talk) 10:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

We do already have, in this article, mentions of stallions, including breeding stallions, being kept in groups together out of the breeding season. Nobody is saying that it's not possible to do this. Where I live, in the New Forest (UK), it's standard practice for our Forest-running breeding stallions to be kept together in bachelor herds once they are taken off the Forest (they only run out for a few months each year with the mares to avoid early-born and late-born foals, which may have trouble surviving). So - this aspect is covered, and it's backed up by reliable sources for the information. However, as the keeping of stallions together in groups is simply not feasible for many people (perhaps because they only own one stallion, or there is little stallion-proof grazing available, or for whatever other reason based on logistics and practicality), the mainstream approach has to be given more weight - much more weight - than the alternatives. For you to be a ble to continue editing Wikipedia, it's absolutely vital that you develop a clear understanding of our policies and guidelines on these issues. If you cannot do this, and you continue to act in the way you are currently acting, you are more than likely to be blocked from editing altogether. Please, please do try to work together with us. You have such passion and energy which could be directed as part of a team to the improvement of all sorts of equine-related article, but you have to be part of the team in order to contribute. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Pesky for your very valuable contribution. I agree completely, the keeping of stallions in stallions-only groups is obviously and apparently not feasible for many people. I also agree completely that therefore the mainstream approach has and must be given more weight in this article, even much more weight, than the alternatives. I agree completely. It was not my intention at all to give the impression, that keeping stallions in stallions-only "bachelor" groups is in any way more common or frequent than it truly is, which is probably far less than 0.0001%. Or to over-represent that form of keeping stallions in this article in any way. I am truly sorry if that is the impression my addition as given and apologize if that's how it appeared. As said, that was in no way my intention with my addition. My sole intention was to improve this article with additional, in my eyes valuable and relevant information about keeping stallions in groups. If you feel an entire paragraph albeit a short one, about keeping stallions in stallions-only groups, and a grand total of three resources, the non-functional, or non-public link about the study of the Swiss national stud and the two links I provided are too much, then let us strike a compromise. How much information and resources about this particular form of keeping stallions do others here think is in it in this article about stallions? I am more than willing and even pleased to work together with everyone here. -- Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.79.89.48 (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I personally think that the mentions of the Swiss study, the way that the Lipizzaners are kept and worked together, and to the facts that New Forest stallions are regularly kept in bachelor herds and also work alongside mares and geldings and are successful in competitions, and others, with their supporting citations from sources that are clearly not "fringe-ish", are probably enough. Unfortunately, if readers go to the other website and read through some of the other pages on it (particularly such ones as the "female horse-people are all criminals" type pages), it's more likely to make them not seriously consider the benefits of keeping stallions together in bachelor herds. Every source we use will get assessed (by those readers who actually click on links!) in the context of what else the site says. Some sites are likely to do more harm than good to certain concepts, and are likely to be seen as very much less reliable sources. As they say "we didn't make the world, we just try to live in it." Part of being Wikipedians is having to accept the long-term consequences of using particular types of sites. If you can understand and live with this, then we'll be more than happy - we'll be delighted - to embrace you with open arms as an equine-subject editor. You can clearly write, which helps! If you can steer some of your energy and passion into being an ace-researcher for good sources for some of our less-well-referenced articles, to being an ace copy-editor of our many articles which need a bit of polishing up, then you will be worth your weight in gold to us. :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 17:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you are right, perhaps some other articles on the other site might do more harm than good to certain concepts. Then again, it's not Wikipedia's place to advertise certain concepts, or assure that they are presented in the best possible light, which is the same thing as (secret) advertisement. So even if some articles on the other site might harm the concept of keeping stallions in groups, it shouldn't be Wikipedia's place to censor valuable and relevant information from such a site, not based on the value or relevance of information which that site *does* give about the topic at hand, but based only on whether or not other, nor related articles on the same source harm or don't harm a concept which Wikipedia informs about. See what I mean? Even if the animaldignity.org website might do harm to the concept of keeping stallions in groups due to other articles, even then, valuable and relevant resources and information about keeping stallions that way from the same site should not be excluded or censored, because it is not Wikipedia's place to present, and thus advertise a concept, any concept, be it keeping stallions in groups, in harems or in isolation, in either a positive or a negative light. That would contradict neutrality, which is an important priority of Wikipedia. So, sorry, while I see your point indeed, it doesn't appear to be valid and justified seen from Wikipedia and its true ideals / goals / guidelines / priorities.

However, as I personally agree with you, that some articles on said resource might indeed do more harm to certain concepts than good, I will try to talk to the owner of said site about this. If I can get him to remove some articles which seem to do more harm than good to certain concepts, this particular point, whether valid or not, might become obsolete and perhaps then you and others might reconsider?

I continue to feel, that an article about stallions should not only mention the possibility of keeping stallions in stallions-only "bachelor" groups in just one or two sentences, but also either give information about how this is done and possible, or, link to resources which do so. Or best, both. And I also continue to think that the two resources I added contain very, very valuable and relevant information about that subject. Information which simply is *not* available *anywhere* else. Keep in mind, as I understand, Mark Schmid was the first person to publish information about keeping stallions in groups in the Internet worldwide. And one of the two resources is actually the original article with which he did so in 2003.

Perhaps there should also be an own page on Wikipedia about keeping stallions in stallions-only "bachelor" groups. Perhaps that is the true and correct solution to all of this? Seeing that it appears as if I were the only one who wishes to give readers *MORE* than one nonfunctional or non-public link, about a brief summary about keeping stallions in groups in an article about stallions, due to it's fringe position, I'm sure this can be solved in the sense of Wikipedia and the publication of free information by simply exporting the entire subject to an own Wikipedia page. On such a page any and all information about keeping stallions in groups could then be given, without deletion of information about it with the valid argument of fringe-status compared to other forms of keeping stallions. -- Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.77.194.41 (talk) 12:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

O-kaaaayyy. At this point, you really need to be reading, in-depth, with an open mind, these pages / sections:

• WP:NOTHOWTO
• WP:NOT#OR
• WP:NOTADVOCATE
• WP:NPOV
• WP:RS
• WP:DUE

... and possibly WP:TLDR and WP:IDHT! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Pesky here. You (the IP) are still attempting to place undue weight on your preferred topic, going against the principals of Wikipedia. As Pesky has politely, thoroughly and repeatedly explained, a method of stallion keeping that is relatively infrequently used is going to be given much less weight on Wikipedia as a whole than other methods. Giving the topic of group stallion keeping its own article would be giving it an immense amount of weight compared to other methods, even more so than giving it additional discussion in this article. We need to use reliable sources (which Mark Schmid's website is not, other than for the idea that some people oppose gelding), and whether the links are "public" or "non-public" doesn't matter. "Non-public" as you call them (books, journal articles, etc), are actually often preferred because they are often more reliable and high-quality. It all depends on the source... Weight given to a particular topic in expert sources (books, journals, magazines, websites written by experts) is going to determine weight given to the subject on Wikipedia. I would suggest thoroughly reading and digesting the links that Pesky provided above - they will show you the issues with many of your arguments. Dana boomer (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Look at the anxiety my threat has created! ;-) I'm not sure it's me who needs to really be reading something, in-depth and with an open mind... Never mind my threat to create an own page for right now. ;-)

You people really are behaving extremely and incorrectly biased against information about keeping stallions in groups from the animaldignity.org website. I think that's a fact that does come across very clearly in this long argumentation we are having here. And I think, based on many of the controversial contents of that site, that is only very natural and understandable. I can sympathize with your position, but I still think it's not right, nor in the true interest of Wikipedia, to censor relevant and valuable information which the animaldignity.org website in my eyes undisputedly has to offer on that particular subject. So far nobody claimed said information were false, of bad quality, or anything which could be seen as a ground to disqualify it. The sole argument people seem to be able to come up with against it is, that the animaldignity.org site were an "unreliable" source of information on that subject.

Really? Is that so? And if so, how so?

Really, all the arguments brought forth so far against my addition with the links on said site have not held their ground. Instead, they are just repeated or exchanged with others, to the sole point of not referencing valuable and relevant information on an external source.

O.K., perhaps it's not such a big problem that the existing link was non-public. But perhaps it's also not such a big problem that Mark Schmid thinks castration is a bodily mutilation or that he appears to promote bestiality (which he does not btw., if you would actually care to really read the article)? Which brings me to my other point: If the animaldignity.org website were an "unreliable" source on keeping stallions in groups, as is repeatedly and as I will try to show, falsely claimed here, then why would it be a reliable source on castration and animal rights? Isn't that inconsistent?

What do you know about keeping stallions in groups? Do you have the expertise to judge whether or not the animaldignity website actually is an unreliable source on keeping stallions in groups or not? Have you kept stallions in groups yourself and thus can say that the information given by the animaldignity.org website is indeed unreliable on keeping stallions in groups? I don't think so. Isn't it much more so, that because you think the animaldignity.org website claims things which you think you are an expert on and personally disagree with, for instance that castration were not really a mutilation as Mark Schmid claims, or any other controversial subject which he deals with, that you assume that it were also an unreliable source on keeping stallions in groups? You, for the vast majority of people who happen to be participating here, simply do not have the expertise to judge whether or not the animaldignity.org website is a reliable or an unreliable source on keeping stallions in groups. And, based on your personal disagreeing on other topics, such as castration for instance, or perhaps even bestiality, where you think you are experts, you judge the animaldignity.org website to be unreliable in general, and thus, also on keeping stallions in groups.

What about bestiality. What about castration. Or animal rights. Are you really experts on those topics, or do you just think you are. Do know that the animaldignity.org website *is* indeed a reliable source on castration? Or on animal rights? If so, how do you know? And how could you prove it to your peers? Isn't it the fact that on those subject too, you simply have no idea whether or not the animaldignity.org website is or is not a reliable source?

Is any of you a veterinary or a doctor? Can any of you judge whether or not what the animaldignity.org website claims about castration is actually reliable or not?

And is anyone of you an animal rights activist? Can any one of you give an expert opinion therefore, whether or not the animaldignity.org website qualifies as a reliable source for animal rights?

You don't know any of these things. Yet you take great pleasure in pointing out the non-mainstream position of said site on castration, with a link in this article, while at the same time claiming it were not a reliable source on the subject matter of keeping stallions in groups though. Is that not highly inconsistent given your lacking knowledge on all related subjects? All this despite the fact that none of you, or almost none have the expertise to judge whether or not said site is a reliable source on any one of those subjects or not. Who knows, perhaps the entire lawsuit against the Vetsuisse faculty is a flat out lie! A hoax! A sceme! You don't know! Yet you claim the animaldignity site were a reliable source on the subject matter of animal rights and castration! Maybe the site just claims to be an animal rights site too! Perhaps there are some hard financial interests behind it? Someone suggested it would supposedly promote bestiality (something which I did not find). Perhaps it is a scheme of the animal porn producing industry? How do you know it is not so? You simply don't!

Yet you steadfastly claim it were a reliable source both on animal rights as well as on castration, but *not* on the keeping and management of stallions in stallions-only bachelor groups. Why is this? Is it because the Swiss national stud appears "cleaner" on the outside than Mr. Schmid? What would you say if I told you that the Swiss national stud used passages of one of Mr. Schmid's articles on keeping stallions in groups when explaining to the public what it did, without giving proper, or any reference to the original source of that passage, namely Mr. Mark Schmid? That the Swiss national stud is behaving unscientifically and unproperly towards Mark Schmid? Can you explain why, without any actual knowledge, you seem to *know* that the animaldignity.org website is *not* a reliable source on keeping stallions in groups, but that it *must* be a reliable source, even a *very* reliable source on animal rights and on castration? Or perhaps on bestiality? Is it perhaps because really, you don't know those things, but simply assume them, because that's what seems right when seen from the outside by laymen?

Again: I'm not saying this as a pun. I am saying this to remind you that, despite what your feelings might tell you about castration, bestiality, or animal rights, in truth, you are no more expert on those subjects than on the keeping of stallions in groups. Thus, you can no more claim the animaldignity.org website were a reliable source on those subjects, than you can claim that it were not a reliable source on keeping stallions in groups. You just don't know because you are laymen.

What I am doing, is not asking you to know what you obviously don't. What I am doing, is, I am asking you, if you don't know, to actually leave it to the reader of the article, instead of paternalizing him with your censorship, your unknowing censorship to be specific. If you don't know if the animaldignity.org website is or is not a reliable source on keeping stallions in groups, and this is no shame, the subject matter is very new and most horse people, even in Switzerland still know nothing about it, have the size, courage and backbone to admit it. That is much more honest than claiming it were an unreliable source, and you, as an expert on stallion group keeping, would know so because of your expert knowledge on the subject. Do try to be honest in this discussion. -- Regards

I think you fail to understand what our project is - it is an encyclopedia that summarizes secondary sources. It is not an advocacy site for promoting new theories of stallion keeping - we are not a how-to-site either. We judge reliablity of a site by the fact that it is cited by OTHER sources - such as academic presses or scholarly textbooks or reputable publishers. None of those qualify in this instance, so the animal dignity site is not a reliable source for this article. And I strongly suggest you read up on those links above, they will make your experience editing Wikipedia much more enjoyable. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Ealdgyth) And now you (the IP) are heading closer to personal attacks, which are a no-no... Anyway, on the subject of reliable sources, have you read WP:RS, which has been pointed out to you time and again? Especially the part on self-published sources at Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_and_questionable_sources? A specific quote is "self-published media...are largely not acceptable." The only exception to this is when the author is an established expert on the subject. The OAD website is a self-published website, and Mark Schmid is not an established expert. Therefore, we cannot use his webpage as a reference, because it is an un-reliable, self published website. It makes no difference if the material contained on Schmid's website is true or not - we cannot use a non-expert self-published source, especially on such an obviously contentious subject. If you would like us to remove his website completely from the article we can, but for the moment we are using it as an example that some portions of the animal rights community feel castration is unethical. However, he is not an expert, and so cannot be used as a source on the technical aspects of stallion group keeping. While you may feel that we should place greater weight on the group keeping of stallions, unfortunately it is not widely practiced, widely discussed or widely advocated in the published horse literature. Until it is, it cannot be given greater weight on Wikipedia - whether in this article or in its own article. A stand-alone article would quickly be deleted or redirected based on WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:FORK. Please, please, please show some sign that you are reading these pages that we are linking you to - they are Wikipedia policies and guidelines that must be followed in the creation and maintenance of articles. Also, it would really help if you were not so verbose in your posts - please try to condense your thoughts and comment solely on the content, not the contributors. It gets a bit tiring to read pages of text that essentially repeats itself several times... Dana boomer (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I just want to start off by saying that I am by no means an expert on horses, stallions, or any of these things. My credentials and knowledge rest primarily in scientific and computer related fields. Thus I have very little bias towards horse-related subjects one way or another. But I've been reading this discussion as it unfolds, and carefully looking at the arguments and positions of the parties involved. Montanabw linked this page in her argument, stating that it was not reliable. I would agree, based on the opening statements of "The Organization for Animal Dignity was intended to be an independent authentic non-profit project for animal protection that is as thorough, non-lying, non-religious, animal-respecting and as scientifically objective as humanly possible. Unfortunately, .... To this day, the Organization for Animal Dignity therefore is only just a webpage. ... However, I would also be lying if I told you that I, or the Organization for Animal Dignity do not represent the true and real interest of animals far better than any other "animal protection" organization in our corrupt and religious society." This raises a red flag for me, further supported by Montanabw's bestiality link which seemed to support the idea that sexual assistance of animals by humans is good so long as it is "beneficial and wanted" by the animal in question. That's a long and unclean road which I have no desire to travel down, but based on those statements the website loses a lot of credibility. Do try to keep in mind that we are building an encyclopedia here, so statements should be well grounded. Any statements from this webpage I would question, simply because there's no real scientific proof, and limited neutrality. Again, this is based on those statements and not on my own position, which once again is neutral. If stallion keeping content in question was published in a peer-reviewed journal, or at least was presenting with copious amounts of scientific examination and experimental data, than I would be much more inclined to include the information. But since its only mentioned here and nowhere else, I would say no. Take a look at some of of our Featured articles with controversial content, and you'll see that all of the citations are from legitimate sources. Please read those Wikipedia policy pages that were linked above, you'll see that we strive for strong reliable sources. Right now, I'm not convinced we have one. Thanks for your efforts, and good luck to you. Jessemv (talk) 01:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Dana boomer and Jessemv. Thank you for your contributions. Points well taken, but you missed the one I am making. I apologize for the length of my statements and will try very hard not to make any more that are not brief and to the point. Both of you, Dana boomer and Jessemv, point out that I should read up on the Wikipedia guidelines about reliable sources. I did read up on those guidelines, however, they are not directly relevant to the argument I am making: Point 1.) While it is true, that the animaldignity.org site might not meet all of Wikipedia's guidelines of an ideal and perfect source, neither do countless other sources cited on Wikipedia. Point 2.) If the animaldignity.org site would not be a reliable source as is claimed as an excuse for censorship here, even if it isn't an ideal source (which I agree, it isn't), and that were the true reason for disregarding it as a valuable and relevant source on keeping stallions in groups, then it could not be cited on its position on castration or animal rights either. If the animaldignity.org site were an unreliable source, and that were the true reason for not citing it, then it could not be cited in connection with castration or animal rights either. The fact that it is, and undisputed, proves without a doubt, that the claim, the animaldignity.org website were in general an unreliable source, is nothing but an excuse, applied completely arbitrarily, and based only on personal preference or the subject matter which happens to be at hand at a particular moment. You can not apply the Wikipedia guidelines arbitrarily, or to one and the same source depending on your views or on the subject matter at hand, without giving any explanation why that should be justifiable.

Obviously, it is not the animaldignity.org website that is an unreliable source, not in the least, it is only an unreliable source depending on the subject matter. If the subject matter is castration, or animal rights, then the animaldignity.org website obviously is not at all an "unreliable source", "fringe", "self-published" and all other excuses brought up, until now, which all do not and cannot hold their ground as should become obvious to everyone here. However, if the topic is the one at hand, keeping of stallions, then, all of a sudden, oh-wonder, all that counts for castration or animal rights, is reversed: Suddenly the animaldignity.org website becomes, in a split-second and without *any* explanation whatsoever, overnight so to speak, a, quote: "unreliable source", "fringe", "self-published", etc. All attributes, while indeed being guidlines of Wikipedia, were not applied to the exact same source only seconds before. I feel this entire debate has shown very clearly, how Wikipedia editors use the guidelines of Wikipedia arbitrarily and based on whim, to form articles based solely on personal preferences and sympathies. In other words, very biased and non-neutral. To censor relevant content coming from sources they personally disagree with on other, unrelated topics. None of the arguments presented so far, obviously, are valid grounds for censorship of relevant information about keeping of stallions by the animaldignity.org website. Please stop argumenting that the animaldignity.org site were an unreliable source, or would not meet *any* of the other guidelines of Wikipedia, if obviously it meets *all* those guidelines on other subjects. If you feel it is justifiable to apply Wikipedia guidelines arbitrarily to a source, based on the subject matter at hand, you must, to make a valid argument, present your reasons why you think that is justified. In other words: Please state why you believe the animaldignity.org website is an unreliable source or does not meet any other Wikipedia guideline for information on keeping stallions in groups, but is a reliable source and meets all of Wikipedia's guidelines on castration and animal rights. PS: I informed Mark Schmid about this debate and he has indeed removed most of the content which some people here did not agree with. Just as a side-note. -- Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.76.236.65 (talk) 08:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Second Arbitrary Break

The animaldignity.org site is reliable only inasmuch as it shows that there are people who disagree with castration of stallions and feel that castration is mutilation. In other words, it is only cited to prove that these views exist - as an example. For proof of the existence of these views, it is "reliable". It is not a reliable source for the accuracy of information contained within it - just for its own existence.

In answer to your questions about experience, and so on, as mentioned above they are verging on personal attacks. You have no way of knowing anything about the experience or views of any one of us. As I mentioned earlier, I come from the New Forest, in England, where stallion group-keeping has been practised for a very long time. (I'm a New Forest Commoner and graze stock on the Forest.) The links to the official New Forest Verderers' site (the Verderers' Court has full Court status and is responsible for producing and upholding local law) is very much a reliable source. So are links to the New Forest Pony breed organisations, and the links confirming that New Forest Pony stallions do, indeed, do all the things stated.

You have to understand that the ADO site is only "reliable" to prove that the views it holds are indeed held by some people. In the same way, a link to some extremist political site which published its own views would be "reliable" as to the existence of those views. It would not be "reliable" for the accuracy or for the noteworthiness of those views. Do you see this difference?

At this point, you really also need to read - and to take very much on board - the information contained in WP:POINT, and the information about tendentious editing. When we combine the personal attacks, tendentious editing, and and WP:POINT information, you can surely see that you are treading on extremely thin ice with your campaign. This is not to say that we are all stallion-haters and mutilators - I personally have always got on extremely well with stallions, and am an enthusiastic supporter of our local stallions being able to be group-kept in natural surroundings when they are not in breeding work, as opposed to being isolated and confined. I believe that group-keeping is wholly possible, and (as I personally prefer animals to be kept in as natural conditions as can be achieved) almost certainly the "best" way of keeping stallions when they are not breeding. This does not mean that I can disrupt Wikipedia to advocate these views to the detriment of the neutrality of an article.

As mentioned above, a new page on Group-keeping of stallions would have an extremely short lifespan, and serve only to further illustrate the challenges we are having with you on this project.

Editing Wikipedia is a privilege - not a right. You have the potential to become an extremely good editor - but if you end up indefinitely blocked or permanently banned from the site you will be unable to edit at all. You need to step back and think very seriously about the consequences of what you are, and have been, doing here. No amount of arguing is going to change Wikipedia's policies on this. You need to drop this now in order to retain any editing privileges. Sorry to be so blunt, but the message doesn't seem to be getting across to you in any other way. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Actually this last post by the IP seemed pretty logical, and this time I clearly saw his point. I would like to extend my thanks for condensing the points since it makes it far easier to read and thus makes me more likely to understand and agree if appropriate. While the post before that was a bit inflammatory, this one was more neutral, which I very much enjoyed. Pesky is correct, it is cited for it's own existence, because its not a reliable source and thus shouldn't be used for its content. As the IP pointed out, yes there are less-than-optimal sources used throughout Wikipedia in places, but you won't find any in Good Articles, and especially not in Featured Articles. Those are our goals for any article. We should keep that level of quality and encyclopedic standards in mind during the editing of any article, as we are trying to achieve that eventually. If an unreliable source is used, someone else will have to hunt around for a better one before the article becomes very encyclopedic. I'm glad to see that we are moving in a positive direction here, and though there were several statements which seemed a bit non-neutral, I feel that we are doing much better here than before. I enjoy constructive debates, so let's focus on developing logical statements here, rather than saying things like "I feel this entire debate has shown very clearly, how Wikipedia editors use the guidelines of Wikipedia arbitrarily and based on whim" I was focusing more on your other points, which I feel I have put my thoughts down on. So in short, I agree with Pesky that the citation is used for its existence, but I disagree with the IP in that the unreliability of the source is acceptable because "neither [are] countless other sources cited on Wikipedia". I believe that address both your points in your first paragraph. Personally, far more often than not, Wikipedia policy seems to be applied pretty fairly across the board, here including. But lets focus on logical discussions here, and less on personal problems. Thanks. Jessemv (talk) 09:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I should have included WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS link, too! Although it's more about retention / deletion of articles, the concept is there. Don't add sewage to the already polluted pond. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Pesky. Why so negative? I understand better now why one content of the OAD site (castration) seems acceptable to you, while another (keeping stallions in groups) does not, despite the second content being far closer related to the subject of stallions and both subjects being self-published, fringe, etc. Unlike personal disagreement on non-topic subjects of the OAD site, this seems far more acceptable and "scientific". This explanation was not self-evident and seemed very inconsistent and irrational to me and I apologize if it took a lot of bickering on my part to extract, unveil or learn this information. I'm still having a little trouble but I think I get at least what you mean now. I don't want to bicker further, and I realize I will not be able to further improve this article, you stating that my editions are "tendentious editing". I don't feel I have attacked anyone on a personal level. But maybe I wasn't paying enough attention. If so, I apologize for that as well. Back to the subject: There are no other sources which could be cited, that describe how stallions can be kept in groups. That's why, albeit understanding that it is certainly far nicer to have third-party published information etc., than to have self-published information, such as by OAD, I simply felt it is better to have self-published information, than none at all, which more or less seems to be the condition now. Obviously I was mistaken and apologize. You prefer to have no resources or information, or only very limited information that requires payment and membership from other sites, than such which is self-published but free. I accept that, but am not happy with the amount and quality of information which Wikipedia is now giving on the subject matter of stallions. I would have wished to cite at least one single resource which describes how stallions can be kept in stallions-only bachelor groups. I feel that is missing now. Even if keeping stallions that way admittedly is "fringe" and thus has nothing lost on Wikipedia at all in the first place according to the rules which you all elaborated so extensively. :-( -- Regards and happy holidays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.76.236.65 (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I for one encourage you to find reliable sources about keeping stallions in bachelor groups like that. I know very little about stallions and the effects of keeping them in one way or another, but I would say go ahead and find further information on that and include it in Wikipedia. Maybe Pesky has problems with including it in this article. Perhaps under an appropriate section you could say something like "However, Dr. Smith of the University of Washington argued that stallions should be kept in bachelor-only groups. In his research, he found [the benefits] outweighed [the cons]." Something like that. I just completely made up that example, but you can see how it's more neutral, it's reliable information, and it doesn't advocate for something since Wikipedia doesn't do that. Unless a reliable source can be found on this way of keeping stallions, I still do not feel that the information contained within should be used in Wikipedia except for the sake of it's own existence as already stated by Pesky. And by the way, it's a small thing, but here on Wikipedia we'd appreciate it if you'd sign your posts with four "~"s in a row. That way it puts down your IP so the bot doesn't have to do it for you. Thanks, and happy editing. Jessemv (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Third arbitrary break

We have already mentioned, and cited, the way that the New Forest's breeding stallions are kept together, in groups, when they are not out on the Forest. There is a link there direct to one of the Verderers' Court minutes referring to "22 stallions are in the grazing at Cadland Manor ". We have already mentioned the Lipizzan stallions of the Spanish Riding School in Vienna, Austria, where the entire group of stallions live part-time in a bachelor herd as young colts. We have already mentioned that a Swiss study demonstrated that even mature breeding stallions kept well away from other horses could live peacefully together in a herd setting if proper precautions were taken while the initial herd hierarchy was established. With a citation direct to the academic study. If people want to investigate further, there is absolutely nothing stopping them from entering "group keeping" and "Stallions" in a Google search. Those readers may or may not care whether the site they're looking at is reliable or not - but here in Wikipedia we do care. As to including information on how to manage stallions for group-keeping, as I already explained (above), Wikipedia is not a "how to" site. (See WP:NOTHOWTO.) I cannot see how the Wikipedia community can possibly explain any more clearly to you why further information of this type does not fit into a neutral-point-of-view, due-weight, encyclopaedic article. So, please, stop continually arguing for the inclusion of material when consensus is clearly wholly against it, and we have pointed you to a number of pages which explain exactly why consensus is against it.

Here's a summary from tendentious editing, describing some of the characteristics of tendentious editors:

• You often find yourself accusing or suspecting other editors of "suppressing information", "censorship" or "denying facts".
• You demand that other editors search for sources to support text that you added.
• You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people.
• A particular problem is to assign undue weight to a single aspect of a subject.
• Wikipedia is a popular site and appears high in the search engine rankings. You might think that it is a great place to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs, but that’s not the case.
• ... repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions.
• "Editors who engage in this behavior generally fall into two categories: those who come to realize the problem their edits cause, recognise their own bias, and work productively with editors with opposing views to build a better encyclopedia – and the rest. The rest often end up indefinitely blocked or, if they are otherwise productive editors with a blind spot on one particular area, they might be banned from certain articles or become subject to probation."

Please, just accept that the Wikipedia article on stallions is not going to include a "how to" section on stallion group keeping, and it is not going to give undue weight to this one aspect of the subject "Stallion". Pesky (talk …stalk!) 21:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're referring to the IP or me, but I'm not the IP. I have not made a single edit to Stallion. Since there is already information in the article about that, you're right that there's no more reason to include more how-tos about it. I understand that Wikipedia is not a how-to, nor should it be. But since the material is already present in an encyclopedic fashion, then it would be redundant to include it any further. Jessemv (talk) 03:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

@Jessemv - sorry, I wasn't aiming that at you! (My bad, should have made it clear!)

@IP. I'm not sure how thoroughly you read other peoples' posts here. The "resource" on the New Forest Pony stallions is published by a Court, with legal powers, here in the UK. On the whole, we tend to view things published by the local law authority for an area to be reliable. Neither the Commoners' Defence Association, the New Forest Verderers', nor any official Breed Society sites are "Pesky's own site" at all. And the Verderers' Court was established in 1877 - I know I;m old, but I;m not that blinkin' old! Please, please do understand that giving the "stallion group keeping" thing undue weight in the article on "Stallion" would be wholly against Wikipedia policy. And please, please do be a bit less cross about this.

Final points:

1. which you must immediately note: any attempt to "out" someone on Wikipedia will result in an immediate and permanent block / ban. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

IP warned against personal attacks/stalking/outing by myself and another admin. Acroterion (talk) 14:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Wait, I just noticed that we have a bunch of different IPs here. I don't know if 83.78.114.68, 83.79.154.212, 152.96.235.11, 83.76.247.207, 83.77.224.209, 83.79.89.48, 83.77.194.41, 83.76.236.65, and 83.78.3.62 are the same person, but I just wanted to point that out. Might be a dynamic IP or something. Best, Jessemv (talk) 18:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas Jess! From a low-grade linguistic analysis etc., I'm reckoning on a dynamic IP. Enjoy the rest of your holidays :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 18:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Without question it's a single person using a dynamic IP than changes every day: I don't think they've made any pretension at all about being more than a single editor, so it's of no concern. Acroterion (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this topic has been beaten to death. It is a clear case of WP:FRINGE the IP's views on castration and the web site supporting them were given one sentence in the article - by me - and it really perhaps is undue to have even given that much, but I felt it appropriate to not ignore the view completely. The aspects of the topic recognized by the mainstream were already included in the article long before this IP showed up, and the article has been further refined and better sourced - by people other than the IP - since the IP has arrived. The IP appears to have three basic arguments: 1) That we are ignoring or downplaying what s/he calls "stallion group keeping" (an apparently novel term that only shows up in google searches as linked to the Animaldignity site) even though the opposite is true (several paragraphs, with reliable sources, are devoted to various ways stallions are allowed to live like normal horses, as opposed to the isolation model). 2) That castration is bad, a minority view which has been given a sentence as a minority view in the appropriate section, with a citation to animaldignity as the source. 3) That other views of animaldignity.org need more emphasis in this article, a position that is clearly against consensus. There is nothing more to discuss; the drama is of no help here. Montanabw^(talk) 02:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Gah! I want that magic wand, again! Remember me with That Roan Question ?? In some ways, this editor reminds me of me. The differences are very small - but weigh such a lot. One little tweak in the think-structures could turn this editor into a real good one. But I have run out of ideas as to how to get that 'tweak'. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I think this situation is totally different. You started out with some firm ideas that could be shifted by discussion of current research. You didn't have a fringe web site that you promoted as a reliable source, absent any scientific data. You were also partly correct, and willing to consider the views of others. And you didn't insult or attack those who disagreed with you. Apples and oranges may both grow on trees, but otherwise, they are quite distinct. Same here!  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 06:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've added a second RS for group-keeping stallions in the New Forest (from a different year of Verderers' Court minutes, mentioning one group pf 15 stallions and another of 20 stallions being group-kept over the winter), and clarified why there's a link to the nfstallions site - it has photographs and video of group-kept stallions. Video, in particular, is considered a reliable source for its own content, no matter whose site it is on. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 14:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't really think anyone but the IP has an issue with your material, but always good to improve sources. I think the problem is that the IP is somehow arguing that only the animaldignity site is a reliable source when it is not. A "the other guy" argument doesn't fly here. We also have material on Lipizzans, and there are others (the big Quarter horse ranches in Texas run stallions with their herds quite a bit as well.) The concept of natural management is not at all "fringe," only the approach of the animaldignity site, which take a small bit of material and spins it into something that goes far beyond the scope of research. Montanabw^(talk) 07:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dispute resolution locations

At:

• Fringe theories noticeboard
• AN/I
• Dispute resolution noticeboard

Pesky (talk …stalk!) 17:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully moving on ...

IP's DRN request has been "closed as unproductive". Final tirade accuses me of trying to "out" the IP, who seems to misunderstand a heads-up conflict of interest note (not placed by me in any event) as "outing" or "attempted outing". I think (sadly) that the extent of denial in this case is something that no amount of words or reason/ing can change. It's "beyond reason" in the truest sense of the phrase. Just a case now of keeping eyes open, and getting on with building an encyclopaedia! There's an outside chance that I may be able to get some footage of our naturally-managed stallions in this area to upload to Commons, which would be a better long-term move in case the video footage and pictures of naturally-managed stallions disappear from the other site at any point. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 19:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

A thought has just occurred to me: it seems more than likely that the IP didn't realise that New Forest refers to a breed of pony, and not just to the geographical area of the same name. To the best of my knowledge, the site the IP was objecting to is managed by a breed-society member who doesn't actually live in the geographical area of the New Forest. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 14:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Archiving

Probably time to set up an auto-archive box on this article. Montanabw^(talk) 00:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Done! Dreadstar ☥ 00:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Bachelor herd research

this is interesting, parking for future integration into the article: Montanabw^(talk) 16:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• http://www.thehorse.com/articles/31929/study-pasturing-stallions-together-is-possible
• http://www.thehorse.com/articles/25663/pasturing-stallions-together-can-work-says-study
• http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0054688

Hopefully moving on - to a more objective and correct (true) article...

This article is (in part very heavily) biased and non-neutral in favor of medically needless castration of male horses. It is biased because the majority of female Wikipedia-editors here, who dominate the discussion what goes into this article and what not, are castrato-users, (ab)use male horses as castratos, with a heavy personal interest and involvement in needless castration (= severe sexual mutilation) of male horses for riding and other human pleasures. There are many false references about how castrating would supposedly be good, where it's not, where it would make male animals "happier", etc. and that natural keeping of intact male horse were difficult, unnatural or otherwise not practical or good for all male horses. My points I made about this article all along (2 years ago). My points were all proven by the article of the Swiss National Stud featured on www.plosone.org). - Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.62.245.182 (talk) 05:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, you look like our old friend User IP 83.78.114.68, with a new IP. You were WP:FRINGE then and you are still WP:FRINGE. Montanabw^(talk) 06:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

To the IP above: Your best bet is to deal with specifics in the article -to deal with the edits and actual content with weight per mainstream sources- rather than assume motive on the part of the editors. (olive (talk) 13:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC))

Per the talk section above, there is some mainstream research that passes WP:RS and WP:V on pasturing stallions together as a "bachelor herd," which is already mentioned i passing in the article. I posted the links and have not ever had the time to integrate them; I'd have no objections if someone wanted to put together a short section with those links as sources and an NPOV tone, it could be added to expand the 5th paragraph of Stallion#Management_and_handling_of_domesticated_stallions. That would actually be useful. Montanabw^(talk) 16:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

To the IP: any more gender-based attacks like the one you've made above and you can expect to be blocked. You exhausted the patience of other editors two years ago and displayed a clearly misogynistic agenda. Please don't try again. Acroterion (talk) 13:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of POVs

Closed, no consensus for change
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is not true that stallions are more aggressive or dangerous to handle, or at least it is not scientifically proven and it is highly debatable, therefore I have removed the POV sentences that stated this false concept. I have also removed POV links of vets because they profit with castration therefore they can not be considered neutral.--Agnello inferocito (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Per the above, you appear to be trying to impose an anti-castration POV by removing sourced information. Stallions are more difficult to handle, in general, than geldings. I've reverted your removals. Rejection of veterinary sources is absurd, you can reject any professional opinion on any subject on such a basis. Please provide appropriately referenced sources that back up your claim that castration has no effect on temperament. Acroterion (talk) 12:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Did I say that castration did not affect behaviour??? No! When we talk about scientific issues (like horse behaviour) we have to use *only* peer reviews and we have to talk *only* about experimentally proven facts. Everything else (including sites of vets who profit with castration) is scientifically inaccettable. Since there are no articles in entrez pubmed that scientifically prove the supposed higher aggressivity in stallions, we can not say something not proven. Science needs strictness and not myths, therefore the myth of stallion's aggressivity has no space while talking about scientific issues, at least without scientific articles that experimentally proove it. I agree that keeping stallions requires attention (like all horses including geldings and mares), but you can not state that stallions are alwais or generally more aggressive, because this issue has not been scientifically proven and there are no promary sources related to it. Keep in mind that I do not want to say that stallions are easier, I just wanna say that it is not proven that stallions are more aggressive and therefore we can not write it on wikipedia. In order to keep wikipedia POV free and scientifically strict, I am going to rollback my edits.--Agnello inferocito (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC) The appropriate way to deal with the issues of sourcing is to place a {{citation needed}} or {{cn}} tag, rather than removing things with which you personally disagree. I've restored the material: you're welcome to place citation tags where you think there would be benefit. The article isn't terribly well referenced, so any improvement in sourcing would be welcome. Please bear in mind that the article has been repeatedly targeted by editors whose primary agenda is anti-castration activism, than improvement of the general topic, so editors are wary of edits made under that rationale. Acroterion (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC) The scientific literature on this topic is very deficient, the only study that scientifically analyzed the behaviour of horses I have found this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12174683 and it states that the socialization, free movement on pasture, fedding and other factors play a much stronger influence on behaviour than genders. This study is the only one we can use on this topic, non peer reviews can not be accepted for the reasons explained upward. --Agnello inferocito (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Texts on animal husbandry and veterinary practice would be perfectly acceptable sources, and are not necessarily available via a web search. Acroterion (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC) That NIH article is regarding stall behaviour not aggression between stallions. Jim1138 (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Horse farms do not keep stallions together, especially during mating season. They do injure and kill each other. Jim1138 (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Horse farms DO keep stallions together, but usually not together with other mares (for obvious reasons). the point is that the ONLY reliable source on this topic is this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12174683, aggressive behaviour in horses has not been scientifically studied (exept may be this study). All the other sources (links of vets) can not find place in a serious scientific debate, they are not peer reviews.--Agnello inferocito (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC) You keep saying that, but the article is on stable vices, not on stallion keeping, and you have self-selected a criterion that excludes veterinary practice and animal husbandry sources because you reject those practices. It is possible to keep stallions together in some circumstances. It is not widespread. Acroterion (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Agnello inferocito (talk) - You obviously do not have a WP:CONSENSUS for your removal of content at this time. Allow the discussion to continue to take place, and if you are as correct as you say you are, then you should have no problem gaining a WP:CONSENSUS in this discussion. —Josh3580talk/hist 19:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Acterion, my criterion is the *same* of peer reviews. I obviously do not reject veterinary, the point is that there are *no* available sources that, except the previous one, scientifically studied aggression between stallions. Can you find a text of vets that states that stallions are more aggressive??? If yes, how do they state that? According to belief and myth or tests and statistics??? I am sorry but my source is the only one who can be accepted in a serious scientific debate, therefore should have the prevalence to all non peer reviews sources. No, I am not an anti-castration activist, I just wanna eliminate some POVs using scientific sources.--Agnello inferocito (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Again, that NIH article above is about behavioural disorders. Not about normal behaviour between stallions. Your source is useless here. Jim1138 (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC) WPEQ member here. I am sure that this user has good intentions, but he is clearly pushing a WP:FRINGE view. Just for the benefit of others here, may I provide two highly reliable sources here and [http://www.thehorse.com/articles/25892/stallion-management-excerpt-from-i-breeders-guide-to-mare-foal-stallion-care-i here? (free login required for the latter). Further, the nih study cited is NOT about stallions, it is about stable vices in all horses. There are not simply scientific studies but thousands of years of obvious experience of generations of horsemen to explain how stallions behave. This has been dealt with before and is well-settled. Yes, stallions are sometimes kept together in groups, but not in the presence of breeding mares. Yes, they can be handled safely, no not by amateurs. Montanabw(talk) 19:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC) No Jim, the source I have provided is about behaviour (not necessarly stable vices) taking in consideration several factors *including* gender, and they stated that many factors affects behaviour more than gender, therefore my source is the most relevant to the topic and, up to now, the only peer review. Montanabs , your sources do not state that stallions are more aggressive than other horses, they just need a good managment to avoid undesired behavoiurs, but this is valid for *all* horses. I agree that the management of stallions require attention and care, but this *does not* mean that they are more aggressive, and again this is valid for all horses (if not all animals). Therefore I think we can write that the management of stallion reuires care and special attentions, but we can write that stallions are more aggressive--Agnello inferocito (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Likewise, there are plenty of sources that could be brought to bear on the fact that stallions are more aggressive than gelded horses. Evans' The Horse p. 385 under a heading "advantages of castration" - "Gelding a horse has several advantages. Several geldings may be kept in a paddock, whereas each stallion must be kept by himself. Geldings are easier to care for, less prone to injury, and easier to haul because of their attitude." Cherry Hill Horsekeeping on a Small Acreagel p. 130 "Stallions need very experienced, competent handling and extra attention." Heather Thomas Storey's Guide to Training Horses pp. 102-103 "Unless a colt is destined for stud duty, he should be gelded. Young males are easier to handle, work with, and train if they are gelded at an early age. Many horsemen wait until a colt is one or two years old before gelding him, but htis isn't necessary and can be dangerous. A young stallion is a nuisance - he must be kept separate from mares and fillies after weaning - and is more apt to get in trouble, perhaps trying to over or through a fence to get to fillies or mares. Even if he has a wonderful disposition, the young stallion is more unpredictable than a mare or gelding." There are plenty more books on horse management that could be cited. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Ealdgyth, I mean...I can write a book and say that all riders who castrate horses are a bench of disable idiots who try to vent their riding incapacity in mutilating animals, but I can not write a peer review with such statement (unless I scientifically prove it). Therefore a generalistic book can not be taken in consideration on a scientific debate. You found just one (unscientific) source that states stallions are more aggressive, *all* the others state very different things. One thing is need of attention, another is aggresivity itself. By the way, you used a book full opinions of the writer, opinions that were not proven by esperiments. How miss Thomas stated that stallions are more difficult to train? Did she use experiments and statistics to state that? No, I am sorry when you will find a peer review article we can talk, until that moment the only source of this topic is the one I used. We are talking about scientific facts, not opinions and myths. What we can write stalllions need of attentions and precautions, but we can *not* write that stallions are more aggressive. It would be a POV--Agnello inferocito (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Please read WP:RS. Peer reviewed material is preferred where it exists, but even then only when it is cited in secondary sources. The sources Ealdgyth mentions are entirely acceptable: please do not rewrite Wikipedia sourcing policy to suit your own POV. . Acroterion (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC) did you read it? WP:RS states (about medical claims, but this is clearly valid also for scientific issues): "Ideal sources for biomedical assertions include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies. Being a "medical source" is not an intrinsic property of the source itself; a source becomes a medical source only when it is used to support a medical claim. It is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." Do you have reliable, third-party, published sources??? You do not, I do have it. Therefore who is breaking the wikipedia law is you, not me. We can not write that stallions are more aggressive, simply because there are no reliable sources (according to wikipedia articles or reviews of literature) that state that. --Agnello inferocito (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Agnello, you have several experienced editors telling you that you are misreading WP:RS, and I am going to add my name to that group. Medical articles on WP have a significantly higher required sourcing level than all other articles, so guidelines for medical articles (as discussed at WP:MEDRS) cannot be transferred to other articles. While I agree with the editors above that this article could definitely be better sourced, we are not required to only use articles from peer-reviewed journals, as you obviously believe - we can use any reliable, third-party source, which include books authored by equine experts, as well as journal and magazine articles, text books, and websites published by reliable organizations or expert authors. Dana boomer (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Evans' The Horse is a equine studies textbook, used in colleges. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Dana, horse behaviour is a scientific issue like medicine, it should be treated with the same strictness, and since there are no reliable sources that say that stallions are more aggressive, we can write that. Ealdgyth, the textbook "the horse" does not state that stallions are more aggressive.--Agnello inferocito (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC) There are reliable sources. You don't need WP:RSMED to document that stallions are more aggressive. The consensus here is clear: no change. Can we move onto other things now? Jim1138 (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Sorry, why we have to use a diferent approach in horse behaviour than medicine? Stallions´s behaviour is not horse medicine??? If not, if horse behaviour does not need a scientific approach and can be approached as gossips and rumors, can I use Mickey Mouse as source??? Listen, there is the popular belief (probably due to religion´s sex phobia) that testosterone is connected to aggressivity, but up to now the experimental data generally debunked this belief in humans and animals, the same with horses. Up to now the scientific data debunk the popular idea that stallions are more aggressive. I am sorry, it can not pass the idea that it is widely accepted that stallions are more agressive. Therefore it is necessary to write that at least a study state that aggressive behaviour is much more affected by living conditions than gender.--Agnello inferocito (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Agnello inferocito, I'll be blunt. You. Don't. Know. Squat. About. Horses. You do not need peer-reviewed studies to prove the blatently obvious. Stallions CAN be well-mannered and there are situations where all-stallion (or at least all-male) groups can be kept together in relative harmony if there are no mares around and the animals are carefully socialized, But stallions are more aggressive where you compare their behavior to that of mares or geldings under identical circumstances. Responsible people generally do not put children or new riders on stallions, for example. While confinement may be linked to aggressive behavior, it is true for ALL horses, and if you confine a stallion, mare, and gelding of similar breeding under similar conditions, the stallion will be the most aggressive of the three. All the wishful thinking that stallions are really just misunderstood pink ponies and magic unicorns doesn't change reality. You are now engaging in tendentious editing and need to stop. Montanabw(talk) 00:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC) First, I have horses and I do know what I say. And according of what you say I have more experience than you about horses. If you are not able to deal with a stallion you really do not know anything about horses. Anyway...we agree that bad conditions negatively affect the behaviour of all horses (as I have already said), but BE SURE that a gelding who lives alll his time in a box is definitely more aggressive than a weel kept stallion, be sure that a mare thoroughbred is more nervous than a stallion fresian (in the same conditions). If you want to say that stallions are aggressive and kick or bite whatever horseman, well this is just your imagination. You think that stallions are more aggressive? Well, a my friend has been kicked by a mare and had his skull broken, my gf has also been kicked by a gelding, but we have NEVER been attacked by a stallion. You think that stallions are more aggressive JUST because you heard this stereotype. And the same is for many other "horse riders". When science REALLY tried to investigate on this issue, without taking in consideration all the stereotypes that sorround stallions, has demonstreted that this is FALSE. Or at least that the living conditions affect behaviour MUCH MORE than gender http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12174683. Therefore I just ask to write that this study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12174683 (probably the unique serious study on this topic) has demostrated that living conditions and breed affect behaviour much more than gender. Just this.--Agnello inferocito (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC) Consensus is that the paper is not an appropriate source because it is not specifically applicable to the subject, as its focus is not specifically on castration, and that you've purposely ignored general texts in horse-keeping because, as you clearly stated at the top of this very extensive section that you reject veterinary sources because they "profit from castration." I'm going to close this section after a short interval, as it has run its course. Acroterion (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

origin of name

While trying to find what they were called prior to the invention of the word stallion (on scots wikipedia they're called 'staigs' so I thought that might be it) I discovered that dictionaries give an older derivation for the word. The 'collins shorter' one gives the 14th c., and the online etymology dictionary has mid-15th, derived from a word in use from about 1300 [1], all of these dates being too early for a law of Henry VIII. I'd be careful about using dictionaries for historical information, but they do tend to know words, and I don't know what quality the book cited in the article is. (the word does definitely seem to be a french and english one though, from the links on the side it looks like all the germanic ones use 'hingst/hengst')122.61.157.138 (talk) 03:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I misread that, it was Henry the seventh, not eighth. That makes 'mid fifteenth century' more possible (I'd still go for 'late' though), but doesn't affect the 1300 date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.157.138 (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

No consensus

Still no consensus for change

There is no consensus among scientists, vets and horsemen; that stallions are more aggressive than other horses. It is a fact. A scientific study (probably the only serious study on this topic) demonstrated that living conditions affect aggressive behaviours much more than gender (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12174683). Many vets and specialists also disagree on the popular and stereotypic idea tha stallions are naturally aggressive (http://www.horse-canada.com/archives/behaviour-true-or-false/, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DC4xV3e1nU). I just ask is to write that the idea of the higher aggressivity of the stallions is not widely accepted among scientists, vets and specialistes, and many of them (too many to be ignored) simply think that it is just a myth. Let me know if you wanna other sources. The opinion (it is an opinion and not a proven fact)that stallions are more aggressive than other horses is very debatable, Wikipedia can not ignore it and pretend it is a fact widely approved by scientists, vets and other specialists. I do not wanna to remove the (debatable) statements that castration decreases horse's aggressivity, I just wanna Wikipeda states the things how they are: *some* specialists believe this idea and others do not. --Agnello inferocito (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC) Please show your recommended changes. I left a suggested format on your talk page. Jim1138 (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC) I don't see anywhere in this article the simplistic content that says stallions are more aggressive than other horses. The article, and sources indicate that because of testosterone and behaviours associated with testosterone and breeding, stallions may exhibit behaviours that make them easier to handle at certain times and in certain environments than non stallions. Horse behaviour is not simplistic as you are suggesting nor does the article indicate it is simplistic. I guess this discussion has been closed, but I'd suggest you reread the article and note that stallion behaviour in this article is always qualified. You are in a sense arguing for something that already exists in the article perhaps in words which you aren't familiar with, but there all the same. (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)) Section "Gelding" : "If a stallion is not to be used for breeding, gelding the male horse will allow it to live full-time in a herd with both males and females, reduce aggressive or disruptive behavior, and allow the horse to be around other animals without being seriously distracted.". Without any mention that *many* authors disagree with that. By the way the relationship testosterone-aggressivity is an old myth, but in humans and other animals has been completely disproven, in horses we do not have experimental data on this issue. Nothing. Therefore we should not even mention this biochemical issue. Not in this contest. What I wanna change is the previous statement in: "*Some authors* believe that f a stallion is not to be used for breeding, gelding the male horse will allow it to live full-time in a herd with both males and females, reduce aggressive or disruptive behavior, and allow the horse to be around other animals without being seriously distracted. However other autors disagree with this opinion and believe that aggressive behaviours is more affected by breed and living conditions than gender (citations)"--Agnello inferocito (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC) Show us these "other authors" - the study you keep citing does not state what you're trying to make it say. The study states that living conditions have an effect on behavior - but no one disputes that. It does not state that breed or living conditions are more important in whether horses are aggressive. And yes, I've read the study. I have never read a work on horse care that does not state that gelding will reduce aggressive behavior - nor have I ever read a work on horse care (or scientific study or vet manual) that says that breed or living conditions are more important than gender in regulating aggressive or disruptive behavior. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC) @Agnello inferocito: I'm going to end this conversation from my side following this post because it has been discussed to death, and I have inadverdently opened up a discussion that should have remained closed. Again, you are discussing aggressive behaviour out of context of the content which is that the stallion in a herd, if not the breeding stallion will be run off, and that in a herd there is only one breeding stallion, any others will leave or be asked to leave :O) in a less than friendly way. A breeding stallion will be distracted by mares in season a gelding will often not be. A gelding in a herd is not a threat to the breeding stallion so will not conflict with that stallion and will probably be able exist in that herd. The statement you want to add is about general behaviour, while the sentence before is specific to a particular situation in a stallion/gelding life. You can't make a sweeping generalization about behaviour with out context, and then link it to something which has a different meaning altogether. For sure you need some good RS for anything you wish to add. We could change the word aggressive to argumentative which I noticed in some of the sources. That might solve a lot of problems here.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)) Add: :Argumentative was used in sources, so I'd be fine with it. Another word, hostile, assertive would be fine too and would decrease friction here. (Littleolive oil (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)) Ealdgyth, if you say there are no specialists who disrecommend castration means you do not read reliable sources, you are not reading the sources and therefore I am going to directly report them. The study compare horses of different *genders*, breeds, living conditions and states: "Data analysis data revealed a number of statistically significant associations between genetic factors (breed), housing, management practices, utilisation and the three stereotypies (gender is not present here, therefore does not have a statistical significant influence on aggressive behaviours). The strongest influence on the degree of behavioural disorders had the breed as well as the extent of direct social contact with other horses, free movement on pasture, feeding pattern and regular utilisation.". Therefore yes, living conditions and breeds affect agressive behaviours more than gender. The other sources states: "10. Stallions are aggressive and should never be kept with other horses, especially other stallions. False. According to Karen Hayes DVM, MS, a stallion specialist, stallions are not territorial, so will not spar in the pasture unless there are mares present. Then, most stallions will want to hoard the mares and foals and will guard their harem from other stallions. Many large-scale breeders will turn out all their stallions together during the off-season, while mares and foals stay in a separate pasture. According to studies in free-ranging horses, stallions are generally not the most dominant nor the most aggressive members of the herd. In fact, they play a role in parenting by retrieving foals that have wandered away from the herd and playing with foals and yearlings. It is worth noting that in-hand breeding stallions show lower rates of libido and fertility and higher rates of behavioural dysfunction compared to stallions breeding at liberty. Stallions at pasture are generally capable of breeding up to 9 times in a 24-hour period, while in-hand breeding stallions show diminished rates of fertility when bred more than once or twice daily. Handling difficulties with stallions are believed to spring from limited opportunity to perform “courtship” interactions, resulting in frequent thwarting of normal behaviour and arousal resolution.". Once again the stallion's higher aggressivity is a myth, and again this myth is simply due *just* to the isolating conditions in which stallions often live. The youtube video (from A.I.A.S.E. (Associazione Italiana Alta Squola Equestre-Italian Association High Equestrian School), one of the most important riding associations in Italy), states that the supposed aggressivity of stallions is a *myth* and that the *only* situation in which it is necessary to pay attention is the contemporary presence of stallions and mare *in heat*. In all the other situations the well kept stallion is the *most reliable* horse. Therefore Wikipedia HAS to state that there are MANY specialists who disagree with the populare belief of the high stallion's aggressivity. Littleolive, I agree with you. The term "aggressive" should not be used at all in this contest and should be replace by other terms as in example argumentative.--Agnello inferocito (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC) Feral stallions exhibiting aggression; these are not fuzzy pink ponies Nonsense, "aggression" can be applied to describe the behavior exhibited when animals are in conflict. (Mares and Geldings, in some situations) can also be aggressive. Anyone in the way can get hurt, stallions can be kept together in some situations, but will always establish a rank hierarchy, and it will be enforced with biting, kicking and striking as well as squealing and other non-contact gestures (ears flattened, etc.). That's aggression. Stallions are not the "most reliable" horses, they can be well-trained and even exhibit loyalty to their handlers, but they are still unpredictable at times and ought never to be handled by amateurs. This isn't a result of isolation, it's a result of their nature; stabled stallions can be quite well-mannered and kept in close proximity to one another (see Spanish Riding School for an outstanding example) so aggressive tendencies can be minimized with good training, but you never drop your guard around a stallion, never. To say otherwise on wikipedia, where many people turn for information, could get people hurt. And per your earlier comment Agnello, our own experience is WP:OR and On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. However, that said, I have been a professional trainer and have worked with stallions, including some who have won performance championships. And the ones I have trained became well-mannered and solid horses. But I still would never put them in the riding lesson string. So yes, I do know what I'm talking about. Montanabw(talk) 17:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC) Montanabw, if you get hurt by a stallion while he try to reach a mare is not an aggression. If you get hurt by stallion for mistake is not an aggression. If you get hurt by a horse who step on your foot is not an aggression. Not suitable horse for beginners does not mean aggressive horse. Aggression means a aimed and continued attack to a human (chase, kicks, bad bites etc.) and this is unlikely to occur between horses and humans(except exceptional cases). It is true that stallions bite and kick other horses when they do not know each other in order to establish the hyerarchy, but this is true for all horses. After they establish the hyerarchy, they are fine with each other. Do not tell me you have never seen geldings and mares kicking or biting each other. Yes, it is true that you do not know who I am, but I also do not you and, as far as I know, you could be even Spiderman. Anyway I trust more the scientific studies and specialists than you and if they say and scientifically demonstrate that it is not true stallions are more aggressive than other horses, this opinion have to appear in Wikipedia. I agree with little olive, aggresive is a term that should be replaced--Agnello inferocito (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)