Talk:Tenacious Unicorn Ranch

Notability tag

188.28.98.32, regarding the notability tag you placed: all citations used in this article are quite significant coverage of the group. Four of them are top-tier publications (Associated Press, Reuters, NPR, and NBC News). The article pretty clearly meets the WP:GNG. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bilorv (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

An alpaca at the Tenacious Unicorn Ranch

• ... that residents at the queer community known as the Tenacious Unicorn Ranch carry firearms and wear body armor while tending to their alpacas (pictured) due to threats from right-wing militias? (source)
  • ALT1:... that some residents at the queer community known as the Tenacious Unicorn Ranch live in a solar-powered geodesic dome called the Earthship? (source)

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Mallard II
• Comment: Hook 2 is apolitical but also less interesting in my view, and somewhat of a tangential fact. As a note, I reached out to the Tenacious Unicorn Ranch and they are willing to donate some photos, so hopefully I'll be able to add a photo for this hook in the next day or two assuming they're main-page-worthy. Just wanted to get it in the queue in the meantime.

Created by GorillaWarfare (talk). Self-nominated at 01:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC).

• General eligibility:

• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article is new enough, long enough and well cited. QPQ has been done and the overall article is well written and neutral. The only copyvios Earwig picked up are direct quotes, so no problems there. I don't think ALT0 is too political, because it is not opinionated and is based on reliable press coverage. Based on how interesting both hooks are, I'm approving ALT0. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@BuySomeApples: There are some photos available now, what do you think about including one with this DYK? I was thinking File:Tenacious Unicorn Ranch alpaca (cropped).jpg. I've added it to the nom above, but want to make sure it gets the okay from an outside reviewer. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The photo should be perfect GorillaWarfare. It's freely licensed and visible at a small size. It also just makes an interesting illustration (an alpaca and anarchy flag, what's not to love?) BuySomeApples (talk) 00:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Isn't the harassment merely "Alleged"?

As far as I can find, all mentions of the "harassment" of the members of this community come either directly from members of the group, or come from news sources who's sole source is the word of members of the group being interviewed. Are there any unaffiliated sources that confirm that harassment has taken place? If not, including the harassment as if it is a confirmed fact, especially so prominently in the page, and also listing the supposed perpetrators political affiliations, makes the article seem to lack objectivity. 98.227.21.14 (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles reflect what is published in reliable sources. Sourcing does not cast doubt on the fact that harassment has occurred, and they also prominently discuss the fact that it is coming from right-wing militias; as a result, this article does as well. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Those sources are simply reporting what they have said. They claim to have been harassed, they tell a "reliable source" they claim "We have been harassed, by X", everything that source publishes regarding those claims is still an allegation, therefore, in writing an objective Wikipedia article, should you not denote that they are claims and allegations.

None of the sources are reporting that the members of the Tenacious Unicorn Ranch are being harassed, they are reporting that the members claim to have been harassed. 98.227.21.14 (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

You may wish to re-read the sources, because they say both that the ranchers have been harassed, and that the ranchers have made statements about being harassed. Reuters also describes how they reviewed some of the harassment themselves. Again, if you have any sources that suggest that this is manufactured or otherwise inaccurate, feel free to supply them; otherwise the statements should remain as they are. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Reuters refers to "Online Harassment", I am speaking specifically with regard to their claims of being harassed in person, by locals, which is their justification for being armed and patrolling their property.

"if you have any sources that suggest that this is manufactured or otherwise inaccurate, feel free to supply them; otherwise the statements should remain as they are."

They may well be true, they could be completely fabricated. None of the sources used for this article actually provide evidence either way, as they merely repeat the allegations of being harassed.

Shouldn't an encyclopedia, which last time I checked Wikipedia was supposed to be, remain objective. If you do not separate unconfirmed information from that which is confirmed by an independent source, you are not being objective. 98.227.21.14 (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to keep repeating myself—if reliable sources describe the harassment as occurring, and no sources exist casting doubt on it, we describe it unequivocally. The whole point of relying on reliable sources is that we trust them to evaluate the evidence themselves, and determine how to present it; we then reflect that. You will see where this article does that—statements that are only described in the sources as claims made by the ranchers are reflected that way here ("Logue says that several residents had developed post-traumatic stress disorder", for example). Where sources describe claims without attribution, we do the same. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

"We can describe it unequivocably". Operative word "can". This does not mean we are justified in doing so. Plenty of topics are covered by journalists, incompetently (the entirety of the sciences for instance). It does not follow that just because a WP:RS makes a claim, all critical thinking can go out the window. (In fact this is an actual Wikipedia policy, which you surely should know...) JSory (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

"You will see where this article does that—statements that are only described in the sources as claims made by the ranchers are reflected that way here"

Except for:

"members of the ranch often carry firearms and wear body armor due to harassment and threats of violence against the community, particularly from local right-wing militias."

No mention of this being a claim

"Although the ranch's members say that the community has largely been welcoming and supportive, they have faced harassment and threats from a radical minority of community members including local right-wing militia groups, as well as online"

This one is OK, but the clause following the coma also can be read as separate from the previous clause being based on the word of members of the Ranch.

"There were several incidents in which residents were followed in their truck or armed intruders were discovered on the property."

No mention of it being a claim.

The current article only make a single, non specific, mention of the online harassment, which is the only harassment confirmed by an independent source, Reuters, all other mentions of harassment are from sources based solely on the word of members of the Ranch. You cannot use a small confirmation of some form of harassment to treat all other allegations as truthful. 98.227.21.14 (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not. The bit about intruders and being followed is sourced to the AP News source, which states it in the publication's own voice rather than casting doubt on it by describing it solely as a claim by the ranchers: "For weeks, they had received threats online and warnings from others in the area that the rhetoric against the leftist, anarchist alpaca ranch commune for queer people had intensified. The day before, March 4, someone aggressively tailed the ranchers’ truck down the washboard county dirt road as they drove home.... In one 48-hour period in early March, they were followed in their truck and caught armed people trespassing on their property twice." GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

So, the AP article, published April 25th, what you are using as an independent confirmation of events that occurred on March 4th. The first mention is part of an introduction to the article, seeming to be dramatic to grab the readers attention, not an as it happens reporting of an event witnessed by the author.

"In one 48-hour period in early March, they were followed in their truck and caught armed people trespassing on their property twice."

It's funny that you leave out the sentence immediately before this one, which is strikingly similar to a sentence within this Wikipedia page.

" The ranchers love the valley and Westcliffe. The community has been welcoming and incredibly helpful, they said. But after stories about the ranch appeared in High Country News and on Denver’s 9NEWS, they have received online threats and faced increased in-person harassment, they said. In one 48-hour period in early March, they were followed in their truck and caught armed people trespassing on their property twice."

"They said" appears twice in that paragraph, it would appear to be a paragraph describing their claimed dealings with local residents, not an independently verified account of events.

Scrutinize your sources better. All I am asking is that you maintain the bare minimum level of objectivity. Just denote which bits of harassment are claimed, and which are independently verified. 98.227.21.14 (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

It is pretty clear that "they said" in AP is referring to their opinions of the community being welcoming, and the suggestion that the news stories intensified harassment. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, in their opinion, the harassment they claim has occurred became more intense after the news stories referenced. The AP article does not confirm that the community has been mostly welcoming in the same way it does not confirm that they have been harassed. It actually specifically states that the harassment is claimed, directly before the sentence you quoted earlier.

"they have received online threats and faced increased in-person harassment, they said."

I don't feel like properly denoting which events are claimed and which can be independently verified is something a contributor to an encyclopedia should be so resistant to. Why do you not want Wikipedia to be an accurate and objective source of information? 98.227.21.14 (talk) 02:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I have made my points clear and you're now repeating arguments I have replied to. I have no interest in going in circles, or having my desire for accuracy or objectivity questioned; feel free to bring it to WP:NPOVN if you like. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Your points aren't actually clear. The only thing that is clear is that you are either so personally invested in this topic that you injecting your own personal bias into writing it, and therefore you feel like accurately noting which events are independently verified and which aren't would effect the way you wish the events are perceived, or you are simply unwilling to correct flaws in your writing after they have been pointed out in fairly polite and benign way. 98.227.21.14 (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Going to have to agree with 98 here, we have no idea whether these threats are legitimate or a falsification if the only account we have is members of the Tenacious Ranch itself, not even a police report confirming that they're under threat. GorillaWarfare, I'd ask you to please consider this a possibility instead of writing it off as nothing. It makes it seem like you're being biased in this situation. 199.58.83.11 (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome to personally doubt the veracity, that's your own opinion and you're obviously entitled to it. But unless reliable sources introduce doubt as to the veracity (and no sources in this article do, nor have I been able to find any that aren't yet used here that do), we report it as a simple statement of fact. If you have these sources, feel free to suggest them. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

As 98.227.21.14 has stated multiple times, the news article you are citing clearly DOES NOT substantiate the claim you are making. The burden is on YOU to prove it is true by citing the news article. If someone claims to see a leprechaun, and the local news reports on it as "man claims to see leprechaun". Should wikipedia be able to cite this as "man sees leprechaun" unless someone can find evidence that leprechauns don't exist? Of course not. Furthermore, you are muddling the situation by confusing "online harrasement" (which is more nebulous, but is substantiated by Reuters) and actual harassment (which is the point of contention).

This is clearly wrong and you are publishing misinformation. You are creating a "circular reporting"-type of situation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reporting). This is why people don't trust wikipedia anymore on issues that are even vaguely social or political. Now, I do not have a personal grudge against transgender people, but am I supposed to believe that it is merely a coincidence that a transgender person would go out of their way to editorialize articles with a pro-transgender slant?

To be fair, the existence of is whole situation is embarrassing and perhaps a stain on the public perception of transgender people. But if your goal is to improve that image, then this shouldn't even be an article in the first place. Who cares about this random farm of weirdos in the middle of nowhere? The reason is that there is a certain right-wing site that has decided to make spectacle out of these people. So of course, reactionaries must leap to correct the all-important "facts" about this very important group of nobodies who have apparently been unanimously nominated to represent transgender people in the public eye!

What you choose to discuss and what you choose not to discuss is the greatest source of bias. I can't help but notice there isn't an entire section on the allegations of animal abuse that (may?) have taken place this farm, seeing as they are about as relevant and substantiated as the existence of right-wing terrorists that are being cited.

The type of normal, sane people who are able to write neutral articles don't have time to deal with this type of stuff. This is why Wikipedia is a boon for the neurotic nerds of the world who want to re-write the facts in their favor. I hope you are banned from this website, but this will likely never happen because you academic types have a stranglehold on wikipedia's bureaucracy, which is why you are able to passive-aggressively bully others into conceding all the time.

Please have some respect for the readers, and the truth. 2605:AD80:AF:A005:CB7A:2259:3FB7:578 (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Seeing as 199.58.83.11's only notable contributions to this site are a series of edits that constitute vandalism late last year, and attempting to remove a warning for said vandalism from their own talk page, I find it unlikely that they're being genuine here. Similarly, 98.227.21.14 hasn't contributed much beyond an uncited reference that was reverted so I find their investment here when the article is clearly cited and using the same language used in the citations suspect. 2605:A601:5098:2EF:C9EC:965C:86A8:C182 (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, most people seem to be behind NAT these days. You can't really glean much from an ipv4 addresses. 2605:AD80:AF:A005:CB7A:2259:3FB7:578 (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I remember seeing hundreds of comments below a YouTube video about this place all saying didn’t the people there abuse the llamas? Or something like that? I’m not sure if it’s true or not but I don’t know. What do you guys think? 2604:3D09:1585:7300:B066:F09D:9913:3DFA (talk) 05:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Past tense

The article began with the words

The Tenacious Unicorn Ranch is a queer and transgender community and working ranch in Custer County, Colorado…

but the second paragraph explains that this is not actually correct:

As of March 2023, the ranch has been evicted from their former property and are without a permanent physical location.

If the ranch has been evicted and is without a permanent physical location, it certainly isn't a “working ranch” and certainly not “in Custer County, Colorado”.

I've changed the the lead paragraph from present to past tense. If the ranch returns, perhaps at a different location, the article can be updated at that time.

—Mark Dominus (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Similar changes should be propagated through the rest of the article but I probably don't have the time to do it.

—Mark Dominus (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Updates badly needed

A basic internet search shows that most of the text of this article is inaccurate as to what went on there. I found the mention of eviction with no explanation odd so I did basic research and was quite shocked at how false the rest of this page is. If you don't want to update it to tell what happened and was revealed (it was basically a squatting ground for multiple random terrified people who got no professional counseling nor knew how to care for animals), maybe just remove the page as this "ranch" no longer exists, never made any money from ranching, and as it never did what it set out to do it is no longer noteworthy no matter how much press it got. 2600:1700:5AB0:BFC0:90A1:2E0:F00C:D7C4 (talk) 00:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest specific changes, along with the accompanying reliable sources to support what you think needs to be added or removed. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems unlikely that there will be WP:RS follow-ups since the initial interest was purely in the apparent "novelty" of the project. What's certainly not novel is the actual outcome of "untrained farmers neglect/kill dozens of animals and destroy property before being evicted by the landowner". JSory (talk) 10:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies on talk pages too. Please don’t accuse people of potential crimes without WP:RS. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Considering that a co-founder of Tenacious Unicorn Ranch made these allegations, it would fall under WP:BLPREMOVE rule 3.

I don't understand why we are going to call an organisation a person for the purposes of WP:BLP, but we can't cite key members of that organisation as valid self-published sources on the topic of operations of that organisation, with attribution of course. JSory (talk) 09:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)