Talk:Horse whisperer

October 2005

I guess I should have been watching this article. Who are Tom Dorrance, and Ray Hunt? It is pointless to list people like this without links to some more information about their contributions. P0M 17:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Monty Roberts to the list. It is entirely POV to eliminate mention of this person even if he has been the subject of controversy. There once was some information about his basic discovery and a hodge-podge of information and misinformation about his training methods. I'm not sure whether that has been deleted or not.

The article includes a list of "horse whisperers," but the only one that goes anywhere goes to an article about another person with the same name. Somebody has deleted the article that at least contained links to the websites of these individuals and some basic information about them. When the article was deleted, whoever did the deletions did not clean up the links to it.

Articles about none of these people should express judgments on their personalities, their fame, or anything like that. If, like Xenophon, Powell, and Rarey, they made some genuine changes to the art and science of horse training, then those contributions should be objectively stated. Presumably these several individuals are not all teaching the same things in the same way, and it ought to be possible to detail these differences without making one guy an evil guru and another guy a good guru. If somebody wants to do a biographical article on someone like Powell, who had quite an interesting life, then the personal stuff should go there. Whether somebody was a prima donna or a self-effacing saint is irrelevant to what they conveyed to the world about how to train and care for horses. P0M 17:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark_Rashid??

Please, how does this relate??

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 14:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my answer on the Mark Rashid page. Montanabw^(talk) 18:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buck Brannaman

Interesting bit of trivia: Buck doubled for Redford in parts of the movie; you can tell which scenes he's in because he's right-handed (Redford is left-handed).

All I know is that one or the other of them was wearing a heavy ring while working the horse in one scene, which was a huge continuity error; anyone combining ropes, a nutso horse and rings is asking for amputation! <LOL> Montanabw^(talk) 03:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, John Lyons pointed that out (along with a bunch of other no-no's that were in the movie). Oh well, it's Hollywood. What can you do? --AeronM (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Don't even get me started on how movies in general make horses "whinny" (via a dubbed soundtrack) at the wrong times! LOL! Um, that and things like stainless steel bits on horses in epics set during the bronze age! Oh, well, you know how I can go on and on... Montanabw^(talk) 21:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Secret method"

The article mentions the "secret method", but why not reveal what it is/was? 80.0.108.118 (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is no secret, it's just hype. (grin) Montanabw^(talk) 16:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Literature and Film"

I don't think the bit about Dracula's driver should be included here. Within the context of the novel, the 'driver' turns out to be Dracula, who can communicate with animals via arcane methods; hardly horse whispering.