Talk:Parelli Natural Horsemanship

Moved from my talk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New header for discussion added after the move

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

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

• Mmm. When you say the text originally said "offers education online," JackieLL007, I think you must mean it said "maintains an online site to provide instruction"? You added that wording here. The Wikiblame tool, that I used to find that diff, didn't find the phrase "education online" in any version of the article. [1] (I hope that huge URL works for you. The full search takes some seconds to load, please be patient.) In fact, I haven't been able to find the word "education" in the text at all. It may appear in some versions — I can't be sure, as the search tool is confused by the appearance of the single word in some footnotes — but I haven't found it. (I found "educational framework" here, added by an IP.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's my take:

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

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

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

• @JackieLL007: I agree with some of your comments on the criticism section, but your problem with the term "mainstream" as a weasel word and unencyclopedic is surprising — certainly an unusual angle. "Mainstream" is a widely used word here, as a convenient shorthand, both in articles and discussions. See WP:MAINSTREAM. Montanabw, yes, I noticed the sourcing is lousy on both sides. For that reason, it was particularly pleasing that the bot was able to retrieve the archived link to Horse & Hound,[2] apparently a very decent journalistic source (note also that it has a Wikipedia article). (Again, could somebody please fix the footnote to point directly to the archive link? Montana?) I suppose advertising dollars come into it for all the specialty press, but their article about the Catwalk incident seemed very balanced, in strong contrast to all the blogs and youtube clips. Perhaps you people can find more good stuff in their archives? Naturally it would be better still to have a good fair American source about this American phenomenon. But, as you suggest in the section below, it's probably easier for the European press to be, well, less influenced by special (American) interests. Bishonen | talk 12:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC). Bishonen | talk 12:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

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

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

The problem with this whole article is that ALL the source material is weak; the "pro" material is mostly from the promotional sites and hagiographic puff pieces, and the con is mostly opinion blogs. The "hitting Barney the one-eyed horse in the face" situation was actually in one of the Parelli videos, and the clip was plastered all over the web for a while, until the Parelli organization made copyright claims (which was legal, the clip was copyrighted and used without attribution) and got most of the clips removed. But it was also pretty widespread, [3], [4], [5], again to the extent that Linda published a clip explaining herself. The European press is more willing to be critical in mainstream sources than the American press. Hope this helps. Montanabw^(talk) 03:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Parelli Natural Horsemanship founded by?

User:JackieLL007 has stated that “The program was co-founded by Pat Parelli and his second wife, Linda.” but here [6] their website says “Founded in 1981 by lifelong horseman, horse trainer, rodeo rider, cowboy and teacher Pat Parelli – who was joined by his wife Linda Parelli in 1993" They can’t have co-founded it in 1981 if she wasn’t around then? Theroadislong (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm leaving; before I go...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It would also change back some substantive errors, including:

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

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

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

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

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

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