A fact from White Park cattle appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 August 2008, and was viewed approximately 2,729 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A member of the Guild of Copy Editors reviewed a version of this article for copy editing on 29 May 2017. However, a major copy edit was inappropriate at that time because of the issues specified below, or the other tags now found on this article. Once these issues have been addressed, and any related tags have been cleared, please tag the article once again for ((copyedit)). The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English. Visit our project page if you are interested in joining! |
Recent edits by User:ShirleySue suggest that the genetic separation of White Parks from British Whites and other cattle is "misinformation". My understanding is that this is not the case, but is based on good scientific study. I do not however know the original references. We need those refs, but we do not have evidence to show they are they are false either. The correct way of dealing with it is with a "fact" tag, or with an alternative ref.
The edits go on to say that the article by Jessica Hemmings has "proven false" the genetic uniqueness of White Parks. This is not correct. Her article is indeed excellent, but it is a historical paper, not a biological one. It proves no such thing. In fact it is weak on cattle biology, including a number of basic errors about cattle genetics.
The article's phrasing as it stands reads with heavy POV, and is unnecessarily accusatory. At present the only option I can see is wholesale reversion of the recent edits. Any other views?
Incidentally, references such as "Hall, 1991" are not helpful without the full citation. Which Hall, which publication? Likewise, the Jessica Hemming ref is not complete – I happen to have seen it before (Jessica Hemming, "Bos Primigenius in Britain: Or, Why Do Fairy Cows Have Red Ears?" Folklore Magazine, April 2002), but I could not have found it from the ref in this article. Richard New Forest (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator, as recorded below. BarrelProof (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
White Park cattle → White Park – The article was moved without discussion to its present title. "White Park cattle" is ambiguous. It refers to the breeds: White Park (Oklahoma State University) and American White Park (Oklhoma State University) and (maybe) even to the British White. White Park cattle itself may be a disambiguation.
The White Park is also subject of the Speckle Park-RM, that I may split up with that request: Talk:Canadian Speckle Park#Requested moves. It is not mentioned within the request on Talk:Teeswater sheep#Requested move 25 August 2014 PigeonIP (talk) 10:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
White Park (park)
, the cattle breed has to be distinguished from? If so, it would be White Park (cattle)
. White Park cattle
has to be a disambiguation. --PigeonIP (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)convinced. If I do a mistake cancelling this RM, please correct me. --PigeonIP (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I came across this page pretty much by chance just now, and have removed some stuff about trying to re-create the aurochs, and also a couple a patently non-WP:RS sources. There seems to be a lot of work to be done here. Unless there's any objection on this page, I propose over the next few days to:
Richard New Forest, Dysmorodrepanis, might you give a hand with some/any of that? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)