User talk:ShirleySue

British White

Firstly, welcome to Wikipedia!

I've been watching your edits to British White with interest. I'm afraid though that a lot of what you've done so far will not fit with Wikipedia's aims, which are for a neutral, authoritative encyclopedia without "POV", a personal "point of view". For example, phrases like "the misinformation that abounds", "a blatantly false statement", "yet this fact is largely ignored" and "politically powerful owners" read very strongly as from a particular point of view (though of course as an active breeder and promoter of British Whites myself, I do share it to an extent). It is also important to be sure that statements can be supported by evidence. For example, "it is believed" is no good – we need to stick to facts which can be backed up, and give the references.

I don't want to put you off or seem unwelcoming, but your edits will need a very considerable amount of work before they will fit, and at I think it'll actually be easier to start from where the article was before. Therefore, with some reluctance, what I intend to do in the next day or so is revert your edits, and then discuss them in detail on the Talk:British White page. I think there is a good deal of what you've included which is worth incorporating (especially if you have good references for it), but I'm afraid a lot of it will not do. Again, please accept this in the spirit in which it is meant, as friendly and constructive criticism (but if I don't do it, someone else will...).

See you on the talk page. Best regards, Richard New Forest (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following copied from User Talk:Richard New Forest:

Hi Richard,

Just got your message in regard to my additions to the British White cattle wikipedia entry. There are major errors in the original presentation, and I have endeavored to correct them. The breed is an ancient one and to suppose that there is not speculation in what is fast becoming the 'gospel' of the history of the breed (as well as it's sister breed, the horned White Park) is to suppose in error. I raise British White cattle and well know what they look like. I've visited every major herd in the UK as well, and again well know what they look like, what their significant traits are.

Insofar as their history, please do read my very in-depth exploration of the breed at http://www.jwest.biz/britishwhitehistory.htm . Even more important, please do read the link I've added to Jessica Hemmings' research of the breed. If there ever was an unbiased approach and conclusion in regard to their place in history, this is it.

Insofar as using the terms 'I believe' etc... you must take into consideration that I am one of the few current researchers of the history and significance of this breed, and I will be pulling together a book on the history of the Park cattle, both polled and horned, in an effort to balance the current direction of what is becoming historical lore that is inaccurate.

The false claims in regard to the polled Park Cattle in the writings of Lawrence Alderson are easily disproved from the UK's own genetic database. Just because he is published, does not make him an authority. All authors that published before him are in complete disagreement as to many, many aspects of the breed, horned or polled. Please read Hemmings' research, contact her as well, and then help me prevent the loss of this very special breed's place in history.

Best Regards,

Jimmie West

www.jwest.biz —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShirleySue (talk • contribs) 22:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmie – (not Shirley nor Sue then...?)

I'm not going to discuss the ins and outs of the BW page itself, as that discussion belongs on its own talk page. I've copied your message on my talk page to here to keep the discussion all in one place.

I might take into consideration your being a researcher – however, Wikipedia cannot, as there is a strict policy of WP:No original research. You have to write with justified sources like us mortals!

I had previously found and read Jessica Hemmings's paper, and it's very interesting indeed on the historical side, though, shall we say, weak on cattle genetics.

I shall read your page with interest, when I've time (long past my bedtime now...). However, I have to say that your edits so far do read pretty much like a private web page, not a balanced encyclopedia article. Not sure I can see many of the errors you mention either. By the way, don't forget to sign your edits on talk pages: just type four tildes (~~~~). Best regards --Richard New Forest (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

polled Park Cattle (British White)

Hi Richard,

Shirley Sue is my Mom and she passed away a few weeks ago, just came out of my finger tips when I set up a Wiki login. I'm not familiar with some of the protocol here for edits, will try to figure it out in the future. Just ran across this wiki entry a few weeks ago and it popped up again a few days ago and really irritated me.

You're right, a lot of my writing sounds more like a private web page. I made some changes today, and provided some sources, and realize there's still more that is too much my voice rather than an encyclopedia type entry. The errors I saw that come to mind this moment would be: a)The breed's history dates back some 2000 years and more, just like the horned Park variety

b) The breed does not have black skin, they have white or grey skin, and actually lots of times it's a mix of both. Underneath the colored spots one finds the pigment is the inverse of the surrounding skin, which an A&M geneticist commented upon last year, and as well it's a trait of the Shorthorn. I actually have an original document from Kleberg of the King Ranch where he indicates he believes the breed is the predecessor to the shorthorn based on observation of shorthorns reverting to white with red points when left to their own devices - but I digress, sorry.

c) They have hair, not fur, though that may be how it's referred to in the UK, if so, fur it is.

d) They were not brought over by the Vikings or the Romans. There is ample verifiable sources which confirm their existence well before the appearance of the Vikings or the Romans. That particular comment is quite irritating. It continues to be found in histories of the breed . . . just because. I think people think that notion is somehow romantic or laudable or something. Like those who once, and perhaps still, liked to say their family came over with the Norman's, and wore it like a status symbol.

e) And there was a comment about the British White's relationship to the White Park, a genetic comment, and it's just wrong. Alderson perpetuates that myth with his own interpretation, and perhaps the best thing to do encylopedic wise is to simply not address the genetics. What's out there is very feebly sourced, on either side of the argument. I'm pretty sure even today the Chillingham group still says they are genetically related to the aurochs. There's a web site that shows the 'blood protein groups' of the white park and many other breeds. The English Longhorn and White Park are similar. I don't have that web site in the UK handy, but I'll find it and post it should you be interested. There's a curious lack of follow through in blood testing of the White Park and British White considering their place in history. I think it's because the results would further dispute Alderson's stance. Also, there is absolutely no identification of the animals used as the basis for the tests, which isn't the case with most of the other breeds studied. The Chillingham cattle would be distinctly different, although not of aurochsen descent; they are the product of inbreeding and ruthless culling in modern times. The same can't be said of the average horned White Park, and I very much doubt, and would love to prove, that these cattle were not in the population subject to study.

Anyway, sorry to be so long-winded. J

Sorry about your mum – good choice of ID. Luckily mine is still using her name herself.

No time for proper comment yet. A few quick things though...

Need an introductory para saying what the BW actually is. Also headings after this organising the text (the contents list then happens automatically).

Bold typography is used only in certain circumstances: mainly the first occurrence of the headword, and in lists. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting). Italics are used sparingly, mainly for emphasis and for non-English words. Incidentally, the more general Wikipedia:Manual of Style is also worth a read.

I'm worried about confusion between historical references to white cattle (which from context may well have been unusual "sports", amongst "normal" cattle), and the modern breeds. I think it's very risky to say that all polled colour-pointed cattle in the records are automatically BWs (why not Irish Moiled, for example?). It seems likely that BWs (and come to that WPs) are at least partly derived from such animals, but that does not mean they are the same thing, and they could quite easily be unrelated animals which happen to share the colour pattern.

Your comment about skin colour and fur pattern does not agree with our own cattle at all. They have pink skin with black spots of variable size (I'd not call them grey, but perhaps not dead black). These may be very scattered in paler animals, or may merge to form black skin over much of the animal, especially the back and sides. Black spots in the fur usually occur in the centre of the largest black skin spots (where these can be distinguished) and are more common on the forepart of the animal, especially the neck, and on animals with much black skin (though animals with very small black skin spots and very extensive black skin often come out with quite even black flecking, even appearing grey-roan). I have never found black fur growing on pink skin. (I think we might say either fur or hair, but more likely fur, probably keeping hair for longer or coarser growth such as the hair on the switch, on a bull's head, a human head, on a Highland, or in a horse's mane and tail.) Same with red fur/brown skin of course – we have four or five of those, including a very fine yearling bull (and our main stock-bull is heterozygous for red, so we'll get more). I once knew a BW herd in Kent which was entirely red-point, so either someone worked very hard buying them or there are a lot of fairies in Kent... Similarities of pattern with Shorthorns are not too surprising, as like many other breeds both have forms of the colour-sided pattern. Doesn't mean they're related, though it would be surprising if they were not, given a few thousand years of cattle breeding in the British Isles... --Richard New Forest (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

polled Park Cattle (British White)

Hi Richard,

On the coloring, I call it gray, and I've heard folks in the UK refer to those that are 100% gray as 'blue-skinned', so perhaps it's a matter of interpretation. And yes, they are pinkish as well but mostly in their extremities I think, and moreso when they're younger. I'll look tomorrow more closely. And yes mine have speckles of color around the neck a lot as well, so far I see somewhat of a heritable nature to the color pattern of speckles, or lack of speckles of color.

On the use of historical references in the many old tales as pertaining to British White, I understand your concerns. However, the White Park Cattle Society, and even I think the RBST has no such qualms in reference to the horned White Park. For all they know the great 'whitehorn' of The Tain was the precursor to the English Longhorn. Point is, I agree when looking at it impassionately and with distance; but I don't as a breeder of these wonderful girls.

I actually think the Irish Moil is undoubtedly kin to the polled British White, and maybe even the now extinct, I think, Irish Drimmon (sp?). The Moil is colour sided with red points, the Drimmon colour sided with black points. But, the ancient references are not to speckled red cattle, they are to 'milk white' cattle with red ears. I see no reason to doubt the veracity of such ancient writings that have stood the test of time. Either the Moil or the Drimmon could have come about long, long ago from the intermixing of milk-white cattle with coloured points with other ancient breeds, which were predominantly red and black. Just as there are those today who prefer a red or black pointed animal, in the ancient days it is foolish to suppose that humans weren't capable of the same preferences and directed breeding for what they wished in their pastures. The colour sided pattern could easily have survived because it was separated from the 'milk white' classic marked cow.

On the Shorthorn, most definitely a shorthorn bull was introduced into the Woodbastwick herd on a limited basis, and that's Alderson's one supportable demafatory claim against the modern day polled British White. Kleberg with King Ranch indicated that his herd of shorthorn cattle reverted to white with red points when left to breed on their own for a number of years, I find that highly significant, and he said he thought the Park Cattle were likely the ancestors of the Shorthorn. It makes some sort of sense logically that the milk white animal with coloured points is the predecessor to the colour sided animals.

I've crossed black Angus with British White, and I got either classic Park cattle markings, or line- backed calves. I kept two of those crosses, one linebacked, one classic marked. The classic marked half blood always gives me a white calf, the line-backed halfblood has given me one classic marked Park calf and three line-backed ones, but never a solid black calf. Once it's there, it remains in the blood line and is a dominant.

Can't remember what else you asked/said, need to follow those links and learn how to work with this site, even posting to this 'talk' seems a strange animal to figure out.

Made some changes earlier, then read your note. Will remove the bold things, and work on an intro for the breed, unless you'd rather do that yourself. Removed most of the inflammatory stuff.

Thanks, J

Following copied from User Talk:Richard New Forest: Hi Richard, I really like your changes, and I made some very minor ones this evening. I answered back your last comments, but as I am not at all up to par with the way this whole 'talk' works, you may not have gotten my last response to your comments that I posted to ShirleySue -- I like using my Mom's name btw, and she was always quite dogged about her stance on things that meant a lot to her. Jimmie —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShirleySue (talk • contribs) 02:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I'd like to take credit, that was not my edit, it was User:Gurch's. I haven't had time to do anything yet, & won't for a day or two (farming to do...). How about a first bit for the breed as it is now, then the historical stuff in a ==History== section?

Anything you put here comes up on my watched list, so don't worry, I'll see it. Don't forget the four tildes... Regards, --Richard New Forest (talk) 09:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for Image:ParkCattle1835.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ParkCattle1835.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 00:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source/license for Image:StosythPrioryCattle1951.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:StosythPrioryCattle1951.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 00:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]