text:
Talk:Bronc riding

Untitled
Please please please someone update this page! Horses are not prey animals. Broncs are bred for this purpose, not failed work animals. The flank strap is no where near the animal's genitals. When a horse and rider rear up like that, it's more closely compared to a "wheelie" on a motorcycle; control and freedom and excitment, not chaos or an attempt to throw the rider! Bucking broncs don't rear like that, excited horse and riders do.

Shouldn't there be something in here about what makes the horse buck? Isn't there a band around the genitals or something like that? Ortolan88

This page has the same content as Bareback bronc. Mcpusc 01:46, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

bronc buster
Apparently, "bronc buster" seems to be the term for someone who does this for a living (see e.g. John Muir). Could someone write a bit about this, please? — S e b a s ti a n  ( T ) 07:31, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

circular reference
There currently is a circular reference from this page to bronco and back. — S e b a s ti a n  ( T ) 07:39, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

broncos
The commentators at the 2005 Wrangler National Rodeo Finals seemed to imply that broncos are specifically bred and trained for this purpose, not that they are failed riding horses...?12.174.149.185 17:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)Grazina

biased
there is almost nothing about animal abuse and what is there is dismissed Dog jumper idiot100 20:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

i fixed itDog jumper idiot100 20:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying to help, but your edits did not 'fix' this article; instead, they added a strong bias by using emotionally loaded words and descriptions instead of neutral language. I've reverted your changes. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

they are still biased the bucking strap forces horses to buck and does hurt them it was biased and although i am slightly biased it still is biasedDog jumper idiot100 00:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, that's right, the changes you added made the article take a more biased point of view, which is why they're reverted. We all have strong opinions, but articles themselves need to be neutral. -FisherQueen (Talk) 00:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well excuse me but i think the current article is biased and would you please stop reverting my reasonable changes becase you are biasedDog jumper idiot100 03:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

im gonna fix it this time and if it isnt up to your standards well then u have issues FisherQueenDog jumper idiot100 04:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

i believe i fixed it and i know the wording is akward but i will fix it if no one else does ALWAYS REMEMBER IMPROVE DONT REVERTDog jumper idiot100 05:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with you, but will allow someone else to make the change this time, so that you will not think that I am just an individual with a vendetta against your point of view. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

well i added both points of view and the stuff dismissing abuse is longer Dog jumper100 15:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The Flank Strap and Abuse Claims sections
These two sections are in need of references to support many claims made in them. (See Citing sources if you need more information about citing references.)

The flank strap does not force a horse to buck, it is there to encourage the horse to kick up! Usually they are fleece lined and are very unlikely to rub a horse for the time they are used, as they are the first part to be released. Cgoodwin (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Myths and reality section
Deleted entire section. A biased, completely "pro-rodeo" argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HatAct (talk • contribs) 14:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

 * While the article is far from "pro" rodeo, as it mentions and explains the controversy, even if you are correct, blanking an entire section and replacing it with an entirely pro-PETA argument is equally a violation of WP:NPOV. The fair resolution is to give equal time to each viewpoint, wording it with NPOV language. There is room to discuss both sides in a fair way, but it was probably a month ago the "truly" pro rodeo crowd went in and deleted any reference to animal cruelty, and started ranting about the animal rights activists and "bunny huggers."  So, everyone has hot emotions on the topic, and it is no fun to have an article locked down due to an edit war, so please do not delete material.  If you want to add, with proper sources, that is fine, but please read WP:NOT first.   Montanabw (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

A balanced presentation is needed - and we're not getting it. Your "pro rodeo" stance colors the entire section on abuse controversies. Rodeo-industry testimony is inadequate regarding a controversy about rodeo abuse of animals. It's a bit like "taking the word" of plantation owners in the America south c.1855 that slaves are well cared for, happy, and have no desire to be free. Animal rights activists HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO GAIN in speaking for those who cannot speak for themselves while rodeo activists HAVE EVERYTHING TO GAIN in suppressing them. Please try to make this article a balanced, NPOV article. Citing rodeo industry testimonies that animals are not exploited or abused in rodeo is not NPOV. HatAct (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I am sorry, but PETA also has much to gain by promoting their POV. Just because the pro rodeo position is presented does not make the article inherently pro rodeo, particularly when considerable space is devoted to abuse controversies as well.  I am not personally involved in the rodeo industry and as an editor I am attempting to keep these articles balanced.  Please also note: Reliable_sources  PETA is a source as surely POV as the rodeo industry and with as much to gain (in memberships and donations) as the rodeo industry.  I am serious when I say that the balance between the two viewpoints is a tricky one to maintain here.  I urge you to stop blanking viewpoints you do not agree with and please reread WP:SOAP and WP:VERIFIABILITY.  For that matter, also remember No Personal Attacks.  Montanabw (talk) 05:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

 * The lead is something of a summary of the entire article. To mention the flank strap controversy in the lead is appropriate. No problem. Please, don't delete contributions that fly in the face of the pro rodeo stance. I understand (correct me if I'm wrong) Wiki articles attempt to present "both sides of the story" -- controversies, opposing views, etc. Please stop deleting material with documentation and citations that do not support the pro-rodeo stance. Balance such material with documented and cited pro-rodeo contributions rather than undocumented, uncited factual-sounding statements. Perhaps you are very busy and cannot document or cite all of your contributions. Wouldn't it be wiser to refrain from making contributions until you can support them with documentation and citations? Just a thought. HatAct (talk) 06:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Abuse issue
Please refrain from reverting my edits. I am making a good faith attempt to merge both viewpoints in a balanced way. Montanabw (talk) 06:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Why is it OK for you to revert my edits but it's not OK for me to revert yours? I don't understand. I'm making a good faith effort to edit this article in a balanced manner only to find my contributions reworded to tip the scales ever-so-slightly in favor of the gung ho "pro-rodeo" stance. For example, I cited a veterinarian by name, etc. and her testimony only to find it reduced to "a spokesman for animal rights". What gives? Just wondering! HatAct (talk) 09:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Extremist Groups
While I appreciate your hint about Extremist Groups, it would be difficult to tar PETA with such a label. Essentially, PETA and other animal advocacy groups speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. I want to be fair but, based on a thorough reading of your resume page, it seems to me you approach this page with a bias. The article is being swayed to the "pro-rodeo" position with unsourced, undocumented, and uncited claims, statements, and misinformation. If you don't have the time to source and reference your contributions, wouldn't it be wise to refrain from contributing until you can? Just a thought! No hard feelings! HatAct (talk) 07:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Examples
>>>> This information is MUCH TOO OLD to be cited in current controversies: "In 1994, a survey of 28 sanctioned rodeos was conducted by on-site independent veterinarians. Reviewing 33,991 animal runs, the injury rate was documented at .00047 percent, or less than five-hundredths of one percent."
 * If there is a more recent study showing a higher injury rate (or a lower one, for that matter), feel free to cite it as a contrast. This may be the ONLY study that has been done.  Montanabw (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

 * It may be! You should mention that in the article: "In what may be the only survey (1994) taken of animal injury and death in rodeo ... etc."

>>>> "The same is not always true for rodeos in other parts of the world, particularly in third world nations." This sweeping statement needs to be sourced. It is a "claim" -- not a fact. It is not a fact until a source is cited and until then, the statement is misleading and should be deleted.
 * I don't see why you are upset at the claims that third world rodeos DO have animal abuse issues, the Mexican rodeos have some horrifying events (horse-tripping being one, you want to know about something where animals have broken legs...!) But if you want to delete a reference to actual abusive practices, whatever, be my guest.  Montanabw (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

 * OK, so I guess it's OK with you if I delete some statements but not others. Right?

>>>>> "A proven bucking horse can be sold for $8000 to $10,000, making "rough stock" a valuable investment that requires proper care." This statement is POV. Valuable? To who? To what? Why? In comparison to what? $8000 doesn't make something valuable to everyone. "Valuable" is POV.
 * Well, horsemeat goes for between 30 and 50 cents a pound, so take a 1000 pound horse and do the math. $8000 to $10,000 would get you a pretty decent animal in any discipline, and in some would get you a potential champion.  I'll look over the phrasing, though.   Montanabw (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I am going to return the flank strap controversy sentence or two to the lead as an appropriate. Please don't delete it.
 * I rephrased the flank strap statement because the issue is cruelty overall, spurs are also an issue, so is the slaughter issue.  Montanabw (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

 * True. But the article has a section about the flank strap. It's mentioned briefly and specifically in the lead as something of a "prologue" for what's to come. While horse slaughter and horse meat is an issue, no sources are cited for the issue. We just have unsourced statements which are seemingly presented as truths everyone in the world already knows.

>>>>"Animal rights groups sometimes claim that the flank strap forces a horse to buck even if it doesn't want to, arguing that it restricts the horses' genitals (which are located beneath the tail on females and between the hind legs on males).[3]" I have read the citation and there is absolutely nothing in it regarding the claims as stated in the article. This statement and its source are false and misleading. I am going to delete the statement because the citation is invalid. If you find a valid source about animals rights groups claiming the flank strap forces a horse to buck when it doesn't want to and/or restricts the horses' genitals, return the statement. HatAct (talk) 07:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Please do not blank material because you don't like the source. That is against wikipedia guidelines.  Use the {[fact}} tag to mark what you question.  Montanabw (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I like the source, it's just that there's nothing in your source to support your claim. I'll use the nowiki tag in the future. Why are you rewording my contributions? Are my grammar and spelling off? Just wondering! HatAct (talk) 08:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Rewording for an "encyclopedic" tone. Neutral language, a "just the facts, ma'am" approach.  You're getting it, I can see that in your edits. Wiki guidelines say to avoid peacock words, which usually means overly flowery wording, but also can be used to describe excessively emotional language too.    Montanabw (talk) 10:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Shooting for a truce here
Please note that I am trying to make a serious effort to provide balance here. Please remember to read Assume Good Faith and remember that wikipedia guidelines do strongly urge people to begin with the notion that the other party is well-intentioned. Montanabw (talk) 08:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

 * If you want to do something neat for this article, you could explain to Wikiusers exactly HOW a flank strap causes a top notch bucking horse to kick out straighter and higher. If some horses are specifically bred to buck and want to buck, then why are flank straps and spurs apparently necessary? Wouldn't the scent of fresh carrots do the same? Please explain. HatAct (talk) 08:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Top prices for bucking horses are paid for a) spoiled riding horses that have learned to buck off riders, and b) offspring of champion bucking horses. Just FYI. They really DO breed horses for bucking ability. You can't round up wild horses any more, they are protected, and the average mustang is too small to be a modern bucking horse anyway. Most modern broncs are usually big-boned, strong animals, the saddle broncs often have a touch of draft horse breeding. And they have to be trained--they need to allow the equipment to be put on, they have to learn to come out of the chute properly, etc., you can't just put a feral horse in a chute, they'll "run through" the bucking strap and just bolt for the nearest fence. Panicked horses will not give cowboys a good score. Follow the money and do the math. No financial incentive to be cruel to these animals, they won't put in a good effort if they are broken in spirit. Remember, most of the time, the animal thinks it "wins" because the rider is off in more or less 8 seconds! Now I'm going to go to sleep now, hope this clarifies things some. Montanabw (talk) 09:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarification needed here
"However, a bucking strap has to be an incentive, not a prod, or the horse will quickly sour and refuse to work."

An "incentive"? An incentive to what? To potential injury or death? I'm confused, please clarify. Such statements are misleading for the average reader. If a horse wants to buck, and some horses are bred specifically to buck, (as has been stated in the article, I believe) then why would any horse need a flank strap as an "incentive" to do what he loves to do? I'm truly confused. Please clarify. HatAct (talk) 09:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, that would probably require original research (see WP:NOR) (grin). I don't really have the time to dig into that one, but the deal is simple: Horses are ticklish in their flanks. Truly, you don't have to hurt a horse in the flanks to make it buck.  They feel anything there and it is considered an excuse to kick out unless trained NOT to.  In ordinary riding situations, I have seen normal riding horses get something wrapped around their flanks, a back cinch on a regular saddle, a harness strap, a couple kids riding bareback and the kid in back kicking the horse in the flanks, whatever, some horses will just come unglued.  It takes very little irritation in that area for a horse who is looking for an excuse to decide to kick up its legs or buck. At the same time, an old gentle horse can get something around its flanks or under its tail and it will get cranky, stomp its feet, kick at its belly, but not buck.   It's a training issue and a major safety concern in mainstream riding.

 * The spurs are mostly a style thing to make it harder for the rider.  The techniques used don't really make the horse buck or not buck at all.  You see, in the old rough-breaking "bronco-buster" horse-breaking tradition that bronc riding came from, the old-timers had this notion that if you punished the horse by whipping or spurring it every stride it bucked, that would make it QUIT bucking sooner--or the alternate theory was that by forcing the horse to buck by spurring, it would break their spirit faster...but in both cases, the idea was to use the spur to ultimately make the horse STOP bucking.  It was brutal training, but that's where it comes from. Obviously the method had to be modified; you hurt a horse too much and it WILL just quit on you, that was the secret to those old guys...horrible and rough, but you hurt a horse bad enough, it will just stop dead with its head hanging between its knees.  That's why it's pretty clear that the rodeo broncs aren't all that miserable.  They wouldn't buck hard if they were.

 * But the way modern bronc riders spur, it has nothing to do with making the horse buck, it's all a style thing and makes it harder for the rider to stay on...no one in real life spurs horses up on the shoulders like a bareback rider does! The horse's shoulder is one of the toughest and least sensitive parts of its body.  And on Saddle broncs, they have to "sweep" their spurs from shoulder to flank every stride, also not the way a real rider would use a spur. Also, the rowels are dull and they spin, they can't catch in and dig anywhere.   Only the bull riders get to sit or spur in a manner anything close to the way the old bronco-busters actually did it- in one basic place, just in front of the flanks. And bull riders are on animals with much tougher hides than horses.  They really think the cowboy is just an annoyance.

 * I also know that at rodeos, the flank strap is not all that tight, it really is just an annoyance. It's snugged up just as the horse leaves the chute (else they'd be cranky and kick the chute while waiting their turn) and the pickup men usually pull it right off the horse at the end of the run before the horse even leaves the arena.  It's basically a reminder to the horse that now is the time to buck.

 * But where someone else explains that so it can be cited? Beats me. Would take an archive search of 50 years of Western Horseman mag, plus skimming dozens of books, digging out the flotsam of a lifetime with horses...and wiki says I can't do that.   All I can tell you is that there's no reason to hurt horses with a tight flank strap because just having one on at all is enough to really annoy them.

 * Frankly, there are a lot of show horses that have it rougher than bucking horses. Tennessee Walking Horses and the soring thing for example.  Now that is just plain sick.   Montanabw (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

 * It needs to be explained. Qualified veterinarians and other animal welfare advocates indicate the flank strap torments rather than tickles. From what you have noted above (the strap is loose, etc.), it appears the flank strap is unnecessary. Naturally, the next question is: why use it? The answer appears to be: because the horse won't buck. But I read somewhere these horses love to buck. Hmm, I'm confused. But thanks for trying to sort things out! HatAct (talk) 10:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

 * ONE veterinarian, who appears to be a spokesperson for one fairly emotional animal-rights group. Dozens of equally qualified veterinarians say otherwise, at least four or five just on the PRCA site alone.   Montanabw (talk) 01:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I removed "spokesperson". We don't know if Larson is a "spokeperson". I don't believe writing one article for an animal welfare organization necessarily makes one a spokesperson for the organization. A spokesperson for animal welfare, perhaps but not necessarily for one particular organization. Writing one article for Wikipedia does not make one a "spokeperson" for Wikipedia. Writing one article for the PRCA does not make one a "spokesperson" for the PRCA. If you can find some evidence that Larson is an official "spokeperson" for SHARK, please bring it here and we can return the statement to its previous wording. Also, I would be pleased if you would leave the paragraph as is. Citing the author's name and credentials is appropriate. If Wiki has a policy on citing names and credentials, please let me know. I removed one statement that was unsourced. HatAct (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I removed the word "career" from one sentence. It's a "loaded" word. It implies that horses make decisions about such things as "having a job." They can't. Horses are forced into rodeo and exploited for the purposes of human entertainment. They don't have "careers". I used the words "rodeo usefulness" instead, which more accurately reflects the reality of the situation. HatAct (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm having trouble with this paragraph: "Nonetheless, a proven bucking horse can be sold for $8000 to $10,000, making "rough stock" an investment worth caring for and keeping in good health for many years.[1] While some rough stock animals are slaughtered for horsemeat at the end of their rodeo usefulness[citation needed], bucking horses are no more or less likely to wind up shipped to slaughter than other domesticated horses[citation needed]. Some of the best bucking horses are retired at the end of their rodeo usefulness and allowed to live into old age.[7][8]The issue of horse slaughter is not correlated directly to the rodeo industry, any unwanted horse can meet this fate, including race horses, show horses, or even backyard pasture pets. It is an issue that crosses all equestrian disciplines." The first sentence implies that extending health care to rodeo horses is only worthwhile if the horse can be sold for $8-10,000. I'm not sure what the argument is in this sentence. I'm not sure why the sentence is in this paragraph. I want to move it, rewrite it, or delete it as not germaine to the issue. It implies "People won't abuse expensive horses only inexpensive ones." The "horse slaughter" issue is suddenly introduced here. It's jarring. I think it needs further research, referencing, and perhaps its own subsection. It should perhaps begin something like this: "Animal lovers, horse enthusiasts, and animal welfare advocates have excoriated rodeo for shipping horses to slaughter ... " with appropriate references from animal lovers, horsepeople, etc. HatAct (talk) 04:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Enough
You need to understand that WIkipedia is not a soapbox for you to keep pushing a single viewpoint to the extent that it dominates the article. There is no need to cite long passages from various sources, particularly when all they really do is expose the lack of understanding of the various speakers. You are convinced that rodeos are cruel, but you fail to understand that there is in fact another viewpoint here, and that much of the material cited by the extremist groups you mention (and PETA is on the fringe) report isolated incidents in the thousands and thousands of rodeos held each year. I think it is time to take this issue to arbitration or something because you just do not understand that I am desperately trying to keep this article balanced and NPOV in tone. Montanabw (talk) 07:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

 * "There is no need to cite long passages from various sources, particularly when all they really do is expose the lack of understanding of the various speakers." Are you referring here to Peggy W. Larson, large animal veterinarian, medical researcher, prosecutor, and former bareback bronc rider with "lack of understanding" regarding cruely to animals in rodeo? So why do you think she lacks understanding? Because she doesn't agree with your position? Just wondering. When I last accessed this article, it was a nicely balanced article with citations and documentation adequately presenting both sides of the issues. The article has been re-edited with inadequate (or no) citations and documentation and colored with POV to tip the balance to the "Yee Haw! Let's Go Rodeo!" camp. The article is locked. I would expect some people are very happy. No further comment. HatAct (talk) 08:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Protected
The ariticle has been protected due to edit warring. Work it out on the talk page per WP:DR. Dreadstar †  08:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Have attempted to do so. (See notes immediately above). I was PMed that an "animal abuse in rodeo" page was created and I could go over there. Someone has a "proprietary" interest in this article. So be it. HatAct (talk) 08:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Settling the discussion?

 * I was the one who created a proposed red link for you to allow easy creation of a new article that explores this controversy, and I think it is a good solution to this situation because you can use it to fully explain the positions of the various groups (ASPCA has a different position from PETA and both are different from AHA, for example). It would be interesting.  You haven't been a wikipedian very long and maybe didn't know how to create a new article.  It was an attempt to help.

 * I also wish to make it clear that I have no "proprietary" interest in any of the rodeo article beyond a fondness for the wikipedia model and a desire to see production of a balanced article that respects the guidelines of wikipedia that I have repeatedly emphasized, including Wikipedia is not a soapbox], [[WP:NPOV|Neutral point of view and respect for the Manual of style. I am involved with these particular articles because I have a bit of knowledge on the topic, combined with some wordsmithing ability to smooth out the edits written by people with a vast amount of knowledge but iffy writing skills.   What I also am is tired of rewriting and rewording and spending hours every day trying to keep this article encyclopedic in tone and in accordance with wikipedia's core principles.  I want to point out that the "animal cruelty" section has been expanded a great deal since this discussion began, many of the statements in there are better sourced than they were, and in short, there does exist a balance to this article that is probably better than it was.   "Compromise" means that everyone gets some of what they want but probably not everything they want.  I think the article as it sits is reasonably balanced between the two viewpoints, though there is always room for improvement.  Montanabw (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Proprietary Interests
It appears to me that you have a "proprietary" interest in the article. I was willing to believe "good faith" editing on your part, but as work progressed on the animal abuse section, it became more and more clear to me that you have a proprietary interst in the article and you are not going to let any suggestion that rodeo abuses animals to stand. As soon as an edit is made to the article, you fly in to "skew" it to support your "Yee Haw! Let's Go Rodeo!" Montana horseperson stance. Here's an especially "sneaky" example your "pro-rodeo" "editing":

I quoted PETA: "During Rodeo Houston, a bull suffered from a broken neck for a full 15 minutes before he was euthanized following a steer-wrestling competition, which was described by a local newspaper as an event in which "cowboys violently twist the heads of steers weighing about 500 pounds to bring them to the ground." Nothing here but the truth. The quote was documented and sourced.

You skewed the quote to read: "a bull [sic] with a broken neck...following a steer-wrestling competition"[6][7]

You decided portions of the original quote should be deleted because they don't support your "Yee Haw!" position about rodeo. The Wikireader is left believing, perhaps, the animal was treated for his injury and then headed back to the ranch to frolic in clover filled pastures -- not killed. That doesn't look good for rodeo, does it? Grieviously injuring an animal at a public entertainment then killing the animal. Best to skew the quote to make rodeo look good, right? This is what I mean by your snake-like skewing of truthful, sourced material that doesn't toe the line with your "Cowboys are the Greatest! Yee Haw! Let's Go Rodeo!" Montana horseperson editorial position.

Secondly, you continually insist upon referencing a "survey" made in 1994 (duh!) regarding animal abuse in rodeo. You've stuck the stuff in every rodeo article at Wiki. While statistics always impress people, the "survey" is too old to be of any worth, and you do nothing for Wikipedia's credibility in citing such dated material. You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to "pull a fast one" on unsuspecting Wikireaders. Your source for the "survey" is a sidebar in a biased, blog-type "Cowboys are the Greatest! Yee Haw! Let's Go Rodeo!" website. You should be citing the original "survey" -- not an unsourced sidebar at a "Yee Haw!" site.

The entire animal abuse section from Steer Wrestling ....

-- Like all other rodeo events, steer wrestling is under fire by animal rights advocates. Modern rodeos in the United States are closely regulated and have been responsive to accusations of animal cruelty.[4] In 1994, a survey of 28 sanctioned rodeos was conducted by on-site independent veterinarians. Reviewing 33,991 animal runs, the injury rate was documented at .00047 percent, or less than five-hundredths of one percent.[5]

However, groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) notes incidents of "a bull [sic] with a broken neck...following a steer-wrestling competition"[6][7] Other organizations note that steer wrestling is not an event linked directly to actual ranching practices, stating, "It is an abusive event developed simply to amuse"[8] According to the ASPCA, practice sessions are often the scene of more severe abuses than competitions.[9]

In the second sentence "Modern rodeos in the United States etc.", it should be noted that rodeo is industry regulated. The Wikireader is left thinking rodeo is "regulated" by non-biased, "government inspectors" or some such people. It's not. Rodeo is "regulated" by rodeo. Ordinary ticket-buying, rodeo attendees are forbidden from videotaping or photographing animals dying and dead in the arena. I don't dare make the note because I know it will be "skewed" by those with a "proprietary" interest in the article and don't want contributions from "non-proprietors". I know that anyone contributing to any article about rodeo has to pass your inspection as self-appointed "guardian" of all Wiki articles about rodeo. You have a "proprietary" interest in the articles about rodeo and have written (in your own way now and then about spending hours protecting the rodeo articles) and demonstrated as much. While you think animal welfarists and animal rights activists are "extremists", an extremist tone has not been evident in my contributions. Your accusations of "soapboxing" are simply false. I resnt your personal attacks and unfounded accusations. Hope this helps! Keep up the good work! HatAct (talk) 05:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I consider the "yee-haw" comment to be a Personal attack. You are making a stereotyped assumption about me based on where I live.   I am also not going to bother responding to your arguments point by point as we've been over this before.  You have a point of view, I have a point of view, and truly "pro-rodeo" advocates have a point of view.  The trick is balancing these points of view so that all sides have their views represented accurately, but without dominating the entire article with fringe theories.  (And PETA is, by most measurements, a fringe group.)  I consider myself a person of sufficient actual knowledge to be neutral, and I guarantee you that a month from now, some person with a truly pro-rodeo viewpoint will come in here and want to delete everything you inserted.  All I am doing is toning things down. And you can discuss the steer wrestling issue on the steer wrestling page.   Montanabw (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Odd Merge
The first sentence is incorrect. "Bronc riding, either saddle bronc or bareback bronc competition, is a rodeo event". Saddle Bronc Riding and Bareback Riding a distinct events not a single event. These 2 events should not be combined into a single article. Sprint (race) for example has a main article and then articles for specific events such as 100 metres Hutcher (talk) 01:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

 * It apparently was two different articles somewhere before I started working on the rodeo articles, and then they were merged, not by me. I don't know the reasoning behind the merge and I hate to get into edit wars, so I haven't cared to kick that particular beehive. I think that there may have been yet a third article that also had information on both events.  I guess my feelings on the matter is that it's not a moral issue, but if you look at "what links here" you will see that there are a lot of cross-refs that will need to be analyzed and fixed if the article is split back into two.  I guess my take is don't do the split unless you also want to do all the organizational cleanup, which in this case will involve a lot of article analysis to determine which places to link one event, where to link the other, and when both will need to be linked.  I don't have the time to do it, but I would be willing to birddog it and offer suggestions.  Maybe the thing to do is a draft version of each here on the talk page, or in a sandbox, and when they are ready to go, then plop them in.   Montanabw (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Follow up Please don't create separate articles yet, especially poor quality stubs, it will mess up everything. Better we link to an oddly-named article but one with substantive material. I had to clean up several of your edits to various articles, too, correcting some incorrect information along the way, so please proceed with some caution and read the WP:MOS as you edit, OK?   Montanabw (talk) 05:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I love Broncs!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.103.11.98 (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

New merge
Yep, I'm Ok with merging now. Montanabw (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bronc riding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.prorodeo.com/pdfs/AnimalWelfare.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111110002548/http://www.sharkonline.org/abuseinherent.mv to http://www.sharkonline.org/abuseinherent.mv
 * Added tag to http://www.prorodeo.com/pdfs/AnimalWelfare.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bronc riding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320084011/http://www.prorodeo.asn.au/animals.htm to http://www.prorodeo.asn.au/animals.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080608030150/http://www.prorodeo.com/animal_welfare.aspx?xu=3 to http://www.prorodeo.com/animal_welfare.aspx?xu=3
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320084011/http://www.prorodeo.asn.au/animals.htm to http://www.prorodeo.asn.au/Animals.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bronc riding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061201031127/http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=69 to http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=69

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bronc riding


text:
Talk:Bareback bronc

Shouldn't there be something in here about what makes the horse buck? Isn't there some kind of irritating band in front of the hind legs? I have nothing against the rodeo, but every time I have gone, the horse comes out bucking like crazy, the cowboy is thrown off, outriders come up, do something to a rope or cord at the back of the bronc, and it stops bucking. What are they doing? Ortolan88

Actually, it fastens like a belt buckle and they just tug it loose. The Animal Rights protesters should, in my opinion, look at calf roping and steer roping long before the rough stock. Lbmoore

Thanks for the response in all three articles. Very interesting. Ortolan88

Thank You for helping me make better entries. Lbmoore

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Bareback bronc


text:
Virgo Supercluster

The Virgo Supercluster (Virgo SC) or the Local Supercluster (LSC or LS) was a formerly defined supercluster containing the Virgo Cluster and Local Group, which itself contains the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies, as well as others. At least 100 galaxy groups and clusters are located within its diameter of 33 megaparsecs (110 million light-years). The Virgo SC is one of about 10 million superclusters in the observable universe and is in the Pisces–Cetus Supercluster Complex, a galaxy filament.

A 2014 study indicates that the Virgo Supercluster is only a part of an even greater supercluster, Laniakea, a larger, competing referent of the term Local Supercluster centered on the Great Attractor, thus subsuming the former Virgo Supercluster under Laniakea.

Background
Beginning with the first large sample of nebulae published by William and John Herschel in 1863, it was known that there is a marked excess of nebular fields in the constellation Virgo, near the north galactic pole. In the 1950s, French–American astronomer Gérard de Vaucouleurs was the first to argue that this excess represented a large-scale galaxy-like structure, coining the term "Local Supergalaxy" in 1953, which he changed to "Local Supercluster" (LSC ) in 1958. Harlow Shapley, in his 1959 book Of Stars and Men, suggested the term Metagalaxy.

Debate went on during the 1960s and 1970s as to whether the Local Supercluster (LS) was actually a structure or a chance alignment of galaxies. The issue was resolved with the large redshift surveys of the late 1970s and early 1980s, which convincingly showed the flattened concentration of galaxies along the supergalactic plane.

Structure
In a comprehensive 1982 paper, R. Brent Tully presented the conclusions of his research concerning the basic structure of the LS. It consists of two components: an appreciably flattened disk containing two-thirds of the supercluster's luminous galaxies, and a roughly spherical halo containing the remaining one-third. The disk itself is a thin (~1 Mpc) ellipsoid with a long axis / short axis ratio of at least 6 to 1, and possibly as high as 9 to 1. Data released in June 2003 from the 5-year Two-degree-Field Galaxy Redshift Survey (2dF) has allowed astronomers to compare the LS to other superclusters. The LS represents a typical poor (that is, lacking a high density core) supercluster of rather small size. It has one rich galaxy cluster in the center, surrounded by filaments of galaxies and poor groups.

The Local Group is located on the outskirts of the LS in a small filament extending from the Fornax Cluster to the Virgo Cluster. The Virgo Supercluster's volume is very approximately 7,000 times that of the Local Group, or 100 billion times that of the Milky Way.

Galaxy distribution
The number density of galaxies in the LS falls off with the square of the distance from its center near the Virgo Cluster, suggesting that this cluster is not randomly located. Overall, the vast majority of the luminous galaxies (less than absolute magnitude −13) are concentrated in a small number of clouds (groups of galaxy clusters). Ninety-eight percent can be found in the following 11 clouds, given in decreasing order of number of luminous galaxies: Canes Venatici, Virgo Cluster, Virgo II (southern extension), Leo II, Virgo III, Crater (NGC 3672), Leo I, Leo Minor (NGC 2841), Draco (NGC 5907), Antlia (NGC 2997), and NGC 5643.

Of the luminous galaxies located in the disk, one third are in the Virgo Cluster. The remainder are found in the Canes Venatici Cloud and Virgo II Cloud, plus the somewhat insignificant NGC 5643 Group.

The luminous galaxies in the halo are concentrated in a small number of clouds (94% in 7 clouds). This distribution indicates that "most of the volume of the supergalactic plane is a great void." A helpful analogy that matches the observed distribution is that of soap bubbles. Flattish clusters and superclusters are found at the intersection of bubbles, which are large, roughly spherical (on the order of 20–60 Mpc in diameter) voids in space. Long filamentary structures seem to predominate. An example of this is the Hydra–Centaurus Supercluster, the nearest supercluster to the LS, which starts at a distance of roughly 30 Mpc and extends to 60 Mpc.

Large-scale dynamics
Since the late 1980s it has been apparent that not only the Local Group, but all matter out to a distance of at least 50 Mpc is experiencing a bulk flow on the order of 600 km/s in the direction of the Norma Cluster (Abell 3627). Lynden-Bell et al. (1988) dubbed the cause of this the "Great Attractor". The Great Attractor is now understood to be the center of mass of an even larger structure of galaxy clusters, dubbed "Laniakea", which includes the Virgo Supercluster (including the Local Group) as well as the Hydra-Centaurus Supercluster, the Pavo-Indus Supercluster, and the Fornax Group.

The Great Attractor, together with the entire supercluster, is found to be moving toward Shapley Supercluster, with center of Shapley Attractor.

Dark matter
The LS has a total mass M ≈ 1015 and a total optical luminosity L ≈ 3. This yields a mass-to-light ratio of about 300 times that of the solar ratio (/ = 1), a figure that is consistent with results obtained for other superclusters. By comparison, the mass-to-light ratio for the Milky Way is 63.8 assuming a solar absolute magnitude of 4.83, a Milky Way absolute magnitude of −20.9, and a Milky Way mass of. These ratios are one of the main arguments in favor of the presence of large amounts of dark matter in the universe; if dark matter did not exist, much smaller mass-to-light ratios would be expected.

title: Virgo Supercluster


text:
Great Attractor

The Great Attractor is a region of gravitational attraction in intergalactic space and the apparent central gravitational point of the Laniakea Supercluster of galaxies that includes the Milky Way galaxy, as well as about 100,000 other galaxies.

The observed attraction suggests a localized concentration of mass having the order of 1016 solar masses. However, it is obscured by the Milky Way's galactic plane, lying behind the Zone of Avoidance (ZOA), so that in visible light wavelengths, the Great Attractor is difficult to observe directly.

The attraction is observable by its effect on the motion of galaxies and their associated clusters over a region of hundreds of millions of light-years across the universe. These galaxies are observable above and below the Zone of Avoidance; all are redshifted in accordance with the Hubble flow, indicating that they are receding relative to the Milky Way and to each other, but the variations in their redshifts are large enough and regular enough to reveal that they are slightly drawn towards the attraction. The variations in their redshifts are known as peculiar velocities, and cover a range from about +700 km/s to −700 km/s, depending on the angular deviation from the direction to the Great Attractor. The Great Attractor itself is moving towards the Shapley Supercluster.

History
The Great Attractor was named by Alan Dressler in 1987, following decades of redshift surveys that built up a large dataset of redshift values. The redshift values and distance measurements independent of redshift measurements were then combined to create maps of peculiar velocity.

Through a series of peculiar velocity tests, astrophysicists found that the Milky Way was moving in the direction of the constellation of Centaurus at about 600km/s. Then, the discovery of cosmic microwave background (CMB) dipoles was used to reflect the motion of the Local Group of galaxies towards the Great Attractor. The 1980s brought many discoveries about the Great Attractor, such as the fact that the Milky Way is not the only galaxy impacted. Approximately 400 elliptical galaxies are moving toward the Great Attractor beyond the Zone of Avoidance caused by the Milky Way galaxy light.

Intense efforts to work through the difficulties caused by the occlusion by the Milky Way during the late 1990's identified the Norma Cluster at the center of the Great Attractor region.

Location
The first indications of a deviation from uniform expansion of the universe were reported in 1973 and again in 1978. The location of the Great Attractor was finally determined in 1986: It is situated at a distance of somewhere between 150 and 250 Mly (million light-years) (47–79 Mpc), the larger being the most recent estimate, away from the Milky Way, in the direction of the constellations Triangulum Australe (The Southern Triangle) and Norma (The Carpenter's Square). While objects in that direction lie in the Zone of Avoidance (the part of the night sky obscured by the Milky Way galaxy) and are thus difficult to study with visible wavelengths, X-ray observations have revealed that region of space to be dominated by the Norma Cluster (ACO 3627), a massive cluster of galaxies containing a preponderance of large, old galaxies, many of which are colliding with their neighbours and radiating large amounts of radio waves.

Debate over apparent mass
In 1992, much of the apparent signal of the Great Attractor was attributed to a statistical effect called Malmquist bias. In 2005, astronomers conducting an X-ray survey of part of the sky known as the Clusters in the Zone of Avoidance (CIZA) project reported that the Great Attractor was actually only one tenth the mass that scientists had originally estimated. The survey also confirmed earlier theories that the Milky Way galaxy is in fact being pulled toward a much more massive cluster of galaxies near the Shapley Supercluster, which lies beyond the Great Attractor, and which is called the Shapley Attractor.

Laniakea Supercluster
The proposed Laniakea Supercluster is defined as the Great Attractor's basin. It covers approximately four main galaxy superclusters, including superclusters of Virgo and Hydra–Centaurus, and spans across 500 million light years. Because it is not dense enough to be gravitationally bound, it should be dispersing as the universe expands, but it is instead anchored by a gravitational focal point. Thus the Great Attractor would be the core of the new supercluster.

title: Great Attractor


text:
Philosophy of history

Philosophy of history is the philosophical study of history and its discipline. The term was coined by the French philosopher Voltaire.

In contemporary philosophy a distinction has developed between the speculative philosophy of history and the critical philosophy of history, now referred to as analytic. The split between these approaches may be approximately compared, by analogy and on the strength of regional and academic influences, to the schism in commitments between analytic and continental philosophy wherein the analytic approach is pragmatic and the speculative approach attends more closely to a metaphysics (or anti-metaphysics) of determining forces like language or the phenomenology of perception at the level of background assumptions.

At the level of practice, the analytic approach questions the meaning and purpose of the historical process whereas the speculative approach studies the foundations and implications of history and the historical method. The names of these are derived from C. D. Broad's distinction between critical philosophy and speculative philosophy.

The divergence between these approaches crystallizes in the disagreements between Hume and Kant on the question of causality. Hume and Kant may be viewed in retrospect—by expressive anachronism—as analytic and speculative, respectively. Historians like Foucault or Hannah Arendt, who tend to be spoken of as theorists or philosophers before they are acknowledged as historians, may largely be identified with the speculative approach whereas generic academic history tends to be cleave to analytic and narrative approaches.

Origins
In his Poetics, Aristotle (384–322 BCE) maintained the superiority of poetry over history because poetry speaks of what ought or must be true rather than merely what is true.

Herodotus, a fifth-century BCE contemporary of Socrates, broke from the Homeric tradition of passing narrative from generation to generation in his work "Investigations" (Ancient Greek: Ἱστορίαι; Istoríai), also known as Histories. Herodotus, regarded by some as the first systematic historian, and, later, Plutarch (46–120 CE) freely invented speeches for their historical figures and chose their historical subjects with an eye toward morally improving the reader. History was supposed to teach good examples for one to follow. The assumption that history "should teach good examples" influenced how writers produced history.

From the Classical period to the Renaissance, historians' focus alternated between subjects designed to improve mankind and a devotion to fact. History was composed mainly of hagiographies of monarchs and epic poetry describing heroic deeds such as The Song of Roland—about the Battle of Roncevaux Pass (778) during Charlemagne's first campaign to conquer the Iberian peninsula.

In the fourteenth century, Ibn Khaldun, whom George Sarton considered one of the first philosophers of history, discussed his philosophy of history and society in detail in his Muqaddimah (1377). His work represents a culmination of earlier works by medieval Islamic sociologists in the spheres of Islamic ethics, political science, and historiography, such as those of al-Farabi (c. 872 – c. 950), Ibn Miskawayh, al-Dawani, and Nasir al-Din al-Tusi (1201–1274). Ibn Khaldun often criticized "idle superstition and uncritical acceptance of historical data". He introduced a scientific method to the philosophy of history (which Dawood considers something "totally new to his age") and he often referred to it as his "new science", which is now associated with historiography. His historical method also laid the groundwork for the observation of the role of the state, communication, propaganda, and systematic bias in history.

By the eighteenth century historians had turned toward a more positivist approach—focusing on fact as much as possible, but still with an eye on telling histories that could instruct and improve. Starting with Fustel de Coulanges (1830–1889) and Theodor Mommsen (1817–1903), historical studies began to move towards a more modern scientific form. In the Victorian era, historiographers debated less whether history was intended to improve the reader, and more on what causes turned history and how one could understand historical change.

Philosophy of chronology
Many ancient cultures held mythical and theological concepts of history and of time that were not linear. Such societies saw history as cyclical, with alternating Dark and Golden Ages. Plato taught the concept of the Great Year, and other Greeks spoke of aeons. Similar examples include the ancient doctrine of eternal return, which existed in Ancient Egypt, in the Indian religions, among the Greek Pythagoreans' and in the Stoics' conceptions. In his Works and Days, Hesiod described five Ages of Man: the Golden Age, the Silver Age, the Bronze Age, the Heroic Age, and the Iron Age, which began with the Dorian invasion. Some scholars identify just four ages, corresponding to the four metals, with the Heroic age as a description of the Bronze Age. A four-age count would match the Vedic or Hindu ages known as Satya Yuga, Treta Yuga, Dvapara Yuga and Kali Yuga, which together make one Yuga Cycle that repeats. According to Jainism, this world has no beginning or end but goes through cycles of upturns (utsarpini) and downturns (avasarpini) constantly. Many Greeks believed that just as mankind went through four stages of character during each rise and fall of history so did government. They considered democracy and monarchy as the healthy régimes of the higher ages; and oligarchy and tyranny as corrupted régimes common to the lower ages.

In the East, cyclical theories of history developed in China (as a theory of dynastic cycle) and in the Islamic world in the Muqaddimah of Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406).

During the Renaissance, cyclical conceptions of history would become common, with proponents illustrating decay and rebirth by pointing to the decline of the Roman Empire. Machiavelli's Discourses on Livy (1513–1517) provide an example. The notion of Empire contained in itself ascendance and decadence, as in Edward Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776), which the Roman Catholic Church placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (List of Prohibited Books).

During the Age of Enlightenment, history began to be seen as both linear and irreversible. Condorcet's interpretations of the various "stages of humanity" and Auguste Comte's positivism were among the most important formulations of such conceptions of history, which trusted social progress. As in Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Emile (1762) treatise on education (or the "art of training men"), the Enlightenment conceived the human species as perfectible: human nature could be infinitely developed through a well-thought pedagogy.

Cyclical conceptions continued in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in the works of authors such as Oswald Spengler (1880–1936), Correa Moylan Walsh (1862–1936), Nikolay Danilevsky (1822–1885), Claude Lévi-Strauss (1908–2009), and Paul Kennedy (1945– ), who conceived the human past as a series of repetitive rises and falls. Spengler, like Butterfield, when writing in reaction to the carnage of the First World War of 1914–1918, believed that a civilization enters upon an era of Caesarism after its soul dies. Spengler thought that the soul of the West was dead and that Caesarism was about to begin.

Philosophy of causality
Narrative and causal approaches to history have often been contrasted or even opposed to one another, yet they can also be viewed as complementary. Some philosophers of history such as Arthur Danto have claimed that "explanations in history and elsewhere" describe "not simply an event—something that happens—but a change". Like many practicing historians, they treat causes as intersecting actions and sets of actions which bring about "larger changes", in Danto's words: to decide "what are the elements which persist through a change" is "rather simple" when treating an individual's "shift in attitude", but "it is considerably more complex and metaphysically challenging when we are interested in such a change as, say, the break-up of feudalism or the emergence of nationalism".

Much of the historical debate about causes has focused on the relationship between communicative and other actions, between singular and repeated ones, and between actions, structures of action or group and institutional contexts and wider sets of conditions. John Gaddis has distinguished between exceptional and general causes (following Marc Bloch) and between "routine" and "distinctive links" in causal relationships: "in accounting for what happened at Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, we attach greater importance to the fact that President Truman ordered the dropping of an atomic bomb than to the decision of the Army Air Force to carry out his orders." He has also pointed to the difference between immediate, intermediate and distant causes. For his part, Christopher Lloyd puts forward four "general concepts of causation" used in history: the "metaphysical idealist concept, which asserts that the phenomena of the universe are products of or emanations from an omnipotent being or such final cause"; "the empiricist (or Humean) regularity concept, which is based on the idea of causation being a matter of constant conjunctions of events"; "the functional/teleological/consequential concept", which is "goal-directed, so that goals are causes"; and the "realist, structurist and dispositional approach, which sees relational structures and internal dispositions as the causes of phenomena".

There is disagreement about the extent to which history is ultimately deterministic. Some argue that geography, economic systems, or culture prescribe laws that determine the events of history. Others see history as a sequence of consequential processes that act upon each other. Even determinists do not rule out that, from time to time, certain cataclysmic events occur to change the course of history. Their main point is, however, that such events are rare and that even apparently large shocks like wars and revolutions often have no more than temporary effects on the evolution of the society.

Philosophy of neutrality
The question of neutrality concerns itself foremost with analysis of historiography and the biases of historical sources. One prominent manifestation of this analysis is the idea that "history is written by the victors".

G. W. F. Hegel adopts the expression "Die Weltgeschichte ist das Weltgericht" ("World history is a tribunal that judges the world", a quote from Friedrich Schiller's poem Resignation, published in 1786) and asserts that history is what judges men and women, their actions, and their opinions. Since the twentieth century, Western historians have disavowed the aspiration to provide a judgement of history. The goals of historical judgements or interpretations are separate from those of legal judgements, which need to be formulated quickly after the events and be final.

In his Collège de France lectures published as Society Must Be Defended, Michel Foucault posits that the victors of a social struggle use their political dominance to suppress a defeated adversary's version of historical events in favor of their own propaganda, which may go so far as historical negationism. Wolfgang Schivelbusch's Culture of Defeat takes an opposing approach that defeat is a major driver for the defeated to reinvent himself, while the victor, confirmed in his attitudes and methods, dissatisfied by the high losses and paltry gains made, may be less creative and fall back.

Related to the issues of historical judgement are those of the pretension to neutrality and objectivity. Analytic and critical philosophers of history have debated whether historians should express judgements on historical figures, or if this would infringe on their supposed role. In general, positivists and neopositivists oppose any value-judgement as unscientific.

Teleological approaches
Early teleological approaches to history can be found in theodicies, which attempted to reconcile the problem of evil with the existence of God—providing a global explanation of history with belief in a progressive directionality organized by a superior power, leading to an eschatological end, such as a Messianic Age or Apocalypse. However, this transcendent teleological approach can be thought as immanent to human history itself. Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet, in his 1679 Discourse On Universal History, and Gottfried Leibniz, who coined the term, formulated such philosophical theodicies. Leibniz based his explanation on the principle of sufficient reason, which states that anything that happens, does happen for a specific reason. Thus, if one adopts God's perspective, seemingly evil events in fact only take place in the larger divine plan. In this way theodicies explained the necessity of evil as a relative element that forms part of a larger plan of history. However, Leibniz's principles were not a gesture of fatalism. Confronted with the antique problem of future contingents, Leibniz developed the theory of compossible worlds, distinguishing two types of necessity, in response to the problem of determinism.

G. W. F. Hegel may represent the epitome of teleological philosophy of history. Hegel's teleology was taken up by Francis Fukuyama in his The End of History and the Last Man. Thinkers such as Nietzsche, Michel Foucault, Althusser, or Deleuze deny any teleological sense to history, claiming that it is best characterized by discontinuities, ruptures, and various time-scales, which the Annales School claimed to have demonstrated.

Schools of thought influenced by Hegel also see history as progressive, but they see progress as the outcome of a dialectic in which factors working in opposite directions are over time reconciled. History was best seen as directed by a Zeitgeist, and traces of the Zeitgeist could be seen by looking backward. Hegel believed that history was moving man toward civilization, and some also claim he thought that the Prussian state incarnated the end of history. In his Lessons on the History of Philosophy, he explains that each epochal philosophy is in a way the whole of philosophy; it is not a subdivision of the Whole but this Whole itself apprehended in a specific modality.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

Lectures on the Philosophy of World History bring together the theses of the philosophy of history that Hegel developed during his classes at the University of Berlin taught in the years 1822–1823, 1828 and 1830–1831. Editions of the work by Eduard Gans in 1837, Charles Hegel in 1840 and Georg Lasson in 1917 stand out. Hegel's work presents a complex exposition of his theses, which can lead to more than one mistake. For this reason, a series of works have been written aimed at interpreting the writings of the German philosopher, including his philosophy of history, which has been considered one of his clearest works.

Hegel's philosophy of history aimed for a philosophical reflection on world history, thinking about the history of humanity in all its spatial and temporal breadth. This Hegelian particularity, versus the works of historians, rests on the fact that the German philosopher sought to determine what the teleology of history was, particularly what the end of history was, and how that process would develop. With this end in mind, Hegel applied his philosophical system, both metaphysical and logical, to develop the thesis that the history of humanity consists of a rational process of constant progress towards freedom.

According to Hegelian philosophy, reason made a spatial transition from east to west, that is, from Asia to Europe. This transition of reason, says Hegel, is made explicit in the concept of freedom that each civilization developed in these spaces has had. Thus, in the east, the Chinese civilization, India, and the various civilizations of Mesopotamia were characterized by considering that freedom belonged to a single subject, that person being understood as the emperor or empress, the king or queen. The rest of the individuals in these civilizations are, according to Hegel, like children under the tutelage of a father. The second stage of this transition of freedom overcame the paternal stage. Greece and Rome, civilizations where freedom no longer belonged only to the head of the state, but also to a limited number of people who met certain requirements, that is, the citizens. Finally, the third stage, German-Christian Europe, reached a level of consciousness about freedom that maintains that it no longer belonged to one or a few; on the contrary, freedom was good for all human beings.

The reactions that Hegel's thesis generated have been diverse. On the one hand, it is argued that Hegel's contribution consisted of consolidating the philosophy of history as an independent and formal discipline of philosophy. On the other hand, it is argued that Hegel's philosophy of history is an example of totalitarianism, racism, and Eurocentrism, widely debated criticisms.

Thomas Carlyle
After Hegel, who insisted on the role of great men in history, with his famous statement about Napoleon, "I saw the Spirit on his horse", Thomas Carlyle argued that history was the biography of a few central individuals, heroes, such as Oliver Cromwell or Frederick the Great, writing that "The History of the world is but the Biography of great men." His view of heroes included not only political and military figures, the founders or topplers of states, but artists, poets, theologians and other cultural leaders. His history of great men, of geniuses, sought to organize change in the advent of greatness.

Explicit defenses of Carlyle's position have been rare since the late twentieth century. Most philosophers of history contend that the motive forces in history can best be described only with a wider lens than the one he used for his portraits. A.C. Danto, for example, wrote of the importance of the individual in history, but extended his definition to include social individuals, defined as "individuals we may provisionally characterize as containing individual human beings amongst their parts. Examples of social individuals might be social classes [. . .], national groups [. . .], religious organizations [. . .], large-scale events [. . .], large-scale social movements [. . .], etc." The great man theory of history was most popular with professional historians in the nineteenth century; a popular work of this school is the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition (1911), which contains lengthy and detailed biographies about the great men of history.

After Marx's conception of a materialist history based on the class struggle, which raised attention for the first time to the importance of social factors such as economics in the unfolding of history, Herbert Spencer wrote "You must admit that the genesis of the great man depends on the long series of complex influences which has produced the race in which he appears, and the social state into which that race has slowly grown. . . . Before he can remake his society, his society must make him."

Social evolutionism
Inspired by the Enlightenment's ideal of progress, social evolutionism became a popular conception in the nineteenth century. Auguste Comte's (1798–1857) positivist conception of history, which he divided into the theological stage, the metaphysical stage and the positivist stage, brought upon by modern science, was one of the most influential doctrines of progress. The Whig interpretation of history, as it was later called, associated with scholars of the Victorian and Edwardian eras in Britain, such as Henry Maine or Thomas Macaulay, gives an example of such influence, by looking at human history as progress from savagery and ignorance toward peace, prosperity, and science. Maine described the direction of progress as "from status to contract," from a world in which a child's whole life is pre-determined by the circumstances of his birth, toward one of mobility and choice.

The publication of Darwin's The Origin of Species in 1859 introduced human evolution. However, it was quickly transposed from its original biological field to the social field, in social Darwinist theories. Herbert Spencer, who coined the term "survival of the fittest", or Lewis Henry Morgan in Ancient Society (1877) developed evolutionist theories independent from Darwin's works, which would be later interpreted as social Darwinism. These nineteenth-century unilineal evolution theories claimed that societies start out in a primitive state and gradually become more civilised over time, and equated the culture and technology of Western civilisation with progress.

Arthur Gobineau's An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races (1853–55) argued that race is the primary force determining world events, that there are intellectual differences between human races, and that civilizations decline and fall when the races are mixed. Gobineau's works had a large popularity in the so-called scientific racism theories that developed during the New Imperialism period.

After the first world war, and even before Herbert Butterfield (1900–1979) harshly criticized it, the Whig interpretation had gone out of style. The bloodletting of that conflict had indicted the whole notion of linear progress. Paul Valéry famously said: "We civilizations now know ourselves mortal."

However, the notion itself didn't completely disappear. The End of History and the Last Man (1992) by Francis Fukuyama proposed a similar notion of progress, positing that the worldwide adoption of liberal democracies as the single accredited political system and even modality of human consciousness would represent the "End of History". Fukuyama's work stems from a Kojevian reading of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit (1807).

Unlike Maurice Godelier who interprets history as a process of transformation, Tim Ingold suggests that history is a movement of autopoiesis

A key component to making sense of all of this is to simply recognize that all these issues in social evolution merely serve to support the suggestion that how one considers the nature of history will impact the interpretation and conclusions drawn about history. The critical under-explored question is less about history as content and more about history as process.

In 2011 Steven Pinker wrote a history of violence and humanity from an evolutionary perspective in which he shows that violence has declined statistically over time.

Contextual theories
As early as the 18th century, philosophers began focusing on contextual factors contributing to the course of history. Historians of the Annales School, founded in 1929 by Lucien Febvre and Marc Bloch, were a major landmark in the shift from a history centered on individual subjects to studies concentrating in geography, economics, demography, and other social forces. Fernand Braudel's studies on the Mediterranean Sea as "hero" of history and Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie's history of climate were inspired by this school.

Karl Marx

Karl Marx is often thought to be an exponent of economic determinism. For him social institutions like religion, culture and the political system were merely by-products of the underlying economic system. However, he did not see history as completely deterministic. His essay The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon contains the most famous formulation of Marx's view of the role of the individual in history:

"Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under given circumstances directly encountered and inherited from the past."

Michel Foucault
The historico-political discourse analyzed by Michel Foucault in Society Must Be Defended (1975–76) considers truth as the fragile product of a historical struggle, first conceptualized as race struggle—understood not in the modern sense of biological race but closer to that of a people or nation. Boulainvilliers, for example, was an exponent of nobility rights. He claimed that the French nobility were the racial descendants of the Franks who invaded France (while the Third Estate was descended from the conquered Gauls), and had right to power by virtue of right of conquest. He used this approach to formulate a historical thesis of the course of French political history—a critique of both the monarchy and the Third Estate. Foucault regards him as the founder of the historico-political discourse as political weapon.

In Great Britain, this historico-political discourse was used by the bourgeoisie, the people and the aristocracy as a means of struggle against the monarchy—cf. Edward Coke or John Lilburne. In France, Boulainvilliers, Nicolas Fréret, and then Sieyès, Augustin Thierry, and Cournot reappropriated this form of discourse. Finally, at the end of the nineteenth century, this discourse was incorporated by racialist biologists and eugenicists, who gave it the modern sense of race and, even more, transformed this popular discourse into a state racism in Nazism. Foucault also presents that Marxists too seized this discourse and took it in a different direction, transforming the essentialist notion of race into the historical notion of class struggle, defined by socially structured position. This displacement of discourse constitutes one of the bases of Foucault's thought—that discourse is not tied to the subject, rather the subject is a construction of discourse. Moreover, discourse is not the simple ideological and mirror reflexion of an economic infrastructure, but is a product and the battlefield of multiples forces—which may not be reduced to the simple dualist contradiction of two energies.

Foucault shows that what specifies this discourse from the juridical and philosophical discourse is its conception of truth—that truth is no longer absolute, it is the product of race struggle. History itself, which was traditionally the sovereign's science, the legend of his glorious feats and monument building, ultimately became the discourse of the people, thus a political stake. The subject is not any more a neutral arbitrator, judge, or legislator, as in Solon's or Kant's conceptions. Therefore, what became the historical subject must search in history's furor, under the "juridical code's dried blood", the multiple contingencies from which a fragile rationality temporarily finally emerged. This may be, perhaps, compared to the sophist discourse in Ancient Greece. Foucault warns that it has nothing to do with Machiavelli's or Hobbes's discourse on war, for to this popular discourse, the sovereign is nothing more than "an illusion, an instrument, or, at the best, an enemy. It is a discourse that beheads the king, anyway that dispenses itself from the sovereign and that denounces it".

Narrative history
A current popular conception considers the value of narrative in the writing and experience of history. Important thinkers in this area include Paul Ricœur, Louis Mink, W.B. Gallie, and Hayden White. Some have doubted this approach because it draws fictional and historical narrative closer together, and there remains a perceived "fundamental bifurcation between historical and fictional narrative" (Ricœur, vol. 1, 52). In spite of this, most modern historians such as Barbara Tuchman or David McCullough consider narrative writing important to their approaches. The theory of narrated history (or historicized narrative) holds that the structure of lived experience, and such experience narrated in both fictional and non-fictional works (literature and historiography) have in common the figuration of "temporal experience." In this way narrative can "'grasp together' and integrate . . . into one whole and complete story" the "composite representations" of historical experience (Ricœur x, 173). Louis Mink writes that "the significance of past occurrences is understandable only as they are locatable in the ensemble of interrelationships that can be grasped only in the construction of narrative form" (148). Marxist theorist Fredric Jameson also analyzes historical understanding this way, and writes that "history is inaccessible to us except in textual form . . . it can be approached only by way of prior (re)textualization" (82).

Education and propaganda
Since Plato's Republic, civic education and instruction has had a central role in politics and the constitution of a common identity. History has thus sometimes become the target of propaganda, for example in historical revisionist attempts. Plato's insistence on the importance of education was relayed by Rousseau's Emile: Or, On Education (1762), a counterpart to The Social Contract (1762). Public education has been seen by republican regimes and the Enlightenment as a prerequisite of the masses' progressive emancipation, as conceived by Kant in Was Ist Aufklärung? (What Is Enlightenment?, 1784).

Modern education systems, instrumental in the construction of nation states, also involved the elaboration of a common, national history. History textbooks are one way through which this common history was transmitted. Le Tour de France par deux enfants, for example, was the French Third Republic's classic textbook for elementary school: it described the story of two French children who, following the German annexation of the Alsace-Lorraine region in 1870, go on a tour de France during which they become aware of France's diversity and the existence of the various patois.

title: Philosophy of history


text:
Cecil Taylor

Cecil Percival Taylor (March 25, 1929 – April 5, 2018)  was an American pianist and poet.

Taylor was classically trained and was one of the pioneers of free jazz. His music is characterized by an energetic, physical approach, resulting in complex improvisation often involving tone clusters and intricate polyrhythms. His technique has been compared to percussion. Referring to the number of keys on a standard piano, Val Wilmer used the phrase "eighty-eight tuned drums" to describe Taylor's style. He has been referred as "Art Tatum with contemporary-classical leanings".

Early life and education
Cecil Percival Taylor was born on March 25, 1929, in Long Island City, Queens, and raised in Corona, Queens. As an only child to a middle-class family, Taylor's mother Almeda Ragland Taylor encouraged him to play music at an early age. He began playing piano at age six and went on to study at the New York College of Music and New England Conservatory in Boston. At the New England Conservatory, Taylor majored in popular music arrangement. During his time there, he also became familiar with contemporary European art music. Bela Bartók and Karlheinz Stockhausen notably influenced his music.

In 1955, Taylor moved back to New York City from Boston. He formed a quartet with soprano saxophonist Steve Lacy, bassist Buell Neidlinger, and drummer Dennis Charles. Taylor's first recording, Jazz Advance, featured Lacy and was released in 1956. The recording is described by Richard Cook and Brian Morton in the Penguin Guide to Jazz: "While there are still many nods to conventional post-bop form in this set, it already points to the freedoms in which the pianist would later immerse himself." Taylor's quartet featuring Lacy also appeared at the 1957 Newport Jazz Festival, which was made into the album At Newport. Taylor collaborated with saxophonist John Coltrane in 1958 on Stereo Drive, now available as Coltrane Time.

1950s and early 1960s
Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, Taylor's music grew more complex and moved away from existing jazz styles. Gigs were often hard to come by, and club owners found that Taylor's approach of playing long pieces tended to impede business. His 1959 LP record Looking Ahead! showcased his innovation as a creator as compared to the jazz mainstream. Unlike others at the time, Taylor utilized virtuosic techniques and made swift stylistic shifts from phrase to phrase. These qualities, among others, still remained notable distinctions of his music for the rest of his life.

Landmark recordings, such as Unit Structures (1966), also appeared. Within the Cecil Taylor Unit (a distinction that was often used at performances and recordings between 1962 and 2006 for a shifting group of sidemen), musicians were able to develop new forms of conversational interplay. In the early 1960s, an uncredited Albert Ayler worked with Taylor, jamming and appearing on at least one recording, Four, which was unreleased until appearing on the 2004 Ayler box set Holy Ghost: Rare & Unissued Recordings (1962–70).

By 1961, Taylor was working regularly with alto saxophonist Jimmy Lyons, who would become one of his most important and consistent collaborators. Taylor, Lyons, and drummer Sunny Murray (and later Andrew Cyrille) formed the core personnel of the Cecil Taylor Unit, Taylor's primary ensemble until Lyons' death in 1986. Lyons' playing, strongly influenced by jazz icon Charlie Parker, retained a strong blues sensibility and helped keep Taylor's increasingly avant garde music tethered to the jazz tradition.

Late 1960s and 1970s
Taylor began to perform solo concerts in the latter half of the 1960s. The first known recorded solo performance was "Carmen With Rings" (59 minutes) in De Doelen concert hall in Rotterdam on July 1, 1967. Two days earlier, Taylor had played the same composition in the Amsterdam Concertgebouw. Many of his later concerts were released on album and include Indent (1973), side one of Spring of Two Blue-J's (1973), Silent Tongues (1974), Garden (1982), For Olim (1987), Erzulie Maketh Scent (1989), and The Tree of Life (1998). He began to garner critical and popular acclaim, playing for Jimmy Carter on the White House Lawn, lecturing as an artist-in-residence at universities, and eventually being awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship in 1973.

In 1976, Taylor directed a production of Adrienne Kennedy's A Rat's Mass at La MaMa Experimental Theatre Club in the East Village of Manhattan. His production combined the original script with a chorus of orchestrated voices used as instruments. Jimmy Lyons, Rashid Bakr, Andy Bey, Karen Borca, David S. Ware, and Raphe Malik performed in the production as the Cecil Taylor Unit, among other musicians and actors.

1980s, 1990s, and the Feel Trio
Following Lyons' death in 1986, Taylor formed the Feel Trio in the late 1980s with William Parker on bass and Tony Oxley on drums. The group can be heard on Celebrated Blazons, Looking (Berlin Version) The Feel Trio and the 10-disc set 2 Ts for a Lovely T. Compared to his prior groups with Lyons, the Feel Trio had a more abstract approach, tethered less to jazz tradition and more aligned with the ethos of European free improvisation. He also performed with larger ensembles and big band projects.

Taylor's extended residence in Berlin in 1988 was documented by the German label FMP, resulting in a box set of performances in duet and trio with a large number of European free improvisors, including Oxley, Derek Bailey, Evan Parker, Han Bennink, Tristan Honsinger, Louis Moholo, and Paul Lovens. Most of his later recordings have been released on European labels, with the exception of Momentum Space (a meeting with Dewey Redman and Elvin Jones) on Verve/Gitanes. The classical label Bridge released his 1998 Library of Congress performance Algonquin, a duet with violinist Mat Maneri.

Taylor continued to perform for capacity audiences around the world with live concerts, usually playing his favored instrument, a Bösendorfer piano featuring nine extra lower-register keys. In 1987, he toured England with Australian pianist Roger Woodward, presenting recitals on which Woodward played solo works by Xenakis, Takemitsu, and Feldman, followed by Taylor, also playing solo. A documentary on Taylor, entitled All the Notes, was released on DVD in 2006 by director Chris Felver. Taylor was also featured in a 1981 documentary film entitled Imagine the Sound, in which he discusses and performs his music, poetry, and dance. In 1993, he was awarded a MacArthur Fellowship.

2000s

Taylor recorded sparingly in the 2000s, but continued to perform with his own ensembles (the Cecil Taylor Ensemble and the Cecil Taylor Big Band) and with other musicians such as Joe Locke, Max Roach, and Amiri Baraka. In 2004, the Cecil Taylor Big Band at the Iridium Jazz Club was nominated a best performance of 2004 by All About Jazz. The Cecil Taylor Trio was nominated for the same at the Highline Ballroom in 2009. The trio consisted of Taylor, Albey Balgochian, and Jackson Krall. In 2010, Triple Point Records released a deluxe limited-edition double LP titled Ailanthus/Altissima: Bilateral Dimensions of 2 Root Songs, a set of duos with Taylor's longtime collaborator Tony Oxley that was recorded live at the Village Vanguard.

In 2013, he was awarded the Kyoto Prize for Music. He was described as "An Innovative Jazz Musician Who Has Fully Explored the Possibilities of Piano Improvisation". In 2014, his career and 85th birthday were honored at the Painted Bride Art Center in Philadelphia with the tribute concert event "Celebrating Cecil". In 2016, Taylor received a retrospective at the Whitney Museum of American Art entitled "Open Plan: Cecil Taylor".

In 2008, Taylor performed with Pauline Oliveros at the Curtis R Priem Experimental Media and Performing Arts Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. The concert was recorded and is available on a DVD which also features a 75-minute video of a Taylor poetry recital entitled Floating Gardens: The Poetry Of Cecil Taylor. Taylor, along with dancer Min Tanaka, was the subject of Amiel Courtin-Wilson's 2016 documentary film The Silent Eye.

Ballet and dance
In addition to piano, Taylor was always interested in ballet and dance. His mother, who died while he was young, was a dancer and played the piano and violin. Taylor once said: "I try to imitate on the piano the leaps in space a dancer makes." He collaborated with dancer Dianne McIntyre from the mid 1970s to the early 1980s. In 1979, he composed and played the music for a 12-minute ballet, "Tetra Stomp: Eatin' Rain in Space", featuring Mikhail Baryshnikov and Heather Watts.

Poetry
Taylor was a poet, and cited Robert Duncan, Charles Olson, and Amiri Baraka as major influences. He often integrated his poems into his musical performances, and they frequently appear in the liner notes of his albums. The album Chinampas, released by Leo Records in 1987, is a recording of Taylor reciting several of his poems while accompanying himself on percussion. His poetry was likened to his music primarily by the ways in which Taylor alteres and transforms material both linguistic and musical.

Musical style and legacy
According to Steven Block, free jazz originated with Taylor's performances at the Five Spot Cafe in 1957 and with Ornette Coleman in 1959. In 1964, Taylor co-founded the Jazz Composers Guild to enhance opportunities for avant-garde jazz musicians.

Taylor's style and methods have been described as "constructivist". Despite Scott Yanow's warning regarding Taylor's "forbidding music" ("Suffice it to say that Cecil Taylor's music is not for everyone"), he praises Taylor's "remarkable technique and endurance", and his "advanced", "radical", "original", and uncompromising "musical vision".

This musical vision is a large part of Taylor's legacy: "Playing with Taylor I began to be liberated from thinking about chords. I'd been imitating John Coltrane unsuccessfully and because of that I was really chord conscious."

Personal life and death
Taylor moved to Fort Greene, Brooklyn, in 1983. He died at his Brooklyn residence on April 5, 2018, at the age of 89. At the time of his death, Taylor was working on an autobiography and future concerts, among other projects.

title: Cecil Taylor


text:
Talk:Philosophy of history

This article needs a section on Leopold von Ranke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.90.179.67 (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Philosophy of history


text:
Jumbo

Jumbo (about December 25, 1860 – September 15, 1885), also known as Jumbo the Elephant and Jumbo the Circus Elephant, was a 19th-century male African bush elephant born in Sudan. Jumbo was exported to Jardin des Plantes, a zoo in Paris, and then transferred in 1865 to London Zoo in England. Despite public protest, Jumbo was sold to P. T. Barnum, who took him to the United States for exhibition in March 1882.

The giant elephant's name spawned the common word "jumbo", meaning large in size. Examples of his lexical impact are phrases like "jumbo jet", "jumbo shrimp," and "jumbotron." Jumbo's shoulder height has been estimated to have been 3.23 m at the time of his death, and was claimed to be about 4 m by Barnum.

History
Jumbo was born around December 25, 1860, in Sudan, and after his mother was killed by poachers, the infant Jumbo was captured by Sudanese elephant poacher Taher Sheriff and German big-game poacher Johann Schmidt. The calf was sold to Lorenzo Casanova, an Italian animal dealer and explorer. Casanova transported the animals that he had bought from Sudan north to Suez, and then across the Mediterranean Sea to Trieste.

This collection was sold to Gottlieb Christian Kreutzberg's "Menagerie Kreutzberg" in Germany. Soon after, the elephant was imported to France and kept in the Paris zoo Jardin des Plantes. In 1865, he was transferred to the London Zoo and arrived on 26 June. In the following years, Jumbo became a crowd favorite due to his size, and would give rides to children on his back, including those of Queen Victoria.

While in London, Jumbo broke both tusks, and when they regrew, he ground them down against the stonework of his enclosure. His keeper in London was Matthew Scott, whose 1885 autobiography details his life with Jumbo.

In 1882, Abraham Bartlett, superintendent of the London zoo, sparked national controversy with his decision to sell Jumbo to the American entertainer Phineas T. Barnum of the Barnum & Bailey Circus for £2,000 (US$10,000). This decision came as a result of concern surrounding Jumbo's growing aggression and potential to cause a public disaster. The sale of Jumbo, however, sent the citizens of London into a panic, because they viewed the transaction as an enormous loss for the British empire. 100,000 school children wrote to Queen Victoria begging her not to sell the elephant.

John Ruskin, a fellow of the Zoological Society, wrote in The Morning Post in February 1882: "I, for one of the said fellows, am not in the habit of selling my old pets or parting with my old servants because I find them subject occasionally, perhaps even "periodically," to fits of ill temper; and I not only "regret" the proceedings of the council, but disclaim them utterly, as disgraceful to the city of London and dishonourable to common humanity." Despite a lawsuit against the Zoological Gardens alleging the sale was in violation of multiple zoo bylaws, and the zoo's attempt to renege on the sale, the court upheld the sale. Matthew Scott elected to go with Jumbo to the United States. The London-based newspaper The Daily Telegraph begged Barnum to lay down terms on which he would return Jumbo; however, no such terms existed in the eyes of Barnum.

In New York, Barnum exhibited Jumbo at Madison Square Garden, earning enough in three weeks from the enormous crowds to recoup the money he spent to buy the animal. In the 31-week season, the circus earned $1.75M, largely due to its star attraction. On May 17, 1884, Jumbo was one of Barnum's 21 elephants that crossed the Brooklyn Bridge to demonstrate that it was safe, a year after 15 people died during a stampede precipitated by fear that the bridge might collapse. On July 6, 1885, Jumbo was paraded in Saint John, New Brunswick, celebrating his first appearance in Canada.

Death
Jumbo died at a railway classification yard in St. Thomas, Ontario, Canada, on September 15, 1885. In those days the circus crisscrossed North America by train. St. Thomas was the perfect location for a circus because many rail lines converged there. Jumbo and the other animals had finished their performances that night, and as they were being led to their box car, a train came down the track. Jumbo was hit and mortally wounded, dying within minutes.

Barnum told the (possibly fictional) story that Tom Thumb, a young circus elephant, was walking on the railroad tracks and Jumbo was attempting to lead him to safety. Barnum claimed that the locomotive hit and killed Tom Thumb before it derailed and hit Jumbo, and other witnesses supported Barnum's account. According to newspapers, the freight train hit Jumbo directly, killing him, while Tom Thumb suffered a broken leg.

Many metallic objects were found in the elephant's stomach, including English pennies, keys, rivets, and a police whistle.

Ever the showman, Barnum had portions of his star attraction separated, to have multiple sites attracting curious spectators. After touring with Barnum's circus, the skeleton was donated to the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, where it remains. The elephant's heart was sold to Burt Green Wilder of Cornell University, and had been lost by the 1940s. Jumbo's hide was stuffed by William J. Critchley and Carl Akeley, both of Ward's Natural Science, who stretched it during the mounting process; the mounted specimen traveled with Barnum's circus for two years.

Barnum eventually donated the stuffed Jumbo to Tufts University, where it was displayed at P.T. Barnum Hall there for many years. The hide was destroyed in a fire in April 1975. Ashes from that fire, which are believed to contain the elephant's remains, are kept in a 14-ounce Peter Pan Crunchy Peanut Butter jar in the office of the Tufts athletic director, while his taxidermied tail, removed during earlier renovations, resides in the holdings of the Tufts Digital Collections and Archives. Jumbo is the Tufts University mascot.

Legacy
Remaining in the United Kingdom are statues and other memorabilia of Jumbo. The elephant – or rather his statuette in the Natural History Museum – was made holotype of Richard Lydekker's proposed subspecies (Loxodonta africana rothschildi) for the large elephants of the eastern Sahel. Modern authorities do not recognize this (or any other subspecies of African bush elephants), considering its purportedly diagnostic large size and peculiarly shaped ears to be individual variation.

While Jumbo's hide resided at Tufts' P.T. Barnum Hall, a superstition held that dropping a coin into a nostril of the trunk would bring good luck on an examination or sports event. Although the hide was destroyed by a major fire, Jumbo remains the mascot of Tufts, and representations of the elephant are featured prominently throughout the campus.

A life-sized statue of the elephant was erected in 1985 in St. Thomas, Ontario, to commemorate the centennial of the elephant's death. It is located on Talbot Street on the west side of the city. In 2006 the Jumbo statue was inducted into the North America Railway Hall of Fame in the category of "Railway Art Forms & Events" as having local significance. St. Thomas's Railway City Brewery sells an IPA beer named Dead Elephant.

Jumbo was the inspiration of the nickname of the 19th-century Jumbo Water Tower in the town of Colchester in Essex, England. Jumbo is referenced by a plaque outside the old Liberal Hall, now a Wetherspoons pub, in Crediton, United Kingdom.

Lucy the Elephant, a six-story structure in Margate City, New Jersey, was modeled after Jumbo. Built by James V. Lafferty in 1881, Lucy is the oldest surviving roadside tourist attraction in America and a National Historic Landmark. Lafferty also made other Jumbo-shaped structures, including Elephantine Colossus, on Coney Island.

Jumbo has been lionized on a series of sheet-music covers from roughly 1882–83. The four-colour lithograph of Jumbo was created by Alfred Concanen of England, with the music title "Why Part With Jumbo", a song by the lion comique of Victorian British music halls, G. H. MacDermott. It pictured children zoo visitors riding, somewhat precariously, on Jumbo's back. Multiple American lithographic music covers were done, including by J. H. Bufford's Sons.

Canadian folk singer James Gordon wrote the song "Jumbo's Last Ride", which recounts the story of Jumbo's life and death. It is on his 1999 CD Pipe Street Dreams.

Canadian professional ice hockey player Joe Thornton (b. 1979) from St. Thomas, Ontario is nicknamed Jumbo Joe as a homage to Jumbo.

The 1941 animated film Dumbo released by Walt Disney Animation Studios was inspired by the story of Jumbo and is regarded as one of the greatest animated films of all time. Despite the film being fictional, many people have speculated that Jumbo might have been the title character's father.

Examination of Jumbo's skeleton
A television program about Jumbo, Attenborough and the Giant Elephant, presented by the naturalist and broadcaster David Attenborough, was transmitted on BBC One in the United Kingdom on 10 December 2017. An international team of scientists examined the skeleton and found:
 * Jumbo's molar teeth were malformed and out of line as a result of a long-term soft diet that did not wear his molar teeth down enough, obstructing the forward eruptive movement of the next molar.
 * Jumbo's nightly rages were probably caused by toothache, rather than musth, as his keeper thought at the time.
 * A post mortem photograph of Jumbo shows skin abrasions consistent with an illustration produced just after his death of the freight train hitting him on a hip from behind as he was being led across to his traveling carriage, and said that the likeliest cause of death was internal bleeding from his injuries.
 * Examination of Jumbo's limb bones showed overgrown tendon attachment areas consistent with a long-term history of being overloaded at his work.
 * Jumbo was still growing at the time of his death, as is normal for African male elephants of his age, and might eventually have attained the size claimed by Barnum.

title: Jumbo


text:
Casualty

Casualty may refer to:

 * Casualty (person), a person who is killed or rendered unfit for service in a war or natural disaster
 * Civilian casualty, a non-combatant killed or injured in warfare
 * The emergency department of a hospital, also known as a Casualty Department or Casualty Ward (chiefly in the UK and in some English-speaking Commonwealth nations)
 * Casualty (TV series), a long-running British emergency medical drama series
 * Casualty 1900s, a British medical drama, then series, including Casualty 1906, Casualty 1907, and Casualty 1909
 * Casualty (album), a 2019 album by Anna Akana
 * Casualty insurance, a type of insurance

title: Casualty


text:
Escher

Escher may refer to:

People

 * Escher (surname)
 * Maurits Cornelis Escher (1898–1972), Dutch graphic artist

Places

 * 4444 Escher, an asteroid named after Maurits Cornelis Escher
 * Escher Wyss (Zürich), a borough of Zurich
 * Escher Museum, containing the work of Maurits Cornelis Escher

Other uses

 * Escher (programming language), a declarative programming language
 * Escher Wyss & Cie., a former engineering company in Switzerland

title: Escher


text:
User:Jsmaria

Hi there. I'm Justin Santamaria, a senior studying Computer Science at Stanford University.

Currently, I browse the Wikipedia for personal enjoyment. I also do minor edits to pages where I see fit.

Eventually, I may publish topics on interests of my own.

My personal homepage is at http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~jsmaria/

title: User:Jsmaria