Jump to content

Talk:Herdwick

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHerdwick has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 2, 2007Good article nomineeListed

Successful good article nomination

[edit]

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of October 21, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Very well written, prose was engaging and kept me interested. I only wish it was a bit longer, but that's just me.
2. Factually accurate?: Article is very accurate and consistent with the source material.
3. Broad in coverage?: Article gave a thorough evaluation of the subject, a bit short but well within GA parameters. I learned a few things from reading it.
4. Neutral point of view?: Yes.
5. Article stability? No evidence of any edit warring or vandalism.
6. Images?: Images were perfect,

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. — Mike Searson 13:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Origin

[edit]

Claims of Norse, Roman, Spanish Armada and other exotic origins are common as folk-explanations for unusual breeds. However, without evidence they are no more than that. While it may be literally true that the Herdwick "is believed" to have a Norse origin, the existence of a (perhaps credulous) belief is not evidence that it actually happened. Until there is firm evidence of such an origin, the "belief" must remain just that – such evidence might of course be impossible to obtain (not only would a genetic link have to be proved with Scandinavian sheep, but historical evidence would also have to demonstrate the direction of the connection – after all, "pillage" is not something unassociated with Vikings, and they must have taken many sheep home).

I have tried to edit the article to reflect this, leaving the theory in, but making it clear that it is conjecture.--Richard New Forest (talk) 10:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very reliable sources, including National Geographic, plainly repeat the claim of Norse origin as being credible - if not proven. So it's not just personal conjecture on the part of farmers or locals. Reliable, published sources give credence to the Norse origin as more than just hearsay or folklore. Wikipedia relies on these reliable sources for verification, and I find your edits to be overly skeptical and removed from the source material. Example: sources on fell farming make clear that cattle are not typically let to roam the fells like fell sheep are. Thus, grazing by cattle is not a contributing factor in the treelessness of the fells. Also, there is no source that I have seen, or that is included in any relevant article, that names Suffolk sheep as a common commercial breed (outside the region anyway). Merino sheep however, are the most commercially-viable breed in the Western world. VanTucky Talk 04:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Credible" does not mean true, and we need to be careful not to give undue credence to something just because it is plausible. As it is, the theory is not as plausible as all that. The Herdwick is a fairly typical British upland "white-faced" breed. It has a long tail, and is horned only in the male – both characteristics typical of white-faced breeds, but not of "proper" Viking ones (for example Shetland and Icelandic sheep). I suspect these characteristics on their own rule out a Viking origin, as they are normally regarded as important in sheep relationships.
The National Geographic is a worthy and well-respected magazine, and Bill Bryson a very good writer. However, neither is academic, and from what you say, even they do not offer any academic source for the Viking claim. I don't really see how they get us any further than very well-illustrated and well-written "hearsay and folklore". Incidentally, I notice that you have put in another ref for this, to the Herdwick breeders' society website. However, I could find no mention at all of the theory there – did you mean to use another ref? (Curious that they should not mention it if it really is such a widespread belief...)
I do not think I am being unduly sceptical in the least. In fact, I have considerable doubt whether either origin story should be included at all – I left them in for the moment mainly because folklore about a breed is of some interest. For the Viking theory to have serious credence, good genetic studies would have to show that Herdwicks are more closely related to Scandinavian sheep than other British sheep are, somehow explaining the serious physical dissimilarities mentioned above. Then, historical evidence would be needed to demonstrate that the Vikings brought the Herdwicks, rather than populating Scandinavia with stolen British sheep.
You are right that grazing on the uplands is usually only with sheep. However, this is a recent (20th century) development. The trees went much longer ago, at which time the fells were still also widely grazed by cattle, ponies and probably goats too. There is considerable doubt about why the uplands are treeless, and it is just as likely to be from felling and burning as from overgrazing alone. This, and other points in this paragraph (the walls and the counting system), are not related specifically to Herdwicks nor even to Cumbria, and I'm not really sure they should be in at all, however interesting they are.
I put the Suffolk in because the Merino is little used in Britain (certainly not in the uplands), and the Suffolk is one of the commonest commercial sheep here. However, on second thoughts I agree that the Merino is more appropriate for an international encyclopedia. Though what about the Texel, a commercial breed very widely kept in Britain? --Richard New Forest (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and clarify more that it is simply a common theory. I basically agree with your stance on the issue (though you are confusing me a bit, first you call them "unusual" and now they are "typical"), but it concerned me that reading the passage made it feel like I was getting the writer's point of view on the subject filtering through quite clearly. Maybe it was like that before, and I just couldn't tell because it was my writing. Anyway, hopefully we can tweak it to strike a good balance.
Thanks for pointing out the breeders ref, it was in the wrong place. I also think a key point that may not be clear is that we're absolutely talking about ancestry here, and that obviously much cross-breeding and refinement would have taken place. Example: the completely polled nature of Herdwick ewes is a relatively recent development. Herdwicks certainly aren't pure primitive breeds like the ones you mentioned, but they do show characteristics different from other British white-faced breeds.
As to the treelessness issue: I guess I didn't make the passage clear enough. The sources say that grazing by upland sheep is the reason fells stay treeless, not necessarily the sole reason they became so. Hopefully I've made that clearer. VanTucky Talk 20:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How does the current version seem? Also, Texel would be fine in terms of numbers, but the passage is a comparison in terms of "...lambing capacity and wool quality..."; is not the Texel a meat breed? VanTucky Talk 20:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Origin again

[edit]

On re-reading the "early history" section I am still unhappy with it (see discussion above).

Firstly, while the National Geographic is of course a reputable publication, it is not academic, and it is not a reliable reference for this material, because it does not give its own sources. Reputable publications are regarded as being reliable sources because they can be relied on to check their sources: either the National Geographic had sources, or it didn't. If there are indeed proper sources which support the material, let's have them. If they do not exist, then the National Geographic cannot have used them. Either way, the NG itself is not a good ref for the material.

Secondly, even the National Geographic is only reporting folklore. If we do accept it as a ref, it is only one for the existence of the folklore, not for the origination theories themselves. (In any case, it's not really the existence of the theories which is in dispute, just whether they are likely to be true.) So the section certainly needs to be re-worded so it reports folklore rather than offering the theories themselves.

Thirdly, both exotic-origin theories are simply implausible, and would require other (far more reliable and comprehensive) sources to be ignored. Herdwicks bear virtually no resemblance to either Norse or Spanish sheep. Like many British breeds they are white-faced, long-tailed sheep, and this type is generally thought to have been brought to the British Isles by the Romans, before which time all sheep in north-western Europe were short-tailed, multi-coloured sheep like the modern Shetland, North Ronaldsay, Icelandic etc. It's surely most likely that the Herdwick (like many West Country and Welsh breeds) is a survivor of the English Roman type, which was replaced in most of the northern English uplands by the more recent black-faced, long-tailed "heath sheep" (such as the Swaledale and Scottish Blackface).

What I suggest is that the section is rewritten along the following lines:

  • Description of English white-faced sheep origin, with refs (which I can find).
  • Mention of exotic-origin folklore theories, with proper refs for the folklore.

Richard New Forest (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Herdwick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Herdwick. 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:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lug marks

[edit]

Lug marks have have not been replaced by ear tags, which can fall out or be removed by thieves. There was an extended discussion of lug marks by James Rebanks, author of The Shepherd's Life, on his twitter account @herdyshepherd1 a couple months ago. BTW, the quote about 100,000 visitors and one gate left open that seems to be attributed to Bill Bryson here is actually from Rebanks. KC 22:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydstra (talk • contribs)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Herdwick. 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:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Herdwick&oldid=1195401259"