Talk:Monty Roberts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Equine (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Horse training task force.

Article sources[edit]

Couldn't add a hyperlink cuz of url blacklist so entered it as text: 'Monty Roberts... Horse whisperer, or a bag of wind???' - Duane Isaacson says that Join-Up is just another form of 'breaking' Lil 18:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed a poorly-written explanation of the so-called 'join-up' procedure. It may be better to have that as a separate article. Lil 07:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The book Horse Whispers & Lies has been returned to the website and may be read there. Lil 18:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Deborah Loucks, who listed the accomplishments by Monty Roberts in the article, is his daughter. A few of those items, such as having doubled on movies, have been questioned by other persons. For example in the Feb. 1999 issue of Horse & Rider, there is an article, 'Horse Whispers or Horse Feathers' in which the author, Ronna Snyder, wrote "The archives of the Screen Actors Guild, The Academy Library Of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences, and the Stunt Men's Association of Motion Pictures appear to back up her (Innocenti, of the Salinas Police Dept.) questions. These entities keep histories of Hollywood's performers and stunt doubles. There's no record of Monty Roberts working in 100 movies, as was published in his book." Lil suggests that Monty Roberts "traded truth for glory", but the website has only a front page.

Lil, I say your Amazon review of the video. I think we can work together to present both sides of the controversy. Again, I stress that I have no desire to make Roberts look good (or bad). I mostly want to talk about the horse training methods that he's promoting. Whether he discoverned them himself (or copied them without credit from others) is also interesting, but frankly of secondary importance to me. Uncle Ed 14:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Cut from intro:

The book inspired a novel and a movie, and not a little controversy.

There is controversy about whether Roberts was the model for The Horse Whisperer:

In reference to the book and movie The Horse Whisperer, Roberts has told reporters from the onset, that he was Nichols Evans model for the character of Tom Booker. He said Evans¹s novel was 70% about his life. Evans denied this. [1]

So we got a guy who seems to have "discovered" a wonderful technique, railing against the past, believed and beloved all over, who might be perpetrated a fraud. No wonder this article has never been written. Uncle Ed 15:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Author Nicholas Evans makes it very plain on his own website that MR was not the inspiration for 'The Horse Whisperer' which was published before MR's 'autobiography' anyhow. MR's father Marvin published a book from which MR apparently borrowed heavily. I have found and purchased a copy of that little book; hopefully will receive it this week.
BTW Ed, I saved a zip copy of Horse Whispers & Lies. If you want to see it, email me. Click on my name to see my email address. You can also buy a used copy on or get a copy through interlibrary loan. Lil Peck

Thanks. There are quite obviously two sides to this story. I don't know anything about horses, but I know a bit about the yearning for a harmonious relationship.

Here are some notes I've made from surfing:

The fallout of his mantra has caused the public to believe that most horse trainers are cruel and use archaic methods. This is a terrible injustice to thousands of honest trainers. One such trainer criticized by Roberts, was Rex Peterson, who trained the horse Pilgrim, for the movie The Horse Whisperer. [2]

In reference to the book and movie The Horse Whisperer, Roberts has told reporters from the onset, that he was Nichols Evans model for the character of Tom Booker. He said Evans¹s novel was 70% about his life. Evans denied this. [ibid]

Roberts takes credit for inventing what he calls join-up. Roberts' father, Marvin described the same approach in a book he wrote in 1956. Marvin was not the only one to use this approach; it has been done for years under different names, such as, hooking on, and advance and retreat.

Joyce Renebome is Monty Roberts¹ aunt

The book inspired a novel and a movie, and not a little controversy.


Roberts began working on his first book at the suggestion of Queen Elizabeth. She first invited him to England to demonstrate his techniques in 1989, and has since had all of her horses trained using his concepts. Roberts's method of starting an untrained horse, "join-up," achieves its goal through a series of silent body language motions that he has termed Equus. Roberts learned this form of nonverbal communication by studying horses in the desert as a teenager [3]


he is able to appeal to a wide audience because his underlying message emphasizes communication rather than coercion and brutality. He is on a mission to bring his concepts to as many people as possible and to promote their application in human relationships [4]

I don't know if the above helps or not. Roberts tells a very appealing story, and has an endorsement from the British Queen. But his own aunt disagrees with him. Is he just making up stuff about his dad, or what? I know two things: people who have been hurt will often look for a scapegoat to blame their problems on (Monty R might be doing this). People who abuse their children often find ways to get away with it (Monty's father might' have done this).

I don't know, and I'm not going to take sides. I will write objectively about both sides of the story and avoid drawing any conclusions (see NPOV). Uncle Ed 16:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

You are correct to remain objective and I would hope that everyone would. I am not objective because of information I have that I am not at liberty to post in a public forum. You can find articles that corroborate 'Horse Whispers & Lies' by searching the archives of Time Magazine and the San Francisco Examiner newspaper. There is also an article by attorney/writer Jonathon Turley that refers to the gentleman in question as a "notorious liar". I must emphasize that the gentleman IS an accomplished horseman; it is simply his allegations of having been a battered child and some of his more grandiose claims of discoveries and achievements that I have issues with. It is said that one may learn from anyone and that it just as true with this gentleman as with anyone else.

I would also offer that Nicholas Evan's denial of MR's involvement with 'The Horse Whisperer,' and MR's continued claims to have been the model for Tom Booker, illustrated his propensity to take bold liberties with the facts.

I know that abusers are often very successful at keeping the abuse secret. However, it appears unlikely that Marvin Roberts would have been successful at keeping child or horse abuse secret; his home was a 'grand central station' for kids and horsemen. On the other side of the coin, just because some abusers are successful at hiding the abuse, it does not follow that everyone who claims to have been abused actually was. (Consider false memory syndrome, for example.)

One thing is certain, to my satisfaction, and that is that Marvin Roberts was a kind and gentle man. Lil

Take a look at Dave_Pelzer, who could have been a model of how to turn having been an abused child into a career. Pelzer does have a brother who has also published a book about HE became the abuse target after Dave left home. True, or jumping on the cash bandwagon? I don't have a clue. I'd like to add that movie horse trainer Rex Peterson is apparently well regarded as a humane and effective horse trainer. Lil

Thanks for taking this all so calmly. My take on it so far is that Patrick knows a lot about horses, you have some dirt on Roberts that you can't share (but I believe you have it!), and I'm fairly good at laying out two sides of a controversy fairly.

I'm also sympathetic toward anyone who can present useful methods of team builidng and cooperation, so please help me to avoid letting this sympathy bias me toward MR. Guide me gently towards objectivity, please! Uncle Ed 18:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Talk from merged page[edit]

Patrick, let's work out a list of "horse whispering" topics. There are non-fiction books as well as novels on this theme, plus movies (mostly based on the books). Maybe a page of links, to supplement equine topics? --Uncle Ed 16:38, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

--Lil Peck 19:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC) : With regard to the question of NPOV for this article, I think the article as it stands now is sufficiently neutral and the questions it raises are in line with responsible journalism. In my opinion, to accept the book at face value would be naive.

Cut from article (yes, just about the entire thing):

This book has a very winning thesis, that it's possible to learn the nonverbal language of horses, and that such knowledge would enable a person to train a horse without resorting to physical force. Monty Roberts claims to have learned how horses communicate through his observations of wild mustangs. He makes an incredible claim that a stallion, once it loses a battle, will move away from the herd to pursue its own suicide. His book includes the story of how he became intertwined with an heir of the Harcourt publishing family, and he advances the fanciful notion that Hastings Harcourt suffered from "sand-castle syndrome", which he defines as behaving like a child who delights as much in destroying as in creating. Monty Roberts states that he was "falsely arrested" for failing to kill some of Harcourt's horses, which deserves more critical consideration. There is a website titled "Horse Whispers and Lies" which contains an extensive rebuttal to many assertions made in the book. The rebuttal site contains especially impressive quotations from Monty's father's training manuals. There are numerous parallels to texts of Monty's. Instead of a brute who abuses horses, the father was an advocate for gentle psychological management much in the same vein as Monty.

de:Monty Roberts

External links[edit]

It just does'nt make sense to me to have a rebuttal of a POV, when the article doesn't even give the POV. Uncle Ed 01:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

More about NPOV -- I changed the ABC news link description from 'reaffirming' to 'reports' because I thought 'reaffirming' looked too much like an endorsement. (I am doubtful of the Kinghurst matter. Of course children behave better when treated with courtesy and respect.) Lil 15:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me whether this book has been translated and published in any Indian Language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


If you have any questions I have the book. Mhera (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a model for the "horse whisperer" book[edit]

I have briefly scanned the above discussion. Even if you pnly read the novel or see the movie and don't happen to read anything the author writes about his sources, you would know that the methodology used by the "horse whisperer" story is that of John Rarey. I don't remember the personal life of the horse trainer, at least as it appears in the movie, to have been a real element in the story. The story is about a lady and her daughter who have a problem with their horse. The horse appears to have been "ruined" by a traumatic experience, but rather than giving up on the poor animal the mother and daughter get the horse into a trailer somehow (despite the fact that it is presumably wild with fright) and take it all the way to wherever the trainer lives. He takes pity on them (even though, as I seem to remember, they haven't warned him they are coming). The Rarey method of getting the horse to lie down on the ground and then demonstrating to the horse that, even though it is completely helpless in that situation, the trainer exhibits only kindness. The horse learns that it can be around people without having the previsous traumatic situation reoccur, and thereafter the horse does not freak out over situations that remind it of the original trauma. The budding romance between trainer and client does not go anywhere, and she and her daughter return to her husband.

There is no indication whatsoever of using the Roberts method whereby the horse is put in a circular pen and "sent away" as though for bad behavior and then a "join up" is negotiated.

As Lil Peck says, there are plenty of people who have advocated non-abusive ways of forming productive relationships with horses. If Roberts did not discover the process of negotiation he describes being used within the herd, then somebody else discovered it. I did a lot of reading about horses in the late 50s and early 60s and never saw the slightest hint of this kind of idea. I have a magpie's eye for all kinds of information that appeals to me. Having read a rare copy of Rarey's original book in the RBR of my college library, I would have forevermore been primed for anything that showed an additional insight into how to get on the right side of a horse. I never saw the negotiation idea until I read it in Roberts's book (or maybe I saw it on TV and then got the book). If somebody else had the insight first and published first, then we must give that person credit. Just think about it. Xenophon knew and taught the basics of good horse training, and other people have explicated a thing or two here and there. Rarey discovered a way to rehabilitate horses that otherwise were so freaked out by human beings that nobody could handle them. That was around 1850. The next major paradigm shift was the negotiation idea. That's a quantum leap. (I don't, by the way, agree with Roberts that you ought to use it on every horse. If you're already "joined up" with your horse then why do you need to re-do the contract?) That's some one person observing what every person who has raised horses has probably observed once or twice without ever twigging to the significance. "My horse just made a marimba-like sound with her teeth. What the hay was that about?" From Xenophon down to the late 20th century, from England to Japan and back around the world, nobody ever figured it out. So who really did notice this first?

Usually in the worlds of science and of patents, the credit goes to who published first. Newton beat Leibniz to publication of the idea of integral calculus by weeks or months, and then they fought about who was really the discoverer. But in the case of the horse negotiation behavior, nobody that I know of has said, "I published before Roberts," nor has anybody even claimed to have written to a second party about it. But maybe somebody got there first. We ought to be able to find citations if somebody else got there first. P0M 02:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Marvin Roberts "got there" before his son. Ristau and Renebome quoted from Marvin Roberts's own book and compared it to what MR does. Virtually identical.
John Lyons was published, through video media, doing hooking on before MR published his book. John just didn't give it a cute little name and stick a ® on it.
I'll ask Marv Walker how long he has been doing his "bonder" which is virtually the same thing. It is possible that Marv may have published before MR.
>Usually in the worlds of science and of patents, the credit goes to who published first.> Edited for courtesy: Is that precedent appropriate for this topic? I am not an academician.
Not only is Roberts' procedure not appropriate for every horse, it won't even work with every horse.
Edited for courtesy: Is hooking-on aka join up getting more importance than it deserves? Now, working with a horse for a period of years until the horse carries itself in frame, collected -- that's impressive.
Another thought occurred to me, and that is, that there may be a conflict here on the topic of horse training as opposed to ETHOLOGY. There is some overlap, but not all good horse trainers are ethologists and I would imagine that rather few genuine, certified ethologists are good also good horse trainers, because of the time and study and work that it takes to become exceptional in either field.

Here is an excerpt from Horse Whispers & Lies, where the authors compare Marvin Roberts' procedure to MR's:

Marvin Roberts - Training A Horse to Catch

• Use a corral about fifty feet in diameter, turn the horse loose.

• Take a rope about thirty-five feet long, toss it at the horse, and pull it back.

• Make him go one way around the corral and then the other.

• When he slows, make him go on, but do not whip him.

• Keep throwing the rope over his back or behind him.

• When he begins to tire, step in front of him, hands up, and say, "Whoa."

• If he stops, walk up and pet him.

• If he runs away, throw the rope over him and make him continue the run.

• Do this two or three times; soon he will face you when you walk toward him.

Monty Roberts - Join-Up

• Use a pen that is fifty feet in diameter.

• Have a light sash thirty feet long.

• Pitch the line toward his rear quarters, it will not hurt him.

• Keep the horse moving. He is retreating. You must advance.

• Get the horse to canter five or six revolutions one way.

• Reverse and repeat.

• When he wants to stop, coil the sash and assume a submissive mode.

• If he stands and faces you, move closer to him, but not straight on.

• Soon he will reach out with his nose to your shoulder, this is Join-Up.

Ed, if you will email me (click my name for contact info) I will email you a 'paste' of chapter 16 where this and more information may be read.

The way John Lyons demonstrated this was better than the above. BTW: if y'all MUST have Marvin Roberts' procedure in print somewhere in order for it to be academically rigorous enough for him to receive credit and to be lauded as the "discoverer", well, he DID publish it in a little book. I tracked down a copy and hope to receive it this week. Lil

OK, looked up my John Lyons book, 'Lyons On Horses.' I believe I have a spiral bound book by Lyons that was published earlier than the 1991 date of this book somewhere. Anyhow -- Chapter Two, Round Pen Reasoning, is the same procedure as the one MR uses for his demos, only Lyons described it in more detail.Lil
Further perusal of HW&L Chapter 16:

In 1957, Marvin called it Training a Horse to Catch.

In 1997, Monty called it Join-Up. Monty’s Herculean effort to promote himself, his book, and a nonviolent method of horse training has generally been well received across this continent and abroad. Many of his clinics’ attendees are mesmerized by Monty’s almost mystical power over the horse. How does he do it?

In the 1960s, Dr. William "Billy" Linfoot, a veterinarian from Pleasanton, California, offered demonstration clinics on a method of working with horses that would allow him to mount a "wild, unridden" horse in a matter of minutes. He used the terms "Advance and Retreat" and "Approach at a forty-five degree angle." A review of Dr. Linfoot’s early films offers a glimpse of the natural horsemanship wave to hit the horse industry. Marvin Roberts was a fan of Dr. Linfoot and often spoke highly of the equine veterinarian.

In Horse and Horseman Training, Marvin E. Roberts offered advice on how to teach a horse to be caught in an open area. His directions were simple in 1957. He gave no reason for the action. He only offered that it worked.

Lil Peck

Monty's father's book[edit]

Perhaps people would like to judge for themselves the training methods of Monty Roberts' father, Marvin E. Roberts in 1957.

and found here:

In contrast, Monty Roberts, the man who listens to horses, writes [5]:

::::NOTE: The links above were given by Deborah Loucks, one of Monty Roberts' daughters who is also an employee of his organization, on 19:48, 20 November 2006. Lil

Well, the photographs and text would indicate a preference for force over persuasion. I saw several images of a horse tied with one leg up, in reference to sacking out. --Uncle Ed 21:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

How interesting that the book image links were given by Debbie Loucks (a check of the page history shows) who is Monty's daughter and is employed by Monty. She frequently leaves glowing reviews of her father's work around the web without disclosing her relationship to him and his organization. I do give her credit for using her real name, however. I believe it is important to read the text of Marvin Roberts Sr's book along with viewing the pictures, to understand the context. For example, he mentions that it may be necessary to lay a horse down in order to castrate it. He also gives lots of advice about handling horses gently and taking care for their health and wellbeing. Take into account also that this book appears to have been written with range-raised colts in mind. These were also colts that may have not had the most naturally easy-going temperaments. Today, many of the bloodlines we work with have been selected for trainability and innate gentleness. Much of this book is very similar to Professor Beery's advice. 18:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Monty claims a lot of credit for the success of the stallion Johnny Tivio. According to records online at the AQHA website, Monty bought the horse 12/13/1965. The AQHA has the following as show records for the horse:


It appears that Johnny Tivio did a great deal of winning before he came into Monty's hands. According to people who knew Johnny Tivio, those wins were done under the training and riding of Harry Rose.
As for Monty's horse Dually (PEPINICS DUALLY), in his autobiography, MR wrote, "Dually was a cull from the Greg Ward Ranch, a throw-away horse whom no one would buy."
Yet, a check of official AQHA records shows the following information about this horse:

AQHA ownership records show as dates of sale: CURRENT OWNER : MONTY AND PAT ROBERTS SOLVANG, CA 01/09/1995 2ND PREV OWNER : GREG AND/OR LAURA WARD TULARE, CA 03/01/1994 It should be noted that Greg Ward (deceased) is known as one of the greatest and most respected Reined Cowhorse trainers of all time.

AQHA performance records for Dually show:
NATIONAL CUTTING HORSE ASSOCIATION $ 6,295.51 Earned thru 01/01/1994
NATIONAL REINED COW HORSE ASSOCIATION $ 5,404.18 Earned thru 11/02/1995
Apparently, the "thow-away" horse that "no one wanted" had earned over $6000 before acquired by Monty.
Dually was a product not only of Greg Ward's training but also of his breeding program that has produced many world class money earners in NCHA, NRHA, NRCHA, and AQHA, descended from Greg Ward's great mare Fillinic.
As evidence of Greg Ward's love of horses and his skill, consider this quote from an article in Western Horseman magazine, 'Could it have been that the high-strung Fillinic had proven too much of a challenge for the earlier owners, needing the sure and steady hand of the "Master," Greg Ward, the man who was to make Fillinic, just as Fillinic was to make him?'
FYI- 'Horse Whispers & Lies' at ; the Feb. 1999 issue of Horse & Rider magazine's article, 'Horse Whispers or Horse Feathers?'; San Francisco Examiner Article: 'BIOGRAPHY CALLED UNBRIDLED FICTION' January 11, 1997; "Horse of a Different Color" by John Skow & James Willwerth, Time Magazine Dec. 14, 1998; "Now! Read the True (More or Less) Story!" Tuesday, February 24, 1998 The New York Times; and "A Peddler of Court Gossip May Pay the Piper" by Jonathon Turley.

Lil 15:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I feel very fortunate to have the text at last. Thank you. I looked at a few of the places that I know to be problematical and in several of them I saw advice to hit the horse with a whip or a length of rubber garden hose, or even one for each hand. I also noted something to the effect that the rider must establish dominance over the horse.
Somewhere in the back of my mind I hold the mental image of photographs of horses being tied to rings attached the the side of a barn and left to struggle against their bonds. The statement accompanying these photographs said that sometime the horses were seriously injured or even broke their necks. I almost wouldn't believe it except that I saw virtually the same thing being done on a local breeding/training center. I'll have to look for the photographs, but I think they were provided in one of Monty's books.
My vet is a horse person, someone who rode first and became a veterinarian later. She is probably a little more extreme than I am on never hitting a horse. (I learned one way to give an injection to a horse without having it be really aware that a needle was going in, about the same method that our family doctor used on my little brother, pinching him gently before and during the insertion of the needle.) She strongly disapproved of using even a "tap a couple times with the back side of the hand and then turn the hand over and insert the needle on the next 'tap'." The one instance in which she is in favor of aversive reinforcement is when a horse attempts to dominate the owner by rushing him/her in the field and biting or kicking with serious intent to do injury. In that case the human is doing pretty much what another horse would do if this horse tried to bite and kick it. Horses seem to understand that there is an "opportunity cost" involved for exhibiting aggressive behavior. Monty Roberts's father seems to be far more in favor of "showing the horse who is boss" by using the whip.
I'll have to take more time with the text. I particularly want to look at the part about "sacking out" because some people use a technique that gradually accustoms horses to things that might originally be interpreted as threatening, e.g., the knocked-down garbage can that looks like a crouching predator. Other people use sacking out to terrify a horse while it is constrained in such a way that it learns that it is powerless to avoid any fearful thing. The latter is both cruel and stupid. The former is nothing more than a contrived situation to do what the gentle Xenophon advocated more than two thousand years ago.
Just tying a horse's foot up is not bad. It can be no worse for the horse than for a human to have his/her arm in a sling. (If your arm is not broken and you rest it in a sling to see how that feels I don't see how it would be at all a bad thing. If you tie my arms so I can't move then and then menace me with rattlesnakes I think I'd be just a mite traumatized by the procedure.) P0M 03:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Patrick. As usual, you've hit the nail on the head. I hope to see these facts and insights incorporated in Natural horsemanship, Domestication of the horse, horse training, horse gentling, horse starting and/or horse whispering.

I've placed my arm in a sling to see how it feels, and I wouldn't appreciated being menaced by a rattlesnake or a whip. I might not be a PETA supporter, but I sympathize with animals nonetheless. Moreover, I see parallels between the techniques Roberts (Jr.) has brought to the public's attention, and ways of bringing peace to the human world; on the family, school, national and even international level.

It's really about dominance (based on fear or force) versus natural, peaceful, harmonious cooperation. The former is the way of the world since history began. The latter is what my church is all about. --Uncle Ed 18:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Patrick, I found the part you referred to that suggested the use of quirts or pieces of garden hose. It was in a paragraph about curing rearing, a vice that is dangerous to both horse and rider. I'm guessing that Marvin Roberts found the method to be relatively safe and effective.

Lil 19:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The first, and one of the only ever, scathing remarks I read in my early library of horse training and horsemastership books was by someone commenting on the practice of "curing" a horse of rearing by striking it on the head while it is rearing.
To me, the dynamics involved in rearing and in unprovoked and aggressive kicking and biting are quite different. If one believes in the rectitude of dominating a horse, then I guess any negative reaction of a horse toward a rider should result in the human's using the most effective means to punish resistance. I don't believe that attitude can even be supported on the grounds of naked self interest.
If I go into a pasture and a horse rushes me with hooves and teeth, I'll exact the traditional opportunity cost. I'll do the same thing to tell the horse to stop that another horse would do, and the horse will understand the transaction. It won't be remembered weeks, months, or years later as my aggressive act.
If I'm tightening my horse's girth and she turns around to glare at me with open mouth, I do not interpret that action as aggression. It's her way of telling me that I'm hurting her enough that she's going to have to get herself away from the pain if I don't cut it out. So I figure out what was pinching or sore and go on from there.
Rearing is indeed dangerous. Interestingly, it is the "vice" of the intelligent horses. It's a normal action, either the adaptation of the horse's preparation to use its forefeet to strike downward with maximum force at a predator on the ground, or the adaptation of a move used to counter an attack by a large predator that has landed on the horse's back. Either way, it is a defensive move. So the question becomes, what is the rider doing that is offensive to the horse.
One's object has to be to avoid future rearing, not to vent one's anger at the current action. It wouldn't make sense to smack the horse between the ears for rearing if something in pinching or cutting the horse and s/he's trying to get away from it. But if it is not a mechanical problem like that (and it usually isn't because the smart horse will let you know while you're putting the saddle on), then the question will be what the rider is doing that is offending the horse, and why has this issue festered to the point that the horse is so impatient with it. If the horse has already taken an intense dislike to the rider's lack of good technique, then whacking it for objecting to the bad behavior is going to result in a match of willpower, and maybe a match of physical force.
As a riding instructor in a very fine summer camp I had problems with one large black gelding. He was a beautiful animal, very nice to ride, but with certain riders he would rear. From the ground it was difficult to be sure, but the likely diagnosis seemed to be a conflict of aids. Being urged forward with the legs while being jerked back with the bit would probably make anybody a bit inclined to be malignantly literal in the interpretation of instructions. When ever that happened I would take over riding the horse for a few minutes, ask him to back in a polite way, and if he did start to rear I would just urge him forward and make him do a few tight circles in each direction. When I turned him back to his rider he was always o.k. for the rest of the day. I wished the camp owners hadn't supplied me with that particular animal, but once I got onto his temperament I just made sure to give him to one of the best riders. They liked the challenge, the ride, and the animal's power, and I liked not having to straighten messes out. Fortunately I only had to school him a couple times.
Earlier I mentioned the local trainer who ties untrained horses between two trees and watches them rear and pitch trying to free themselves. That trainer is also the person who told me how terribly, terribly dangerous horses are. (I have known good trainers and good riders all my life, and that was a new one to me, although the guy who had care of Triple-Crown winner Omaha warned me not to get too close to his stall one day -- not saying "because he's dangerous" but "because his arthritis is terrible today.") Maybe one of the reason that such trainers find horses dangerous is that they pick fights with them. P0M 02:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the rider needs to run though the checklist of pain/comfort/horsemanship issues. However, some horses will rear simply as an attempt to be dominant over the rider. Horses do have minds and personalities of their own.
I wouldn't care to whump a rearing horse between the ears myself simply because having never done so, I would be afraid that the horse might rear even more and possibly fall over backwards with me. However, I have known of folks who have done that and cured the vice without harm to themselves or the horses. (I prefer to rein the horse low and wide into a tight circle while whumping him with my outside leg as the correction.) I don't think that the method that Marvin Roberts used was cruel. I think that the reason he suggested use of a piece of garden hose was because it would make a lot of noise but would be dull and light and not cut the horse. Even now, it is easy to find similar advice being offered, such as to smash a raw egg on the horse's head when he rears.
With regard to 'the local trainer' you mentioned, I wonder if this person lacks empathy with their family members as well?
Some of my clients have commented about how calm and affectionate most horses become after having been under my care for a few weeks. Their prior coaches were not deliberately cruel or inhumane people, yet after coming to me, their horses seemed to just settle down and become happier and more relaxed. I don't know what accounts for that.
One of my mantras is "Don't judge what the horse gives us as good or bad. It just is. Take what he gives us and work from there." Sometimes, while my friends and clients watch me working with various horses at different points in training, they'll make comments such as, "She's being stubborn!" Such comments always catch me by surprise because it never occurs to me to classify my equine students' behaviors that way. To say, "She's being stubborn," is unhelpful. It is like a programming 'stop point.' I'll explain that the horse simply may not understand what I want, that perhaps I have not made my request clear to the horse and that I can finesse her through it. Sometimes, I'll hear the "stubborn" observation when the horse is simply a quieter and less reactive horse.
Patrick, you wrote >If I'm tightening my horse's girth and she turns around to glare at me with open mouth, I do not interpret that action as aggression. It's her way of telling me that I'm hurting her enough that she's going to have to get herself away from the pain if I don't cut it out.
Your experience with your horse has shown you that this is her way of letting you know there is a problem. However, I am reminded of a spoiled mare that was brought to me to have some behavior issues fixed. Her teenage owner told me, "She'll act like she is going to bite you when you saddle her, but don't hit her because she doesn't mean it." The mare did try to take a chunk out of me and I impulsively and immediately whumped her on the neck with the flat of my hand. She never again offered me any resistance during saddling. I think most potential saddling issues can be avoided by using quality tack and pads correctly positioned, and by making girthing a very gradual process. The girth should be tightened just enough to keep the saddle on, then the horse should be walked out several paces and the girth tightened a little more.

Lil 08:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The immediacy of response to aggressive action is important. Trauma need not be involved. I made an accidental discovery at Home Depot one time. I had found some blue plastic corrugated half inch conduit and I was thinking that it would make a really interesting noise if whipped around in a circle. I was twirling it and experiencing this effect when the blamed thing suddenly changed orbit on me and hit me right in the lips. It felt about like I had gotten hit with a golf club or something. Looking sheepishly around I was relieved to note that nobody seemed to have noticed. Then I decided that even if they hadn't noticed me hitting myself they would see the swollen lip and the bruise. But, wait, when I felt my lip I realized that it was perfectly o.k. The mass of the stuff is low enough that it gives you the sensation of really having been hit by something but doesn't actually damage anything. And, actually, there is no sensation of pain. In other words, it tricks your nervous system. That's not true, by the way, of garden hose. Garden hose is used by bad cops, prison guards, and other people who want to give a guy a painful beating that doesn't leave evidence of torture.
I've used an even lower mass "club" to break up fights between my two dogs. (The one I got from a rescue service survived "on the street" for a year, and she really learned to fight. On top of that the border collie in her goes into action on a pretty regular basis. The other dog grew up being dominated and run ragged by her until he got big enough to fight back.) It's about like hitting them with a soda straw, but they are terrified of it. On the other hand, the female once was chasing a goat in the pasture and banged my knee with her head while running at full speed. I was immediately walking funny, but she acted like she hadn't felt a thing. For both dogs and horses, it's not the pain as much as the fear of pain I think.
For some people it seems important to do damage to "give the animal a good lesson." My farrier has some good stories about people who have gone beyond disciplining a horse or dog to try to prove their "manhood" (or whatever the heck it is) by beating the poor animal into the ground. Then they learn that when their "possession" decides that the human is an actual enemy the animal has more than enough strength and courage to give the lordly human a serious injury. Better to give a stimulus that is sufficient to stop misbehavior, doesn't leave trauma, and then get off the subject. P0M 09:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Monty Roberts.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Monty Roberts.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag[edit]

Due to assorted conversation across several user talk pages, it appears there is a need to tag this article as NPOV due to the fairly flattering portrayal of the individual, downplaying some of the controversies. Article is not wholly neutral and balanced. Further discussion can take place here if needed. Montanabw(talk) 20:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is constantly made into a commercial advertisement for Mr. Roberts. I think it is open to question whether he deserves his own page on wikipedia at all, since he never actually himself made the earth shaking discoveries that he laid claim to. He's just another clinician guru with some snake oil to sell. The article contains many things which are alleged to be untrue, such as his claim of having observed wild horses as a youth, etc. The References area is little more than a collection of vanity links. Why is it OK for him to have a vanity advertising page on wikipedia when that is against the rules?

Lil (talk) 04:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Because those of us who work to achieve NPOV standards are bullied, beat up, battered and berated by fanatics. Sigh. Good to see you back in the fray! Montanabw(talk) 00:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

3 useful refs for Roberts' family disputes[edit]

In researching the notability of Horse Whispers and Lies, I found 3 refs that address both that book and Roberts in general. They may be useful here:

  1. Wong, Jan (2001-05-01). "Don't Let the Facts Get in the Way of a Good Story". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 2009-05-28. 
  2. Skow, John (1998-12-14). "Horse of a Different Color". Time. Retrieved 2009-05-28.  Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  3. Savage, Candace (2009-04-08). "Wild horses could drag him away". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 2009-05-28. 

--A. B. (talkcontribs) 13:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Additions to A. B.'s list[edit]

Snyder, Ronna (February 1999), "Horse Whispers or Horse Feathers?", Horse & Rider, pp. 56–60, 62 

Juli Thorson (27 February 2006). "Horse & Rider". NewsgroupHorse Journal Forum Pleasure Horse Journal Forum Check |newsgroup= value (help). Retrieved 01 December 2009.  Check date values in: |access-date= (help)

Carvajal, Doreen, Now! Read the True (More or Less) Story!; Publishers and Authors Debate the Boundaries Of Nonfiction, retrieved 01 December 2009  Check date values in: |access-date= (help)

Turley, Jonathan, A Peddler of Court Gossip May Pay the Piper, retrieved 01 December 2009  Check date values in: |access-date= (help) ETA: This article appears to have first been published in the LA Times: Lil Peck

Wong, Jan, Don't Let The Facts Get In The Way Of a Good Story, retrieved 01 December 2009  Check date values in: |access-date= (help)

Ritter, Erika, Thanks cowboy, now shut up, retrieved 01 December 2009  Check date values in: |access-date= (help)

Skow, John; James, Willwerth, Horse Of A Different Color, retrieved 01 December 2009  Check date values in: |access-date= (help)

Evans, Nicholas, FAQ: How did you get the idea for the horse whisperer?, retrieved 01 December 2009  Check date values in: |access-date= (help)

Brazil, Eric, Biography called unbridled fiction, retrieved 01 December 2009  Check date values in: |access-date= (help)

"Equine Behaviorists Opinions on Round Penning" (PDF), Cavallo Magazine, Germany, December 2003, retrieved 01 December 2009  Check date values in: |access-date= (help)

Brazil, Eric (19 July 1999), "Book Rebuts 'Horses' Claims", San Francisco Examiner, retrieved 01 December 2009  Check date values in: |access-date= (help)

Cooper, Glenda (27 March 1999), "Lies, hatred and the truth about the Horse Whisperer; THE FAMILY FEUD THAT THREATENS TO DESTROY THE REPUTATION OF MONTY ROBERTS", Daily Mail (London, England), retrieved 01 December 2009  Check date values in: |access-date= (help)

Even Cleve Wells ( has diehard fans. People have the right to idolize whomever they choose, if so inclined. I'll grant you, I'd rather see someone put Monty on a pedestal than hold Cleve Wells and his ilk with such high regard. Monty's parents are deceased and beyond what their son has done to smear their reputations. Whereas Cleve Wells is still training, riding, and showing horses for his (as he called them) "loyal and wealthy clients."

Lil (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Peck, if you can add page numbers and full citations to those, it would be helpful. (Title, author, etc...everything the cite templates need). Thanks. I also hear you on the Wells scandal. Montanabw(talk) 03:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Montanabw, I added as much information as I could find and attempted to cite them according to the proper templates above. I hope this is helpful.

Lil (talk) 05:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

On the RS-ness of the above:
  • Horse & Rider is a respectable magazine covering horse stuff.
  • the forum post isn't RS, generally they aren't considered reliable enough to deal with BLP issues. Even though Juli Thorson is a well-known editor in the horse world (Western Horseman, Appaloosa World, etc.) any BLP issues trump any possiblity of this being reliable enough to use.
  • Third one is New York Times, from the book section, and appears to be a genuine work of journalism covering a book trade issue.
  • Fourth one (Turley) looks like a blog, I wouldn't use it. It might be reliable enough for some stuff, but BLP concerns are such that you need to use the highest possible quality sources.
  • Wong - needs registration, so I can't tell whether it is a news piece in the Globe & Mail or if its opinion or a blog.
  • Ritter - same as the Wong
  • Skow & James - Time Magazine, Book review, would be reliable
  • The Evans bit is going to be reliable for Evans' point that he wasn't influenced by Roberts, can't get more direct that from the author himself.
  • Brazil piece is from the San Franscisco Chronicle, should be reliable enough.
  • Cavall mag thing isn't from the mag itself, it's from the author's website, would be better to see the article as it ran, not hosted elsewhere.
  • Brazil (2nd one) would be reliable, major newspaper.
  • Cooper - also reliable enough, another major newspaper.
Hope this helps. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

comments by Roberts fan[edit]

@Lil Peck: you obviously have a personal agenda behind your efforts to discredit Monty Roberts and his work. Are you a member of that part of the family that published "Horse Whispers and Lies"? Perhaps you are the niece of Marvin Roberts. You do not disclose any such information that would illuminate your fervent desire to diminish Monty Roberts' life work. Monty Roberts is a public figure, and this is justifiable entry, no matter how feverishly you try to keep the alleged controversy alive. Your comments and contributions are far from balanced or objective, although you accuse the authors of exactly the same thing. Do you detect any irony there? You allude to incriminating information that you are not at liberty to disclose - well, how convenient. This enables you to suggest that there exists reliable evidence against many of Monty Roberts' claims, without having to prove your allegations. You complain at great length and with seemingly relentless energy that the man has not made useful contributions to the field of equistrianism. Your main points appear to be that he did not invent the Join-Up method, that he was not battered by his father, and that he has taken credit for the achievements of others. You don't seem to be up-to-date on the work Monty Roberts has been pursuing for several decades, you just harp on some aspects published in his earlier books. You should be aware that many people regard the book "Horse Whispers and Lies" to be a blatant attempt by certain family members to make money off of Monty Roberts' success and career. What's more, not only abusers, but also their families will often go to great lengths to cover up and deny the abuse, so strong is the stigma still attached to it. When I read your repetitive entries, I am compelled to comment "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"You should be aware that many people regard the book "Horse Whispers and Lies" to be a blatant attempt by certain family members to make money off of Monty Roberts' success and career." Let me back that up: check out the reader reviews on Having read the comments there, I do believe I can guess your identity, Lil Peck. Are you perhaps Cheri L. Little, Marvin Roberts' niece, sister of the author of "Horse Whispers and Lies"? Whoever you are, and it's pretty clear that you're an estranged family member, I think you need to take a step back and realize how your own personal agenda is influencing your pursuit of this home-made controversy. (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do not engage in personal attacks against other editors. Please read WP:AGF, editors assume good faith on the part of other editors. I have worked with LilPeck for over three years on wikipedia and have no reason to believe that this individual is in any way affiliated with any member of the Roberts family. (And I think LilPeck is male, by the way...) To seek a balanced point of view is not to be hostile to an individual, merely to point out that the controversy exists. (Compare this article to those on living political figures, for example) Your comments above are a personal attack, which is not appropriate, and as there is controversy surrounding Roberts, the policy of WP:NPOV requires that wikipedia articles have a point of view that does not favor one side over another. Blog and chat board comments are not reputable sources for wikipedia. You may also wish to read wikipedia's verifiability guidelines for further information. Montanabw(talk) 22:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if my entry appeared to be a personal attack against another editor. My intention is not to attack the editor, but to put his/her entries into their proper perspective. Lil Peck says him/herself that "I am not objective because of information I have that I am not at liberty to post in a public forum." This and other statements such as "One thing is certain, to my satisfaction, and that is that Marvin Roberts was a kind and gentle man" are what led me to believe that Lil Peck is not an impartial editor. I believe this is crucial. My intention is only to point out that Lil Peck is biased. I agree that there is some degree of controversy surrounding Monty Roberts. I disagree that it is as grave as Lil Peck would have us believe. It is my impression that Lil Peck brings an inappropriate level of emotional involvement to this discussion. It is that emotional involvement that I intended to address, not Lil Peck personally. Again, I apologize if my comments missed the mark.

Thank you for your references to Wikipedia's guidelines and further information. I will read them with great interest and strive to adhere to them more closely in the future.Lllmrpvk (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The bottom line is that many of the "natural horsemanship" articles, on both practitioners and methods, have a lot of problems on wikipedia because people want to write them like either an advertising brochure or an expose. Roberts is quite controversial, likewise, so is Parelli (the others seem not to attract quite so many detractors). But as long as editors stick to biographical material that is sourced and verifiable ( see [[WP:CITE]} and Verifiability guidelines) covering the good and the bad, being balanced and neutral in tone, that's my only axe to grind. (smile) Montanabw(talk) 04:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Second that advice (took the liberty of correcting a typo in the links) ++Lar: t/c 20:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Having looked hard at evidence from both sides it is clear that Monty Roberts is guilty of telling the truth; he has broken the taboo of 'telling it like it is' regarding his father's monstrous treatment of his son.' I have seen no evidence against Mr. Roberts that stands up to investigation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion[edit]

As I stated, there has been no discussion regarding a merger between this article and The Man Who Listens to Horses so there is no consensus to merge. It is not proper procedure to nominate an article for merger and do it the same day, much less the next day. It is even more improper to cite a consensus for doing so when there has been no discussion. That needs to occur in order to form a consensus. I noted the lack of discussion on this point yesterday, when I reverted the merger and I am noting it again today. Do not undo or remove the merger templates until you all have actually discussed it. I would further note that I have grave concerns with the myriad sources posted here that are mostly anti-Roberts in nature. Please be mindful of WP:BLP when these are posted. If there is a link or another that is germane that someone wants to let another editor have, please post it at the editor's talk page and not here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There was a merge tag placed by a member of WPEQ who has long been in charge of cleaning up the horse articles. I agreed with the merge. There had been no significant edits on the article since March of 2008, and it was virtually a stub, the article was orphaned, and the material could be merged into the Monty Roberts article in less than a paragraph. There was clearly no sense for there to be a separate article and there was also a consensus amongst the only two people who had been paying any significant attention to the article at all for the past 18 months (based at least on who was reverting the vandalism and such). You may disagree with that consensus and we can discuss it here. Your threats are entirely inappropriate here, as we are long term wikipedians. All can agree that Roberts is a controversial figure, thus there will be sources both pro and con; Wikipedia isn't a place for puff pieces or advertising, as I am sure you know. My position is that it's simply silly to have a bunch of useless book stubs hanging around when they are more appropriate to the article about their author. I will also note that most of the souces are also on the Monty Roberts article itself. Nothing new here. Montanabw(talk) 22:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, but what threats have I made? I commented that the posting of anti-Roberts links on this page are a WP:BLP issue, but that was a statement, not a threat. There has been no discussion posted on this page nor on the talk page for The Man Who Listens to Horses for you to reference. Basically, you're saying "two of us agreed to this so we did it" and that is not proper procedure. I have been watching this page for a very long time, after I was asked to do so by an editor. If that editor cares to identify herself, fine. If not, then I won't out here. My comments are that two persons decided to merge two articles without benefit of a properly noted consensus and I object to that action in that way, especially given the anti-Roberts content that keeps getting posted on this page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
While more discussion may have been needed before the merger was completed, it has been completed and so it is nonsensical to have the merge tag still on the page - hence I have removed it. Wildhartlivie, do you have an actual problem with the merger, or are you just protesting the procedure? So far, I have seen nothing that says you think the merger shouldn't happen, whether it is now or after discussion. Protesting for the sake of protesting makes no sense, and is rather pointy. Dana boomer (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
The tone of your edit summaries was threatening Wildhart. As for the BLP issue, it's more in the other direction -- there has been an ongoing problem with this article of folks wanting this to be made into a one-sided puff piece on Roberts, avoiding all controversy, but this is an encyclopedia, not free advertising. I apologize if the merge was a bit abrupt, I didn't realize Dana's post was less than two hours old, but there really is no real reason not to merge the article. Montanabw(talk) 23:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your good faith here, folks. Posting at 18:41, 15 December 2009 a suggestion for merger and then completing it within 2 hours is putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. Have you actually raised this question with WP:BOOKS? Why is this book so unimportant that it should be merged? We don't generally merge the author and the product here. I see nothing threatening in stating "I'm not convinced a thorough discussion has occurred re: a merger since it was just posted 2 hours before merging" nor in "there has been no discussion to draw a consensus on this merger." I'm well aware of the issues over the article regarding this author, please don't go out of your way to edify me. I've edited it myself. Please stop redirecting the book paqe until the discussion has been completed, that is forcing your viewpoint through without consensus, all the while contending there already is consensus. If there is no issue with the links posted above, then get them off the page before WP:BLP becomes a factor here. I read the links, they aren't pro-Roberts. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not hasty when it appeared that the article was dead, a stub and forgotten. It also appeared to be written mostly by an editor whose user name coincidentally was that of a member of Roberts' staff, which raises some red flags. But the main issue here is that the main topic is the author, who has written several books. We don't need an article on each book. Most of the horse trainer articles that mention published works by the trainer don't have a separate article for the books themselves. I checked the articles on other trainers that I know wrote books, and none that I found have links to the books. I checked Mark Rashid, Alois Podhajsky, John Lyons (horse trainer), Tom and Bill Dorrance, Buck Brannaman, Ray Hunt and Parelli Natural Horsemanship. None have separate articles on their books. There are articles about books related to these people that were made into movies, but that's it. Montanabw(talk) 06:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I have no clue what your issue is about the BLP thing. That seems unrelated to the article merge question. Can you clarify? Roberts is controversial. That is, of course, part of his story. Not sure what the BLP concern is, but maybe that needs a different heading and a different discussion. Montanabw(talk) 06:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Who started the article is essentially beside the point, if it remains a COI, then it can and should be addressed. I'm unaware of any guideline or policy that forbids that an author have a separate article for each work. Could you please direct me to that tenet? My issues over WP:BLP are concerning the posting of links to anti-Monty Roberts text that has been posted on this page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Consensus, if hasty and 2:1, was to merge. The material was placed in this article. There were literally, what, two sentences that weren't already in this article? This is just an endless circular discussion that fails to address the merits of the merged article itself. A redirect was appropriate. There were at one time about five really poor Monty Roberts-related articles, now there is basically one reasonably decent one. Montanabw(talk) 08:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
As for the links here on the talk page, they appear to be to verifiable sources, and when they went up, as you can see, I asked the poster to clarify the citations to be sure they were. While critical or Roberts, a discussion of how much of the controversy surrounding Roberts should go into the article seems appropriate here. After all, the links include Time Magazine, the Globe and Mail, Horse and Rider, all of which are far from the National Enquirer. (And actually, it looks like the Daily Mail link, while a tabloid, appears somewhat favorable to Roberts). All I see here is a discussion over a figure who has been at the center of some controversy and with some supporters who want that controversy not to be discussed. No different from certain politicians who have their staff surf their bios on wiki to remove unfavorable material (and then get caught). I've asked an admin who has a strong interest in proper BLP guidelines to come over here and surf our discussion. Don't know if he will actually weigh in or not, but just an FYI that we are getting some other eyes on this. Montanabw(talk) 08:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I can completely understand how editors coming to this page would be off-put by what is read on this page. The myriad links posted here were not used for purposes of discussion of any type, most of them have been in the category of "something for a given editor's work". If you are referring to me as an editor who doesn't want that discussion to occur, please think again. I have no opinion about this page other than a specific editor requested I keep an eye on it and related issues regarding it, which were not pro-Roberts. And what I've experienced since posting on this page has been less than stellar conduct toward an editor expressing concern over what appeared to be an a priori decision. So far, I've been accused of writing threatening edit summaries and being pointy. Gods forbid someone post here who actually goes against the mindset at work here. So go on, kill the messenger. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Wildhartlivie, if you have no opinion about this page, why bring it up? No other editors have come forward with opinions that the merge shouldn't have happened, and if you have no opinion, then why bother with the argument? Also, I don't believe the links above are a BLP violation, and I'm not really sure what the problem is there either. Links (both for an against a subject) are often posted to the talk page to give opportunity for discussion, and they don't automatically need to be removed once that discussion has taken place. The talk page is a great place for links that should at some point be incorporated into the article as references - Roberts is not a squeaky-clean figure, the links are to reliable sources that state that, and so there is a place in the article for that side of the story. Do you have a specific problem with the unreliability of any of the sites? They are not a BLP violation; rather, they are potential references being put in a spot where they can be easily located when an editor comes along who has a true interest in a neutral article on a fairly controversial figure. Dana boomer (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to look in on this. Where do folk think things stand? Is there objection to the merge itself? To the process of deciding to do the merge? On what grounds? I've read through the discussion so far and I'm not totally sure I get what the issue is yet although I have some inklings. If folk could focus on trying to decide what the right thing to do going forward is, and not on casting aspersions, that might be good. ++Lar: t/c 19:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

My initial objection was to posting a merger template on the article and two hours later, sans discussion regarding it, the articles were merged. I was protesting the process, which basically was absent. Along the way, I noted my concerns with the abject posting of links on this page which were not being used in any constructive way regarding the article and which were posted by various editors "for their project". I would note, in passing, that I'm the 2nd most active contributor to this page, and FWIW, I have the absolute right to protest ad hoc changes. I find it most disconcerting to find myself being attacked as I have been by passing editors about my motives or concerns. An editor with no biases is exactly what is needed on this article, not one with preconceived opinions on the subject. And I'll note, my specific question has not been answered. Please point me to the Wikipedia tenet that states a book by an article subject should not have a separate article. Please dial back the attacks on me, folks. They aren't helpful or productive. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Lar -- There appear to be two issues: 1) We merged the article on Robert' book, "The Man Who Listens To Horses," into this article. I actually didn't notice that Dana had tagged it only two hours before I merged it (I can never figure out the UTC time stamps on Wiki, I know there is supposed to be a way to set these to local time, but I've never bothered to figure it out). I just noticed that the article was tagged for merge by Dana, a trusted editor, was a paragraph long stub, and orphaned, with no significant edit history in over a year, and, as She and I have done with a number of other orphaned stub horse articles, just did the merge, assuming it was noncontroversial. To that end, it was a bit hasty, for which I have already apologized once, but I still defend the actual decision for all the reasons noted above. Wildhart had some pretty intense edit summaries at that article's history page when s/he reverted the merge, and I interpreted those comments as an attempt at bullying. I am not clear that Wildhart has significant argument against the merge, just is upset that the merge had been done hastily. I see no reason to continue beating this particular dead horse (if you will pardon the pun). None of the other horse trainer articles have separate articles about their individual works; I think the only book article on all of wiki about a specific horse book is the one on Xenophon's On Horsemanship which is of significant historical importance. (I could be mistaken and there are others, but a quick glance came up empty). Montanabw(talk) 00:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
2) The more interesting issue, totally unrelated to the merge issue, and why you were asked to look in on this article due to your known expertise on BLP policy, is a BLP concern: Wildhart is also expressing "grave concerns with the myriad sources posted here that are mostly anti-Roberts in nature" -- referring to discussion on this talk page, presumably the collection of anti-Roberts articles posted by user LilPeck, who has been a wikipedia editor on horse articles, on and off, for longer than I have. As is evident on the talk page and in the article history, in the past there have also been multiple, blatent attempts by people who appear to have a clear, direct connections to Roberts to remove any reference to the controversy over Roberts, and turn this article into a puff piece. Further, a person with the same user name as a Roberts staffer appears to have been the primary editor of the merged article. So I am not sure if there is a BLP issue here just because that there are links to the "horse whisperers and lies" set of critiques that appeared in the mainstream press about some of the claims in Roberts' book, but that's the more legitimate question. Montanabw(talk) 00:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks! My views (take as you like)

  1. On the merge: I have to agree with those that say this was a bit hasty of a merge. I think common practice is to wait some number of days, so the UTC confusion doesn't happen :)... if it's clearly several days ago that the tag was placed, it matters not whether it was at 3 AM or 8 AM local time or what. But that said... is this a controversial merge? Is there reason to believe that if more time had been given, consensus would be (or at least might have been) against it? If the merge is completely non controversial, there's no need to do anything further about the merge per se. In the above I'm not seeing that Wildhartlivie has made a strong case that it's even possibly controversial. The book is an autobiography after all. Most autobiographies aren't so notable that there's a pressing need to keep them separate. But, if Wildhartlivie wants to make a case, then the thing to do is accept the status quo ante, that the article has been merged, and then make the case that it needs to be split off again, here on this talk page, in a separate section. Edit warring (as both of you were doing) is just Not On.
  2. On the BLP concerns. I agree that the article as it is now is a bit puffy, and that there is an apparent COI issue here with someone (a potential staffer) trying to control the article to keep it positive, and exclude negative material. Leaving a bunch of sources on the talk page is not a long term solution. Someone with some interest (and background knowledge if possible) ought to review the sources, decide which are creditable and pass WP:RS and are germane, and balance the article. That ought to be done as soon as practical. If after that there are continued attempts to remove all negative material, that will need to be dealt with.
  3. On "attacks". I'm not seeing attacks on anyone sufficient to take action, but I certainly think that trying for more collegiality would help. That would start with trying to assume the best of everyone else, trying to use neutral edit summaries, trying not to edit war over the merge, and trying to put best foot forward and start afresh on deciding what to do about both the merge, and the sources, as well as the potential POV pushing to keep the article fluffed.

That's my thinking. I hope it helps. If there is more followup you'd like, I'll watch here for a while. ++Lar: t/c 18:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

All of the above works for me. Truce, Wildhart??? Montanabw(talk) 19:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Neutrality tag[edit]

Can we remove the neutrality tab.

I can see that there are some people that love Monty Roberts, and some that hate him, but we should be able to remove the neutrality tag, and only have information that meets Wikipedia standards for verification.

The talk page is now a lot longer than the article

This has been on for almost 2 years and looks bad.

RonaldDuncan (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

No, your own edits to the article provide clear evidence of why the tag is needed. The article is constantly under attack by people who consider Roberts without flaw and attack his critics when in fact, regardless of one's personal position on the fellow, he IS rather controversial. When the time comes that the article fully fleshes out both the strengths and weaknesses of this individual with full and proper sourcing, then it can go. Montanabw(talk) 01:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the neutrality tag should be retained.--Maximusbean (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of the Citation tag[edit]

Can we remove the citation tag

Both sides of the argument above, have put in citations for everything so I think that the tag can be removed.

RonaldDuncan (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the article is far from fully cited. There are tags noting the need for improvement of individual citations, and, for example, if this article were to be submitted for being considered a Wikipedia Good Article, the citation junkies would chop it to bits. Although is IS pretty well sourced, it's still only B-Class. For a biography of a living person, the sourcing has to be top notch, particularly when it contains controversy and criticism. Montanabw(talk) 01:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, though, that this is not being submitted as a good article and it is not required to meet those criteria to meet B-Class criteria. That there are tags for page numbers does not mean this template needs to remain. Here's your sign: those tags themselves are the indication that that the numbers are needed. I believe that insisting the citations needed template has to remain and closing off the discussion with a firm no is not an acceptable answer. That tag has been there for two years in August. At the time that template was placed, there were only two referencnes for the entire article. In two years time, the references on this article have increased to 28 cites to 21 separate sources, that is on a small amount of content, only 12,415 bytes. I think it's entirely pointy to insist a citations template remain on this article and I'm more than a little concerned with the way the article is controlled here. There is no valid reason to flatly refuse to remove the overall template when besides the page numbers, I see little content that is missing references. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
You may be right about the citations template, but inline tags can stay as needed. I can tweak that bit, fair 'nuff. Montanabw(talk) 03:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for agreeing. I'm not advocating removing the inline tags for the page numbers. I just think it is time for the maintenance template to go. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
That one's gone. You are right on that point. The page citations can stay, sooner or later they'll have to be fixed anyway. Montanabw(talk) 21:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Article sources Sept 2010[edit]

All references to or from "Horse Whispers & Lies" should be removed as "Horse Whispers & Lies" appears to be self-published. Veracity books ( which is sometimes cited as the publisher, it not a book publisher but rather a book distributor. This is in keeping with Wikipedia’s general policies regarding biographies of living persons: It provides in part as follows: • Any material challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source. • Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP. • Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, or tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject. • Material available solely in questionable sources should not be used anywhere in the article, including in "Further reading" or "External links" sections. • If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximusbean (talkcontribs) 15:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

These allegations were also published in Horse and Rider Magazine in a major expose of Roberts, about 10 years ago. The source is verifiable, just controversial. No need to sanitize the article. Just teach the controversy and explain both sides. Montanabw(talk) 02:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
1. In accordance with Wikipedia policies, Horse Whisperer and Lies should not be cited as the source. If the Horse and Rider article is the source, then it should be amended to reflect that.
2. The source being reliable is questionable given the information provided to date.
3. The focus is not to “sanitize” the article but to eliminate sources/material/language that do not adhere to Wikipedia’s standards for articles.
4. That said, some of the language used in the article and the section of concern is quite leading, rather than appropriately unbiased.
5. The controversy takes up and inordinate amount of space in respect to the article’s composure as it stands.
6. Additionally, Horse Whisperer and Lies has its own Wikipedia entry and does not need to be extrapolated on here.--Maximusbean (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Maximusbean, and thanks for bringing the discussion here. Self published sources are allowed to be used on WP, especially in cases like this. We are trying to show that a certain person has a certain opinion - what better source than a book by that person? However, if there is a H&R article on it, that would be a wonderful backup source, so perhaps Montana can provide that when she sees this discussion. Can you tell us which language exactly you feel is "quite leading"? I'm not sure how the informatin takes up an "inordinate amount of space", as it is only two sentences long. There is much more "pro" MR information that is sourced to less reliable sources. While I agree that the article needs to be expanded, I don't think that two sentences constitute a large portion of the article even now. Despite the fact that HW&L has it's own article, it should be mentioned here. There has been a large controversy over the allegations and refutations of abuse, and it should at least be mentioned, which is all it is here. Dana boomer (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Dana! Thanks for the quick reply. After reading your entry I once again reviewed Wikipedia’s general policies regarding biographies of living persons: to be sure I had not missed anything. It states,

“Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources.[4] See below for our policy on self-published images.” Irrespective of the content it contains, HW&L is a self-published source, and should not be used. If the article contains "pro" MR information that is from a self-published source, it should be removed as well. Perhaps Montana can dig the H&R article.

As for leading language, I am concerned about the use of the word “claims” in particular in the article, as opposed to said, stated, reported, indicated or wrote. The following passage from the area of concern is an example of how the use of the word “claimed” followed with the word “but” is leading. “Roberts claimed to have been beaten by his father, but according to other sources, such as Roberts' aunt, Joyce Renebome, and cousin, Debra Ristau, in their book Horse Whispers & Lies, Marvin Roberts was a kind and compassionate man.[5]” As for the proportion of the article, I actually was referring to the whole of the section below, which actually takes up roughly 10% of the article, by word count. “The father of Monty Roberts was Marvin Roberts,[4] who demonstrated his methods of horse training in his own book written in 1957 and according to Monty Roberts: ...trained horses to carry riders in the traditional way — "breaking" horses by breaking their will, almost torturing the animals into submission.[1][page needed] Roberts claimed to have been beaten by his father, but according to other sources, such as Roberts' aunt, Joyce Renebome, and cousin, Debra Ristau, in their book Horse Whispers & Lies, Marvin Roberts was a kind and compassionate man.[5] Roberts' brother, Larry Roberts, also denied the claims of child battering.[6]” --Maximusbean (talk) 23:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been thinking about it and I had a couple of thoughts about how to manage this situation until an appropriate source can be found (i.e. perhaps the Horse and Rider article) that would refute MR's assertions of abuse.

  1. Delete the section that currently uses HW&L as its source.

"Roberts claimed to have been beaten by his father, but according to other sources, such as Roberts' aunt, Joyce Renebome, and cousin, Debra Ristau, in their book Horse Whispers & Lies, Marvin Roberts was a kind and compassionate man.[5] Roberts' brother, Larry Roberts, also denied the claims of child battering.[6]”

  1. Perhaps, in the interest of balance until an appropriate source can be found refuting MR's assertions of abuse, remove the

material prior to that brings up the abuse. “The father of Monty Roberts was Marvin Roberts,[4] who demonstrated his methods of horse training in his own book written in 1957 and according to Monty Roberts: ...trained horses to carry riders in the traditional way — "breaking" horses by breaking their will, almost torturing the animals into submission.[1][page needed]" Let me know what you think. Either way, it is clear we need to remove the HW&L material until a replacement source can be found that would not violate Wikipedia's policies. --Maximusbean (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There, a new source has been added. TIME magazine, which is in no way self published or involved in the story. That took less than five minutes to find, and is freely available to everyone online. Dana boomer (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Dana! I will go take a peek at the revision :-)--Maximusbean (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I"m comfortable with Dana's changes. Roberts is a controversial figure, and to remove all material that reflects the controversy would then put this article at risk of being tagged for being too promotional in tone. The H&R article came out maybe a year or so after Robert's first book, I don't think it's in Equisearch.. (their search engine is pretty poor) so thanks for finding the other. Montanabw(talk) 22:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I am so glad, Dana, that you found that Time article. I agree with Montana that the source is definitely a good one. I do have a problem with it linking to the HS&L article however, as it still is an unpublished source. Though it is mentioned in the Time article, it should not, in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines be included in the text of the Wiki MR article. I proposed changing the couple of sentences to the following as a result, especially because it is more in keeping with the Time article:
"Roberts claims to have been beaten by his father. Roberts' brother, Larry Roberts, and Roberts' aunt, Joyce Renebome, and cousin, Debra Ristau, have said they never saw any beatings and they disagree with Roberts' portrait of his father.[5]"
Obviously, I still have the concerns with respect to language, etc in the article overall and am interested in your input. Thanks so much. --Maximusbean (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I've undone your removal of the mention of the HW&L book. There is no WP guideline that says we cannot link to another article that is directly related to the subject being discussed. Yes, there are WP policies saying we should not use self-published books as reference, but there is nothing saying we can't mention them. The book is directly related to the topic at hand, and so there is no reason not to mention it. Dana boomer (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Maximus, nearly all your edits in the past two years have been exclusively to this article and primarily directed at removing anything negative about Roberts. So it appears you have a Conflict of interest when it comes to editing this article in wikipedia, and I advise you to focus your attention elsewhere. This particular criticism of Roberts is well-known, longstanding, and fits within the boundaries of wikipedia's policies on biographies of living persons. Readers of wikipedia can look at both sides of the issue here and decide for themselves. Wikipedia does not exist to be purely a venue of self-promotional or flowery advertising. So let this be. Montanabw(talk) 00:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia's guidelines on this point are unambiguous. See the following from the top of this very page. "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous." They are clear. This reference does not belong. Perhaps we should request Arbitration from Wikipedia to settle this concern. (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
We are not referencing HW&L, we are referencing TIME. The information about HW&L is well-referenced to TIME magazine - if you do not believe me, read the TIME magazine article. Yes, HW&L (and Monty Roberts in general) is a contentious subject. However, this information (unlike much of the other information in the article) is well and completely sourced, and therefore you have no basis for removing the information. The only reference in this section is the TIME article - there is no longer any references to the HW&L site or book. I'm wondering if you're confused about the different between referenced meaning mentioned and referenced meaning citations. Yes, HW&L is mentioned, but it is not used as a citation. And there is no way that ArbCom will take this case - there is no history of dispute resolution and they avoid ruling on content disputes. Dana boomer (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Maximus, you may note that the information in Time went beyond HW&L and was independently researched. It is clearly a verifiable source under wikipedia's policies. Further, your edits (and as a wikipedia editor, nearly all of your edits have been to this article or ones related to it, by the way) are part of a longstanding pattern in this article of various one-issue editors (or other editors with no prior interest in horses suddenly appearing on this article) coming in to remove anything that is not flattering about Roberts. I advise you to work on improving articles as a content contributor to wikipedia, not simply engage in a crusade against consensus to turn this article into free advertising by removing the primary source of balanced critique of this individual. I have also left a message on your talk page so that discussions of your edit history can continue in a venue other than the talk page of this article. Montanabw(talk) 16:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I started this article years ago, knowing that Monty Roberts made controversial claims about his dad: that father Roberts beat Monty, and that father Roberts used insanely abusive training methods on horses. I do hope, however, that we can give both sides. Even if it's that Monty Roberts said X, Y, and Z about his dad while his dad (or his dad's estate) deny it all.

The reason the Monty Roberts side of the controversy is interesting to the reader is that it may help to explain his motivation, i.e., a reaction to the "breaking" of horses: the new system of "gentling" horses. Instead of breaking its will and exploiting the horse, you use its natural instincts in a complementary way. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Scope of dispute[edit]

  • claims to have discovered the concept of listening to horses

I can't remember whether Monty Roberts ever claimed to have discovered this concept. Did whoever wrote this sentence simply mean that the idea occurred to him as a teenager, without having gotten the idea from anyone else? If so, that would be an independent discovery, and quite a common thing, especially for children.

Also, to what extent is Monty Roberts an advocate or pioneer of Natural horsemanship? And did he copy (unwittingly?) techniques used by American Indians (as portrayed in several movies)? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't care enough about Roberts to want to put a lot of work into this article. If you want to upgrade things, as long as the article keeps a neurtral point of view, I'm not going to kick. The only problem I have is when the Roberts' fan club comes in and tries to remove all critical material. I'm all for teaching the controversy and showing all sides. The one thing I will note is that over the last couple of years, WP is getting a lot stricter about sourcing and footnoting stuff in any biographies of a living person. (see WP:BLP) Montanabw(talk) 18:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not interested in Roberts either, except to the extent that he developed (or at least promoted) a kind of natural horsemanship which can tame a horse (i.e., make it accept a rider) without cruelty. I'm neither a fan nor a detractor, although I remember enjoying "The Real Horse Whisperer" (on video) a dozen or so years ago. And it's fascinating how he came up with the ideas for "Equus" (horse body language) by watching mare and stallion.
Other topics may include his ideas on raising children - did he really raise over two dozen foster kids? And whether his ideas (or system) could be applied to human relationships. It seems John Gray (U.S. author) did something like this when he told husbands and wives to stop trying to change their spouses but to find harmony by understanding each other's basic psychology. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm with you as far as looking at the principle of whether Roberts is on to something, but he is not at all very unique. The trick with Roberts is separating fact from self-promotional hype. I'm fine with anything that can be sourced to neutral and credible sources. That said, He is anything but the founder of the modern natural horsemanship stuff (if anyone deserves that monkier, the title more properly belongs to the late Tom Dorrance and his followers, such as the late Ray Hunt). And their disciple, Buck Brannaman is already earning $10K a pop doing seminars for corporations on how cowboy natural communication with horses has lessons to teach people! LOL! (And Brannaman's story of being an abused kid is more credible because it was fully documented by family services, who took him from his dad and placed him in foster care ...) While I do think Roberts' writings and insights have been helpful to many people (he does a better job than some of the others of explaining things, he IS a good communicator), he's not really all that unique. I actually get quite offended at the whole "this is a new ways to train horses without cruelty" thing -- humane training methods have been around for centuries, even in the American west -- the only thing "new" is the open challenge to some of the junk that was part of the old west knock-em-over-the-head-with-a-2x4 stuff that was far too prevalent in the old rough-breaking methods. To the extent these modern guys encourage humane handling of horses, more power to 'em. To the extent they claim it's anything obscure that they rediscovered, I must call them on that because it's always been there and not even all that uncommon. Sorry for the rant, what I have to say is feel free to add some good sources to the article, just be wary of the stuff that claims Roberts is particularly unique because he's not. Montanabw(talk) 03:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
No, that's okay. I've been working on this article over the years, and your passion is helpful. Monty Roberts has perhaps hyped his technique, but if there is something legitimate in it, we should write about it. I just watched "Chino (film)" last night, and I was disappointed by Charles Bronson's reaction to being charged by a horse. All I could think about was, "What would Monty Roberts have done?"
I think the way to go is to describe everything that Monty Roberts does when he trains horses naturally (the whole "Join-Up" thing), and leave it to others to decide what parts (if any) are unique to him. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Everybody and their dog does "join up," better known as, "if you run them around long enough, they get tired and want to come to the place where they are permitted to rest! LOL! Seriously, both Roberts and Parelli drive me bonkers by the way they just take ordinary good training techniques, add a few stylistic features and a commercial product line, then create a cult of personality out of it. That said, if you want to add stuff, go for it.  ;-)Montanabw(talk) 16:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I have the greatest respect for Mr.Roberts, his understanding of "Join Up" though nothing new, has been a life saver for many horses and horse owners. I greatly enjoyed his book Shy Boy, and haveing met him at one of his shows I feel one can call him "A Horseman" A few week´s ago a friend came home with his book "Horses In My Life"; Something caught my eye and set many questions too mind, I noticed in some of the photographs Monty had been "Super Imposed" into them! The first thing that came to mind was "why would such a gifted man feel the need for such a stunt?" Rytter 11 March 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryttar (talkcontribs) 14:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Mention association with James Dean?[edit]

Just wondering if this article should mention Roberts' association with James Dean? (He was to manage a ranch owned by Dean, and Dean was traveling to meet with him when he died.) That was a minor part of Roberts life (because it didn't complete, due to Deans death), but it might be worth mentioning. I thought of this especially as today is the 57th anniversary of Deans death. T-bonham (talk) 05:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you got a reference for it? OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 15:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC) or Monty's own site: T-bonham (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Monty's penchant for hyperbole and exaggeration makes me hesitant to add this stuff unless backed by a third-party source. Montanabw(talk) 00:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

File:MRoberts portrait.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:MRoberts portrait.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


This section could be expanded. From the looks of and, there is quite a bit of controversy. -KaJunl (talk) 04:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC) KaJunl (talk) 04:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The trick is to find verifiable sources that pass WP:BLP and WP:RS. Roberts is a living person and anything critical has to be well-sourced. Montanabw(talk) 20:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Monty Roberts/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I rated the article 'B' because so much of the current material in it that was supplied by his daughter Deborah Loucks, has been subjected to critical review by other family members and by journalists and found to be allegedly erroneous.

Last edited at 15:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 00:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)