- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Too general to the point of being misleading
Open range edit
- ... that if your car hits a cow on a road in the open range, in many of the Western United States, then most likely you cannot claim damages from the cattle owner, but if you hit a bull, then quite likely you can?
Created/expanded by Last Lost (talk). Self nom at 02:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Length, reference and history verified. Amended wording slightly to make it clear where we're talking about. Daniel Case (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
This hook does not appear to be an accurate reflection of the facts provided in the article. The article provides the "exception" for bulls only in relation to property damage from breaking through a "legal fence", and states that though at one time ranchers were generally not liable for cow-car collisions, their liability has increased since the 1980s. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, you are mistaken about bulls and "legal fence": the article does not say this. In fact, it says that bulls are exempt from the privilege of free wandering, i.e., they must be restricted by the owner. As for liability for cows, let's not be too legal here. The hook is just a hook: to hook the reader's attention. If you want legal advice about cows, be it known that federal highways are excluded from the "free range" and "free range" not is not as vast as it used to be, and so on. So for all practical purposes, if you are in an open range, watch out. When you hit a cow, it is too late to read wikipedia :-) Last Lost (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- LOL. Last Lost has a good point, but the hook actually doesn't work as written because there is so much more nuance to open range law than this. (federal hwy, state hwy, time of year -- sometimes bulls CAN be loose, but never stallions-- etc.) I propose the following alt hook (moved above): Montanabw(talk) 00:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Alt1:
- ... that in many parts of the Western United States, livestock owners are generally not liable for damages caused by their animals if they are kept on land designated as open range?
- What's happening here? Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Original hook is inaccurate in that it is a bit too simplistic and there is far more complex legal nuance, and not true of all places, in fact bulls sometimes CAN be allowed on the open range, certain times of year, etc... So, back the last time I posted, I proposed Alt1 hook, but put it in the wrong place and the comments about the original hook and the Alt hook seem to be getting confused. So maybe we can get this moving again? Montanabw(talk) 00:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- The ALT seems a little dull to me, but perhaps posting at WT:DYK to ask for a rereview will help. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
As Montanabw says, the original hook is inaccurate. The suggested ALT1 is an improvement, but it relies on the weaselly "in many parts of..." and "generally not liable" to make it OK. I'd rather see a hook that is unambiguously true. My quick reading of some of the article sources leads me to think that the topic is a bit more complicated and nuanced than the article indicates. The article suffers from an attempt to generalize for the entire West, when situations are very different from state to state. Accurate specifics are far easier to defend than inaccurate generalizations. One item that I found DYK-worthy in the sources, but that wasn't in the article, was the information that cattle can roam with impunity through suburban residential subdivisions in Arizona, if the subdivisions are outside of legally incorporated municipalities. (Don't quote me in the article or a hook -- the "Modern times" section of the article needs to be rewritten to more accurately represent what's in the sources.) --Orlady (talk) 03:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- LOL! Unambiguously true? Ha! We are talking about the law here, you silly people! :-D (big grin, I'm making a joke!). Orlady is correct, the situation varies from state to state and the issue is WAY more complicated and nuanced than the article states, but I was not the creator nor the DYK nominator, I only went in and did a little cleanup to help the article creator, who appears to be interested in the American west, but I don't think speaks English as a first language. The problem is that I have neither the time nor the energy to go in there and do it up the way it probably needs to be done up (even though I actually happen to have a pretty good knowledge base in this area, at least for Montana law) I like the idea of using the Arizona situation as a new DYK hook, feel free to propose an Alt2! Montanabw(talk) 18:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Overgenarlisation still present. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well, someone propose a different ALT then. If it's accurate, I'll be happy, if it's not, I'll explain the problem. Montanabw(talk) 17:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- I meant in the article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well, someone propose a different ALT then. If it's accurate, I'll be happy, if it's not, I'll explain the problem. Montanabw(talk) 17:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)