Talk:Geier Hitch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Response to hoax allegation:

This article is not a hoax; it is historically accurate and verifiable, and cites a number of sources for its content. It has been corrected and edited in minor respects by others, as well. However, after reviewing Wikipedia etiquette rules I do take your point that the external links are irrelevant and will revert to your prior edit. (Unsigned comment by Elcajonfarms 16:41, 30 August 2006)

[edit] Conflicting claims of historical origins

Wiki articles for Boon Lake Township (in Renville County Minnesota) and Lynn County (in McLeod County Minnesota) both contain claims that the Geier hitch originated in their respective townships. A check of the McLeod County historical reference cited confirms that this claim is justified for Lynn Township but I do not have access to the comparable reference for Renville County. Could someone check the Renville County history for resolution? In the meantime, it should be noted that there are conflicting claims for the origins of the Geier hitch.

The confusion might be due to geographic proximity of the two townships (which according to county maps share a boundary at the county line). Also, census records indicate that the individuals who are credited with the invention lived or owned property in both townships around the time of this invention.

Note also that the date needs to be firmed up. The McLeod County reference mentions this in regard to Depression-era farming but does not give a specific year. (unsigned comment by ClearwaterAg 03:43, 31 August 2006)

[edit] Use caution on hoax allegations

This article, although partly written in a jocular style which may not be in conformance with typical dry Wiki content, and containing some fluff which should perhaps be edited out, describes a historical event which is at least partly verifiable by the sources listed. A check of local historical accounts and census bureau records for McLeod County and Renville County confirms the authenticity of the place names and the presence of the individuals mentioned.

The allegation of "hoax" raised by Wiki user Ronank is a serious one which should be made with far more caution. A reminder is that many very real historical events are documented only in printed documents and, in some cases, oral history recordings which are not readily available on the web resources commonly used by Wikipedia adherents.

This sort of knee-jerk censorship by insinuation, without taking the time to check existing though non-digital historical records is one reason why credentialed historians take a dim view of Wikipedia.

It would be more productive and more consistent with the wiki spirit to seek authentication of details (which might sometimes require checking of non-web resources) and then indicate specifically which parts, if any, of this account ought to be edited or excised due to unverifiability, rather than simply placing a blanket label of "suspected hoax" on the entry.ClearwaterAg 02:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In support of initial allegation of hoax

The allegation of hoax is not intended to censor. It is a call to invite more experienced and knowledgable editors than myself. The reluctance to question the credibility of articles would do a far greater damage to the credibility of wikipedia. I did it to start a process. If the Greier Hitch is an authentic knot the worst we can end up with is a better article. If not it has no place in wikipedia. It (the hoax allegation) is not intended to insult any editors.

The article is general appears unverifiable and the "jocular" style, insistence of the relevance of external links (such as the movie hitch) and other problems with the quality of the article made it sufficient for me to suspect the veracity of the article.

Unfortunately, the list of references given was large and none seemed to point directly to the use of the Geier Hitch. I looked through the editing history and while I saw multiple editors I noticed that most of the article was created and appeared to be speculation.

The references to the Geier Hitch in other articles such as Renville_County,_Minnesota are new and do not appear to be verifiable either.

With respect to the knot itself the nature of the knot is unusual. Aside from being cruel and it being expected that if the knot were useful it would have been discovered sooner I had reservations about the description for tying the knot. An overhand knot is not not necessary or usual with a bowline except in situations where considerable additional safety precautions are normally taken such as climbing. There was no description of the portion of the knot used to fasten to the scrotom. This part would be important for a number of reasons. Ronank 17:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ag-historical context is important

Ronank's response regarding reasons for questioning the original article seem reasonable as I shared some of the same reservations on first reading.

However, in fairness to the original contributor (ElCajonfarms) it is important to note that the article describes an agricultural/animal management technique and not a specific type of knot. The word "hitch" is more commonly used in agriculture to refer to ways of connecting machines or animals to equipment, than in its more specialized sense of a particular type of knot such as half-hitch.

Not being a knot expert I cannot comment on the appropriateness of an overhand knot, although it seems that a valuable piece property such as a breeding bull would merit extra precautions which might involve a more elaborate knot than a granny knot.

The issue of alleged cruelty raised by Ronank is subjective. Many traditional methods for handling animals on farms (for example the use of the nose ring on bulls which is also mentioned in this article) might be perceived in that cetegory. However, it should be remembered that bulls are large and dangerous animals, and anyone who has ever handled one might understand this type of "innovation." It might also be noted that, during the Great Depression, greatly depressed cattle prices (which led many farmers to slaughter their herds) might have led to a reduced valuation of these animals. Modern sensibilities influenced by the animal rights movement etc. should not influence Wiki depictions of historical events.

I personally have some reservations about the use of this method as it seems to have a high likelihood of producing damage to the subject livestock. Perhaps and not the broader ag-economic/historical changes mentioned by the original cointributor are the chief reasons for its decline (though this is speculation on my part).

In my own subjective opinion, the article has value insofar as it as it conveys premechanized agricultural lore and innovation in American farming during what must have been a difficult period.

Regarding the imputed lack of verifiability in articles about Renville County etc., again I note that most of the sources cited are not availabe on the web. Verification will depend on people who have access to the appropriate local historical volumes (usually of limited printing) to step up and either confirm or edit as appropriate. I have noted my suggestions for parts of the article that I think should be better documented.ClearwaterAg 02:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verification of Usage

I am a newbie on Wickipedia (as a contributor) and I don't have a lot of background in this field. I can't elaborate on philosophical issues or the protocols of Wickapedia as well as others. I'm pretty sure I have seen discussion of something like the Geier Hitch in some agricultural magazines. I have a collection of antique issues of THE FARMER and HOARD's DAIRYMAN dating back to the 1920s and 1930s, and they have a lot of information about bull handling and herd management that would not be common knowledge today. I don't know if they actually use the term "Geier Hitch", or they may use a different name; I'm not sure. When I get back home to Wisconsin next week I am going to look them up. In the meantime, I have added two German sources that I think will back up some of the stuff in the article. (Unsigned comment added by Nordwerk 20:23, 30 August 2006 )

Unverified Sources: No offense, Nordwerk, but please verify the information before you add it to the article. Adding speculation to an article that already is being challenged as a hoax is not helpful. (Unsigned comment added by Elcajonfarms 20:42, 30 August 2006 )

[edit] Side note on dairying

Let's not be too testy with admitted newbies here, though I agree it would be best to verify the sources first before making the insertions.

This is a bit of a tangent, but Nordwerk's collection of Hoard's Dairyman could be useful for other articles in Wikipedia. I notice that the entire article on dairying is unsourced and unreferenced, even though it has been going for much longer than this article. Looking through the history of changes to that article, I notice there have been some preposterous changes made which appear to be purely point-of-view (POV).

For example, the following very sensible and accurate paragraph:

"Dairy farmers, their employees, and their families sometimes drink the unpastuerised milk produced on their farm. However, in some cases it is healthier to drink milk that has been prepared for consumer use by pastuerisation. This is because 'Raw' Milk contains bacteria and other organisms that eventually cause spoilage. Milk is routinely sampled on collection and any that fails tests for bacteria and antibiotic residue will be rejected by dairies for public consumption and even for industrial uses.

was deleted wholesale by an editor who supported the change simply with a POV claim that "drinking unprocessed milk is very UNCOMMON among dairy producers" or some such.

Citations from those old Hoard's Dairyman issues could be helpful to document this practice, which in my experience was practiced on Midwestern dairy farms at least through the mid-1970s and certainly must continue to be widespread in teh many countries where milk processing facilities are limited. One could also reference the recent (2006) Amish/Menonnite farmer who was cited for allegedly providing unprocessed milk to a large number of neighbors (will need to look this up, should be easy to find on Google).

It was also surprising that the term "heifer" was not defined on Wikipedia until someone added it as (looks like) an offshoot of this discussion. Obviously Wikipedia's dairy section needs a lot of work.

Getting back to the main thread of this comment, newbies with energy and resources in this realm should be encouraged. Once the major entries under the broad topic of dairying are up to snuff, I would like to see an expanded article on Hoard's Dairyman which covers some of its more memorable features such as the humorous "Song of the Lazy Farmer," which were an important part of dairy farming culture in the years when this industry involved a much larger segment of the population than it does today.ClearwaterAg 02:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Digression on Hoard's Dairyman: Whoever wrote the previous comment (ClearwaterAg???) has his farming magazines confused. The Song of the Lazy Farmer was a standard feature of The Farmer, a magazine for small family farmers practicing general agriculture in the Upper Midwest. The Farmer had sections oriented to the women and children of the household as well as the farmer itself. Each issue included pages on cooking, sewing, word puzzles and problem solving. Cartoons (such as "Slim and Spud") and humor columns were regular features in The Farmer. Hoard's Dairyman was focused on the dairyman solely. It was dry and business-like. There were no family pages, cartoons, or humor of any kind. It was a lot like Wikipedia. (Unsigned comment added by 65.115.67.135 22:27, 30 August 2006)
I stand corrected on the bit about the humor column mentioned. However the dairying (or actually Dairy farming) article does need some work.ClearwaterAg 02:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Still looks like a hoax...

I remain unconvinced that this is not a hoax, or at least a tall tale told to entertain the townies. The refs I can check just talk about noseringing and the danger of bulls – they do not show that this is a genuine method used for controlling bulls, but only demonstrate a need for some control method (incidentally, they are not in-line refs, and so it's not clear which one refers to which bit of the text).

The other refs are not accessible to me, and so I can't judge, but they look as if they are similar stuff – only one citation line even mentions the Geier hitch.

I'm also unconvinced that it would work. What's to stop the bull running forwards, nose, ring, string, bollocks and all? And I'm not about to experiment with any of my own bulls, as I'd like to have the option of breeding from them (and they are pussycats anyway).

To confirm this is not a hoax, I'd like to see proper evidence for one of two things:

  • That the Geier hitch is a genuine and effective method of bull control, and has actually been used as such. Then the article would be confirmed as being about a bull control method.
  • That the Geier hitch is a well-known folk tale, suggested as a joke or used to entertain the inexperienced. Then the article would become a perfectly respectable one about the folk story.

If anyone does have access to the original references, it would be helpful if they could reproduce relevant passages here.

Finally, can people please keep comments sequential, avoid editing previous comments, and sign their posts (four tildes, or the signature button just above the edit box) – then we can all see who has said what, when. --Richard New Forest (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

To reiterate what Elcajonfarms has written here, I would like to add my voice to the cacaphony surrounding the Geier Hitch. THe ultimate authority on this and other topics of interest remains the sole intact survivor of the previously documented incident, Ralph Geier, who recently turned 80. I would advise contacting Mr. Geier for a detailed exposition on the Geier Hitch, taking into account the following disclaimer by his son, David: "This disclaimer must be added; since Ralph turned 80 he has reached a point in his life were he feels he no longer needs to conduct himself in a politically correct manner and may just become more opinionated and self assertive in his expression of his ideas and opinions." This may cause some problems with Wikipedia protocol, but in no way should detract from the truth in Mr. Geier's memory regarding the use of the livestock restraining methodology. While Mr. Geier receives email, he will not respond to it. Therefore, unless you wish to meet him in person (preferred method of communication) you will have to be content with oral communication by phoneelcajonfarms 14:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC). Good luck in your efforts to clarify a less than perfect Wikipedia entry. ffhtg@uaf.edu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.229.80.204 (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Please keep comments in order, and sign them. Thanks.
I'm afraid that Ralph Geier's opinion is not encyclopaedic, unless verified by independent sources – see Wikipedia:No Original Research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Wikipedia is based on published sources, not on personal experience and opinion, however genuine. It still looks to me as if this story is more of an entertainment for Ralph Geier than a real bull control method (no offence intended to him – he would not by a long chalk be the first countryman to entertain himself and his friends by telling tall tales...). I may well be wrong (and to be honest, I'd quite like to be), but we need more than this to show I am.
I notice something implied in the comment above – is this in fact a method, or an "incident"? Has it actually been tried more than once? --Richard New Forest (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
"To confirm this is not a hoax, I'd like to see proper evidence for one of two things:"
Using your criteria for "proper evidence"
  • "That the Geier hitch is a well-known folk tale, suggested as a joke or used to entertain the inexperienced. Then the article would become a perfectly respectable one about the folk story."
  • "That the Geier hitch is a genuine and effective method of bull control, and has actually been used as such. Then the article would be confirmed as being about a bull control method."
BOTH CRITERIA ARE PART OF THE PROPER EVIDENCE
If you talk to one of the primary sources (Ralph Geier) you will realize that it is a perfectly respectable folk story based on documented historical use by farmers in South-Central MN. The joke lies in that while under normal circumstances it would serve to quiet a fully equipped bull, the method becomes uneconomic if the animal fails to make the connection (pain) between its nose and testicles, rendering a valuable breeding animal worth its weight in marginal hamburger (plus byproducts, of course). Your hesitiation to attempt the Geier Hitch on your own animals gives it some credibility. If your bulls really are "pussycats" perhaps you have not been exposed to a bull as were common in days of yore. Watching an old Hereford bull chasing a dog until he can only stand there expelling waves of snot and destroying feedbunks, fences and other obstructions is something that I remember while growing up--bulls are very dangerous animals and that is why most commercial livestock farmers now use Artificial Insemination instead of keeping a time bomb on their farms today. The loss of economic value through misapplication of technology is a well accepted tenet of comedy.
Oral history is an important documentation of parts of our culture that are fast being lost in the internet age. The Geier Hitch is a part of the shared heritage of a fast changing region. I would encourage you to travel to the area in question to query persons familiar with the local folk history before you apply dismissal of a substantiated story which obviously has provided many with entertainment and other meaning as has been obvious with the Geier Hitch's entry into the modern lexicon through Wikipedia. ffhtg@uaf.edu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.229.80.204 (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Please sign comments – thanks. There's a button at the top of the edit box, with a squiggly "signature" picture in it. Click on that at the end of your comment and your signature and timestamp will appear like magic when you save or preview. It's also not necessary to start a new heading for each comment – just put colons (:::) in front of each para, to line up your comment as a block and make it obviously separate from the preceding ones.
I don't understand "both criteria are part of the proper evidence". They are not really criteria, but alternative options for the true case – but are you saying they are both true? It's a real incident told as a joke folk-tale?
Yes, I'm lucky with my (British White) bulls, but keeping bulls is still normal for beef farmers round here (southern England), and AI is usually only used for beef by people with a few backyard cows who can't justify a bull. And by dairy farmers of course (any who are still in business), who mostly use dairy AI for the good cows, with a beef bull for heifers and poorer cows. And yes, I know which side of a fence to be with a dairy bull...
Oral history is important, of course, but it cannot be part of Wikipedia unless it has been documented by a reliable source. You illustrate this perfectly when you say "I would encourage you to travel in the area in question". I'd truly love to, but I'm not likely to any time soon (what farmer can travel!), and most users of WP will not be able to either. That is why we need a reliable source who has done the primary research and published it, and why original research cannot be included. If the story is indeed substantiated somewhere, let's see the evidence. If it's not, then I'm afraid it is not encyclopaedic, even if it really is true. If you'd like to document it and publish it appropriately, it could become encyclopaedic.
My reluctance to use the method does not give it any credence – it just shows that it's obviously dangerous for the bull, not that it works! If it is, as you say, a joke, then (having been verified as such) the article needs to be rewritten to reflect that. --Richard New Forest (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Neither the article nor the technique is a joke or a hoax, but as is fairly clear from the text of the article, it also is not a very good method for controlling a bull, no doubt for a variety of reasons. It is my understanding (mostly by word of mouth) that this method has been used by different people in various places around the world and on various types of animals (including yaks, camels, reindeer and elk) but no common name has developed other than the term "Geier Hitch". Perhaps some further research and documentation is in order to confer the necessary authority, but I don't think the article warrants deletion (speedy or otherwise) based on its current stage of documentation (or lack of documentation). The same person who suggested this for deletion also removed references to other non-standard but historically accurate methods of bull-handling from the article on nose rings. If obsolescence or inefficacy were grounds for deletion, probably half of the Wikipedia articles on any type of agriculture should have been deleted long ago. elcajonfarms 23:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elcajonfarms (talk • contribs)

May I suggest someone (preferably a doubter such as Richard New Forest) uses Worldcat to identify some libraries holding these sources, then e-mail the reference librarian at one or two of them, asking the librarian to consult the source? --Una Smith (talk) 06:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea, though I'd be happy with someone reproducing relevant text here. One thing we need to know is which of the refs actually refer to the Geier hitch. Looking at the list, the only one which clearly does is: "McLeod County Historical Society, McLeod County (Minnesota) History Book 1978 (Taylor Publishing Co., Dallas, Texas 1979), pp. 150-151 (origins of the Geier Hitch)". Does anyone here have access to this ref? Do any of the other refs mention the method? --Richard New Forest (talk) 08:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I checked Worldcat. Here is the full publication info:

McLeod County (Minnesota) History Book 1978
by Phyllis Hayward Hegrenes; McLeod County Historical Society.
Publisher: [Minnesota] : McLeod County Historical Society, ©1979.
Publisher: Dallas, Tex. : Taylor Pub. Co., 1979.

(The Texas publisher, strictly speaking, is the printer.) Here are locations of copies:

  1. Minneapolis Public Library Minneapolis, MN 55401 United States
  2. Minnesota Historical Society St Paul, MN 55102 United States
  3. Cambridge Community College Media Center Cambridge, MN 55008 United States
  4. WISCONSIN HISTORICAL SOCIETY Madison, WI 53706 United States
  5. Detroit Public Library Detroit, MI 48202 United States
  6. Houston Public Library Houston, TX 77002 United States
  7. Seattle Public Library Seattle, WA 98104 United States
  8. North Hennepin Community College Library Brooklyn Park, MN 55445 United States
  9. Pioneerland Library System Willmar, MN 56201 United States
  10. Allen County Public Library Ft Wayne, IN 46801 United States
  11. Library of Congress Washington, DC 20540 United States
  12. New York Public Library - Research New York, NY 10018 United States

--Una Smith (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images relevance?:

I'm curious as to what the two images of cattle have to do with this article, as neither of them show the Geier Hitch being used..? (mmr) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.61.171 (talk) 02:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but there may be a good reason for the absence of pictures of it in use... --Richard New Forest (talk) 09:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)