From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Mustang horse)
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Equine (Rated B-class, Mid-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Horse breeds task force.
WikiProject Agriculture / Livestock  (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-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 the Livestock task force.
WikiProject United States (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article or list is a nominee for the Version 0.7 release of Wikipedia. See the nominations page for more details.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Information is not the same[edit]

Section rewrite[edit]


I've protected the article due to edit warring, work it out on the talk page; follow WP:DR. Dreadstar 00:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


History Rewrite[edit]

Sandbox Collaboration[edit]

Because collaboration is very edit intensive, the History section has been moved here: for discussion and collaboration. Please feel free to comment, ask questions, and provide constructive criticism.Lynn Wysong (talk) 13:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

This might be worth addressing in the article also:

Different approach[edit]

Round three[edit]

Just want to note that my presence or absence at the sandbox page neither implies consent or opposition to any changes proposed, things worked on there may wind up being proposed as changes here, but the changes need consensus here. Montanabw(talk) 21:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

That is totally understood by myself, and of course, other editors may also wish to contribute once it comes back to the Talk page and then into the article - if it goes there.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I can tell you right now that anything sourced to Frank Gilbert Roe, The Indian and the Horse is not going to pass muster, the book was first copyrighted in 1955. Even in snippet view it's clearly a "me Tonto you Kemosabi" tone book that is not going to be a reliable source for anything. And even if it was, a citation to "pages 11-32" is not going to be acceptable for even the most reliable source. A footnote is to one page, maybe two if it's a long discussion. Montanabw(talk) 02:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • However, Richard Symanski, Wild Horses and Sacred Cows might be, at least in limited circumstances, but there will need to be page-specific citations so that the snippet view can be used to see if the material is in the general ballpark. Maybe before going live with its quotes a couple other editors can get it via Interlibrary loan to verify the material. Montanabw(talk) 02:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Young and Sparks Cattle in the Cold Desert may also be, much can be viewed via Google Books so that material can be verified. Important, though to not extrapolate beyond the source. Montanabw(talk) 02:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Here is my "note." I do not accept your dictates of what sources may or may not be used. Wikipedia states that all sources must be verifiable, WP:SOURCEACCESS but does not state that the source must be readily available to all readers. Many books, including the ones I have, are not in the public domain, still under copyright, and therefore google books does not offer full access to them. That being said, they are available through Amazon, either used or new, and in libraries. You are entirely misrepresenting Frank Gilbert Roe and his book, which was a scholarly work published by the University of Oklahoma Press. Your dismissal of any books published prior to whatever arbitrary date you have set is totally unjustifiable. Unless you can provide credible and independent sources that indicate that the information in a book is no longer valid, (don't bother with the game that you are trying in my sandbox, of averring that those sources are out there, but insisting it's my responsibility to find them; I know a wild goose chase when I see it. If they're out there, then YOU find them) there is no good reason to dismiss sources out of hand the way you are. The older books being used to source the proposed history for this article are the backbone of the history of the mustang, and I suggest that maybe you yourself should acquire them if you want to dabble in the subject.Lynn Wysong (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually - just because a source is reliable does not mean it has to be included in an article. Outdated/older sources are excluded from articles all the time. Would you use a book published before 1950 to cover the topic of plate techtonics? Same with historical subjects - often newer sources are better. That's a subject for debate on the talk page of the article - but in general for a popular topic (like mustangs and the west) ... newer sources will exist and should be favored. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

👍 Like Montanabw(talk) 03:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

As I said, if there are newer and better sources out there, they haven't been identified. Yes, sometimes newer sources for history are better, if they are based on unknown information that has come to light since the older ones were written. I'm currently writing a research article to that effect. But, in the absence of such new information, the old sources are fine. Even if there is some new information that might indicate an old source was wrong about a point or two (and I don't think there's a scholarly work out there for which that isn't the case) it doesn't invalidate the entire work. And, the subject of mustangs is not just popular, but controversial. Many of the newer books on the subject are not scholarly works; they wouldn't have a chance of being published by a University Press because they are poorly researched and highly biased, pretty much revolving around "oh look how magnificent they are". So, no, newer does not necessarily equal better, unless it is of same scholarly caliber, and I don't agree that they "should be favored" on that point alone.Lynn Wysong (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, in this edit, some newer sources were identified. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
You mean Sponenberg and Cothran? That was the wild goose chase I was talking about. Yes, they have both written extensively recently about the genetics and phenotype of a few feral horse herds indicating that they have a strong Spanish heritage, and that might belie both Dobie and Amaral, who indicated that the Spanish mustangs were so few in number earlier in the 20th century that it would be unexpected today to find any, but there's nothing they are coming up with that just outright contradicts what they the older sources said. Even if Cothran is coming up with information that a lot of today's mustangs have some Spanish ancestry, that's not surprising. The Spanish horses that were rounded up in Texas were sold to farmers and settlers, and the descendants of many of those horses could well have been taken to the Great Basin, to go feral again. But, that's OR. Right now what we have are sources that say there were virtually no horses there until the settlers came and no know credible sources that contradict that, unless you want to start talking about the "horses really never went extinct in North America" notion.Lynn Wysong (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd say that DNA trumps guesses and romantic dreams from the past. Not sure your point. I'm not doing your research for you; you only seem to find new sources when other people point them out to you. Montanabw(talk) 03:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Did you know that on your sandbox page here: you have a link to one of my webpages of Sponenberg writings? I put it on over 10 years ago. So, yes, I have done my research, no, DNA does not "trump" previous historical research, only augments it, and lets not get in a peeing match over who has brought more new sources to the table here.Lynn Wysong (talk) 09:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
So, if you want to put in genetic information, feel free to draft something up. This is your idea; there was nothing about it in the history before I started, and I don't see much need for it, so I'm not going to do it. If anything, it probably belongs in the ancestry section.Lynn Wysong (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
So, I went looking for a credible newer source and found J. Edward de Steiguer'sWild Horses of the West: History and Politics of America's Mustangs (2011). Steiguer is described as "a writer and professor at the University of Arizona. He specializes in the federal lands of the American West and is an avid horse enthusiast himself." The book is published by the University of Arizona Press. Seemed worth buying, so I bought the kindle edition Guess what references he used? Frank Gilbert Roe, J. Frank Dobie, Walker Wyman, Hope Ryden, etc. He apparently missed Anthony Amaral. I also LOL'd because he used one of Sponenberg's paper's that I put online over ten years ago-and the URL for the article is mine. Steiguer is listed as a reference for this article, but is not footnoted once. I hae a feeling that what he wrote, which is write along the line of the history I have drafted, is pretty much ignored because it doesn't fit most people's paradigm. I will edit the history in my sandbox with some of his findingsLynn Wysong (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    • It's in Google Books, and at a cursory glance it seems to have potential. It's verifiable by all so we can take a look at various proposals. Usually, if something is not in a google books preview, the immediate sentence is available in snippet view, so we should be able to verify stats... Montanabw(talk) 03:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
      • And by the way, I'm not paying much attention to your sandbox because am not interested in getting into arguments over sandbox text. I have made one suggestion for collaboration there; if we can agree on the wording for one paragraph, and jointly agree there is a consensus to add that paragraph, then there is hope for additional collaboration. I'm not real optimistic, but prove me wrong. Montanabw(talk) 03:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I believe there is some reasonable collaboration going on. If anyone would care to comment you can go here: or ask an admin to bring the section over here. I'm fine with either.Lynn Wysong (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not fond of too many subsections because of how it clogs the TOC, but a "legislation" subheading is something I could support. As I have stated previously, material on the Taylor Grazing Act would be a useful addition to this article. Montanabw(talk) 02:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


So, in addition to the references already in the article, I would propose to add the following.


  • Amaral, Anthony, (1977), Mustang: Life and Legends of Nevada's Wild Horses, Reno: University of Nevada Press.
  • Lynghaug, Fran, (2009) The Official Horse Breeds Standards Guide Minneapolis: Voyageur Press.
  • Morin, Paula, (2006) Honest Horses: Wild Horses in the Great Basin Reno and Las Vegas, University of Nevada Press.
  • Roe, Frank Gilbert, (1955) The Indian and the Horse Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, Fourth printing, 1974.
  • Ryden, Hope, (1970), America's Last Wild Horses, E. P. Dutton. Reprinted with Revisions, E. P. Dutton, 1978.
  • Wyman, Walker D., (1945) The Wild Horse of the West, University of Nebraska Press. Reprinted, Bison Books, 1968.
  • Young, James A. and Sparks, B. Abbott (1985) Cattle in the Cold Desert Logan, Utah State University Press, Expanded Edition printed, Reno, University of Nevada Press, 1992.Lynn Wysong (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


Does anyone know of any specific problems with these sources? If they are "old", does anyone know of any specific new information that would necessarily preclude them? Please make a reasoned case for why the new information invalidates the old source.Lynn Wysong (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

  • We add sources when we have footnotes to attach to them. You don't just add a random "here are more sources" list to an article that is going to be improved to the GA standard; These may be fine for footnoting certain information, but it's all about context. Propose a paragraph where each may be added; for example, can we agree on wording for a Taylor Grazing Act paragraph? Montanabw(talk) 04:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
If your concern is a TGA paragraph, go ahead and propose one. In the meantime, if anyone know of a problem with any of the sources, please speak out.Lynn Wysong (talk) 06:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I should say, these sources as a Bibliography, like here: Donner Party. Because, really, what are called "notes" on the Mustang page are "citations".Lynn Wysong (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Quite some time ago, the active editors of the horse breed articles decided to do "Notes" and "Sources" instead of "Footnotes" and "Bibliography" - same diff, whatever the headings are is not a huge deal to me, though consistency is nice. But you are missing my point: We don't need a random laundry list of "further reading" at this point - read WP:ELNO which is also applicable to books; things that are potential footnoted sources should become sources. You don't understand how to edit wikipedia yet and I really wish you'd just listen to me instead of creating all this worthless drama. Montanabw(talk) 20:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but my experience with you is that I'm much better off reading wiki policy myself than "listening" to what you tell me.Lynn Wysong (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I see no evidence that you've read a thing; you are still insisting on the same nonsense you were a month ago. Montanabw(talk) 00:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I did propose a TGA paragraph, over in your sandbox, you didn't agree with what I proposed and refused to collaborate, in fact, I believe you kicked me out of your userspace now so I can't discuss anything further there even if I wanted to. So I'm not going to beat my head against the wall. It's really long past time for you to learn how to collaborate; I'm not going to bid against myself here. Propose your own paragraphs - but keep it short, simple, and be willing to do it properly and collaborate. Montanabw(talk) 02:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • As to "problem with any of these sources" the problem is that it all depends on how there are to be used: What you fail to understand here is that for wikipedia, each item added to an article needs to be sourced to a reliable source with neither copy and paste, close paraphrasing, synthesis or original research. So a blanket "are these sources OK?" Is not a helpful question; each source may be good for some things, but not for others, it's going to depend on the context. We can't say that source foo is "OK," it depends on how it is used. Montanabw(talk) 02:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • So, as a "further reading" list, some of the above sources have only a page or two to do with Mustangs; hence they may be fine as a specific footnote for something in the article, but they are silly to have as a "further reading" list. (See WP:ELNO) Other sources that are entirely about Mustangs (such as Hope Ryden) may be fine in a "further reading" list, but a) that book is already there (and you were complaining about it not being a good source a couple weeks ago, so could you kindly make up your mind?) plus b) if it becomes a source, then there is no need to include it as a "further reading" item; that's redundant and c) Some sources, such as Ryden, may be a RS for some things, but not a RS for others, it all depends on the context - hence it is best to use these as footnotes to article body text. Montanabw(talk) 02:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, how about we take out Lynghaug, and put in McKnight? He wrote a great article that you can read by making a JSTOR account, which is free. Roe and Wyman are also debatable, not because they isn't a reliable sources, but they would only be minimally referenced. As far as Ryden, yes, she is not as reliable a source as most others, but since she is so well known, I still think she is a viable source, as long as her inaccuracies are explained.Lynn Wysong (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • No "further reading" list. We need to work reliable sources in as footnotes and citations. Each source will stand on what it footnotes. You can't make a blanket statement that Foo is always and forevermore a reliable source for everything it contains. Things like Lynghaug or may be a best-available RS for a limited bit of info even if not 100% RS for everything. Montanabw(talk) 20:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, didn't realize you were talking about a "furthur reading" list. That wasn't what I was talking about, so I guess all the previous discussion was for naught. What about the sources as references?Lynn Wysong (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Add category?[edit]

I actually like this[edit]

"New Source"[edit]

I'm taking a sabbatical from editing for a while to finish getting my research paper ready for submittal. In the meantime, I found an online copy of another good source. Proceedings National Wild Horse Forum April 4-7-1977. Lynn Wysong (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. If your article is accepted and published, let us know. Per WP:RS it might contain something that could be added here. I also think it's cool that you are writing for RL publication. I've had two things published that were inspired by the work I did on-wiki. Montanabw(talk) 17:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Mustang is not a breed[edit]