Talk:Mustang

Information is not the same

very long discussion

This: "By 1900 North America had an estimated two million free-roaming horses" is not the same information as this "At their peak population, there was a maximum of two million free-roaming horses west of the Mississippi". so no need to replace one with the other. If we are gong to retain this "At their peak population, there was a maximum of two million free-roaming horses west of the Mississippi" Please supply a page number/numbers so sources can be checked by all. I don't see one given. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)) I can't supply page numbers for the 1900 date, because they doesn't exist. As I said in my edit notes, Dobie didn't say what is being attributed to him. What Dobie did say was: "All guessed numbers are mournful to history. My own guess is that at no time were there more than a million mustangs in Texas and no more than a million others scattered over the remainder of the West." (pages 108-9, of the edition I'm referencing-it's in the last paragraph of Chapter VI). So, if you want to use Dobie as the source for your numbers, it needs to be changed to reflect the fact that Dobie never gave a date for the maximum number, just the number itself. Unless I see a reasonable rebuttal within the next couple of days, I'm reverting it back. Lynn Wysong 08:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC) These aren't my dates nor is it my content. I'm trying to verify what you added.You removed content and then added content that has a different meaning, is different information. I can't see reasons for that unless I have sources. Your edit summary seemed to indicate that the original date, 1900, was a date for the estimate of a peak number of mustangs, and you seem to be arguing that point, but that's not what the 1900 date refers to. It never says anything about peak; its just a number per a date. Maybe let's not talk about revering anything until we can find sources for content.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)) User:SheriWysong is right about Dobie, though the form of her edit was also not quite right, either, as even Dobie admitted to considerable speculation on his out part. The 1900 date is not verifiable, and though Dobie is the source of the two million estimate, it needs to be rephrased a bit and I have done so in line with the issue as discussed by the BLM, which is going to be the most reliable source on this matter. This is, by the way, a spillover from Talk:Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, where I took the basic wording from the currently protected version of the article (yes, it is my own phrasing) and I most certainly hope that @Dreadstar: will watchlist this article here and protect it if the same dispute spills over. Montanabw(talk) 05:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC) 1. I said the number was a "peak" because that's what Dobie, the source that was being referenced at the time, said: " at no time were there more than a million mustangs in Texas and no more than a million others scattered over the remainder of the West" 2. Why is the BLM being given credit for being the most "reliable source" on mustang history? It's a land management agency, for crying out loud, and one that doesn't even hire historians, like the National Park Service does. Why is what the actual source, written by an actual historian published by a University press, says now being repressed in favor of an interpretation of what the BLM is interpreting Dobie said? When, I made the edit, the Dobie book was referenced, now that reference has been removed in favor of the BLM website. Just quote Dobie, and then there is no argument about what he said, and the information goes back to the actual source, which is the practice of all good reference. But, I'll wait to change it until there's a resolution on the other article, because there should be consistency between the two. Lynn Wysong 08:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Surely, for balanced reporting, BOTH sources should be used. If the wording of a source is open to interpretation, perhaps make a direct quote.__DrChrissy (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Both sides are being reported, the best we can; the problem is that mustangs are like abortion, people get polarized and have little middle ground. I'm doing my damnedest here. Montanabw(talk) 06:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC) Both sources could be used. But in the case of User:Montanabw's edit, she replaced the Wikipedia preferred secondary source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources, a University Press published book written by a respected professor of Western history, with her interpretation of what a BLM website, a non-independent source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Independent_sources, had said. On top of that, I see three problems with the edit: 1. it uses "American West" instead of "West of the Mississippi". "American West" can be interpreted to mean "West of the Rockies". If you read Dobie, or even his quote, he is clearly writing mostly about West of the Mississippi and East of the Rockies. So, since "West of the Mississippi" encompasses both east and west of the Rockies, it is a better term. 2. The way it is phrased, it makes it sound like Dobie simply pulled the number out of thin air. As stated earlier, Dobie was a respected professor of Western History. As such, it was not just a guess, but an educated guess. 3. It uses the term "scientific census". Dobie used the term "scientific estimate", but that does not translate to "scientific census" I believe the term "comprehensive census" is better as it a) does not preclude the use of other reasonable population estimations, and b) There's no real "science" behind the census's, especially the 1971 census. The BLM simply flies over the HMA and counts the horses it can find. But, it didn't even do that until 1975, at which point, even accounting for population growth between 1971 and 1975, it determined that that population was twice what the 1971 "scientific" number stated. Since user:DrChrissy suggested we use both sources, I went ahead and made those changes, and added Dobie's reference back in. We can still discuss using Dobie's direct quote, but with the changes I made, I'm not sure it's necessary. Lynn Wysong 15:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC) I'll be leaving this discussion. I'd note my concern was with identifying page numbers so I could see the source/sources. I reverted to the then stable version until I had sources given one piece of information was being swapped for another.WP preferred sources? Dobie's book was published in the 30's. Information gathering is more sophisticated now, so I'd be wary of saying one of the sources is better than another. Primary sources are useful and acceptable per Wikipedia although care must be taken with their use. Best wishes all.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)) apologies looks like I moved a signature.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)) The last set of edits almost worked, I made a couple changes, but kept the sourcing. "American west" is a deliberate choice, as there are no firm estimates and the issue of wild horse populations on either side of the continental divide is just a red herring, it is absurd to get into a debate over geography; there were mustangs in North Dakota, there were mustangs in Nevada. "West of the Mississippi" is not ideal; after all, the Mississippi runs through Minneapolis. There were no reliable estimates at all earlier, we use Dobie because he was highly respected and if you want to cite his book directly over the BLM's site, that's fine. But the BLM has the most modern research on the current Mustang situation. Wild horse advocates have some solid critiques of BLM management, but I have little reason to doubt their census numbers, at least as opposed to anyone else's. Montanabw(talk) 06:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC) You gave no justification for several of your edits, and is it stands now, the history is misleading; not neutral and balanced. Your opinion that "wild horse populations on either side of the continental divide is just a red herring" is just that, your opinion. It is an important distinction to understanding how the population got from an educated guess of a maximum of two million to where we are today. What actually qualifies as a "red herring" is your statement "But the BLM has the most modern research on the current Mustang situation...I have little reason to doubt their census numbers..." since we aren't talking about census 'numbers' just whether censuses took place-and to be more accurate, we're not even talking about those but "scientific estimates." Your statement "'West of the Mississippi' is not ideal; after all, the Mississippi runs through Minneapolis." is in direct conflict with your sentence just before: "there were mustangs in North Dakota" since North Dakota is just west of Minnesota. The other change you made: "Since settlement of the West began under the auspices of the General Land Office in the latter half of the nineteenth century, the mustang population has been reduced drastically" which you changed to "By the 1950s mustang population dropped drastically" also represses information that makes the history more clear, since there all credible sources indicate that most of the population drop occurred prior to 1900 (before my edits, the article read "Since 1900, the mustang population has been reduced drastically." So, as user:DrChrissy suggested, I directly quoted to make the history more accurate, neutral and balanced. Lynn Wysong 08:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC) Can I suggest that editors looking at this section try to focus on the message/s they are trying to convey. I am now lost in what has become a tangle of detail, some of which is related, some of which is not. The passage dives all over the place from historical writings to capture of mustangs by airplane and poisoning! It has also become so US oriented that only people with knowledge of American geography can follow it. Please make this passage more accessible.__DrChrissy (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC) Good point DrChrissy. Does the latest edit make it better? Also, if no one has a source that states population numbers dropped after 1934, I'm happy to let the number stand at Dobie's "a few" in 1934 without conjuncture that it dropped after that point. But, do need to clarify that since the horses reproduce quickly, large numbers could still be removed each year without lowering the base population. Lynn Wysong 15:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC) Okay, so I tried to make "Because mustang numbers can double every four years,[17] they were rounded up in large numbers and the abuses linked to certain capture methods..." sound a little less disjointed, as user:DrChrissy pointed out, but the edit was removed because "neither of those statements is supported by the source cited" I actually didn't cite a source, but one could easily be found since there are a lot of non-independent ones (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Independent_sources), if anyone else cares to try to make the paragraph flow better before I can get around to finding an independent source.Lynn Wysong The removal doesn't have anything to do with "independent sources", however. You're trying to insert new information into a section of the article that is already sourced, without providing a source for the new information. What you inserted was "Because mustang numbers can double every four years,<ref name=Quickfacts>{{cite web|last1=Gorey|first1=Tom|title=Quick Facts |url=http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/whbprogram/history_and_facts/quick_facts.html|website=Bureau of Land Management|accessdate=March 1, 2015|date=January 28, 2015}}</ref> and horses were no longer needed, for the most part, for their "horsepower", they began to be rounded up in large numbers to simply be eliminated because they competed with profitable livestock for forage on the range." right before "The abuses linked to certain capture methods, including hunting from airplanes and poisoning, led to the first federal wild free-roaming horse protection law in 1959.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wildhorsepreservation.org/wild-horse-annie-act |title=Wild Horse Annie Act |publisher=Wildhorsepreservation.org |accessdate=2014-07-23}}</ref>" ... the section you inserted your information in was cited, however, so when you inserted it, it made it look like your second part (the "and horses were no longer needed, for the most part, for their "horsepower", they began to be rounded up in large numbers to simply be eliminated because they competed with profitable livestock for forage on the range." part) was ALSO cited to the citation for the next sentence (the sentence beginning "The abuses linked to certain capture methods...: which is cited to "Wild Horse Annie Act") which indeed does not support the information you are putting in. This is a basic part of editing an article - if you insert something you need to also insert a source, ESPECIALLY if there is already a source attached to the information you are inserting into. A good basic rule is never insert any information without a source. It saves a lot of bother all around. Another thing that would be helpful is if you would quit going back and editing your posts multiple times. This makes edit conflicts happen and is very annoying to people trying to reply to you. And please sign your posts with four tildes ... this allows people to have a link back to your talk page, so they can easily communicate with you. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC) Thank you for your input. I am guilty of frequently forgetting the four tildes. As far as editing my posts, it seems like it's less annoying to edit them than to post several unanswered posts-I didn't realize you were trying to respond to me at the same time (which I know can be annoying-I just tried to post this answer, and had an edit conflict with a totally different person). Also, I was not trying to imply that I was using the wild horse preservation page as my source. As I said, I was simply trying to tie the two concepts together, and since both statements I inserted seemed to me to be "common knowledge" I didn't think a citation was necessary. But, if one is necessary, I would rather not use a web page by an organization that puts out information on a subject to solicit money, since that is not an independent source, although looking through the rest of this article, other pages on the wild horse preservation site could be cited to try to make the paragraph less disjointed. So, if someone wants to do that or just to rephrase what I wrote to so that it doesn't sound like the source of "and horses were no longer needed, for the most part, for their "horsepower", they began to be rounded up in large numbers to simply be eliminated because they competed with profitable livestock for forage on the range", is the wild horse preservation site, that's fine.Lynn Wysong 13:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SheriWysong (talk • contribs) Okay, so, I KNOW I added the four tildes that time (and this time) Am I doing something wrong? Lynn Wysong 14:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SheriWysong (talk • contribs)

Section rewrite

lengthy discussion

I have made a draft rewrite of the History section hopefully to provide a balanced view with a little less extraneous detail. I am aware that some of these changes may be controversial so I have put the rewrite on te Talk page. Please choose/ignore any changes I have suggested. History Mustang mare and foal with stallion Capture and husbandry The first mustangs descended from Iberian horses brought to Mexico and Florida. Some of these horses were sold, escaped or were captured by Native Americans, and rapidly spread by trade and other means throughout western North America. Native Americans quickly adopted the horse as a primary means of transportation. Horses replaced the dog as a travois puller and greatly improved success in battles, trade and hunts, particularly bison hunts. "Mustang runners" were usually cowboys in the U.S. and vaqueros or mesteñeros in Mexico who caught, broke and drove free-ranging horses to market in the Spanish and later Mexican, and still later American territories of what is now Northern Mexico, Texas, New Mexico and California. They caught the horses that roamed the Great Plains and the San Joaquin Valley of California, and later in the Great Basin, from the 18th to the early 20th century. In the 1800s, horses belonging to explorers, traders and settlers that escaped or were purposely released, joined the gene pool of Spanish-descended herds. It was also common practice for western ranchers to release their horses to forage for themselves in the winter and then recapture them in the spring, along with any additional mustangs. Some ranchers also attempted to "improve" wild herds by shooting the dominant stallions and replacing them with pedigreed stallions. Numbers According to historian J. Frank Dobie "No scientific estimates of their (mustangs in the western U.S.) numbers was made...All guessed numbers are mournful to history. My own guess is that at no time were there more than a million mustangs in Texas and no more than a million others scattered over the remainder of the West." During the late 1800s, most of these were moved north and east, or were removed for other reasons until, by 1934, there was just "a few wild horses in Nevada, Wyoming and other Western states". Because mustang numbers can double every four years, they were rounded up in large numbers. Legislation During culls, abuses linked to certain killing methods (e.g. hunting from airplanes and poisoning) led to the first federal wild free-roaming horse protection law in 1959. This statute, known as the "Wild Horse Annie Act", prohibited the use of motor vehicles for hunting wild horses. Protection was increased further by the Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971. From that time to the present, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is the primary authority that oversees the protection and management of mustang herds on public lands, while the United States Forest Service administers additional wild horse or burro territories. Okay, so now would it be okay to do it like this: Numbers According to historian J. Frank Dobie "No scientific estimates of their (mustangs in the western U.S.) numbers was made...All guessed numbers are mournful to history. My own guess is that at no time were there more than a million mustangs in Texas and no more than a million others scattered over the remainder of the West." During the late 1800s, most of these were moved north and east, or were removed for other reasons until, by 1934, there was just "a few wild horses in Nevada, Wyoming and other Western states". Because mustang numbers can double every four years, and horses were no longer needed, for the most part, for their "horsepower", they began to be rounded up in large numbers to simply be eliminated because they competed with profitable livestock for forage. Lynn Wysong (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC) This still needs a verifiable source - who said they were rounded up in large numbers and killed, who said they competed with livestock?__DrChrissy (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC) well, the "large numbers" part was never cited (that's not my wording) and I didn't use the word "killed". That they compete with livestock for forage seems like it should be considered common knowledge, given the current massive media attention on on the subject. But, no matter. I'll peruse some good, independent sources on the subject and rework this. Four tildes coming next....Lynn Wysong 14:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SheriWysong (talk • contribs) The word "killing" was my own - the previous form appeared to be a euphamism. I'm afraid what might be "common knowledge" to North Americans receiving massive media coverage may not be so common to other people worldwide who are likely receiving none of this media coverage.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC) Well, "eliminated", in that they were either 1)killed on the range 2)rounded up and sent to slaughter, or 3) rounded up and claimed by the ranchers (who may have then have sent them to slaughter, but not necessarily). It wasn't meant to be a euphemism, just a catch-all phrase that didn't imply they were simply rounded up and euthanized. I believe that one of the other sections of the History section deals more with that, or at least should. Four tildes coming...Lynn Wysong 20:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC) See, this is the WP:SYNTH and the "quoting too much stuff" problem. DrChrissy is right. Montanabw(talk) 22:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC) Funny, because DrChrissy is the one that suggested quoting. Because we couldn't agree that what was being paraphrased was "summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:STICKTOSOURCE&redirect=no) it just seemed like that was the logical thing to do. No one seems to have a problem with it but you.Lynn Wysong 23:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SheriWysong (talk • contribs) Maybe the problem is, you don't understand what a quote is. Because, I notice you attributed "quoting too much stuff" to DrChrissy, and I don't see where she actually said that. You have done that to me before, also. So, I'm going to attribute your putting that phrase in quotations to ignorance of understanding what a quote is, and so perhaps I can understand what your objection to quoting is. It doesn't mean just putting the OPPOSITE of what someone actually says inside quotation marks, it means that what is in the quotation marks is word for word what they did say.Lynn Wysong 23:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SheriWysong (talk • contribs) First off, without doing something like using strikeout and underlining to show what's being changed, it is difficult to put up side by side windows to see the before and after versions. Such mass edits are confusing everyone. Montanabw(talk) 22:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC) Is this better?: Numbers According to historian J. Frank Dobie "No scientific estimates of their (mustangs in the western U.S.) numbers was made...All guessed numbers are mournful to history. My own guess is that at no time were there more than a million mustangs in Texas and no more than a million others scattered over the remainder of the West." During the late 1800s, most of these were moved north and east, or were removed for other reasons until, by 1934, there was just "a few wild horses in Nevada, Wyoming and other Western states". Because mustang numbers can double every four years, and horses were no longer needed, for the most part, for their "horsepower", under the auspices of the Taylor Grazing Act federal land management agencies, that only recognized the value of cattle and sheep, (edit: with which the horses were competing for the forage) told ranchers they must remove their horses from the public rangelands. Thereafter, they began to round them up by the thousands for extermination because they even though many ranchers objected to the eradication of "their" horses.. Lynn Wysong 14:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC) HA! figured out why my signature didn't work right!Lynn Wysong (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC) How do you keep the footnotes in the same section as the text? When DrChrissy put her's in, they stayed in the section, but when I copied and pasted a subsection, they went to the bottom of the talk page. [edit: never mind, figured it out Thanks!Lynn Wysong (talk) 06:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Wow! After reading through some of the archived discussions from a few weeks ago, I had no idea what a hornet's nest I had walked into. So, I can see why there was some, what I thought was unwarranted, hostility. I assure everyone here, that I'm here in good faith, that I have never had another account, and any blunders are due to the fact that the only other articles I ever edited (basically wrote) were biographies of obscure, long dead people, and didn't realize how easy it can be to step on toes. That being said, I have done extensive research on this subject (especially the history), and am aware of all the politics, and how they influence the writing of a page. So lets try to move forward and all learn from each other. I considered myself pretty well versed on this subject, but have already learned some things that are giving me a different viewpoint on some issues. (four tildes coming)Lynn Wysong (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC) That being said, I'm trying really hard to get this so that it's well written and accurate, and that everyone agrees is neutral. So I keep going back and editing it. Now what does everyone think? Numbers According to historian J. Frank Dobie "No scientific estimates of their (mustangs in the western U.S.) numbers was made...All guessed numbers are mournful to history. My own guess is that at no time were there more than a million mustangs in Texas and no more than a million others scattered over the remainder of the West." During the late 1800s, most of these were moved north and east, or were removed for other reasons until, by 1934, there was just "a few wild horses in Nevada, Wyoming and other Western states". Because horses were no longer needed, for the most part, for their "horsepower", so were no longer being removed by the ranchers to sell and use for such, and ,since mustang numbers can double every four years, under the auspices of the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act federal land management agencies, that were issuing permits for the grazing of cattle and sheep, with which the horses were competing for the forage, told ranchers they must remove their horses from the public rangelands. Thereafter, they began to round them up by the thousands for extermination even though many ranchers objected to the eradication of "their" horses.. Lynn Wysong (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC) I think it is also important to reflect, that by saying "removing thousands" it wasn't because there was hundreds of thousands to begin with. My own "guess" that what Dobie meant by "a few" was well under 100,000, probably less than 50,000. But, just saying, if there was 100,000 and the population was doubling every four years, 25,000 horses a year could be removed, and with other die off the population would slowly dwindle down to the 17,300 the BLM estimated in 1971.Lynn Wysong (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Thanks for this. From my side I feel it has a lot of language and not enough clear cut information per an encyclopedia. My comment below explains my position more.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)) I agree, it doesn't read very well yet.Lynn Wysong (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC) How about this: "No scientific estimates of their (mustangs in the western U.S.) numbers was made...My own guess is that at no time were there more than a million mustangs in Texas and no more than a million others scattered over the remainder of the West." During the late 1800s, most of these were moved north and east, or were removed for other reasons until, by 1934, there was just "a few wild horses in Nevada, Wyoming and other Western states". As motorized vehicles and tractors became commonplace, horse populations were no longer being kept in check by the ranchers removing them for sell and use, and after decades of unregulated cattle, sheep and horse grazing, the range was becoming overgrazed. Upon passage of the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act federal land management agencies, that were issuing permits for the grazing of cattle and sheep, told ranchers they must remove their horses from the public rangelands because they were competing for the forage. Many ranchers left their horses on the range, and the BLM and the US Forest Service began to round them up by the thousands for extermination even though many ranchers objected to the eradication of "their" horses. Lynn Wysong (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected

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)

Summary

Too much talking about each other in this section. Create a new section with specific content changes and sources. Dreadstar ☥ 22:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
OK, I am open to improving this article; I have long wanted to take it to GA. I acknowledge it is not yet ready for GAN, but it won't be until the article is stable. But, the above wall of text is just drama. So, I'm pretty much ignoring the tl;dr of User:SheriWysong (signing herself as "Lynn Wysong") as it's all second verse to what she was doing at Talk:Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971‎ that got that article protected. By trying to insert material here she can't get in there, Wysong is "WP:ASKing the other parent" - Wysong continually keeps trying to insert the same badly formatted, irrelevant, and improperly sourced material here that she could not get into the legislation article (which got locked down due to her edit-warring). Because this user has a bad habit of playing fast and loose with the facts (see below) and loves to copy and paste long passages from other writers (see below), I am going to only address the actual status of the article as last edited by Dr.Chrissy. Here's what we have: Parenthetical comments in article body text is just bad writing. Don't need all the long, dramatic "mournful to history" quotes from Dobie, a summary is fine You can't WP:SYNTHesize "Because mustang numbers can double every four years" with "they were rounded up in large numbers." That wasn't the reason. The history and ancestry sections probably need to be integrated better, I can see the value of moving the Przewalski horse bit to ancestry, just don't want people to think they are actually ancestors; the point is that the horse was extinct on the North America mainland between c. 10,000 BC and the arrival of the Spanish c. 1500, and it was these Spanish Colonial Horses that are the ancestors of most Mustangs. I reverted, but mostly due to the need to revert everything else. I am open to that particular move, but perhaps with some general improvment of both sections. Thoughts? So. I'm open to concrete suggestions, not endless, lyric, unencyclopedic paragraphs filled with bad writing. Montanabw(talk) 21:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC) I think what we have to know clearly first is what are we trying to say. What is the information we want in the article? Then we need to say that in a straight froward way.There is no reason for a long quote or quote of any kind in my opinion, and especially that the language of an older source is somewhat archaic. Further, I consider BLM a reliable source for information on numbers in this article given they have more exacting ways of ascertaining numbers than was the case 70 years ago. I agree we have to make sure language in encyclopedic, and to watch out for and not include WP:OR, Its tempting to add conjecture but not appropriate in an encyclopedia. I don't mind entering this discussion again now that edit warring is not a possibility and hopefully things can be friendlier. I am not attached to anything except a good article.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)) The earliest numbers the BLM has is for 1971. So, if you want them before that time in history, Dobie is your best bet. Since there was probably not a significant decline in numbers between 1934 and 1971, maybe it doesn't matter. But the only other known credible estimates are in the 1977 Amaral book. Lynn Wysong (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC) So,there's this alternative: No known "scientific" estimates of the population of feral horses was made until 1971 (BLM). The only known population estimates for where the horses are currently found are for Nevada, where Velma Bronn Johnston campaigned and where almost half the horses subject to the Act are currently found. Anthony Amaral estimated that, at their peak in 1900, there were 100,000 feral horses in that State (Amaral, page 24), based on Rufus Steele's assertion that there was 70,000 in 1911. Horse numbers were declining because ranchers removed them from the range to free up forage for their sheep and cattle. Lynn Wysong (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Here is what I want: a history that reflects that the maximum number of horses that once roamed were not where they are now. Because, it needs to be understood that the Great Basin desert, where most of them are now, would never have been able to support the number that Texas and the Great Plains did. I don't want to get into a big argument about the horses vs the cows, but the reality is that when the early explorers crossed the Great Basin, they didn't see any wild horses, nor buffalo. Just antelope, and maybe elk and deer up in the mountains, and not that many of those. It is not good habitat for large ungulates without man's intervention and management. The Indians along the fringes of the Great Basin had some horses, but not in the interior. So horses never adapted there like they did on the plains.Lynn Wysong (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Do you see that all of this is original research. Its conjecture. I don't have time to look at this for a few days but will.....I'm somewhat alarmed when an editor says, this is what I want.... this is a collaborative community and that kind of statement moves against collaboration. What this article must reflects is not what any of us wants but rather what we have in the sources.That's it.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)) I concur. And another editor has already said in this thread "I am open to concrete suggestions...". Both editors should consider they are showing almost indefensible signs of WP:ownership.__DrChrissy (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC) I guess I don't have a problem with an editor saying I'm open. Hopefully we're all open. Let's move beyond personal comments, and I apologize if I opened the door for that kind of discussion.(Littleolive oil (talk) 05:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)) This discussion is now moot: [1] . Looks like Wysong was a sockpuppet account trolling this page. And given the amount of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR being proposed, I would be grateful is someone other than me would kindly archive this discussion. I am open to concrete suggestions to improve the article - the above tl;dr was not it. Montanabw(talk) 07:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC) "the report of my death was an exaggeration." Block gone, Apology made, and we move on. I just wanted to clarify the paragraph about what "I want". When Littleolive said: "I think what we have to know clearly first is what are we trying to say." I was trying to clarify my perspective, which is to try to prevent what I see as misleading information, or at least give the "alternate" history to what a lot of people think: that there were two million wild horses in the U.S. in 1900 (which is where we started will all this) located where they are now, and that over the ensuing 75 years, they were all rounded up and sent to slaughter. The actual history is not that simple. I know that the history needs to be concise, and a long drawn explanation not feasible, so it's very tricky to get the wording right so as to not perpetuate a distorted history. So, yes, what I wrote in the paragraph may be original research, but I can back up every word of it. I wasn't suggesting putting it the article, just saying that what is put into the article should not imply that something else happened.Lynn Wysong (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC) The only information we can give or use is what is in the sources. So what we have to have is a source that specifically supports every piece of content. If we are looking at numbers we need to have a source that specifically says there were 1900 horses, a source that says "they were all rounded up..." (which can hardly be true since all is a definitive... as an aside). Its not just that the history must be concise, it must be supported very specifically by sources. We can't tack together pieces of information to create something new or prove something else or to make a point. If we are talking about numbers per dates we need sources for each number on that date. In 1900 how many horses were there, in 197i, today. That's all we can say. If a source tells us why there were these numbers we can say that too....We cannot say unless sourced that there were X number of horses in 1900 and Y number in 1971 and since mustangs breed in a certain way and since ranchers rounded many up, that's why there were fewer horses in 1971... This is just an example, but what this is is WP:OR and speculation and is not encyclopedic. One might write a research paper this way but not an encyclopedia where what we are doing is dealing with what is in sources.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)) I understand the concept, LittleOlive. But, whereas Wikipedia policy does discourage original research, it also says that those policies are not written in stone, and that if it improves an article to do some minor analysis, that's okay. I think this would be a good example of that, rather provide isolated pieces of raw data with nothing to tie them together, provide an explanation even though there may not be a source that explicitly does so. Lynn Wysong (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC) P.S. I mean, isn't that why Wikipedia is open to everyone? To hopefully draw in subject matter experts who can assess whether the information is portrayed accurately and provide bridges for some of the gaps in information?Lynn Wysong (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC) P.P.S. (See, I told you this would be really annoying) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research Lynn Wysong (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC) Sorry but I would say no across the board. A core pillar of WP and of sourcing is that the content can be verified. What you are suggesting is not verifiable. I would never agree to it and you should have consensus to ignore all rules which is what you are suggesting. The "concept" protects an encyclopedia from opinion rather than verified information and what you are describing is an opinion. WP is open to anyone so everyone can take part. Its not open to anyone so editors can add opinions, and with out verifiable information. I am concerned because you are trying to push that opinion into this article. I would suggest going back to the sources and working from there. (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)) I'm sorry, could you please be specific about you believe to be my opinion? Maybe I could better reference sources. Did you read the link I provided? Lynn Wysong (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

History Rewrite

Discussion prior to moving work to a sandbox

Okay, here's where I was before on the Numbers Section: According to historian J. Frank Dobie "No scientific estimates of their (mustangs in the western U.S.) numbers was made...My own guess is that at no time were there more than a million mustangs in Texas and no more than a million others scattered over the remainder of the West." During the late 1800s, most of these were moved north and east, or were removed for other reasons until, by 1934, there was just "a few wild horses in Nevada, Wyoming and other Western states" on the public rangelands(range). As motorized vehicles and tractors became commonplace, horse populations on the range were no longer being kept in check by the ranchers removing them for sell and use, and after decades of unregulated cattle, sheep and horse grazing, the range was becoming overgrazed. Upon passage of the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act federal land management agencies, that were issuing permits for the grazing of cattle and sheep on the range, told ranchers they must remove their horses because they were competing for the forage. Many ranchers left their horses on the range, and the BLM and the US Forest Service began to round them up by the thousands for extermination even though many ranchers objected to the eradication of "their" horses. That is an accurate, but general, portrayal of what happened. The latter part of the paragraph is all documented in the Amaral book. For the most part, todays's mustangs are descended from rancher's horses that had been left out on the range. A few herds appear to have survived from the Spanish horses that were found earlier.Lynn Wysong (talk) 10:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Lynn Wysong (talk) 10:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC) And, for the most part, when the ranchers turned their horses out on the range, it was in areas where there were no feral Spanish horses. It's a common misconception that today's herds were once Spanish, but had been gradually replaced by settler's horses. Feral horse herds where they are currently found didn't really start to be established until about 130 years ago, when ranchers settled the area, established water sources on the range to allow livestock grazing, and their horses that were running on the range began to go feral.Lynn Wysong (talk) 11:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Please, please, please can we stick to what editors want to place/delete from the article. I was fine with looking at what was written 3 paragraphs ago, but the last 2 paragraphs appear to be WP:OR and I don't know if the editor wants to include this information and whether it can be verified.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Yes, I know it sounds like original research as I'm discussing it, but, I'm just trying to give more background to the "Numbers" section, since it seemingly contradicts the Ancestry section, which could also be changed to be more accurate. Yes, there are sources that can be used for this, but since this is just discussion, I didn't include them. So, back to the numbers section, it seems to be kind of hanging out there. Would putting more recent numbers at the end wrap it up pretty well? Is there anything that should be expanded on? Any alternative sources with conflicting information that should be brought in?Lynn Wysong (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Can I please make a request here? Can folks please put down their "no synth" and "no OR" hammers? Hammers are good tools for beating people, but not for making them see your point. Well reasoned comments do a much better job. And, it might be a good idea to read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not and this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research Thanks.Lynn Wysong (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC) One editor's "hammer" is another editor's "tool": if material is presented which is original research, there is little choice but to use the WP:OR tool to address the concern. Can I suggest that the best way forward is for Lynn Wysong to write the section as she would like it to appear in the article. Please include references and quotations so that other interested editors can decide what is not, and what might be WP:OR. I suspect there is at least one other editor out there who might wish to include contradictory material for a more balanced section. We might have to work on this sentence by sentence, but let's remain focussed on the edits, rather than the editors.__DrChrissy (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC) I believe that is what I have been doing. However, all the input I've been getting is on the discussion. So, since I don't want to be put in the position of defending every word I write, it would be nice if people step up now, and make this a constructive effort, rather than lying in wait, hammers in hand.Lynn Wysong (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC) @SheriWysong: Your last post here is exactly what I did not want to see. It discusses editors rather than moving the article forward. I don't think you can expect other editors to "step up now"...they might be on holiday, busy with other articles, etc. Please suggest the text you would like to see in the article.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC) I didn't mean "step up now" as in "right away", I meant now as "before I go through any more effort" I'm not discussing editors, but the process of collaboration. I've got something up there now, why don't you tell me what you think is good or bad about it, rather than discuss the discussion?Lynn Wysong (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC) OK. I think I know the paragraph to which you refer, but to avoid the potential for confusion, I suggest you open a new thread "re-write 2" and post the draft section there.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC) Really, I think the thing to do would be to do what you originally tried, and rewrite the whole History section, combining it with the Ancestry section, since they are so intertwined. I think the reason they both seem both so disjointed is that they need to be looked at together.Lynn Wysong (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC) Please do that then.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC) Unfortunately, the page is locked, so I can't open to edit, highlight the encoded text, then copy and paste it into here. Now that I recall, when you did it it, it was before it was locked.Lynn Wysong (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Sandbox Collaboration

Because collaboration is very edit intensive, the History section has been moved here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SheriWysong/Sandbox2 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: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/03/12/2015-05623/proposed-collection-of-information-on-wild-horses-and-burros-request-for-comments?utm_campaign=subscription+mailing+list&utm_medium=email&utm_source=federalregister.gov

Different approach

Long discussion with no resolution

It makes no sense to rewrite the whole article here while it is locked down. We now have two sections above of copy and paste from the article and it is just bogging down things; there is so much verbiage that NO ONE can even tell what is or is not being proposed (See WP:TL;DR). It makes more sense to raise and discuss small, incremental changes and see if, step by step, they can be agreed upon. I suggest that we begin with the "citation needed" tags in the article and see if we can find sources for the information contained, or, if the material cannot be sourced, decide whether to rewrite or remove it. Then, we can decide if there are things that need to be added as a general concept. Third, we can discuss sources, but for now, we need to confine ourselves to sources most everyone can access (plenty of stuff is available on Google Books) so that we can all verify it. Montanabw(talk) 06:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Seems like it wasn't quite the "whole" article, and maybe you shouldn't speak for everyone as to whether they "can even tell what is or is not being proposed" but, whatever. Both the section Dr. Chrissy and I started were useful. She added headings to the jumbled History Section, which helped to focus the flow of the section. By looking at the forest instead of the trees, I was able to see where it could be even better organized. So, it's there to refer back to, and if other approaches seem useful go for it.Lynn Wysong (talk) 11:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Oh, and I checked on the essaypolicy link you kindly provided, and this is what it said: "The tl;dr label is sometimes used constructively by an author to introduce a short summation of a longer piece.[3] However, it is all too often invoked as a tactic to thwart collaborative editing, or, worse, a stoop to ridicule."Lynn Wysong (talk) 11:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC) What it actually says is in the first line: "a passage appeared to be too long to invest the time to digest" or in a nutshell: "Be concise". the rest of the essay is too long, so I didn't read it. --RexxS (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC) LOL. And it's fine if you don't want to read it what I've written. Just don't comment on it as though you had. Seems a bit disingenuous Lynn Wysong (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC) One idea: User: Lynn/Sheri Wysong is correct that the Taylor Grazing Act had an impact on Mustangs. I do think that there is room to expand the early 20th century history prior to the 1971 Act. I don't much like the language proposed in the sections above as I believe it contains too much synthesis that exceeds the material sourced, plus the source cited is not available online, but a source like this one has similar material may be useful as a starting point to draft a short bit about that act, though, like all sources, it needs to be assessed carefully. Comments? Montanabw(talk) 06:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Great new source. Thank you for finding it. And if you insist on using both my Wiki nickname and my user name, just use Sheri Lynn Wysong. Lynn is simply my middle name.Lynn Wysong (talk) 08:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Clean link to the source: https://books.google.com/books?id=ci9HQ-_d32QC Lynn Wysong (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC) I have a couple of points I would like to make. I agree that this approach of multiple detailed editing of sentences and words should be moved to a sandbox - this is probably due to my own fault of not suggesting this in the first instance. Try to resist the temptation to Cherry-pick statements from essays to score points against each other. I too am confused as to how one of the editors wishes to be referred - please clarify this. This thread is now seriously off what the Talk page is about. Is one of the editors willing to open a sandbox to continue?__DrChrissy (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Geeze, I don't know why Wikipedia even allows for nicknames. I went to "Lynn Wysong" because I use my middle name in the facebook page where I have horse "friends". Otherwise, all the interactions with those people totally bombs the page that I have set up for the people I actually know and have relationships with. I'd set up this Wiki account years ago under my first name, but thought that if people here went looking for me on facebook, I'd want them to go to my "horse" account-since that was more relevant to this subject matter. It appears to have done nothing but cause confusion, particularly since I, not knowing what it meant, checked the box that made the four tildes not work. Why Wiki put that there, I don't know either. So, really, I don't care. Call me by either name. They're both legit.Lynn Wysong (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Okay, the thread I was working on is now here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SheriWysong/Sandbox2Lynn Wysong (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Sandbox or not Its almost impossible to tell what is going on here. Could we deal with one piece of information at a time in a systematic way. Perhaps bring the content here, note its context and sources, ask for input and agreement, then post in the article.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)) AbsolutelyLynn Wysong (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC) And this is what I have suggested several times. Montanabw(talk) 01:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Round three

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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Montanabw/Spanish_horses_sandbox 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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SheriWysong/Sandbox2#Taylor_Grazing_Act_Rewrite 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)

References

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

References

• 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.

• Sharp, Lee, (1984) "Overview of the Taylor Grazing Act"U. S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management Idaho State Office, "The Taylor Grazing Act, 1934-1984, 50 Years of Progress".

• Sherrets, Harold, (1984) "Impacts of Wild Horses on Rangeland Management" U. S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management Idaho State Office, "The Taylor Grazing Act, 1934-1984, 50 Years of Progress".

• 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)

Comments

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?

It's not mentioned by name, but the Landrace article mentions it as being one. Can we add the "Horse landraces" category to it?Artheartsoul1 (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Well the article is currently fully protected, it's kind of controversial, the line between a breed and a landrace. But not worth a spat over a category, so IMHO as long as the horse breeds category is not removed, I don't object to also adding the landrace one. Montanabw^(talk) 02:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with @Artheartsoul1:. The horses in the different HMAs could be considered Landraces, but I think that putting "mustang" in the breed category is as incorrect as putting "grade". There is a lot of diversity between all the HMAs, the major characteristic of a breed is uniformity. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Definitions of "Breed"

• "A group of organisms having common ancestors and certain distinguishable characteristics, especially a group within a species developed by artificial selection and maintained by controlled propagation." The Free Dictionary

• "a group of usually domesticated animals or plants presumably related by descent from common ancestors and visibly similar in most characters" Merriam Webster

• "a relatively homogenous group of animals within a species, developed and maintained by humans." Dictionary.com

How can "mustang", a term used in the Western United States to describe a feral horse, be a breed? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• • It is a very complex question that lacks a simple answer (see horse breed for further information). "Breed" can encompass not only human-improved breeds, but feral and landrace breeds. For that reason, I think it's best to err on the side of inclusiveness. For example, D. Phillip Sponenberg has looked at this breed/landrace/feral question a great deal, and tends to use the phrase "landrace breed" or "feral breed" and has explained it a number of different ways, notably:

1. "One mechanism for breed formation includes a landrace stage." p. 392
2. " landrace breeds are unique due to founder effect, isolation, and environmental adaptation."..."The genetic significance of feral breeds includes environmental adaptations and relict traits not found in improved breeds".[2]
3. "the breed formed under local conditions for local purposes – usually with a great deal of isolation."[3].
4. Spanish Mustangs are...landrace breeds"; " When these feral populations are isolated from introductions of outside stock and are present for relatively long periods of time in this undisturbed state, they can be considered feral breeds." Tp be fair, the same source also (confusingly) notes, "The word mustang now refers to feral stock or adopted feral horses, not the traditional Colonial Spanish or Spanish Mustang horse."[4]
5. "Breed purity is assumed by many to be absolute, inviolate, and ancient. The truth is, the origins of most breeds are fairly recent."[5]
6. [6]:"Landrace breeds, according to “A Conservation Breeding Handbook,” which was co-written by Sponenberg, are consistent enough in their physical characteristics to be considered breeds, though their appearance varies more than the standardized breeds. [Landraces] survive as distinct populations due to geographic and cultural isolation. This natural selection and geographic isolation has created a genetic consistency and an adaptation to their local environments."
7. Sponenberg lists the Spanish Mustang, Pryor Mustangs and Sulphur Mustangs as breeds: [7]#page 553 of an FAO listing (not the most reliable source, but errs on the side of inclusion) notes "American Mustang" as a breed maintained in its Global Databank.

• this article discusses which free-roaming mustang populations are also Spanish Colonial horses and which are not (notably the Pryors, the Sulphurs and Kigers also are recognized as unique "breeds"). He also discusses which groups have registries and breed associations, whether for horses of Iberian type or not. So, as I have stated elsewhere, this article needs a complex analysis of all HMAs and what horses live where.
• So, you see, the question is extremely complex; This may clarify the question beyond a simple dictionary definition. Refining the nuance of all this is something I've long wanted to do with the article, but all the irrelevant dramas that keep cropping up tend to discourage me from completing this research and incorporating it into the article; I've been thinking a chart that encompasses all the HMAs, the non-BLM populations of wild horses, the formal registered breeds and so on would be of immense benefit. For categories, the breed, landrace and feral categories may all help people find this article. (The Cerbat herd in Arizona and the Suffield Mustangs are also linked to Spanish Colonial type...) Montanabw^(talk) 02:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's only complex because you are misapplying the concept. There are scores of HMAs, and the populations vary in each one. So, maybe in some of those populations, Sponenberg's criteria applies. But, then what you have is possibly a few (but multiple) feral breeds. But they are all separate breeds if anything, distinguished by whatever designation they are given. The term "mustang" is just a generic term for a feral horse-it doesn't designate an all-encompassing breed of dozens of feral populations of widely varying phenotypes. Just because there are sources out there that do (probably for simplification of discussion) refer to a breed name of "American Mustang" doesn't mean that it should be carried forward without qualification.

Now, Spanish Colonial Horse is a different concept. I believe that is considered a breed, but with several different strains, some arising from feral populations. Kiger, Sulphur, Pryor, etc. Some breeders of these horses object to being lumped in with the others, and insist that their strain is a breed upon itself. There are lumpers and splitters, so to speak, but overall, the phenotype is consistent. But I think that discussion belongs in that article. All of it muddies the water in this one. Same with curly horses. There are two or three groups out there that register curly horses, no matter what HMA they come from, and consider them one breed. But, a mustang is simply a feral horse, whether or not it has Spanish, Curly, draft, or just plain grade characteristics. I think that, if you did put a list of HMAs in the article, and say link back each one of them to its BLM webpage, it would become very evident from the descriptions that they vary too widely to be considered one breed. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• • We need to work on that article too, my read of Sponenberg's work is that he doesn't consider it a single modern breed, but a breed grouping (encompassing everything from the Banker horse to the Pryor Mustang) - or perhaps (I think Cothran's position) a breed with multiple strains, or landrace breeds, or ... but we have some pretty good work by Sponenberg to draw upon there. I kind of think that article needs to be brought up to speed before this one because there will be some overlap. (But since when is the Curly horse involved in this? Never heard of anyone calling them Mustangs... they are something else entirely.) Montanabw^(talk) 18:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• • But a "feral breed" is a "breed" - just not a "standardized breed" with a bunch of human records dating back centuries ... this question has actually been discussed a ton on a whole bunch of different animal breed pages (not just horse articles, see, e.g. Arapawa pig) and there has been quite a contentious editing dispute over the distinctions between feral breeds, landrace breeds and standardized breeds. It's a fight I think is not helpful here. I'd just prefer to discuss the various horses called "M/mustangs" and source each. Montanabw^(talk) 18:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This is synthesizing content and OR again if I understand what you are suggesting: "I think that, if you did put a list of HMAs in the article, and say link back each one of them to its BLM webpage, it would become very evident from the descriptions that they vary too widely to be considered one breed." "It would become very evident..." is the OR part. It can't become evident, The reader must be given information that is directly referenced by the source.(Littleolive oil (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC))

That's why we're discussing it on the talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_directly_applicable_to_talk_pages Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

You are suggesting adding content to the article that would be a synthesis. I am pointing out that to do what you are suggesting is not compliant per WP. It doesn't matter where you suggest it; what you suggest is still synthesis and evntual OR. And no one is suggesting your cmt on the talk page is OR. a red herring or hopefully a misunderstanding. No sense in saying what you suggest in the quote I posted is fine; it can't be so best to say so here and not after someone has tried to put that kind of content into the article.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC))

Littleolive, please stop trying to find problems that aren't there. I have not suggested adding anything to the article yet. We are discussing why or why not the mustang is a breed. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

My point is that the "breed" issue is contentious - not just for Mustangs but for other horse breeds as well (For example, is the Moyle horse a breed? I said no, I tried to AfD the article, and I lost). Thus, we cannot say that the mustang of the Americas is or is not a single breed, multiple breeds, or no breed. We can only take the assorted definitions, source them and then "teach the controversy" by explaining each argument. It is actually something I have wanted to do for a very long time, but every time yet another petty drama erupts on this article (last year there was a lot of IP vandalism by people trying to claim the horse never became extinct in North America), I get burned out on the issue and just get the article stabilized and then go on to edit other things. Montanabw^(talk) 18:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I actually like this

Hatting a closed discussion

With minor rephrasing, Wysong has sandboxed: "According to J. Frank Dobie, the peak would have been around the end of the Mexican-American War in 1848, but "No scientific estimates of their numbers was made...My own guess is that at no time were there more than a million mustangs in Texas and no more than a million others scattered over the remainder of the West."[6] --> ref to Dobie, p. 107-109. I propose the following tweak, which, if accepted, we can propose as a consensus edit to replace ONLY the first sentence of the the 6th paragraph of the history section in this article (i.e. the chunk were Dobie is mentioned): "According to historian J. Frank Dobie, the mustang population may have peaked around the end of the Mexican-American War in 1848, but he noted "No scientific estimates of their numbers was made...My own guess is that at no time were there more than a million mustangs in Texas and no more than a million others scattered over the remainder of the West." (with proper ref tag for Dobie, The Mustangs pp. 107-109). Acceptable? Solely for the purposes of flow, we probably need to slightly reword the next sentence, " However, no comprehensive census of feral horse numbers had ever been performed until the time of the Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 and any earlier estimates are speculative.[16]" to read "No comprehensive census of feral horse numbers was performed until the time of the Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 and any earlier estimates are speculative.[16]" (with citation unchanged) Can we collaborate and agree on ONE sentence?? Montanabw(talk) 04:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC) I assume the citation is to the BLM http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/whbprogram/history_and_facts/myths_and_facts.html "Myths and Facts" page? It doesn't say anything like "any earlier estimates are speculative." You need a better source to make that assertion.Lynn Wysong (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC) Oh nonsense - the BLM's "This figure has no scientific basis" or Dobie's "mournful to history" both mean "speculative." This is called using our own words and not blindly copying and pasting things with no assessment. You see, this is a good example of what I've been trying to tell you all along; we have to write concisely, accurately but not long, you can't just write endless boring passages with copyright violations. Montanabw(talk) 20:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC) The BLM does in no way imply that "any earlier estimates" are speculative. It references only Dobie. The are other estimates out there that the BLM is making no assessment of.Lynn Wysong (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC) I also don't think it says anything like "no comprehensive census was performed". I believe that, at least some "scientific estimates" based on on-the-ground observances, were made, and are documented in Ryden's 1970 printing. I don't have access to that version right now, but could get it next weekend, if you are truly interested. I believe there was such a census just prior to the Wild Horse Annie Act, and that the 1971 numbers quoted by the BLM were actually compiled a few years earlier, in 1967. The first "comprehensive census" was the aerial one conducted in 1975.Lynn Wysong (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC) So, I think you could say: ""No comprehensive census of feral horse numbers was performed until 1975 (BLM 1977) and any earlier estimates are based on data collected through less accurate methods.(Ryden, 1970)"Lynn Wysong (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC) Something along that line might work - with the caveat that we also have the 150,000 estimate from the BLM work on the Taylor grazing act, and I have to verify what you have - you need to provide me better footnotes - what is "BLM 1977"? (URL will do) and just go to the Google Books version and give me a page for Ryden - her revised edition will be more accurate anyway. Montanabw(talk) 20:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC) It's not online. It's a 1977 BLM publication that I happen to be in possession of. And, no, you have to have the 1970 version of Ryden. She tended to make edits from version to version, depending on whether she was making the case that the BLM was overstating or understating numbers.Lynn Wysong (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Well, in both cases, more recent material is better than outdated material - people gather more data and revise their own work. Frankly, given your penchant for "extrapolation", synthesizing and, frankly, just making up stuff, I don't trust anything you propose that I cannot verify firsthand. So no 1970 editions or outdated print BLM documents - there are thousands of perfectly good sources online. To be honest, I think what you really need to do is go do your own writing out in the real world and stop trying to WP:SELFPUB and WP:SOAPBOX your own views (whatever they are, and I am not sure what it is you want other than to create drama) here. Montanabw(talk) 20:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC) WhateverLynn Wysong (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

"New Source"

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

Hatting discussion that has moved to a different talk page section

Just saw the reversion made to @Red Slash:'s change from "the" to "a" because "'the' - references overall breed, not individuals". There's no consensus anywhere that the Mustang is a breed, as discussed extensively here. I agree with Red Slash. It should be "a". Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC) Feral horses with isolated populations are in some cases breeds and in some cases landraces, but landraces, according to Sponenberg, are a stage in breed formation. One of the things that needs to happen with this article if the drama ever settles down, is to review the various types out there and sort them out, I've thought about creating a table listing each HMA and discussing the populations therein. Also, there are Mustang registries, I think about 25 or so at last count, some are used to track horses adopted off of the BLM, some are specific to individual herds, some herds have significant Colonial Spanish Horse DNA, others do not. Some, like the Nokota horse involve feral animals that may not have been protected under the Act, and some, like the Spanish Mustang include some horses that may never have had feral ancestors. This is a big, complex issue that cannot be handled by oversimplification or regional biases. Montanabw(talk) 19:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC) That still does not change the fact that "mustang" is not a breed. It simply is a term that refers to feral horses in the western U.S. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC) The fix doesn't work anyway, as "a free-roaming horse of the North American west that first descended from" makes little sense for an individual. This lead sentence needs to be more carefully reworked. Somelike like a "A mustang is a free-roaming horse of the North American west; mustangs were first descended from ...". Dicklyon (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC) I am not going to edit-war over "a" versus "the". The definition is sourced. The "breed" question is far more complex than Wysong realizes. Montanabw(talk) 22:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC) The issue seems to be that mustang breed or not breed is a simplistic view and does not provide the reader with a true understanding of what a mustang is and where it came from, roots are (so to speak). We need more in depth understanding and explanation.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)) Dicklyon: I agree, except I don't think the term currently applies to the horses in Canada, so instead of "North American west" I would say " Old West". Some people consider horses from some HMAs to be breeds unto themselves, but I don't agree. I definitely don't think that all of them put together constitute one big breed. LittleOlive oil: I would love to provide that background. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC) One can only provide that background in this article if the references distinctly reference information in reference to mustangs otherwise we get into research paper territory and what WP might refer to as Original Research. Tricky.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)) Seems like I've heard that a time or two before. Yes, I have a whole shelf of reference material on mustangs and no, the research paper I spoke of here is not about them. The background of the mustang is well documented in many reliable sources, and there is no need for me to add to them by writing my own version. Unfortunately there are also a lot of unreliable sources out there, mostly in the form of advocacy groups that aren't concerned with neutrality and accuracy, and it is the misinformation they put out that most people are familiar with-such as the idea that today's mustang herds were once comprised of horses descended from Spanish horses that went feral. So, when information from reliable sources is put forward, it may seem to many like OR, but it isn't. In fact, I see many vestiges in this article of a more accurate history, one that was probably replaced with the common misconceptions that are currently in it. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 06:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC) I wasn't aware of your research paper. I was concerned about content in the past that was OR. Its easy enough to slide into extended research and OR when one is interested in a topic. Encyclopedic editing can be limiting. As always the best way to add conrtent in my opinion anyway is to do it in small increments with discussion. That way everyone can follow as discussion tends to be less complicated.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC))_ I've never put any content in the article that was OR. There was some discussion on the talk page that may have strayed into OR, but that was just for background and is perfectly acceptable for talk page discussion. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC) Nonsense, you inserted OR, edit warred about it, and got two articles locked down for a month. It's in the article history. Don't go all innocent on everyone here. I am also going going to suggest that you read or re-read WP:NOTHERE and WP:POINT before you proceed further along these lines. Montanabw(talk) 22:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC) It is correct, however, that it is probably necessary to balance sources as truly NPOV ones are very difficult to find; I have battled for years with advocates who keep trying to remove the word "feral" from the article, for example; these horses clearly are descended from domesticated animals and the horse clearly had died out in North America for about 10,000 years before horses were reintroduced from Europe. I think the main thing is to be careful to explain both/all points of view fairly and honestly. For example, at this version of Wysong's sandbox, you have a link to Range Magazine which is an interesting article from a very right-wing, anti-government point of view and contains some horribly sexist with cracks in at least six places about "women crying" over wild horses. But it also has a few good points. But we are never going to get this article improved if we keep fighting over things like the lead. Every time I get my hopes up that someone wants to collaborate here, they are dashed by nonsense like arguing over "breed" versus "landrace" and so on. Montanabw(talk) 22:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC) Collaboration requires keeping a civil environment. wp:civil I have little hope of it. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC) Best to look in the mirror, SLW. I have 44 good and featured articles where I've been a substantial contributor; nearly all of them with extensive collaboration with others. It's a wonderful process, but it requires everyone to listen to everyone else. FAC is a particularly gruelling process where you have to listen to a lot of people's advice and try to adapt to all of it. I highly recommend you go through the process; it makes you a much better contributor. Montanabw(talk) 02:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC) I have no problem looking in the mirror. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC) Excellent. Now let's work on that civility piece. Montanabw(talk) 04:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC) As well as the "there are two sides to every story" piece. Your side of the story may be that I "inserted OR, edit warred about it, and got two articles locked down for a month." Mine is quite different, and I'm not going to try to collaborate until all these inappropriate statements stop. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 14:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC) You certainly are under no obligation to work on this article and I am not going to engage with you on assorted long-dead dramas that have been settled. I am also not going to debate endlessly to the point of exhaustion. You are either here to build the encyclopedia or not. I'm here to build the encyclopedia. Montanabw(talk) 23:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC) These are obviously not "assorted long-dead dramas that have been settled", because they keep coming up. You want GA status for this article? Engage in sincere collaboration. Otherwise, it will never be a stable article. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC) Please do not make threat like this toward other users. Have you read WP:AGF and WP:NPA? You see, you have a lot to learn about collaboration. Quality work here means not making the kinds of mistakes you were making and when your work is questioned, you need to engage in sincere discussion, not attacking other users. When errors were pointed out here, I worked to fix them. I attempted to collaborate at your sandbox. At the DR page, I rewrote one paragraph about five or six times to try and incorporate your expressed concerns only to have you repeatedly say, "no, only my way." That's not how it works. Montanabw(talk) 03:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC) Whatever. Once again, I say, there are two sides to every story, and mine is a lot different than yours, but it's not appropriate to engage in this discussion here. So, let me know when you plan to engage in a civil discourse. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 10:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC) I have repeatedly attempted to engage in civil discourse. Most recently, you appear to have rejected a truce I proposed at your talk page. At this point, I would be willing to once again attempt a civil collaborative discussion when you demonstrate that you are here to build the encyclopedia. Montanabw(talk) 19:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC) Okay. I accept that we will never be bffs. But, as long as the dialogue is respectful, we probably can work together. How about we start up here? I already stated a month ago, "IMHO as long as the horse breeds category is not removed, I don't object to also adding the landrace one." Montanabw(talk) 21:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)