Talk:Mustang/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

In, out, edit?

Here is the draft that I have in the sandbox, I may tweak it a bit more after copying it here but the time stamp on my signature will help folks find the first post. I am trying to discuss all types and have acknowledged Intothatdarkness' concerns that the "warmblood" or "heavy warmblood" claims are dubioius, and Wysong's comments that not all are Spanish type. That said, the Spanish type has special significance, so I think it appropriate to note it. Comments welcome. Montanabw^(talk) 01:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I actually agree that "the Spanish type has special significance" as do some others such as the curlies; my concern is to not imply that these traits are more common than they are. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, if we agree on the significance of the original Spanish type, then there is progress. I am aware that there are many different body types out there. I am not arguing that Mustangs should be preserved due to some illusive purity of bloodline, (even a lot of "pure breds since the dawn of time" ... aren't.) but I think it's good to start with a description of the original Spanish type and its role, then do a summary of other types... I also think it's best to try do avoid terms like "most" or "few" when discussing overall population numbers for various types because, frankly, I have yet to find a report that splits them out in total numbers or proportions - the BLM population estimates themselves are all over the board. What I am finding while doing the HMA chart on the other article is very few draft types, a fair bit of "somebody turned out a saddle horse stud to improve the herd", several references to strayed remounts, and more Spanish type than I though I was going to find. I'll take another hack and slash at the section below, putting in some hidden text ramblings where I've put [cmt]. Feel free to hack and slash back. We may get there. Montanabw^(talk) 18:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Characteristics section (new)

This is not the history section, this is a "what they look like" section - normally characteristics is the first main section, but in some horse articles, history comes first, may need to here.

The original mustangs were Colonial Spanish horses, but many other breeds and types of horses contributed to the modern mustang, resulting in varying phenotypes. Mustangs of all body types are described as surefooted and having good endurance. They may be of any coat color. Genetic contributions to today's free-roaming mustang herds include assorted ranch horses that escaped to or were turned out on the public lands, and estray horses used by the United States Cavalry.[cite to the relevant HMAs]. For example, in Idaho some Herd Management Areas (HMA) contain animals with known descent from Thoroughbred and Quarter Horse stallions turned out with feral herds. [cmt] Others, such as certain bands in Wyoming, have characteristics consistent with gaited horse breeds. Horses in several HMAs retain Spanish horse traits, including dun coloration and primitive markings.(additional sourcing) The herds located in two HMAs in central Nevada produce Curly Horses. Others, such as certain bands in Wyoming, have characteristics consistent with gaited horse breeds. Throughout all the BLM's HMAs, light riding horse type predominates, though a few horses with draft horse characteristics also exist (cite to Colorado and Idaho HMA), mostly kept separate from other mustangs and confined to specific areas.

Several bands have had DNA testing and are verified to have significant Spanish ancestry. These include the Kiger Mustang, the Cerbat Mustang, and the Pryor Mountain Mustang. A 2010 study of the Pryor herd also showed that those mustangs shared genetic traits with other domestic horse breeds and thus were not a unique species which had survived in North America from prehistoric times. Other genetic herd studies, such as one done in 2002 on the bands in the Challis, Idaho area, show a very mixed blend of Spanish, North American gaited horse, draft horse and pony influences.

The now-defunct American Mustang Association developed a breed standard for those mustangs that carry morphological traits associated with the early Spanish horses. These include a well-proportioned body with a clean, refined head with wide forehead and small muzzle. The facial profile may be straight or slightly convex. Withers are moderate in height and the shoulder is to be "long and sloping." The standard considers a very short back, deep girth and muscular coupling over the loins as desirable. The croup is rounded, neither too flat nor goose-rumped. The tail is low-set. The legs are to be straight and sound. Hooves are round and dense. Dun color and primitive markings are particularly common amongst horses of Spanish type.{[cn}}

Discussion

I think what I've suggested above is more accurate and flows better. I also suggest putting the last paragraph in a "footnote" (as opposed to "citation") section, that lists the herds with appreciable Spanish ancestry. Could also make one for the draft horse and curly herds. I can't think of any more distinguishable traits that might be worth singling out. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• I tweaked again, tried to keep the stuff you added, changed some citations. Feel free to do another hack and slash. (Now I'm remembering the reasons - besides dramahz - that this article is a quagmire - it's soooo complicated!) That said, I would prefer to keep the last paragraph in some form and "teach the controversy" up front, and added more stuff on the genetics, such as the study of the Challis herd. It's such a quagmire that I don't really want us to make any conclusions, because it would be total WP:SYNTH on our part. I think we can just present what is found and what it says. Done right, it will be encyclopedic and useful. (and neutral!) As far as herds with appreciable Spanish ancestry, I'm hesitant to draw a firm line, as we seem to have the almost-pure ones like the Pryors, but then others where there is the right "look" but no genetic studies, but then stuff like the Challis herd where Spanish influence is there, but so is a lot of other breeding. I haven't yet started down the rathole of the multiple "registries" for mustangs, but I saw something by Sponenberg that discussed in passing that there are a bunch of them. The American Indian Horse registry is one that has an "original type" standard for BLM Mustangs that has Spanish traits. Montanabw^(talk) 18:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

That is why I say the herds are Spanish to varying degrees. There are three four Cerbat (which is pretty much gone as a source), Pryor, Sulphur and Kiger, that are phenotypically Spanish enough that they can be registered in the Horse of the America's Registry, which is the one working closely with Sponenberg. There are maybe two to three more herds that exhibit enough Spanish traits to indicate the herd was once Spanish, but has since been diluted by other types. Then there's probably a dozen more where Cothran may detect enough Spanish blood to mention it, but the phenotype isn't real apparent (remember, Cothran's main objective is to determine if herds are genetically healthy, but he also looks for Spanish genetics). Spanish genetics may have been introduced into some herds by settlers that bought Spanish horses captured elsewhere and sold to the western traveling immigrants. Think of Pet and Patty in the Little House books. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't overlook the Native American influence from about 1650 on, particularly in bringing horses to the northwest. "Settlers" were only a partial source, the military also brought some, and the people who had long settled California and the Southwest via Mexico had horses with them (technically, they could be called "settlers" too, I guess...just 200 years earlier) We can only say what we can source; if others say they have the genetics, we mention the genetics; if they mention the phenotype, we mention the phenotype. We have to exercise some judgement, of course (some of the BLM sites describe certain burro types as "pink" and "blue" - which obviously would confuse the average reader; another HMA site said they had horses that were "15.5" arrgh...!) but editorial judgement. Do you have a link for the Horse of the Americas "registry"? I'm not of the view that only Spanish-type feral horses can be called Mustangs; they all are Mustangs, and the different types are kind of interesting. It's probably worth noting the significantly domesticated Spanish Mustang as well, with a summary here and link to the main article (which is yet another article on the "needs improvement" list). I won't have a lot of brain space to work on this until Monday, due to the Belmont (where I am trying to keep about five articles in live time at the moment) Montanabw^(talk) 07:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI, the strikeout and comments were getting pretty tangled, so I just pitched all of it, tried to incorporate the new material on the curlies, rearranged some stuff and so on. I'd say, just edit the thing (with as few saves as possible, just to avoid confusion) and we can compare diffs & discuss changes here. Maybe throw in a comment here and there that the other person can just toss when read. Might make it easier. Also, best for us both to be free with the {[cn}} tags and source as we go. Montanabw^(talk) 08:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to check-in and commend the efforts that are moving this article along so nicely. It made me smile. Thank you Montana and Lynn for the work you've invested. Wish I could have been more help. I anticipate the arrival of my new computer by Friday a week from now....island time...but at the rate you're moving along, you may have everything done by then. :-) --Atsme^📞📧 19:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

We are getting there. My bottom line on pretty much every article I've ever worked on is source, source, source. We are working on an encyclopedia, we are all called "editors" for a reason. Let's just get it right. Montanabw^(talk) 22:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

(Moved from hidden text): This sentence still needs something to lead it in and clarify it. The paragraph goes from ranch horses to calvary horses to horses being turned out into feral herds with no explanation. If the point of having it in here is to verify that ranchers were putting blooded stallions into the herds then this is a point of history since the reason the ranchers did so was because they "owned" the herds, thus they probably could not be considered "feral" As to why blooded stallions were still being introduced into the Black Mountain herd as late as 1978 is hard to explain however, and I don't think this is a good example of the practice. (written by LynnWysong)

Reply: I made a tweak, you are welcome to just dive in and take your own whack at the phrasing, I agree it can be inproved, just be sure not to separate sources from the material sourced. BYW, we need a source for the Curiles! Actually, purebred stallions turned out with feral herds did NOT mean all the horses in the herd were "owned" - the law was that you had to capture an animal and brand it to claim ownership on the open range. Remember that the Taylor Grazing Act was passed in part due to the view that there were too many "freeloaders" on the public domain. As for the 1978 bit, it's sourced, it looks like it happened throughout much of Idaho and if my memory serves, I recall stuff like this being done in the Dakotas (no HMAs, but some feral bands anyway) to "improve" some herds. It's something to research more, and something done 35+ years ago is now well-established in the genetic mix. Montanabw^(talk) 04:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Another section to work on

Random thoughts now that collaboration is working. Seems to me the article might benefit from a new "distribution" subsection, basically 1492 (or 1519) to circa 1930, perhaps within in the history section, to discuss the broad sweep of horse movement and when horses showed up where; your sandboxing of the Great Basin made me think of this. We can go beyond the BLM here if we can source it. That Haines source I found for the other article speaks of a horse trading center in New Mexico where Native people obtained horses circa 1650, and it appears horses appeared in Montana somewhere in the 1700s, via the Shoshone. The Nez Perce had horses that Lewis and Clark described as For example, horses in California probably can be sourced to be originally Spanish with other bloodlines coming in kind of late in the game (if the BLM is correct) Conversely, Texas may have been a melting pot for quite some time, though the Comanche may have brought in horses, the Spanish may have and people from the US South moving to Texas circa 1830 also. Will need really careful research and no speculation. We may have to use Dobie for that, but very, very carefully and not exclusively (if possible). Montanabw^(talk) 22:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I actually printed the map from the Haines article the other day, and drew in the boundaries of the Great Basin, to show how the dispersal circumvented it. BTW, I was using Haines as a reference three months ago . I'm posting the map here, but it would be nice if it could be posted in the actual article. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Haines map with the Boundaries of the Great Basin drawn in.

Adding to above, one reason is to address the "Indians caught wild horses escaped from Coronado's expedition" myth, it appears that it was debunked in 1938, but still persists. Another reason is to start to add in the "tame mustang" stuff like the Spanish Mustang breed, which (according to Sponenberg) is partly made up of never-feral animals. However, I also don't want to lump all the Colonial Spanish Hrose breeds with Mustangs, as there is at least a geographic and terminology difference, even if the Marsh Tacky has similar genetics.... Thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 22:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing in Haines that negates the idea that the first feral herd derived from horses escaped from Coronado, (which is what Atsme actually said) just that many more horses were also subsequently brought up from Mexico by the Indians, who probably did not capture "wild" horses, but either traded for or stole them. Those horses would have added to any herds established from Coronado's horses and established new herds elsewhere in the dispersal path. I think the relevant story of the Spanish Mustang Registry is how its founder, Bob Brislawn, recognized in the early part of the 20th century that the original (Spanish} mustangs were disappearing, and so made it his mission to collect and save as many of them as possible. You can read the story hereLynn (SLW) (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The Spanish Mustang article definitely needs expansion and my thinking is to expand it and pop in a summary here, ditto Spanish Colonial Horse. We sort of have a Venn diagram with these horses and the free-roaming Mustang. But, (and I'm actually sad to say this) we can't use the Haines map, it's not public domain because it was published in 1938, not pre-1923. The image reviewers will toss it in two seconds if we have it in an article that goes to any kind of review. That said, if you wanted to create your own graphic - not a tracing - but an original work as was done by an editor for History_of_the_horse_in_Britain#Holocene_period with File:Archaeological Sites of Horse Remains, UK.jpg - sourced to Haines - that could work - and - I'd be all for it (minus the red outline of the Great Basin). (FYI, all the USGS and BLM maps should be PD-US-Gov, though) As for the rest, it's a question of HOW a source is used, Haines is reliable for what has not been superceded by more recent research, just as Dobie and all the rest. They may be wrong, but unless someone else has proved them wrong, we can use them for what they say. Has to be handled carefully. Montanabw^(talk) 22:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

As for Coronado, I find Haines' analysis quite convincing. Hope Ryden concurred. The only sites I'm finding that make a case for the Coronado expedition as a source for feral herds is stuff like this, which, once you get past the nice graphic design, cites no source material to back up their claims. While I am sure out of 1,000 animals, some "inevitably" escaped, I think Haines is right that any number significant enough to establish a breeding population would have been noticed - especially as such breakaways had to include a stallion and a mare both - and I suspect most strays probably wound up being eaten. That said, that's MY OR and SYNTH, so if you find a really solid academic-style source for Coronado that allows us to present alternative views would be OK too. I'm for getting it right. Montanabw^(talk) 22:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

As it turns out, there were two Haines articles in 1938. The first one is the one you are speaking of, the second one is the one with the map. Haines was refuting the conclusion of this article published 24 years earlier, that theorized that seed stock from the Coronado and DeSoto expeditions ultimately provided the Plains Indians with their horses. But, we're sort of talking about apples and oranges here. Haines was refuting the idea that it was only those horses that ultimately provided the Plains Indians with their horses. He stated: "Note that we are not interested here in the question, did any of the horses survive? The possible presence of an isolated band in a remote canyon has no bearing on the question, since we are discussing the probability of these horses furnishing a supply for the Plains Indians." So he did leave open the possibility that "the first feral herd derived from horses escaped from Coronado". The problem is in finding a RS to this effect. I have a couple of books at home that may discuss this further It seems to me.

As far as a map, I could probably come up with something. But I would definitely outline the Great Basin, because I think it is important to depict that the dispersal circumvented it. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

On Coronado, absent an RS that feral herds were observed in significant numbers prior to the development of a Native horse culture in a given area (such as that link discussing them in the Mogollon Rim), we really can't prove a negative - that's kind of what the restrictions on OR and SYNTH are all about. We have to take what can be verified and try to be careful to neither omit what's been discovered nor add what had not been verified. As for the map, I think that it would be better to stay true to Haines (perhaps one could overlay it on an existing PD outline of modern state boundaries like this one File:Greatbasinmap.png or File:BLM_Wilderness_Study_Areas.jpeg) and then have a second map of the Great Basin, perhaps one like this (which might be PD-US-gov, not sure) and allow the reader to conclude the obvious. Montanabw^(talk) 02:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

On the above, it's clear you have a lot of interest in the Great Basin, and I understand that there is a large feral horse population there, but I guess I'm still puzzled about where you are wanting to go on this in the article itself. (I'm almost wondering about a spinoff at some point; Feral horses in the Great Basin or Mustangs in Nevada something, maybe not now, but at some point) For all the horses in Nevada today, there are also as many mustangs in holding areas, and not sure the current live population that has been adopted, but they all "count" for the purpose of a general overview article like this one. Montanabw^(talk) 02:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I just think it's important to show that there was basically no horses where most of them are now until American settlement brought them. To clear up the misconception that they are 1) Descended from the original Spanish horses, and 2) That when there were "millions" roaming the range (a number that is sounding more and more like it should go the way of the idea that the Indians got their horses from those escaped from Coronado's expedition) did not apply to the "range" where they are now, which is a desert, not a prairie grassland. To give a more accurate background for WHY there are tens of thousands of horses in holding. Which is because the number of horses they need to remove to keep the population stable and somewhat in balance with the environment far exceeds the adoption demand. Look at this sentence from the article: "Supporters argue that mustangs are part of the natural heritage of the American West, whose history predates modern land use practices, and thus the animals have an inherent right of inhabitation.[25]" "Supporters" may make that argument that the horses' presence "predates modern land use practices" but it doesn't. This article relies far too much on sources by "supporters" much of which is inaccurate. Look at what this one this one says: "According to western writer J. Frank Dobie, their numbers in the 19th century reached more than two million (No, he said there were 'no more' than two million) By the time the wild horse received protection in 1971, it was officially estimated that only 17,000 roamed America's PLAINS." This was written by someone that, at best, has no idea of the difference between the Great Basin Desert and the Great Plains and the history of how the horses transitioned from one area to another, or at worst, doesn't care because her agenda, with all her iconic pictures of the abuse that occurred 70 years ago, is simply trying to stir up the emotions of the public. There is a plethora of academic sources out there that more accurately portray the reality, but they are being ignored in this article. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've asked a couple of sources (including the fellow that made the Great Basin map) for the digital files I need, and with the map program I have access to, I should be able to make a decent facsimile of the Haine's map. Maybe I could even get the Great Basin map creator to help me, since his skills surpass mine. I should also be able to get the digital files for the HMAs and would be able to superimpose them on a map. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Just be SUPER sure that the base documents are also PD or free-license. The BLM's in-house created stuff (and USGS stuff) should be PD-US-Gov, just watch out for a notation saying "courtesy of" - the PD designation only applies to works created by a US gov employee while in the course and scope of their employment. (I got bit by that once, thinking photos on a US Army site were US-Gov when they were taken by a private party who gave the govt permission for that purpose only... eep!) Montanabw^(talk) 22:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, let's fix

You tagged the following paragraph for citations. We probably need to do a bit of rewriting for precision, so perhaps first tell me what content you are challenging:

Native American people readily integrated use of the horse into their cultures. Among the most capable horse-breeding native tribes of North America were the Comanche, the Shoshone, and the Nez Perce people.The last in particular became master horse breeders, and developed one of the first distinctly American breeds, the Appaloosa. Most other tribes did not practice extensive amounts of selective breeding, though they sought out desirable horses through acquisition and quickly weeded out those with undesirable traits.

Discussion

1. Most of the stuff on the Nez Perce can be easily verified by the sources that passed muster at the FAC over at Appaloosa. I can move some of those here to fix that bit. this source could augment or simplify the sourcing, if you prefer. Montanabw^(talk) 23:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
2. Would [ http://www.nmai.si.edu/exhibitions/horsenation/trading.html this] be an adequately acceptable RS for the proposition that the Comanche and Shoshone had horses early on? We can rephrase a bit to say "horse owning" instead of "horse-breeding" and add the Pueblo, Navajo etc., but we need to somehow clarify that the Comanche and Shoshone clearly outstripped the others in their horse culture. Montanabw^(talk) 23:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
3. this source can't pass RS because it's a blog, but they cite their own sources which we probably can find to cross-verify some very basic stuff. This article isn't about Native people and horses (hmmm, another topic though) and we don't want a long section here but to source the above bit, we probably need to have solid material.

First, let's ask ourselves: "Does this even belong in this article?" No doubt that Native Americans had a role in dispersing horses throughout the west, and that some of those horses escaped and formed feral herds. But doesn't that need to be as far as it goes in this article? Horses in the possession of humans, including Native Americans, aren't feral and aren't mustangs. What if we leave the Native American role as this:

Absolutely it does. To omit Native influence is to not cover how many horses got where they were, particularly in the Pacific and Inland Northwest. If we mention strayed ranch horses, military horses, and so on, the substantial influence of Native herds is absolutely critical. Your dispersal map is a start, but the lines look like rivers - I'd consider doing them in a different color than that state outlines, and they need to have arrows to indicate direction and dates, as did Haines'. I also think that the Great Basin overlay doesn't belong on this outline map unless you want to consider ALL topography of relevance to horse dispersal, such as the Continental Divide, the Sierra Nevadas, etc... I have long stated that over-emphasis on Nevada based on present-day populations is WP:UNDUE; I have nothing against including it to explain how Mustangs got there today, but the history of the Mustang is far more than the history of Nevada. Montanabw^(talk) 03:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Then, it probably belongs in the history section, but either way it needs to be sourced. I don't care how. As I said, I don't even think it needs to be in here, but if you think it does, I'm fine with however you fix it. As to the map, the dispersal lines are a different color than the state outlines, and as it says, it's a draft. I will refine it and put the dates on it at the end of the process. The Haines map did not have arrows. I will put on the Continental Divide, the Sierra Nevadas already show up on the topography, but I could put on some more geographic labels. And I still say that focusing on the geographic area (the Great Basin) where over 80% of the mustangs are found today is perfectly appropriate. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 07:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Horse dispersal 1600-1750

Draft map showing Haines horse dispersal

The first mustangs horses on the American continent were those brought by [Cortez] [cmt] descended from horses brought to what is now the interior of Mexico by the Spanish raised on ranches there and then taken to Santa Fe around 1600. They were captured by the Native Americans who spread horses by trade and other means throughout the Great Plains, and the Columbia and Colorado River basins. where they escaped captivity and began to form feral herds, most notably in the Southern Great Plains. There is where historian J. Frank Dobie stated the Spanish horses found the: "...American ranges corresponding in climate and soil to the arid lands of Spain, northern Africa and Arabia in which they originated".

---

I just took a whack at it, offering my views, a few edits, a lot of tags. At this point, though, I think you have some interesting material, but it's not very clear and organized yet. Maybe sandbox it a bit more, there's a lot of stuff that isn't needed (like if Ryden says there were horses in the Great Basin but they weren't then don't bother to use Ryden for that, just say the Utes had horses in what today is eastern Utah and western Colorado or whatever and source it to something better if there is something better...). My biggest problem is that your sourcing is incomplete. We can't put anything in until it is fully and properly sourced, and if a book, to a precise page number, not a 20-page range (like the pp 11-32, plus I'm rather concerned that Roe is going to be sensationalistic, but I'm willing to investigate the source further, I can get it locally at the same place as the Amaral one) So please provide complete sources, and if they are online in Google books, provide a link. As I have previously stated, we absolutely cannot synthesize or extrapolate - it's a fine line not to copy and paste or two closely paraphrase and yet not exceed scope of the source, but it can be done. I tagged what bugs me, if you think I'm wrong, just show the source, it's not about your opinion or mine, it's what the sources say and how reliable they are. Montanabw^(talk) 03:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Roe was a scholarly writer who is referenced in many subsequent books on the subject. I took him out as a reference because, 1) I was just using him to reference unreferenced material from the original article (which I also took out. If someone wants it in there they can feel free to properly reference it and reinsert it) and 2) as I stated here we can just rely on Haines who is online. It was Ryden's work that deserves the term "sensationalistic", but unfortunately it is her writing, not Roe's, that is more commonly known and has brought about many of the fallacies circulated today. I would be happy to not use her as a source at all, but I think that her inaccuracies need to be brought forward and refuted. Yes, the Spanish established horse farms in Mexico, I will find sources, and it was them, not the Comanche, that took them to Santa Fe-Haines map merely show the distribution of the horses-but not all of it was by the Indians. I took out the part about the Comanche, since Ryden's work conflicts with this: http://www.nmai.si.edu/exhibitions/horsenation/spread.html, and I pretty much distrust anything she wrote, although I think she was probably right about the NA stealing horses rather than "Strays from colonial ranches and settlements formed wild herds that Native people caught and tamed" which was written to be more PC.

And, please no more lectures about sourcing, synth, close paraphrasing etc. For one it's condescending (especially when done over and over, at which point it becomes uncivil), two this is a talk page and should be expected to be rough-just limit yourself to comments to express concerns, and three, your time would be better spent on content improvement. You never finished sourcing the material in the Proposed Characteristic section. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 07:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason to outline the Great Basin for a map that goes to about 1800 or so. One could do a different map with different sources, like this one: File:IE expansion.png to show that horses were in the Great Basin by 1900 or whenever. Two maps would be cool, actually; or find another source and add distribution from 1850 to 1971 or something. All sorts of possibities. Probably should upload a national BLM HMA map too, while we are at it.Montanabw^(talk) 23:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say the Comanche took horses to Santa Fe; we have a source that says they raided into Mexico at some point, but that's not the same thing, they also helped disburse horses north, particularly via the Shoshone, who are generally credited with bringing horses into the northern plains and plateau areas. The question of what horses were stolen, caught, traded or whatever probably each needs to be addressed, the answer is probably "all of the above". Montanabw^(talk) 23:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Ryden has to be taken with a grain of salt at times; but sometimes so does the BLM (seriously, a couple of their pages say there are "pink" burros! Sure maybe vaguely rosy, but "pink?), and so does anything developed by the cattle ranching industry—no one in this area can be viewed as totally neutral, it seems. Ryden is best used for things that cannot be otherwise sourced, or for history of the preservation efforts, but it doesn't mean she is always wrong, just needs each thing assessed. Montanabw^(talk) 23:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

As for the rest, I am really trying to stay civil here! I keep trying to explain things to you ("lectures" if you wish) because you keep making the same mistakes. So WP:AGF, please. I'm trying to educate you to how things are done on wikipedia; I have been here for nine years! What you present above would never pass GAN. Source it properly and thoroughly if you don't want me to criticize it. And please, be careful with stretching stuff beyond what the sources said. Montanabw^(talk) 23:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know the BLM can be a shaky source (such as when it attributed the "2 million horses in 1900" to Dobie instead of Ryden), but "pink" is actually a legitimate color for a burro, probably an old-timer name. And, I'm not going to spend time to polish up something to GAN standards before it's been hashed over and agreed upon. So, I'm not "making mistakes", I'm putting out a rough draft.

Trust me, it's a HUGE pain in the ass to go back and fix 50 sources later. I've had to do it, nothing sucks worse. Best to try and do it right along as you go.

I did some more work on the map today. Still not finished, but it looks better. By turning it to landscape more of the base map features show up, but I did have to cut off some of the south. As far as the Great Basin outline on it, just as you feel "To omit Native influence is to not cover how many horses got where they were, particularly in the Pacific and Inland Northwest. If we mention strayed ranch horses, military horses, and so on, the substantial influence of Native herds is absolutely critical", I feel it is critical to show where the original mustangs DIDN'T get to.

I like the improvements, I can live with Great Basin along with the addition of the Continental Divide. I'd suggest making the lines showing horse dispersal some color other than black, because the state boundaries are black. Maybe Purple or Red or whatever, doesn't matter. Maybe make the continental divide line brown (a bit more subtle) and the horse lines green, but I honestly don't really care, just need a bit more contrast to enhance readability. I also presume you will add the dates from Haines. (I do still think the dispersal lines would also be clearer with arrows at the north end of each line...) Montanabw^(talk) 05:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Now, as to another note, I finally received a letter from Anthony Amaral's ex-wife with some pictures of him for the article I wrote.

If she owns the photos, it would be cool if she could use the WP:OTRS system to release them for wikimedia projects, but if that's too complicated to pull off, you can still do a "fair use" rationale to keep them from being tossed by the image patrollers. (Example of fair use were the Ansel Adams photos I used for Russell and Sigurd Varian - click on the images to see what I did on the photo page.) Montanabw^(talk) 05:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

New Sandbox Page

Okay, since we seem to be all over the place on this page, I boldly Made a new reorganized Sandbox page that takes the "History", "Ancestry" and "Mustangs today" sections from the article, along with the new proposed "Characteristics" page, and combined them all into "History" and "Characteristics and Derived Breeds" Sections. I think that putting all this together and doing "big picture" editing will lead to much less chaos. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Down the road the sections may need to be worked out separately. There is a standardized layout for the horse articles, but sometimes IAR may apply. Headings usually suggest themselves as the article develops. And it was other users who suggested we add a characteristics section. Montanabw^(talk) 04:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I took a whack at the basic wikignoming. My thinking is that for now, keep the images out while we work on text. Montanabw^(talk) 05:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mustang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070211001910/http://www.ccmuseumedres.com:80/tour.php?action=details&record=37 to http://www.ccmuseumedres.com/tour.php?action=details&record=37
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.wildhorsepreservation.com/resources/wild.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Changed article to emphasize history and charaterisitics

To put this article more in line with articles of other types of horses, I've removed most of the management discussion to another page as suggested here. Some might think there is too much emphasis on history in this article, but given the unique story of the mustang I believe it is necessary. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The article still needs some polishing; will continue to do so. Atsme, DrChrissy, don't know if you watch list this article, but if you don't I think you'll agree with the changes. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Nice try except that I didn't suggest to move stuff from THIS article -- nice try, Lynn, but no dice. You did a raw cut and past out of the sandbox, complete with errors. Also, you rearranged the article too much; the majority of horse breed articles have the "characteristics" section first (younger readers want to know what the nice horsey looks like for their school report, more experienced readers will read on for more details) We work this out properly, not with you making mass rewrites. To all other Page watchers: I am reverting the mass, undiscussed changes to the last clean version, but will re-add some of them back in if they are in compliance with wikipedia's policies regarding RS, OR, V and SYNTH. Montanabw^(talk) 07:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC) Follow up: Upon review, I was able to toss the old, weak sections that were in the old version. Maybe half of the changes were things we had at least partially thrashed out in the sandbox, but I restored a fair bit of the deleted material that Wyong removed from the article, though some of it was moved. I tried to keep everything from both old and newer sandboxed versions that was salvageable; but we didn't need all those maps. Montanabw^(talk) 08:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Now to avoid more edit-warring, I suggest some basic rules:

1. Don't change the lead until we are done with the sections it references. The lead summarizes sourced material in the body text
2. Don't rearrange the sections, it makes it too hard to compare
3. Clean up the existing citations and add new ones correctly as we go.
4. Try to source most material to sources that have online views so others can verify; this is a controversial article (and has been for years) and needs meticulous accuracy.

• Onward! Montanabw^(talk) 08:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Before you make snarky comments like "nice try" I suggest you read the dif more carefully. It was Atsme's suggestion, not yours and she was absolutely right. And your rules sound to me like they will lead to more edit warring by providing nit-picky excuses to revert. How about this rule: If you see a problem, either tag it or fix it rather than revert it? Your editing style of summarily reverting other's edits does not encourage one to put much effort into trying to edit the pages you watchlist. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Every time you edit, I spend at least a hour reviewing your work, often more. I inevitably revert and rebuild because on balance less than half of what you add is suitable. (You might notice that I do keep some of it). Given that you have had so many research clunkers (the latest being the 2nd Boer War -- which ended in 1902, the horses removed from American ranges for cavalry remounts were associated mostly with WWI) and put undue weight on things that don't seem particularly relevant (like that map of the Nueces strip), I revert what is questionable. If your edits were properly-researched, it would help. But I cannot trust your work because you "extrapolate" far too much and either exceed the sources you cite or put far too much time into minutae that is of undue weight. (The bit on chicken processing plants probably belongs in the horse slaughter article, for example). I wish you would collaborate in good faith and accept instruction on how to write for this encyclopedia. Montanabw^(talk) 00:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how you sound? I took that issue to your talk page. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

In addition, you were told here that your editing style is disruptive. I've collaborated successfully with other editors, and none of them do the "revert and put back in enough to act like I'm collaborating method". I've reverted back, try working in a more collaborative style, instead of edit warring that you are pretending isn't edit warring. And don't complain to me how about long it takes to edit in such an unproductive way. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

An Observation. Remember the wiki golden rule: If a version of something has been remotely stable, and you change it, and anyone reverts it back to the stable rendition, you should never revert it back again until discussed here. Period. Of course if multiple people like the new version better (because of sourcing, spelling, phrasing, etc) that's a different story, but when it's pretty much 1on1 disagreement, there needs to be a conversation here before changing it to something new. I can also say that at tennis articles, if someone makes many poor choices, but does them step by step, I revert certain steps. But if there is a large amount of changes all jumbled in and interlinked, I will not sit there for an hour fixing things. I will go back to the original version, perhaps try to add back in the proper items, but leave a note on the editors talk page letting them know what's wrong and to re-do it without those controversial changes. Then we can talk about the controversial changes at the article talk page. Just my own musing here to get things smoothed out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

"If a version of something has been remotely stable, and you change it, and anyone reverts it back to the stable rendition, you should never revert it back again until discussed here. Period." I discussed it. The reversion wasn't justified. Just because MBW's claiming I've made "poor choices" doesn't mean I have. Casting aspersions as a excuse for reversion is pretty easy to do, thoughtful collaboration is harder. And the only reason this page has been "remotely stable" at this version is because she obstructs editing of it at every opportunity. For over seven years people have been commenting on it. She edit wars, then get the page locked down [1] [2] [3] at her preferred version until she gets around to collaborating. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It makes no difference if your choices were poor or great, if it's reverted you do not revert it back. And we are talking of the here and now as opposed to complaining of past edits and controversies. Shall we go through your edit history to see if there's anyone who has complained about you? That happens on wikipedia... a lot. This has been a controversial page for quite awhile and perhaps all things should be discussed here before making huge changes? I really don't care about who's more correct, just the protocol on how to change things. If five people agree with you right now, there would be no problem here. If Montanabw went over the 3 reverts he'd be blocked while the five of you had made a single revert. That's not what I see here. This looks like an edit war between the two of you and it should be done properly. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

"And we are talking of the here and now as opposed to complaining of past edits and controversies." Ask the person who keeps casting aspersions. "You've done (fill in the blank) in the past. I can't prove it, but I've said it so many times it must be true. Therefore, you can't be trusted, so I will revert your edits until I have time to collaborate." That is how BRD gets abused. I don't buy your opinion that if an edit that improves the article is reverted, it shouldn't be reverted back. The third sentence of the BRD ESSAY is that the practice should be used with discretion. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Improvement is a matter of opinion. And it's not my "opinion" that you shouldn't revert back... it's wikipedia consensus and guidelines that it shouldn't be reverted back. If it's blatant vandalism it's a different story, but this is a content dispute, and we follow content dispute protocol. If you add something and it gets reverted, you try and convince others that your way is better. If it is better, then others will chime in, or you go to 3rd party dispute help. You do not re-revert. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

There is NO guideline that says you must not re-revert back. There is one that says no more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. It never fails to amaze me the people that try to tell me BRD is a guideline or policy. It AIN'T. It's a suggestion that is abused by some people. If you revert a edit, and they revert back, instead of screaming BRD, and edit warring editors should maybe try to change the new wording to something they think is more correct, or tag it if its not well sourced, or do something less hostile than revert. It's a much more effective way to collaborate instead of endless debate over the merits of every point on the talk page. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

"Must" is a strong term and usually not applied to guidelines. BRD is an essay by consensus which tells us "If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version." Obviously discussion is the best course of action, but it is much more effective if you don't revert back to your bold edit. You go back to the original version and see what can be agreed upon. If I look at something and it's going to take me an hour to untangle it, you can bet your bottom dollar I'm going to revert the whole thing and ask the editor to talk about it or make only the minor changes. I don't really care what way this edit war winds up, but you are wrong about the way it's supposed to work. You need to change people's minds that your new way is better, not the other way around. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

"'Must' is a strong term and usually not applied to guidelines." Parsing words changes nothing. There is NO guideline to that effect. "BRD is an essay by consensus"???? What does that mean? BRD is an essay, period, and the process it describes is one that I see is abused by established editors to support ownership when a newer editor comes in a tries to improve an article. Yes, discussion is good, but when an editor consistently resorts to casting aspersions in discussions that is not good faith collaboration, that is obstruction by bullying, and reinforces the contention that the BRD process is being abused. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

If you aren't sure of what consensus is here at wikipedia check out WP:Consensus. If you aren't sure what wikipedia essays are try WP:Essays. And remember, bullying is a two way street. One doesn't simply bully their way to changing an article either. Be bold in changes, but if it gets reverted you then try and change people's minds instead of reverting it back. If you don't want to do it that way it can be a tough challenge for you here. This is getting too off topic for here so anything else bring to our talk pages. Good luck. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Mustang is not a breed

Before you (Montanbw) do your second reversion putting Mustang in the breed category, rather than the type category, please justify how the common name for dozens of isolated populations of horses of different phenotypes and ancestry can be characterized as one breed, or even a landrace? Please don't reference books on horse breeds, most of those are nothing but glorified vanity books that might loosely include mustangs, but provide no justification for why they are including horses that in no way meets the definition of breed. For your convenience, here are the WP definitions of the term breed and landrace:

A breed is a specific group of domestic animals having homogeneous appearance (phenotype), homogeneous behavior, and/or other characteristics that distinguish it from other organisms of the same species and that were arrived at through selective breeding.

A landrace is a domesticated, regional ecotype;[1][2] a locally adapted,[3] traditional variety[4] of a domesticated species of animal or plant that has developed over time, through adaptation to its natural and cultural environment of agriculture and pastoralism, and due to isolation from other populations of the species.[3]

Mustangs could be argued to be several different land races, but to include them in the "Breed category" you would have to change the name to "Breeds and land races" then include each separate HMA. (which had already been done for several, such as Kiger, Pryor and Cerbat - all of which are arguably NOT breeds, as well as the Banker horses, but are strains of the North American Colonial Spanish Horse breed) But the argument would not be a solid one, because the HMAs are not isolated from one another. Horses routinely migrate across HMA boundaries, and the BLM also mixes horses between HMAs for genetic diversity. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• We have similar issues with warmbloods and other breed types. We have discussed this issue before and while the point that there are many different groups of Mustangs, some genetically isolated, some not, categories exist for navigational purposes and many people searching for "breeds" will look up Mustangs in that category. We educate the reader within the article, and we know it is a nuanced question. Sponenberg lists three stages of breed development, basically feral breeds, landrace breeds, and standardized breeds. The line between a breed and a not-breed is not a completely clear one, and this has been debated in multiple areas across many different animal articles. We also know that there is debate between Sponenberg and Cothran over whether Colonial Spanish horses are separate breeds or separate strains of one breed, and the Luis study indicates there are multiple haplotypes within horses of Iberian ancestry, so we really should not be fighting over a category. Montanabw^(talk)|GO THUNDER! 19:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Factual errors - minor

Bob Brislawn was not a cowboy. He worked as a packer for the U.S. Geological Survey. Packers used horses to deliver goods and equipment to survey parties. His children have published books about him. The one by Neil UiBreaslain is called The Way of an Irish Horseman, 2006.

I fixed the article on this point. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Modern DNA research has established that Prewalski's horse was not one of the original wild horses. They are an offshoot of Equus Callabus which was created about 50,000 years ago. See Ladendorf, Janice M. Spanish Horsemen and Horses in the New World, 2015, p. 99.

Janice M. Ladendorf (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@Janice M. Ladendorf: Hi Janice, and welcome to the page. This is a friendly message and in no way intended to deter you from editing on Wikipedia. However, it is not usual for the writer of a work to be using their own work to support content. I think it might be OK to suggest it on a Talk page as you have done here, but you might wish to read WP:COI and Wikipedia:Expert editors. I am in a similar position, and these articles really do help. All the best, and happy editing. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

This is common knowledge among scientists. One of references behind my statement is Orlando, Ludovic,etc. "Recalibrating Equus evolution using the genome sequence of an early Middle Pleistocene horse". Nature, July 4, 2013. Janice M. Ladendorf (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@Janice M. Ladendorf:, the article abstract states: "This supports the contention that Przewalski's horses represent the last surviving wild horse population." I'm not sure what you meant by "Modern DNA research has established that Prewalski's horse was not one of the original wild horses. They are an offshoot of Equus Callabus which was created about 50,000 years ago." by "created" do you mean "evolved" since there is no evidence of any human intervention in their breeding? And even though they are obviously not the "original" wild horses, how is it a "factual error" that they are the only extant wild horse, as the WP article states? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I edited the article to make it consistent with the current source. The "Takhi" may be synonomous with Prewalski's horse, but the source doesn't make the connection. Do you have a link to the more recent study? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Our own Przewalski's horse article indicates that Takhi is one and the same animal. This should really be sorted out over there, rather than here on the Mustang article. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I have made a tweak which hopefully makes the content consistent with the source and also internal wiki-consistency. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Not really. WP cannot be it's own source. But, I'll be satisfied with "citation needed" tag for now. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I have NOT used wikipedia as its own source - I have simply made content consistent. Lynn, before we get crossed purposes, are you claiming that the "Takhi" and the Przewalski's horse are different animals? DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are using WP as it's own source. There is no source in either article that says the Przewalski's horse is the same as the Takhi. Find a source that does rather asking me about my "claims." Better yet, check the article that Janice wrote of; this whole discussion may be pointless.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Please note, I have found an RS and introduced this into the article. Above, I asked you a direct question, i.e. "are you claiming that the "Takhi" and the Przewalski's horse are different animals?". It is customary on wikipedia to answer a direct question with a direct answer. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe my previous statement "The 'Takhi' may be synonomous with Prewalski's horse, but the source doesn't make the connection." was sufficiently clear. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Not really - do you believe they are the same animal or not? It is not a trick question. I am not an expert in the subject and I am not setting you up for an attack. I simply want to understand why you seem to be equivocal by stating "may be synonymous". Is it, or isn't it? DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't pretend to be an expert either, and have no "belief". "May be synonymous" is simply reflective of that fact. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps I should try another approach. Please will you point me in the direction of evidence/arguments that the "Takhi" and the Przewalski's horse are not the same animal. At the moment, I have no doubt they are, but perhaps I am not sufficiently informed on this. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

No, I think I would rather go wrestle with a pig in the mud. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Lynn, I try very, very hard to comment on edits rather than editors, but I have to say here that your attitude is hardly one of being collegiate. DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Whatever. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The Przewalski horse stuff is a red herring, needs to not go here. Takhi is a name in one of the native languages of the region. Whoever this new editor is, she is not making much sense; all horses were "wild" horses 50,000 years ago. I'll restore the Brislawn fix, but as usual, when there are a ton of changes, it's a real challenge to sort through the cruft. Montanabw^(talk) 07:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Still won't solve the problem DrChrissy and I fixed, and you summarily reverted. Just remember, others are allowed to edit this article. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 07:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I would have fixed the Brislawn bit, there were so many intervening edits, it made sense to backtrack and then review. Montanabw^(talk) 05:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Scientists agree that the horse evolved in North America and migrations between here and Asia began long before horses disappeared from this continent. If Prewalski's horse evolved 50,000 years ago as a separate subspecies with twp additional chromosomes, it could have had little or no impact on the evolution of the true horse. Like some of the zebra species, there is general agreement they could not be tamed. Some people argue that the horses who returned here with the Conquistadores are not a native species because evolutionary changes had occurred. DNA analysis contradicts this belief. In other words, Prewalski's horse is not one of the original subspecies of wild horses that preceded the evolution of Equus Callubus, but a separate and unique wild subspecies. Janice M. Ladendorf (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I get where you're coming from now. Horses are native species in North America and should be managed as wildlife, not feral animals? DNA not withstanding, horses died out in North America due to changes in habitat from climate change after the last Ice Age, probably augmented from hunting pressure by humans that were colonizing the New World. Horses are not native to North America as it exists today. They did not adapt to ecological niches with their populations kept in check by non-human predators as North America warmed up and dried out. Had they done so, they probably would look much different from the horses running feral today-horses that have been selectively bred for hundreds of years for attributes valued by humans rather than adaptation to their environments. Adaptation is not reflected in major changes in DNA such as the number of chromosomes, but in smaller changes within the genome, such as those that control body morphology and the ability to thrive on the flora in their environment. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

And most of all, the horses in North America today all descend from domesticated animals imported from the Old World. So either way, end of story. Montanabw^(talk) 05:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mustang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111007123015/http://www.wildhorsepreservation.org/legislation/nas_report.html to http://www.wildhorsepreservation.org/legislation/nas_report.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mustang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150619220902/http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/prog/wild_horse_and_burro/hma-main/HMA-CA-252.html to http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/prog/wild_horse_and_burro/hma-main/HMA-CA-252.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140819083344/http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/Magazine/ma05/indepth/ to http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/Magazine/ma05/indepth/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)