Talk:Danube Delta horse

Breed or not, etc

Hi, Just an FYI that for the purposes of navigation and ease of location of articles, WikiProject Equine is pretty generous in what is categorized as a "breed" of horse. As such, the free-roaming horses of a given geographic area are usually called a "breed" for lack of anything better. Thus all the various feral horse articles are categorized as "breeds," even if there is some debate as to their status as a true-breeding population. This also occurs in part because there is no real set consensus for or definition of what is a horse "breed" the way there is some consensus on dog breeds -- many crossbred horses get called a "breed" within 15 or 20 years, at least by the people breeding them. So for now, please keep the category for navigational purposes and also keep the article titled in the singular per the wikipedia Manual of Style. Thanks Montanabw^(talk) 07:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

So basically we make up facts such as "Delta Danube horses are a breed" for the sake of ease of navigation? If there's no reliable source calling them a "breed", we don't say it's a breed, it's as simple as that. bogdan (talk) 10:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The article itself doesn't need to call them a breed, I think the current phrasing says "population." The feral horse populations that exist in relative genetic isolation from other horse populations can be, by some definitions, classified as a "breed," while others claim only human-supervised selectively bred animals can be a "breed." It's a big dispute. But to the point here, the category needs to stay because otherwise no one is going to find the article except via feral horse, and worse yet, I know from past experience that if we don't slap all these articles into the "breeds" category, then someone goes off and creates a whole separate article on it. I once found three different articles on the Konik, for example. And for that matter, find ME a definition of a horse breed -- the concept of a "breed" in the horse world is very nebulous, covering everything from a breed with a centuries-old closed stud book to a landrace. It appears that you consider these animals a bunch of parasites on the ecosystem that all should be trucked off for horsemeat, but the fact is they are there, they are reproducing and surviving, they have not been removed, and as such, we discuss them in wikipedia and try to explain the issues surrounding them without taking a political position ourselves. I hope that works for you. Montanabw^(talk) 19:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"A breed is a group of domestic animals with a homogeneous appearance, behavior, and other characteristics that distinguish it from other animals of the same species."

There's nothing that sets the Danube Delta horses apart from the horses owned by the people from the region.

Also, the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy is valid for categories, too. bogdan (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and if they look like horses owned by people from the region, then they do have a homogeneous appearance. You make my point. And the sourcing argument can go both ways. Find a source that says they are not a "breed." Seriously. (Almost all sources I can find on Google are mirrors of wikipedia, and I don't read Romanian, unfortunately) And if they are identical to nearby domesticated horses, then what are the breeds of the "horses owned by people from the region?" Seriously. ALL feral horse populations are descendants of horses "owned by people from the region." Where else would they come from? Please leave this category in for now. This issue is larger than just this article, the debate crosses several feral horse articles and I really think it's nonsense to be arguing over a category. Or, we can request a third opinion. Montanabw^(talk) 20:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

FOLLOW UP Found some new sources that weren't links back to Wiki and incorporated some of their material. As far as I am concerned, we now have a ref for the animals being considered, at least by some, as a "breed," and also have provided some POV balance. I am willing to toss the POV tag if you are. If we want to continue to expand the article to showcase the debate between the parties who want the animals preserved versus those who want them removed, that is fine, I call that "teaching the controversy." And it happens to be a controversy that arises in nearly all feral horse populations. They DO have a tendency to reproduce and overgraze, so management is an issue almost everywhere. Montanabw^(talk) 21:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't breed, it's a feral population of working horses abandoned after the fall of communism. The horse breeds of Romania are these, and this is not among them. I suggest moving this to a title that makes this distinction quite clear, such as Feral horses of Letea or Feral horses in Romania, but Danube Delta horses would do too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• I favor keeping the "breed" category for now, as the line between a "feral breed", a "landrace breed" and a "standardized breed" is not always hard and fast. I agree that if Romania doesn't list them as a "breed" then no reason to include the category, but I also know that the fall of communism happened farther back than, for example, the creation of the Warlander "breed" so as far as developing landrace characteristics, I think it's fine to explain that they are a feral group, but "breed" is too fuzzy a concept in either direction to rule in or out. (Had a huge debate about this at the landrace article, and weren't you in on the discussion about that pig breed in New Zealand?) Montanabw^(talk) 21:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

self promotional text

the last paras are self promotional by Four Paws and contravene Wikipedia's policies. Four Paws website can be listed among external references. the last paras on the rationale and impact of the reproductive control operation require proper references. Tytire (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)