Talk:Mustang/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Mustang. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Predation on Mustangs

I updated the section on potential predation on Mustangs to reflect reliable and up-to date sources. There is no basis for the statement "Where there is natural balance of predators and prey, mustang numbers tend to stay in balance. However, for the most part, natural predators have been eliminated from the ecosystem" The source for it was biased and unreliable, and is now a dead link. More scientific sources indicate the it is simply untrue that: " natural predators have been eliminated from the ecosystem" at least where the horses are found. There's no reliable study that documents that predation can balance, for the long term and/or large geographic scale, mustang numbers. It's simply wishful thinking on the part of those that want to blame predator control to prevent livestock loss that by stopping the control, predators would increase in number and start preying on mustangs. It's not that simple. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

This discussion was started here over a month ago, yet there was no attempt to engage before changing back to the problems I pointed out. I reverted the changes back, and also changed a poorly sourced and extremely POV paragraph. Here is the paragraph I revised:

Controversy surrounds the presence of feral mustang herds, particularly on public lands. 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.^[1] However, others remain vehemently opposed to their presence, arguing that the animals degrade rangeland and compete with livestock and wild species for forage.^[2]

^ http://www.wildhorsepreservation.org/ The American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign
^ see, e.g. National Academy of Sciences Report, 1982 Archived October 7, 2011, at the Wayback Machine
General Accounting Office Report, 1991

I revised it to this:

Controversy surrounds the presence of feral mustang herds on public lands. Supporters argue that mustangs have reinhabited an ecological niche vacated when horses went extinct in North America 10,000 years ago,^[1] claiming that the 10,000 year gap is "scientifically irrelevant."^[2] However, the National Academy of Science refutes that claim, stating that because of the large changes that have taken place in the North American environment in the past 10,000 years: "It cannot be argued that ecological voids dating back 10 millenia exist and that introduced forms are restoring some kind of earlier integrity." Non-supporters argue horses should now be considered an introduced species, with a greater potential of degrading the ecosystem than those herbivores continued to adapt as the environment changed over the past 10,000 years.^[1] However, the debate centers around the priority of use of the public lands the horses should have in relation to livestock and wildlife.^[3]

^ ^a ^b National Research Council (1982). "4". Wild and Free Roaming Horses and Burros: Final Report (Report). Washington D.C.: The National Academies Press. pp. 11–13.
^ "Myths & Facts About the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program". American Wild Horse Campaign.
^ National Research Council (1982). "5". Wild and Free Roaming Horses and Burros: Final Report (Report). Washington D.C.: The National Academies Press. p. 55.

The revision gave the current link to the NAS article, and actually gave the page numbers. It also changed the verbiage to more accurately reflect the content of the sources, and took out editorial adverbs such as "vehemently". The American Wild Horse Coalition site has change greatly in the past few years; the paragraph now reflects the current content of the site. The paragraph now has a more balanced POV.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

There is consensus to correct deadlinks and update citations. There is not consensus for substantive changes. Montanabw^(talk) 21:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, but your lack of input after six weeks is consensus. And, if you aren't going to provide justification for how edits are "POV pushing" all anyone can think is that you are using it as an excuse to prevent editing of an article you have worked to obstruct editing on for years.

Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

"Consensus" is the previous status quo, which has gone against you repeatedly. Disagreement with an individual who may have an undisclosed COI on this issue is not POV pushing or obstructing. As I said, feel free to update and fix the links if they are outdated or dead. But the content stays stable. Montanabw^(talk) 16:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Either actively engage, or stop reverting other's edits. You don't get to be judge jury and executioner, making a declaration of POV pushing based on an implication of COI. Your refusal to engage, while instead making such implications of COI (or socking, which was your first accusation to justify preventing me from editing this article) definitely smacks of ownership and obstruction. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

It is difficult to make a series of changes when one is immediately reverted. Please focus on content, not contributor. The problem with your previous edits is the continued concern that many have explained to you about cherry-picked data and inappropriate synthesis. I am going to make a series of edits that I think will combine some of your new content in a more neutral manner. As to COI on mustange, I will leave that issue to your own conscience. Other issues are more appropriately discussed at your talkpage. Montanabw^(talk) 22:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I reject your assertion "that many have explained to you about cherry-picked data and inappropriate synthesis" (which is especially ridiculous after stating "Please focus on content, not contributor"). It's just more of your intimidation tactics to obstruct editing. If you can't refrain from these nasty tactics, then expect things to continue as they have been. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, I shall feel free to edit your edits. If the article is open to editing, it's open equally to everyone. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 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:

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) 11:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Viewpoints

Not all "supporters" of free-roaming horses believe the "ecological niche" theory. Restored previous version that was more nuanced. Also reworked the predation section. The starvation bit was a good point to add, but just because Nevada is overloaded with mustangs doesn't mean that it's the only place that has them, so the content on predators needs to reflect a wider range of habitats. Montanabw^(talk) 00:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I put back the statement about "supporters" with "Some" in front of it. It has current links. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Also restored the currently sourced part about predation. It said nothing about Nevada, but the Great Basin, which also incorporates large parts of Utah, Oregon, California, and some of Wyoming and Idaho, as opposed to the discussion of one herd along the California Nevada border, which certainly does not "reflect a wider range of habitats". In addition, saying that "The mountain lion is well-known for predation on feral horses" goes beyond the source.

I also removed these paragraphs, for the same reason I removed them the first time:

Various supporters have different perspectives. Some 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.^[1] Others go further, arguing that mustangs have reinhabited an ecological niche vacated when horses went extinct in North America 10,000 years ago,^[2] and that the 10,000 year gap is "scientifically irrelevant."^[3]

^ http://www.wildhorsepreservation.org/ The American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign
^ National Research Council (1982). "4". Wild and Free Roaming Horses and Burros: Final Report (Report). Washington D.C.: The National Academies Press. pp. 11–13.
^ "Myths & Facts About the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program". American Wild Horse Campaign.

The first source in the paragraph says absolutely nothing like what it supposedly sources, edit: and if the wayback machined\ can find where the AWHP once said that, it is only one entity, not "some" that say that. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 09:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The point is that "some" (and we don't know if it's 1 or 25,000) people do hold the "right of habitation" argument, which is in the actual enacting language of the WFRHBA. We can tweak the citation to the act if you prefer. The second is the 10,000 years ago argument, and not all supporters agree with that reason, so it's wrong to paint too broadly. Montanabw^(talk) 23:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Others oppose the presence of free-roaming horses on at least some public lands where they currently are found, arguing that the animals degrade rangeland and compete with livestock and wild species for forage.^[1] Non-supporters argue horses should now be considered an introduced species, with a greater potential of degrading the ecosystem than those herbivores continued to adapt as the environment changed over the past 10,000 years, often citing to a 1982 study that concluded that because of the large changes that have taken place in the North American environment in the past 10,000 years: "It cannot be argued that ecological voids dating back 10 millenia exist and that introduced forms are restoring some kind of earlier integrity."^[2]

^ see, e.g. National Academy of Sciences Report, 1982 Archived October 7, 2011, at the Wayback Machine
General Accounting Office Report, 1991
^ Cite error: The named reference NAC1982 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

The first source in the paragraph is FUBAR. If you're not going to take the time to add proper sources, don't mess with things. In addition, you removed an interim reference with different page numbers for the first part of the second sentence and made the sentence complete synth. You have not provided a source that says that anyone cites to the 1982 report, much less that it is often cited to. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 09:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

So fix the formatting on the first source, remove "often" and go from there. The phrasing is better. Montanabw^(talk) 23:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I did fix it, but not by cleaning up your revisions. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Strange ref

ref # 110 in the article

^[1]

^ Kirkpatrick, Jay F.; Fazio, Patricia M. (February 26, 2005). "Wild Horses as Native North American Wildlife". Wild Horse Preservation (in Japanese). Archived from the original on July 18, 2011. Retrieved 20 February 2018.

I get a link to a Japanese roofing company. Anybody else see this.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC))

https://www.scribd.com/document/108754124/Wild-Horses-as-Native-North-American-Wildlife Lynn (SLW) (talk) 07:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes but part of the link in the ref in the article links to the Japanese roofing company. I will try to redo the ref to remove the link if no one cares.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC))

So this was fixed. That was unclear from your post. Thanks.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC))

Had my edits not been reverted, I found the wayback link for it... see my last edit on the article for it. Kirkpatrick's position is not widely accepted, but it is worth noting and properly sourcing. Montanabw^(talk) 23:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Here is where you supposedly fixed it. You didn't check the wayback link for it, thus leading to the problem LittleOliveOil described. I found a current link and actually fixed it. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I did find a wayback link, but must have screwed up the formatting somehow. Well anyway, thank you. Montanabw^(talk) 18:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Land Use Controversy

Okay, I completely reworked the section into a two tier approach that I believe makes it flow much better. I took a lot of time, making sure the content reflects the sources cited, and it relies heavily on the 2013 National Resource Council Report, which is an impeccable source. So, if anyone sees something they think needs to be changed, PLEASE make sure you aren't messing up the sources.

It is going to take hours to sort this all out, and I don't have hours to be on-wiki at the moment. I'll look it over later, though. The problem is not the source, it's the interpretation and use of the source. Montanabw^(talk) 23:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it takes time to thoughtfully edit such a complex subject. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I think I first edited this article about 10 years ago, yes. We can agree on that. Montanabw^(talk) 18:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Re adding content on alternate theory

I mistakenly cited misuse of synthesis as a reason to return content to visible article main space rather than to the hidden content but debunked refers to an earlier change. Adding the content with out debunked is fine in my opinion. The word debunk is fine if sourced to the ref as it was but doesn't debunk the entire range of research which may be misunderstood if we use debunk in the article. I've removed debunk and returned content to visible main space. While this content is fringe to mainstream sources, Downer seems to be an expert in the field and a short statement is acceptable and perhaps even necessary since it refers to Native histories. (Littleolive oil (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC))

The problem with the link was that, in order to use Downer, you must link to his article you must use his self-published article in a predatory journal. I thought it was fine to do so, since the information was posed as his hypothesis, but MBW removed it. Others can argue with her on that point, I really don't care; what was more at issue was the OR and SYNth that the Pryor Mountain study debunked it. So, i changed it to reflect Claire Henderson's much older essay and put it in a footnote. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

OK yes, I see that notice. I wasn't so concerned with the source despite its self published status; if there is reason to use fringe, content information we can sometimes use a fringe source as long as the content is weighted in the article as fringe content. I won't argue this since there is agreement to use another source and that's a better option. As long as debunked is removed in the article I see no reason to not use the content. Since the source is specifically discussing a position and the article is worded accurately per the source I don't see synthesis implied or otherwise. Its simply another position. Hiding the content seems like splitting hairs to me. But again, given my only, sometimes-appearance on this article I would go with agreement of regular editors, in this case.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC))

I think that Downer picked up on Henderson's previous hypothesis, and his 2014 article expands upon it, providing more evidence for the theory. Mostly to try to support the idea that horses are native; i.e.: If horses never died out in North America, how could they be considered to be a re-introduced species? But, it is still a fringe theory; the evidence he brings forward would never get it published in a peer-reviewed journal. Henderson wasn't pushing the idea of native horses, it sounds more to me like she was pushing for preservation of the Nokata horse in the Theodore Roosevelt National Park. So, I felt it was more appropriate to put it in the history section. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Mestengo Source

Just as a note: All sources are biased and they are used per weight in the mainstream and the article if verifiable and reliable. The Mestengo source is not usable because it has copyright infringement notices and is an opinion piece wit out publishers oversight and so is non- verifiable and so also is not reliable.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC))

Not sure what Mestegno source you are talking about. If you are talking about my removal of a sentence that implies that the BLM conducts population control of horses to make more room for livestock rather than to follow law, that is contentious enough that it should at least be sourced by the GAO or NRC as a public perception, not just a synthed point from an article that is no longer online and that has no sources backing up what it says. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I mean, look how bad the source is: "In 1975, determined to remove the wild horses but unable to capture them on horseback, the BLM amended the 1959 law (prohibiting motorized vehicles for captures), thus allowing them the use of aircraft, such as helicopters." 1) BLM doesn't amend laws, Congress does, and 2) it was not the 1959 law that was amended, but the 1971 Act. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I've seen multiple sources that suggest Mustangs are using resources livestock could be using, but I'm not contesting the content removal given the source. Your edit summary is confusing given that we don't select sources based on their POV or whether they are neutral in tone rather POV refers to article content. If a source is inaccurate that is something editors can contest and discuss but POV doesn't really refer to sources. As I said the source itself is problematic; it is not verifiable so at that point we don't even have to care what is in the source. I wasn't contesting the quality of the source or what was in it just the reason for removing it. This was a note added to the discussion rather than a point for discussing anyone's actions.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC))

as per discussion about a removed source-[1]

Okay, so back to the title of the section, what Mestengo Source is problematic? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

as per discussion about a removed source-this and is the source you removed today(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC))

Oh, got it. I thought you were referring to the etymology section.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Sourced content

Article text:

"whose history predates modern land use practices, and thus the animals have an inherent right to be on public lands."

Source text:

"The horse evolved on the North American continent, maybe it left for a while, but as far as I’m concerned they have a place on the Western landscape as a reintroduced native species."

The article text encapsulates the meaning in the source.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC))

No, it doesn't. This whole sentence: "Some argue that mustangs are a "culturally significant" part of the American West, noting the language from the act that they are "living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West" and though population control is needed,[106] they supported the current law protecting free-roaming horses whose history predates modern land use practices, and thus the animals have an inherent right to be on public lands." is synth. It's okay up to the point of "American West" but then to say "noting the language from the act that they are 'living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West'" is entirely taken out of context, "though population control is needed," is okay. Then the rest of the sentence is synth. It twists around to a totally different area of the article, reflecting a different POV: "they supported the current law protecting free-roaming horses" are not of those who "argue that mustangs are a "culturally significant" part of the American West" " whose history predates modern land use practices" does not mean the same as "The horse evolved on the North American continent, maybe it left for a while" but is a relic line from an outdated source making the point that reintroduced horses were on the land before the ranchers, which is in no way supported by the article, leaving "thus the animals have an inherent right to be on public lands as possibly supported by the source, but entirely out of context. I've changed it to fix all the problems. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 05:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem with the changes. However, there was nothing wrong with what was in place. Synthesis refers to sources-a cobbling together of sources to reach another conclusion than a source or sources are stating- not to the WP article itself.(Littleolive oil (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC))

Yeah, that's pretty much what I described. It was just within the same source. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Its generally considered a good collaborative practice when working on an article to look for and add sources if they don't seem to be present rather than just add citation tags.(Littleolive oil (talk) 08:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC))

When one revises a section of an article from a well-sourced one to a poorly sourced one, they have the obligation to fix the mess they made, not just leave it to others to fix. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Lynn. Wether a sources is poor or not when knowledgeable editors are working is a matter for discussion. Good collaboration means clean up the messes. The article comes first not who did what. I am very busy off Wikipedia so can't do much myself but I'll try and clean up bits when I have the time unless they are already fixed.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC))

And therein lies the issue. If you can't take the time to do it right, leave it alone until you can. Also, I changed back the Blood marker analysis. I know what I'm talking about there. Blood markers are not DNA testing, they are more similar to the ABO system in humans. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The source says blood testing not blood marker testing; the second source says DNA testing which I changed to correctly cite the source. We are in the business of citing sources not editing per what we know. Its not the business of any editor to tell others they are not doing it right. That's a rather high handed way of editing on Wikipedia. I disagree with your changes and I could easily say do it right or go away. Its not my place to do that and it isn't your place to tell another editor do it right especially when what you are saying is not in the sources. The source says blood testing and while it might mean blood marker testing the source doesn't say that and DNA testing can be done using blood as well as hair, etc so the source is confusing on this issue. The best way forward is to discuss changes civilly; you don't have all the right edits and neither do I.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC))

I put in a better source. The technical term is "blood group polymorphisms" which are commonly known as "blood markers". Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The source does not support this content: Many herds were analyzed for Spanish blood markers (polymorhims) and micro satellite DNA loci[21] and blood marker analysis verified a few to have significant Spanish ancestry, including the Cerbat Mustang, Pryor Mountain Mustang, and some horses from the Sulphur Springs HMA.[22]

Could you point to the page; I'm not seeing it

21 and 22 are the same source.

Blood group polymorphisms≠ blood markers.

Unless we can source what you've added it should be deleted; I'll wait for you to give the page here.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC))

21 and 22 are the same source but different page numbers as indicated by the difference references. Here is source that verifies that the terms are used interchangeably: https://books.google.com/books?id=ZL3A097IbjsC&pg=PA99&lpg=PA99&dq=cothran+1996+blood+marker+study&source=bl&ots=IzBJ1g5CIy&sig=f_yXqZX1WJIJA3dEtkCUHJJPoNw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjSuLaZyfvYAhVU1mMKHSEADBMQ6AEIPTAD#v=onepage&q=cothran%201996%20blood%20marker%20study&f=false Now, why don't you work on MBW's unsouced edits, instead of being hyper-focused on my edits? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok I see the ref to Spanish mustang. As for focusing on your edits, I could care less whose edits I am dealing with and actually don't really know. However, since you are questioning another editor's edits I suggest you deal with them yourself. You changed the reference in the middle of a discussion; the causes some confusion.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC))

...and by the way my first edits were to try and clean up a citation needed tag. Tagging content is a request for clean up.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC))

I'm just saying, you sure seem to show up here a lot when I'm editing. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I have the article watch listed as well as a few other horse related articles, and also have Montana watch listed as one of many woman editors I've watched for years. When an editor is dealing with trolls I watch even more closely as should we all. There but for luck could go any of us, and I have been harassed off Wikipedia and know what its like. I don't accept viciousness and trolling as acceptable for anyone or by anyone. Bottom line: when I edit I edit to be neutral in regards to the articles not to play games with anyone.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC))

Lynn, the bottom line is that the phrasing you used was awkward and not particularly readable. It also was overbroad. I suggest that instead of making 50 mini-edits that make it impossible to track your editing, why not just use appropriate ^{[citation needed]} or ^{[dubious – discuss]} tags on the sources so we can keep things straight? It would also be useful if you would assume good faith and avoid casting aspersions on other editors, including myself. Montanabw^(talk) 21:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It is your opinion that it was "akward, and "overbroad" but I certainly don't know if what you did was any better. It's not "casting spersions" to say you aren't taking the time to do it right if you aren't even checking to see a major formatting error. Fix that, when I will tell you how much you screwed up the sourcing, since you aren't taking the time to familiarize yourself with them and see if your changes accurately reflect them. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Lynn, I am tired of your false accusations. You make dozens of edits that can take hours and hours to review. Some of them are OK (if written a bit awkwardly) and others are not. It makes a lot more sense to break things down into smaller chunks and fix them in a step-by-step manner. I think it important to clarify your own position: Do you advocate removal of these Nevada horses and sale to slaughter? I think we had a discussion about this, but I cannot recall your position, if it was pro-slaughter or merely pro-sale "without restriction" (which would still probably mean slaughter, but there is some difference)? Montanabw^(talk) 22:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

And, herein lies the problem. You are assuming that I hold a certain position, so are suspicious of my edits, and are constantly on the attack. Then you tell me two diametrically opposite things. You criticize me for making small edits, then tell me I need to "break things down into smaller chunks" What the Fuck do you want? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

And, you can be assured, that little stunt will come up at your next RfA. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Montanabw - Why are you talking about an editor's views of land management policy? That is not the topic of this piece. It's completely irrelevant whether an editor personally feels that every feral horse should be shot from a helicopter, that they should be managed, that they should be allowed free range and for nature to take its course, or any intermediate position. It's the edits, not the editor. Keep your eye on the ball, please. Carrite (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Carrite, thank you for an outside eye, but the issue is the section of the article dealing with management of excess numbers. There is also a spinoff to this article that discusses the issue of management. In short, the reason this matters is that there is a concern with neutrality on this article and the constant changes to paint the debate into "supporters" and "opponents" of Mustangs on the range is one of the problems I am having. Montanabw^(talk) 23:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, my ideas on what can be done are not germane here, although I have shared them with my representative. What is germane here is that this article accurately reflects the facts, so that the public that comes here gets a holistic view of the situation, and can support or oppose their representative accordingly. The idea of euthanizing tens of thousands of horses is not palatable to anyone, and to come to a better solution will require an understanding of the situation, rather than just an emotional knee-jerk reaction. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

It would be nice if the edits to this article reflected that view. Indeed, there is far too much emotion here, and most of it is not mine. Montanabw^(talk) 23:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

What is also germane is that this is a collaborative project. Tone matters as does the way one edits. I don't agree with some of what you've done and that's fine, but attacking anyone in a discussion is damaging to the environment we work in. We don't have to agree. As well, I note the threat to another editor on an RfA. Whether or not any of us is frustrated with anyone else and there is lots of frustration here, threatening an RfA is really unfortunate, and noted.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC))

Not going to wade through all of this, but the with regard to the first two compared lines at the top, they bear almost no relationship to each other, and it was clearly a WP:AEIS problem. Not the S part, but the AE&I parts. Also a WP:NPOV problem, and simply direct WP:OR and using WP to publish original thought, twice over, in turning "have a place on the Western landscape" into "have an inherent right to be on public lands". Source doesn't say anything remotely like "modern land-use practices", either. This is nowhere near policy-compliant, or even within the same general region as actual paraphrasing. I've been away from this article a long time, but now have to wonder what else needs a word-by-word source verification. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Redirect Mustnag to disambiguation instead

Hi, I am Monniasza talk and I want afromentioned page go to Mustang (disambiguation) instead. Monniasza talk 13:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Horses in Pleistocene North America (again)

This portion of the discussion concluded

Montanabw keeps reverting my edits to the "Prehistory" section of the article stating "Article is accurate, please do not keep changing this" diffs [2] [3] My main issue is that Montanabw keeps removing the sentence stating that some represenatives of Equus (but possibly not all, the taxonomy of Pleistocene New World Equus is a mess) in North America have been suggested to be literal wild horses I.e. Equus ferus proper, which is the same as the Tarpan and Przewalski's horse, and of course from which the Domestic horse descends. The evidence for this is ancient DNA from some North American Equus is within variation of known wild horse specimens, see these papersWeinstock et al, 2005 Barrón-Ortiz et al, 2017 in PLoS one, the latter of which states: "The caballine equid species appears to be conspecific with [the same species as] E. ferus Boddaert, 1785, and this is the name we propose should be assigned to this material". Heintzman et al 2017 states: "...many dubious fossil equid taxa have been erected, a problem especially acute within Pleistocene Equus of North America. While numerous species are described from the fossil record, molecular data suggest that most belonged to, or were closely related to, a single, highly variable stout-legged caballine species that includes the domestic horse, E. caballus."

The fact that the wild horse was possibly native to North America (not merely Alaska and Yukon, which functioned as an extension of Siberia as part of Beringia and was separated from most of North America by the Laurentide ice sheet) and was merely expirated from the continent, rather than it being a different species from all the Pleistocene American horses seems like an important fact to mention in the section, considering the whole controversy about Mustangs being "invasive species". As far as I can understand, the main issue about previous discussions of prehistoric North American horses have revolved around unreliable sources, but these papers are published in reputable journals, so there is no reason to question their reliability on their face. Pinging @LynnWysong: @Carrite: @Littleolive oil: @SMcCandlish: who were involved in the previous discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I should note that I have no POV to push about Mustangs, I just want the scientific context to be accurately reflected. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I think you are misreading what’s there. We don’t say what you seem to think. The basics are quite simple: current science indicates that the genus equusevolved in North America, along with some other species that were distantly related. Then, all equids died out in North America. One of those species had migrated to Eurasia prior to expiration of the species in North America and thus did not become extinct worldwide—and was the ancestor of the modern horse. This issue has been extensively discussed, it’s what we are saying, and what’s in the article is a well-established consensus. So I am not sure your point, you appear to be misreading the content and creating a straw man argument. Also, the form of your edits that I removed was not written in a very comprehensible manner. If there is something we can clarify, please raise it. But what you are saying above seems to reflect a misunderstanding of the text. Montanabw^(talk) 14:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I shall try and make my point more clear. I think when people think of the horse they think of "Horses" i.e. Equus ferus/Equus caballus, which are equivalent, and horses sensu lato, i.e Zebras and Ass (I guess they would be called equines). Harringtonhippus by that definition is an equine, not a "horse", if that makes sense. My point is that the bona fide horse E. caballus/ferus, which by definition also includes the Mustang, was native to North America at human arrival at the continent, and the equines in North America weren't simply american zebras or similar, as has been previously suggested. This is opposed to the current wording, which doesn't make that clear. Equus includes all modern equines, including Donkeys and Zebras, so simply stating that Equus was native to the Americas isn't specific enough in my opinion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Basically, are you making the argument that horses never went extinct in North America? Or are you making an argument that the ancestors of donkeys and zebras did not evolve in North America? I ask because all members of genus equus did evolve in North America. And all became extinct there. There were no equids in the Americas for 10,000 years until horses and donkeys returned with European explorers. Montanabw^(talk) 16:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The ancestors of horses and donkeys did indeed evolve in North America and subsequently dispersed into Eurasia during the Pleistocene, around and after 2.58 Million years ago (see this paper, which is a separate issue. How all the fossil equines are related to each other are really contentious and ouside the scope of this discussion. The DNA evidence suggest that the bona fide horse was expirated from North America 10,000 years ago, but survived in Eurasia, and then was subsequently re-introduced to the Americas by the Spanish. The point being that the mustang belongs to the same species of horse that was present on human arrival in North America 10,000 years ago. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Almost right, though e. Ferus no longer exists, only e. ferus caballus, e. ferus asinus, and so on. (Zebras, donkeys, horses, Przewalski horses ...) And we say this in Footnote 34, this article. Perhaps a small rephrase for clarity? Montanabw^(talk) 16:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The distinction of the wild horse from the domestic horse as separate species while the Dog is a considered a subspecies of the Wolf is ultimately arbitrary, and I don't on consider the distinction between the two valid. E. ferus is technically extant as Przewalski's horse is considered to the species. However, they have been argued to have descended from prehistoric domestic horses (see [4]), so there isn't really a reason to distinguish the horse from the tarpan as separate species, even thought they are traditionally considered as such. What are your thoughts on the rephrase should be? Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the first time there have been complaints about over-control of this article by one or another editors. However, I'm not sure the material in question is appropriate to add. First off, it's primary research papers (primary sources), reflecting what's basically a handful of researchers' opinions, and that's not a scientific consensus. We can clearly see that the taxonomy and genetics are still an ongoing academic dispute, but that there's a pretty strong consensus in one direction. That may change, but literature reviews will tell us if and when that happens. Second, it's basically irrelevant to the invasive-species argument, because the environment and biome are vastly different today than they were in the Pleistocene. Introduction of modern domestic horses into the Modern (or Early Modern, at introduction time) biosphere of what is now the American West and Mexico simply has no relationship to the existence and eventual extinction of different equines in the Late Pleistocene / Upper Paleolithic in the same geographic region.

I'm not totally opposed to adding the material in question or something like it, but doing so would require a lot of contextual explication, and I don't see that it would actually improve the article for readers. The text already makes it clear that Equus evolved in N. Am., spread to Eurasia, was extirpated in the Americas, and that E. ferus is the ancestor of modern horses and ponies, including the introduced mustangs. If what you want to say is that E. ferus in particular was already living in the Americas in ancient times, this is not actually clear from the science (and probably irrelevant for another reason: it wasn't E. f. caballus). Something at least very close to E. ferus did live there at one Pleistocene point, but exactly how to identify it is a scientific debate. In part, it's a dispute between cladists and traditional taxonomists, while also in part a conflict in interpretation of genetic data and definition of "species", combined with conflict between scientific conceptualization of what an environment/biome is and what an introduced/invasive species is in that context, on the one hand, versus on the other a simplistic and legalistic interpretation of "an area" or "a place" and [re-]introduction of something to it. Scientifically that "it" is a "them": quite different biospheres that just happen to be on the same landmass but in widely separated time periods.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I think your idea of a fundamental distinction between the world of the Late Pleistocene (~100,000 years) and the Present is mistaken. Species of vertebrate tend to exist for many hundreds of thousands of years to several million years. For instance the Late Pleistocene of Africa "Most of the mammal species found in Africa during the late Pleistocene were also found here historically; only a few African species went extinct during the late Pleistocene. However, many changes in species' ranges, abundance, and associations made late Pleistocene faunal communities look different from today's communities". While the climate changed, the species did not. It's easy to point to extinct species in the Pleistocene and assume that the Pleistocene is a completely different world than the present, but it ignores the fact that almost all species that are currently alive today were also alive during the Late Pleistocene, and the modern world is a more (ecologically) depauperate world than what previously existed. It is widely thought that the Quaternary extinction event (Which caused the extinction of almost all large bodied mammals in the Americas) was not solely a natural event, but at a fundamental level driven by people. I think mentioning, even if couched in caution, that it has been suggested that one of the Equine species in North America is or is closely related to E. ferus is warranted. Caballine horses (E. ferus and close relatives) form a basal branch to living equines, and Zebras and Asses are more closely related to each other than they are to the domestic horse, so I think that the phylogenetic position is known with reasonable confidence. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

"This species in place X also existed in place X 100,000 years ago" != the same biome. And the American Southwest in particular has significantly changed just in the last 500 years or so. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I tweaked the "evolution" section to try to make it flow a little better, but despite your declaration to the negative, you do seem to be pushing the "Native Species" argument. Africa didn't experience glaciation. And the horses introduced to North America by the Europeans had been undergone thousands of years of domestication and selective breeding. The horses introduced to North America were bigger, required more feed and had a bigger impact on the environment, which was much hotter and dryer than that from which the wild type had gone extinct. We will never know is some variant of Equus would have survived in the Americas had it not been populated by humans at the end of the Pleistocene, but there is little doubt it would be a much smaller animal. For the same reason we would consider feral dogs to be an invasive species in wolf habitat, one has to consider domestic horses to be invasive species in what we surmise might still be the habitat of the extinct variant. Given the habitat of the extinct variant appears to have been tundra, it's entirely possible it would not have been found in the lower 48. The native species argument can't be supported by simple genetic comparisons. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a bone to pick with the people who find Mustangs an issue, they don't have any effective natural predators where they exist and tend to have overpopulation problems, which are exacerbated by poor policy surrounding their management. If you read the papers it suggests that if some of the North American equines were conspecific with the living horse, they were significantly morphologically variable depending on which region they were living in. One of the DNA samples was from New Mexico, well south of the tundra. I think adding the line "It has been suggested based on ancient DNA that some Late Pleistocene North American equines are conspecific with the living horse." Would satisfy me, and would provide adequate context. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Upon skimming through the article you are referencing it doesn't support the supposition that: It has been suggested based on ancient DNA that some Late Pleistocene North American equines are conspecific with the living horse." In fact, it doesn't support what is currently in the article "Although Equus ferus survived in Eurasia, and is the wild ancestor from which all modern domesticated horses, including the modern mustang, descend". I'm still thinking that you're trying to make a connection between the nuclear DNA studies that have been used to assert the Native Species argument with a widespread habitat of Equus ferus documented in the article. Before we go any further, can you point out where the article "suggests that if some of the North American equines were conspecific with the living horse" That point does not seem to have a valid source. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@LynnWysong: See figures 4 and 5 in Weinstock et al, 2005 ^[1]. Which clearly shows a Pleistocene Horse from Alberta, Canada (labeled 28), is deeply nested within the clade of Pleistocene and Living Eurasian horses. And see this quote from the close of the paper:

Size has been used as one of the main morphological criteria for defining species of Pleistocene equids [1], and the body size of the Late Pleistocene North American caballines we sampled did exhibit marked regional variability; e.g., horses in Alberta (Canada) were larger than their eastern Beringian and Wyoming counterparts (see Figure 1). The DNA evidence strongly suggests, however, that all of these large and small North American caballine samples belong to a single species (Figure 5 and Table S3). The presence of a morphologically variable caballine species widely distributed north and south of the Pleistocene ice sheets raises the tantalizing possibility that, in spite of the many taxa named on morphological grounds [1,2,4], most or even all North American caballines were members of the same species. Thus, our results indicate that only two lineages—a caballine and a stilt-legged—may have been present in North America during the Late Pleistocene, each comprising perhaps only a single species with temporal and regional variation in body size and morphology. This model would greatly simplify the systematics of North American Pleistocene horses and could open the way to the analysis of morphological variation in terms of adaptation to different environments. The study of this variation, in combination with paleoclimatic and paleoenvironmental data, should dramatically improve our understanding of the biogeography, evolution, and extinction of horses in this continent.

Barrón-Ortiz et al, 2017^[2] does not show a two clade split in caballine horses in DNA analysis

The results of the morphological and molecular analyses support the presence of two equid species for the Western Interior of North America during the late Pleistocene, a caballine species (morphological groups 1 and 2) and a non-caballine species (morphological group 4). A third species might be represented by morphological group 3, which has a distinctive enamel pattern. ...The caballine equid species appears to be conspecific with [meaning to belong to the same species as] E. ferus Boddaert, 1785, and this is the name we propose should be assigned to this material. We regard the morphological differences between the enamel pattern of the caballine specimens from Bluefish Caves (morphological group 1) and the caballine specimens from the other geographic regions (morphological group 2) as the product of geographic variation.