Talk:Mustang/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Government too harsh

With the way that Mustangs are being taken out of the wild at a higher percent each year, why is that because the horses are living off of forage that cattle and other domesticated animals can not even begin to eat. Are the people in the govenrment being to harsh on the Mustangs that helped found our Country?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.120.170.5 (talk • contribs) 09:35, September 7, 2004

Mustangs are the first horse to roam the west! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.77.85.161 (talk • contribs) 18:02, September 17, 2007

Is Mustang really a horse breed?

Take a look to The natural horse by Jaime Jackson. After many years of study of US wild horse, he says that Mustang is not a breed, but a complex mixtures of almost any existing breeds. Wikipedia has no entry "wild horse" so far. Can anybody solve this problem? I'm Italian, and my English is not so good.

--Alex brollo 18:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The Mustang is not a wild horse -its ancestors are escaped domestic horses, which makes it a feral horse. The horse article has a good discussion of this issue.

Mustang is the common term for the feral horse of the North American west. It is not a general term for feral horse - see Brumby for another local term for a feral horse. Mustang is also not used for the feral horses of the eastern US (such as those on Assateague).

Whether it is or not the Mustang is a formal "breed" is pedantic in my humble opinion. It does apear to meet the definition of breed in the wiki article, but perhaps not the definition used by certain horse enthusiasts. This article does explain that the Mustang's ancestral stock includes a wide variety of horses.

If you want to start a Feral horse or Wild horse article, please do so. However, I think this article should stay where it is. Toiyabe 00:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I fully agree with you - if I'll ever write a wild horse page, I'll add many of your remarks. The problem is that the difference among wild horse and feral horse is a very subtle, specialistic issue.

Nevertheless, the wrong idea that Mustang is a specific breed has important conseguences (please be patient with my rough English). Observations on soundness, diet, environment, movement and so on coming from all Mustangs as a composite group af breeds, are true for any breed and conformation present in such a group. This adds a lot, in my opinion, to the studies of Jaime Jackson because they apply to a large series of breeds and conformations. In other words: many domestic breeds can enjoy the perfect soundness, stamine, agility, etc if they live in a feral condition or in a domestic, how-much-is-possible "feralizated" (=naturalized) condition. --Alex brollo 17:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I see your point. I think the way to handle it is to state that the ability of the Mustang to thrive in a harsh enivironment without human assistance appears to be due to traits common in domestic horses, rather than adaptations specific to the Mustang. Breed is a loose term, and should be avoided as much as possible - you'll notice that it's not used in the article itself, only in the category and disambig message.

Mustangs do exhibit a wide variety of physical forms (size and color are the things I often notice). Many populations are inbred and don't have the beauty, grace and agility sterotypical of Mustangs. Even a healthy herd usually has old, sick or injured individuals which are very noticible when they take flight. So I'd be careful of overemphasizing the healthiness of feral horse populations. Toiyabe 19:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Updating the article

Looking over the article for historical tweaks, I noticed there appeared to be something of an anti-mustang bias to what is written. I am not a wild horse romanticist, but I also am not a cattle ranching apologist. So, I took a stab at trying to improve upon the neutrality of the article, or at least to sharpen the horns of the dilemma and outline where the controversies are and who the players are.

There was also just a need for a little more rearranging and editing. Hope the overall effect was an improvement. Montanabw 22:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I Love Mustangs

I Love Mustangs.It is a beutifull Horse.With a big and very wild Heart! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.156.114.3 (talk • contribs) 05:32, August 26, 2006

Biblical References?

I notice a portion of this article comments on wild horses in America dying off from the great flood, and directs people to read about BIBLE/GENESIS/NOAH - is this article really the place to include something like that? --Deathsushi 16:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It was vandalism and removed. Horses in North America died out at the end of the last Ice Age from a combinatin of climate change and possibly also from overhunting by the first people to arrive on the continent. Montanabw 21:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

these animals are specil and have been in my family for years

these animals are specil and have been in my family for years — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.51.158.105 (talk • contribs) 18:16, December 14, 2006

Life Span?

An anonymous user wrote that mustangs live 4000 to 8000 years. I removed that sentence. Does anyone know how long feral mustangs really live? Rockoval 1:57 30 Dec, 2006 (UTC)

Depends on many factors, but 10-15 years is common. Will check the article. Montanabw 22:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Disambiguation at the top of an article might be needed when someone types in a term, but goes to an article for a different subject. For example, if someone wanted to find out about "House" the TV show, they would type in house but read an article about buildings.

It is not reasonable to suppose that a person would type in "mustang (horse)" when they are thinking of an Automobile or any of the other meanings of "mustang". We can assume that everyone viewing this article intends to read about horses. So there is no purpose to disambiguation here. Also, neither "wild horse" nor "feral" redirect to this article, so there is no need to mention them either. --Yath 00:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well and good, but can you cite to me the wikipedia article that explains disambiguation in detail? Further, there are hundreds of wikipedia articles that do not use the disambuguation in this fashion you suggest, and it is my understanding that these sorts of references can also be used to help people find what they are looking for...while a person may not type in Mustang (horse) in the search box, there are certainly many times that the phrase is pipe linked to be [[Mustang (horse)|Mustang]] and god knows I have edited out enough references to sports teams from this article, so SOMEONE sure can't read. We need to include this material in some fashion because people clearly are being misdirected somehow! Montanabw 04:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation is explained here: Wikipedia:Disambiguation. When a piped link is used as you describe, the context in which it is used should make the subject clear.

If people are being misdirected, then the source of the misdirection should be found and fixed. For example, if a link to a "mustang" sports team is given as [[Mustang (horse)|Mustang]]s, that is an error in that article.

If people are adding irrelevant links or items to this article, they are probably new editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia's disambiguation practices. The same thing happens in Ruby all the time - they add links to Ruby (programming language) even though the language is linked from Ruby (disambiguation). The solution to this problem is to keep removing the unnecessary links. The new editors and readers pick up on the principle rather quickly. Cluttering up the top of the article, however, is not the solution. --Yath 14:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. One person's "clutter" is another person's "helpful links to any alternative articles with similar names." I feel that in this case, "Bottom links are deprecated. Such links are harder to find and easily missed." I really see nothing in the disambiguation article that justifies your removal of this material. Frankly, yes, the problems are mostly from inexperienced editors, but good links help minimize it, and I don't know about you, but I DO have a life outside wikiland, and frankly, even in wikiland, Mustangs are not my priority, they're just on my watchlist. I get tired of always removing this junk. I see no violation of wikipedia policy in having one simple disambiguation link, and am going to make one more try at having something simple that is not "clutter." Perhaps the use of a neat template will be a sufficient compromise that puts a clarifying statement at the beginning of the article but doesn't "clutter" up the page. Montanabw 18:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not simply a matter of a difference of opinion. There is a definite use for top-disambiguation: when someone searching for a different subject would likely have come to this article first. It would be useful if someone searching for any of the other meanings of "mustang" were likely to end up on this article.

However, they do not. Anyone who wants one of the articles linked from mustang will likely type "mustang" into the search box, and will end up at mustang. They will not end up at mustang (horse) unless they clicked a link that was obviously about the horses. Do you see how this works? It is not entirely clear that you understand this. --Yath 18:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I'll leave it, but I just encourage you to keep the article on your watch list and we can track the number of stupid edits. I put the disambiguation link at the top for a reason; I felt there were too many amateur edits of material that was elsewhere. Yes, I grant that if you search for "Mustang" you get the disambiguation page. And, I can check what links here, but yes, probably most piped links are in the context of the horse and not the car. But the reason I am having trouble with this is because I have come across dozens of pages that aren't this way--the primary topic doesn't always come up in a search, but the page that comes up doesn't really have a disambiguation page, either. There is the "otheruses" template explaining some, but in other cases, well...

I don't see a violation of policy here. Many pages are otherwise cross-linked at the top rather than in "See also" links at the bottom. Now maybe they're ALL wrong, but Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) suggests, "...if you find that another editor has felt the need to create such entries, please do not remove them. If you feel such an entry should be included, please add an invisible comment and/or a note on the discussion page of that disambiguation page to explain why." AND "Break rules--For every style suggestion above, there's some page which has a good reason to do something else. These guidelines are intended for consistency, but usefulness to the reader is the principal goal. So ignore these guidelines if you have a good reason."

So I am just frustrated that you are being so fussy about a "guideline" when the goal is to help people find material.

If you want to see another situation, try "bay" as a search for the color bay in horses...the article is there, just dig and see what's out there. Or, my very favorite example of a disaster area, the sort-of disambiguation page for white horse. It just doesn't seem to be wrong to me that when a person gets to this page that they shouldn't be able to access the disambiguation page for more uses of a word... I'll leave it alone for now, but I really do think you're being too fussy. Montanabw 01:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I am curious as to what sort of bad edits are involved here. I tried to make some guesses above, such as the Ruby (programming language) links being added to the top of Ruby, but that was just a wild guess. It would be helpful to see some examples. --Yath 18:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm mostly trying to figure out the disambiguation standard because it is unevenly applied. Put simply, I really don't see the "crime" in cross-linking an article back to the disambiguation page. For example, White horse doesn't get you the article about white colored horses, it gets you a kind-of disambiguation page that lists pubs in England and a "oh by the way, here's other stuff it could mean." I guess I am trying to figure out what is the huge problem that will crash Wikipedia with having a link to the Mustang disambiguation page and the wild horse articles at the top of this one. Seems that a cross-reference at the top is useful for more than just for disambiguation...for example, a person reading an article on horses clicks the piped link that says "Mustang," and comes to this article, but then while reading, thinks "what about the car or the ball team?" I really am not convinced that I was misusing the concept by putting two handy and commonly used cross-references at the top. I mean, it's true we have no cross-reference to English pubs on the White (horse) page, but that's not a real common problem. This is not worth an edit war, however. I suppose what we now have is a policy dispute. Montanabw 19:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Mesteño?

This article gives the etymology of the word Mustang as being derived from the Spanish "Mesteño". I am not aware of any such word in the Spanish language. If there any proof of this etymology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 09:56, February 1, 2007 (talk • contribs) 09:56, February 1, 2007

There is such a word. Take a look at the Spanish Royal Academy's online dictionary.

Tmangray 03:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

It's unlikely, and indeed, my dictionary demonstrates that the word mustang does not come from the formal name of a particular association of pastoralists in Spain. Actually, La Mesta derived its name from the same common source as the word mustang. A mesteño (became mestengo in New Spain/Mexico) is a stray animal. It could refer to a domesticated animal on the loose, or a feral animal. A mesta was a meeting of pastoralists to sort out which animal belonged to whom. LA Mesta was not the only mesta. The word mesteño also often carried the sense of a mongrelized animal since animals on the loose typically did not care to follow the breeding rules of pastoralists. This sense has its roots in the Latin origin of both mustang and La Mesta: mixta (Medieval Latin) and mixtus, past participle of miscere "to mix". This sense has been preserved in the familiar usage "mustang", as one of their essential characteristics is their wildly mixed pedigree. Tmangray 03:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

There are some problems with the explanation above. For starters, there is no way mestengo can derive from mesteño. In fact, it is the other way around. Mestengo is an older word, that became mesteño both in Mexican and Castilian Spanish, although in both places the older form survived as well. Secondly, the word mesteño refers to animals on the loose, but the assumption that it carries the meaning of mixtus makes no sense. There are plenty of words for mixed animals in Spanish, starting with Old Spanish misto, that would make it unnecessary to use a word, mestengo, derived from mesta by the addition of the suffix -engo, which means belonging to (compare realengo, madrileño, etc.) A third point I would like to make is that bringing up the masculine singular mixtus is only creating confusion. All these words are derived from the plural mixta, from animalia mixta. Tmangray should at least say what dictionary s/he is referring to, just so we can compare sources. Mine is the etymological dictionary written by Joan Coromines (Juan Corominas). To sum up: animalia mixta > mixta > mesta > mestengo > mustang 72.89.115.41 13:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You both will be able to settle this if you would simply cite to verifiable, authoritative sources. How about both of you actually providing a full citation to "my dictionary" in a proper footnote, and if there are multiple definitions (try the etymology of buckaroo, if you want to see a REAL mess), then present them both and discuss the controversy. I am tired of these kind of discussions when a few footnotes would solve many a problem. And maybe create a sandbox section here on the talk page to work out an acceptable definition instead of having an edit war in the main article. JMHO. Montanabw 00:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Websters has mestengo deriving from mesteno, and shows mestengo as a Mexican Spanish derivative. The Royal Spanish Dictionary does not even list mestengo at all. I find your point about the ending "engo" interesting as far as ownership. This would however translate to "belonging to the mixed" (as Madrileno means belonging to Madrid) which leaves the matter of mixed in what sense still ambiguous. The common root of all is the Latin miscere. This verb simply means "to mix". It is the root of miscegenation and mestizo as well as mustang. In fact, this Latin root is used almost exclusively with respect to animals (including humans) to refer to their mixed pedigree. It can't mean "mixed ownership" since the animals to which it was applied were either singularly owned albeit strayed, or owned by no one because they were feral. It might have meant "belonging to the mesta", but that begs the question as to the derivation of the word mesta itself since presumably it derived its name from the animals it dealt with. You find yourself in a circular definition ad infinitum. Tmangray 21:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have had some similar discussions over Buckaroo, Vaquero, Bakhara, and if the word is Latin, Arabic or even African in origin. Usually the best approach is to just "teach the controversy" as they say. Unless, of course, we have a medieval Spanish scholar amongst us. (but then, the African origin theory of Buckaroo did some from some scholarly type, meaning even they can be wrong) Ah words... Montanabw^(talk) 21:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I already said above that there is no way mestengo can derive from mesteño. Check ANY book about the evolution of the sounds of the Spanish language (Ralph Penny's is probably easy to find in the US, or the old Menéndez Pidal), or a Spanish etymology dictionary, like the Corominas one mentioned in the Mesta article. Or even the brief etymology note in the OED, if you can't read Spanish (oh, and by the way, OED is the Oxford English Dictionary, not the uncredited, unreliable online etymology dictionary I have sometimes seen quoted in wikipedia). It is mesteño that derives from mestengo. The word "derived" is obviously wrongly used in Websters. Tmangray's statements about what words are supposed to mean are absurd, based in his idea that his interpretation of the English word belonging has to translate exactly into the meaning of the suffix, which shows how little he knows about philology (Or is madrileño supposed to mean belonging to Madrid?). If you actually care about finding out what is really known more than you care about winning petty arguments, you will check it yourselves in the books I mentioned. Me, I have better things to do. 72.89.121.75 13:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You're taking this all wrong. I'm trying to reconcile what you say with what Webster's says (okay, the OED conflicts), and trying to make logical sense out of the Latin derivation. I'm also baffled by the point about "belonging". Someone (you?) said that's what the ending -engo referred to, so I followed the logic out. You saying now that Madrileno DOESN'T mean "belonging to Madrid"? Then what WAS the point? Tmangray 18:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

OK campers, cease fire, please. I made a sandbox below...just edit the paragraph and improve it. Use verifiable sources, and if no consensus is reached, we "teach the controversy," i.e. "some experts, A,B,and C, say this, but other experts, X, Y, and Z, say that..." Montanabw^(talk) 22:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Wild and feral horses

what kind of horse is not a wild horse — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.76.180 (talk • contribs) 16:18, May 2, 2007

Almost all of them! See the article wild horse and feral horse. Mustangs are feral horses. Most "wild horses" are actually feral.Montanabw 00:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what your scientific background is to make such sweeping statements, but here is a statement from Jay F. Kirkpatrick, PhD, Director of the Science and Conservation Center in Billings (MT):

The issue of feralization and the use of the word “feral” is a human construct that has little biological meaning except in transitory behavior, usually forced on the animal in some manner. Consider this parallel. E. Przewalski (Mongolian wild horse) disappeared from Mongolia a hundred years ago. It has survived since then in zoos. That is not domestication in the classic sense, but it is captivity, with keepers providing food and veterinarians providing health care. Then they were released a few years back and now repopulate their native range in Mongolia. Are they a reintroduced native species or not? And what is the difference between them and E. caballus in North America, except for the time frame and degree of captivity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Wanderlust (talk • contribs) 10:24, May 17, 2007

Help out and be nice

Far too much sarcasm in both edit summaries and in previous edits. If you have something constructive to add, please add it and cite it to a verifiable source. If you have a problem with the article and have neither the time nor ability to fix it, then please bring it here and don't just trash the article with excessive tags. This is no longer cute. Montanabw 23:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Howdy. I can't speak for others, but I will be tagging uncited facts regardless of whether such makes the article look 'trashy;' though if you'd prefer, you can remove the offending statements entirely. I generally avoid outright removal, as the information may be valid--but the reader must be advised that factuality has not been confirmed. I agree that adding references rather than tags is preferred and often I will attempt to do so, but I did not posit these statements and I do not know (and may not have access to) the author's source.

On the subject: you removed some of my tags because they were in the middle of the sentence, which seemed “rude”. Those were 'attribution required' tags, and they are to be placed after descriptions of a group of persons, such as "serious scholars / scientists / researchers," "historians / philosophers / scientists," "some / many people," and the like.[1] Such generalizations often serve as a vehicle for writers to input their own opinions, adding a sense of legitimacy. Such is the case with the group “supporters of wild horses:” who are these ‘supporters’? Are there specific institutions or individuals who may be cited? If not, from where is the author drawing this information? (See also: Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words)

I understand your objections, but please understand that I do not seek to degrade the quality of this article--my intention is quite the opposite. To this end, I have created a modified version of the attribution tag which is shorter and thus less distracting; I hope you will find this improved version more agreeable.

Best regards, --Xiaphias 09:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The smaller, more discreet tag is an improvement. I also appreciate that the material has not been removed, because the statements, though general, can pretty much be found at any website discussing the issue. As I didn't put in some of the original material, it takes longer to locate authoritiative sources (as opposed to hysterical and POV sources, which this topic has more than its fair share), and I hope other editors who care will step in and help out in this respect. That said, it still looks silly to put in an attribution tag in the middle of a sentence, even if not totally incorrect form, but it is a bit more polished (and less snotty-looking)to put it at the end. On that note, those who care may want to access this web site and place a citation to it in assorted appropriate locations. http://www.cnr.uidaho.edu/range456/hot-topics/wildhorse.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 18:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Why has half the article simply been deleted? How rude. The article cited above is grossly outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Wanderlust (talk • contribs) 10:13, May 17, 2007

The large-scale blanking is better known as "vandalism." I restored the article, anyone can do that, and it's very helpful to do so. As for the article cited above, looks like it was written in 2002, though some of the material cited is older. But it is at least a verifiable source from a University web site instead of some hysterical rant from an interest group on one side or the other. If someone has a better piece that is verifiable and reasonably NPOV, add the link here. Xiaphias rightly points out that this article needs more footnoting, and we need some good sources to cite that are not horribly POV, which is tough to find for this topic. Montanabw 20:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Invaders, Conquistadors, Spanish

Why not just say that the horses were brought to America by the Spanish, or by Spaniards, rather than talking about Conquistadors or invaders? It is common knowledge that the Spaniards conquered/invaded America (or parts of it. In fact, the areas were mustangs are most common were not necessarily under Spanish control). 72.89.115.41 16:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The very first horses in the North American mainland after the Ice Age arrived with Cortez. He was a conquistador. I am tired of the whole pissing war over this, but I also feel that it silly to fight over. The priests and the farmers didn't bring most of the early horses, the soldiers did. And they were brought north by Native Americans as much as anyone as people like the Comanche and the Shoshone adapted to a horse culture quicker than a lot of more settled tirbes. So if someone wants to go through the whole history from Cortez, DeSoto, Coronado, the intermixture with horses from the east, etc., plus the horses dumped on the west coast by the Brits, etc., we can, but I haven't the energy to take on the project. I also suggest that most of these various editing wars are ended when people start adding inline citations to their edits. Sorry to be a little snappish today, I just get to feeling some days like I am the only person editing the horse articles who has a clue about the nature of this miraculous thing called a footnote. Montanabw 00:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I asked a question in the discussion page, I didn't change the conquistador/invader thing. No editing war here. I am not sure why Montanabw feels like he has to be involved in any project related to this article. I guess that attitude will just bring him more frustration and snappishness. Oh, and saying sorry to be snappish does not fix it. If you are aware that you are being snappish, just stop it. Otherwise you will alienate potential (new, learning) collaborators. Although perhaps that is what you want. 71.167.224.145 14:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Having just ended a huge edit war over someone who insisted on calling Conquistadors "invaders" right on the heels of fixing major POV screwups that had totally trashed this article during the time it was off my watchlist, plus, on the other side, dealing with an anal-retentive citation-tagger who cares nothing for the article but just likes to nitpick, has me actually way more than a bit snippy. I have no intention of biting newcomers, but I am tired, tired, TIRED of the whole discussion. Oh yes, and also reverting the nonsense edits and vandalism of fourth-graders. And endlessly explaining the difference between a feral horse and a wild horse. I have probably personally put a good 10 or 15 hours of work into just this article, spent a lot of time doing research to verify material added by others, spent even more time removing stuff that is simply incorrect, trying to mediate an always-impending war between different pro- and anti- mustang factions, and wish others would simply be careful, verify their edits, and just follow the wiki guidelines and rules. It isn't that difficult. Again, sorry to be snappish, don't take it personally. You will have moments like this also. We are all human, deal with it. Montanabw 18:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Good for you. Abtract 19:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think all of the above was my way of saying "I think I need a wikihug" Are there wikihugs? Montanabw 21:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Etymology sandbox/battleground

OK campers: Here is the text in the article as it stands today (July 18). Start editing -- but add verifiable sources, I will wordsmith and attempt to mediate spats, and if we ever get to something EVERYONE can live with, it will be moved into the main article. Ready! Set! Go! Montanabw^(talk) 22:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

---

The English word "mustang" comes from the Mexican Spanish word mestengo, derived from Spanish mesteño, meaning "stray" or "feral animal". The Spanish word in turn may possibly originate from the Latin expression animalia mixta (mixed beasts), referring to beasts of uncertain ownership, which were distributed in shepherd councils, known as mestas in medieval Spain. A mestengo was any animal distributed in those councils, and by extension any feral animal.

Improvements to article

Please discuss improvements or changes to this article here other than minor edits. There are active editors and many POV issues surrounding the topic, making a need for consensus and collaboration part of this process. Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 21:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"Good bone"

In the caption to the photo. What does that mean? "Good" is not a scientific qualifier, but a subjective evaluation. Is this innuendo? "Good bone." I would change it to something more descriptive, but I have little knowledge on the subject.97.113.110.19 (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Good bone in horse terms means that the lower legs are sturdy and well made, i.e. the "bone is good". This is important because the better the bone, the less likely the horse is to break a leg. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

And hence, a term of art. Montanabw^(talk) 04:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

External links v Referencess

I'm not sure what everyone's problem here is, but as far as I am concerned, it is established procedure to use an inline external link such as this Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 when referring to what is in that link at that position in the text, as opposed to providing a general further information resource, which is the true function of an external link section. There is a distinct difference between the purpose of the two.

Using it as an inline reference is not appropriate because it is not a third party source for the claim being made, and is thus a self-reference, which makes using an explicit in line external link type reference even more appropriate. Secondly, to verify the claim you need to read the entire linked document, and be aware of all previous documents, to make the judgement that the protection being referred to has increased. This is not how verification of facts is achieved when presenting facts as in line citations, which more appropriately should link to sections/page numbers, or provide a hook search term.

The redlink argument is completely spurious, and now we have two redlinks for the act in the article. MickMacNee (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The general problem is that, per WP guidelines (which I realize are just guidelines, not firm rules, but still...), you shouldn't be using any external links in the text itself.

Would you look at what I've done now and see what you think? I've added a reliable citation that explains how the act increased protection, then added an external links section with the link to the full text of the act. Also, I've delinked the second mention of the act. At some point, someone will get around to creating a new article for the act, and this whole point will be moot.

Hope this helps. Dana boomer (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine, although possibly better under further reading. I disagree on the inline EL point, I see them everywhere, and in good articles. As long as they are done within the reasoning above, and given a meaningful title, i.e not a [url] or a [n], then I don't see the issue. In fact, think you have confused EL's and references. An inline EL is actually a reference of sorts, as you are referring to its contents within the article. A pure EL is just further reading, and goes in an EL section. Hence if you never saw the section, your understanding is not diminished, only your ability to go further. Per WP:EL - "Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline, and should not be placed in an external links section". Inline external linking to referred material is valid. But this is moot now you have a proper inline reference. MickMacNee (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty comfortable with the article where it's sitting now, not that it couldn't benefit from yet more sourcing and such, this last round, in spite of some conflict, did result in clean up some things that needed cleanup. Mick, Dana has been the citation format fixer on several horse articles that have recently gone GA and one that is now FA. The people doing GA reviews are getting a lot more anal-retentive about this stuff, so I'd trust her judgement on this, she knows what she's talking about! (She cleans up my stuff all the time! LOL!) The real bottom line is that citation needs to be as consistent as possible. Thanks for your help, Dana! Montanabw^(talk) 06:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Mustang

I despratly need a picture of a mustang, if you can please find the link copy it and add a reply to this with the link in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.136.48 (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There are several pictures of mustangs in this article, and there are more pictures to be found in the Commons category, which can be found here. Dana boomer (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to put in that Mustangs in Northern Arizona were called Broomies. Referance too Stella Hughes book of her husband Mac Hughes, "Hashknife Cowboy" July 19 2011 Ryttar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryttar (talk • contribs) 16:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

My only concerns are that even in N. AZ there were multiple terms used, the source isn't ideal, but more than that, there are a couple dozen other nicknames across the west (broomtail, cayuse, etc.), some regional, and once the laundry list starts, it never ends. I'd prefer to either have a comprehensive list of nicknames worked out here on the talk page, or else just leave it be. Montanabw^(talk) 20:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Mustang is not only the horse

Hey anyone who has posted this, to remind you,

Mustang is a nepali name of a place in Nepal a high altitude place. Please give information about Mustang as a place as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.184.63.104 (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Information on all other uses of the word Mustang can be found at the main Mustang page. This page is for the sole purpose of describing the Mustang horse, therefore the disambiguating word "horse" at the end of the article title. Dana boomer (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Apropos of the name, what is the link between the name for the kingdom Mustang and the horse? This article calls the horse a North American breed, but horses didn't originate in North America -- they were brought here and the Mustangs went feral. Someone applied the name Mustang to these horses, possibly referencing the Nepali / Tibetan kingdom. If I am not mistaken, the Mustang kingdom is known for horsemanship.

I think it's simply a coincidence. The term Mustang as used for the American horse is explained in the article and is derived from a Spanish language word, mesteño, which eventually became Mustang in English. While I cannot speak to how the lingistics evolved from one word to the other, the American Mustang horse originated from Spanish horses that were brought to America and then escaped to the wild. There isn't any evidence I could find for a connection between Tibet and horses in the Americas. The wikipedia article Mustang (kingdom) mentions animal husbandry in passing but nothing on horses in particular. There are some articles on Tibetan horses, see Tibetan pony and other linked articles. Montanabw^(talk) 03:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Wild vs. feral

Mustangs are feral horses, because they have domesticated ancestors. They are not wild horses. Please discuss here if you have a different opinion. Dana boomer (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Dana said: "As far as "mestengo" goes - I don't have the dictionary edition that is listed as the source for this statement, but I trust the editors who have been working on this article in the past, and I trust them not to misrepresent sources. It's a policy called assume good faith. My edition of Webster's, however, says that "mestango" means stray livestock. I don't see a huge problem in assuming that another version of Webster's says "stray or feral". Besides, you cannot use the argument that just because "mestango" meant "wild stock", it means that mustangs are wild - the source of a word does not transfer meaning from the old word to the new word, if that makes sense." Correct, If you are not able to find the source that specifically states "mestengo" means "feral", then you cannot keep stating it. If you have a "good faith policy" then why are you dismissing 30 years of scientific study and evidence provided by two PHD's in the field?) Thank you. Grrace (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The present day wild Mustangs are wild horses. They've never been in captivity. Feral horses are domestic horses that have escaped captivity, as I've already pointed out by WP's own definition of "feral." Once a wild animal that has been "domesticated" returns to the wild, IT RETURNS TO "WILD." The domesticated Spanish horses brought over to the North American continent have long been dead.

As I've also pointed out, just because chimpanzees are serving beers in a bar in Thailand, does that mean chimpanzees are no longer a wild animal?

Please correct your article as soon as possible, removing "feral" from your POV vocabulary. Thank you.uGrrlace (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Grrace (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I see that Wikipedia has a way to tag articles that use "weasel" words. Stating that Mestengo means "feral" is a weasel word, and as soon as I figure out how to tag it in your software, I will do so. This word has already been tagged by someone else that there are no reliable sources to back up the claim. Under WP rules, it should be removed, as it has been tagged since 2007. Thank you.Grrace (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Is now sourced. And the tag you need is {{weasel}}. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, as it is now sourced, please provide alternative sources that indicate that this is wrong, and what the origin of the word actually is.

Your source for mestengo, still does not include the word "feral." Please remove the word "feral." Thank you. Grrace (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. It refers to stray livestock animals, so I indicated that. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Conversation on Wild vs. Feral

Per your e-mail, talk pages are just as easy to edit as the articles themselves. You aren't able to edit any page (including talk pages) but your own while you are blocked. You just click on the edit button at the top (or to the side of a section) and add your comments to the bottom of the preceeding comments.

As for your source (Ann Forsten, 1992. Mitochondrial-DNA timetable and the evolution of Equus: Comparison of molecular and paleontological evidence. Ann. Zool. Fennici 28: 301-309.). As far as I can see, all this source says is that there were horses present at one time in North America. It does not say that horses survived through to the present day. Horses went extinct in North America many thousand years ago, and the free roaming horses now living in the west (the mustangs) are descendents of domesticated horses brought by Europeans. As the Mustang article currently says:

Primitive horses lived in North America in prehistoric times, but died out at the end of the last ice age around 10-12,000 years ago, possibly due to climate change or the impact of newly-arrived human hunters.[3] Horses returned to the Americas with the Conquistadors, beginning with Columbus, who imported horses from Spain to the West Indies on his second voyage in 1493.[4] Domesticated horses came to the mainland with the arrival of Cortés in 1519.[5]

And this is all sourced by reliable references. Although the source you have is a nice bit of research and writing, it does not say that horses did not become extinct. If there are some groups that claim that the mustangs should be regarded as wild because many thousands of years ago there were horses in N. America that subsequently went extinct, then please provide reliable references and we will probably be able to work something into the article. However, as you can see, not everyone agrees with your POV, so the wording and references needs to be worked out on talk pages (here for now, the Mustang page once your block expires), rather than the article itself. Dana boomer (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Per an article by Deb Baumann, published in The Equestrian News, June 2006, Baumann bases her article on congressional testimony made by Jay F. Kirkpatrick, Ph.D and Patricia M. Fazio, Ph.D. I quote "Equus caballus should be considered North American native wildlife." The article attaches the original congressional statement by Kirkpatrick/Fazio, and I quote it "E. caballus is the genetic equivalent to E. lambei, a horse, according to fossil records, that represented the most recent Equus species in North America prior to extinction." citation is Forsten.

The article further points out the migration patterns of "Equus from North America to Eurasia." citation "Horse Evolution" by Kathleen Hunt. Kirkpatrick/Fazio state "feral" is a human construct that has little biological meaning, except transitory behavior, usually forced on the animal in some manner."

Another key Kirkpatrick/Fazio quote, "The key element in describing an animal as a native species is (1) where it originated; and (2) whether or not it co-evolved with its habitat. Clearly, E. caballus did both, here in North America."

I will list all citations here that are listed in the statement made to congress:

1. "Horse Evolution" by Kathleen Hunt from www.onthenet.com.au~stear/horse_evolution.htm;Bruce J. MacFadden, Fossil Horses:Systematics, Paleobiology, and Evolution of the Family Equidae (New York:Cambridge University Press, 1992),p.205.
2. Patricia Mabee Fazio, "The Fight to Save a Memory:Creation of the Prior Mountain Wild Horse Range (1968)and Evolving Federal Wild Horse Protection through 1971," doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, 1995,p.21.
3. Ann Forsten, 1992. Mitochondrial-DNA timetable and the evolution of Equus:Comparison of molecular and paleontological evidence. Ann.Zool. Fennici 28:301-309.
4. Carles Vila, Jennifer A. Leonard, Anders Gotherstrom, Stefan Marklund, Kaj Sandberg, Kerstin Liden, Robert K. Wayne, Hans Ellegren. 2001. Widespread origins of domestic horse lineages. Science 291:474-477.
5. Hofreiter, Michael; Serre,David; Poinar, Hendrik N.; Kuch, Melanie; Paabo, Svante.2001. Ancient DNA. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2(5),353-359.
6. James Dean Feist and Dale R. McCullough. 1976. Behavior patterns and commication in feral horses. Z. Tierpsychol. 41:367.

If you have not read the Jay F. Kirkpatrick, Ph.D and Patricia M. Fazio, Ph.D. STATEMENT, I urge you to do so. It is my intent that Wikipedia update it's erroneous description of American wild horses as being "feral." Just because Equus was driven from North America, does not mean it went extinct from the world. We reintroduce native species back to their rightful habitats all the time, as was done in Mongolia with E. Przewalski when it went extinct hundreds of years ago. Based on the new science, the American wild horse deserves the same serious consideration. Thank you, Grrace (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This is another citation regarding E. lambei and Equus available at the link below http://zipcodezoo.com/Key/Animalia/Equus_Genus.asp. 71.116.70.134 (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Grrace (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

First, I'm not sure what your point is with the ZipcodeZoo link. As far as I can see, all it says is the E. lambei is a subspecies of Equus, which is not really in dispute. It doesn't really have anything to do with whether mustangs should be regarded as wild or feral.

Second, here is what I am thinking to add to the article. First, let me point out that the most predominate view of mustangs is as "feral", so that is how we must refer to them on WP. However, it is appropriate to "teach the controversy", and so I am considering adding a paragraph, probably under the Etymology and usage section, that says something like:

There is a movement, under the leadership of equine scientists Jay F. Kirkpatrick and Patricia M. Fazio, to change the status of the mustang from "feral" to "wild", at least as it is seen by the US government. The definition of feral allows the mustangs to also be defined as an intrusive, exotic species, and called a threat to true native wildlife. However, Kirkpatrick and Fazio point out that since there were native horses on the North American continent at one point (albiet dying out at the end of the Pleistocene era), horses were once native animals and should still be considered as native animals, and therefore they should be defined as "wild". Kirkpatrick and Fazio claim that since the two main elements for defining a native species are whether or not it coevolved with its habitat and where it originated, the mustang can be considered to have done both, if you look at the ancient horse that went subsequently went extinct. Despite these arguments, the mustang is still regarded as feral and non-native by most government agencies,(Reference:The Surprising History of America's Wild Horses) and an exotic species that draws resources and attention away from true native species.(Reference:Wild Horses)

OK, here are my thoughts. This probably needs to be trimmed a bit, so as to not put too much weight on this viewpoint. As far as I can find, it's mostly these two scientists that are arguing for the definition change, and so WP:UNDUE may apply. I know there are a few other editors interested in this article, so I'd like to hear everyone else's opinions, too. Dana boomer (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I am going in and re-editing the article based on the last "clean" version. The bottom line is simple: Modern mustangs are descended from Spanish and other European imports, hence are feral, end of story. However, due to the very legitimate proof that horses existed in North America 10,000 years ago, there is also a legitimate argument to be made that the Mustang is a reintroduced species, Hence, I have no idea how to get around the fact that the animals are unquestionably feral AND may very well be a once-native species being restored to the ecosystem (in a way cattle are not), but that is the way it is. We cannot change the taxonomy of the horse, the bottom line is that the wild subspecies in the Americas did die out. They have been brought back by humans. Sorry that I have been gone all week and only weighed in now, but we must keep a balanced point of view in this article. (Next week, the cattle ranchers will arrive and accuse me of being a bunny-hugger, it's happened before, sigh...I really AM trying to keep this article balanced. Sigh). Montanabw^(talk) 06:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Erm, not really sure what you meant by the "last clean version". All of Grrace's edits have since been reverted, while we discussed it here. The latest edits by the IP were something completely different, and something I hadn't gotten around to dealing with yet. Thanks for taking care of that. As for the above, I was hoping to tell the other side of the story. Feel free to tweak the proposed wording above if you wish - I thought I had made it clear that mustangs are generally considered feral and it is a small group that is lobbying for that to be changed. It does have reliable sourcing, though, so it should be at least mentioned. At the very least to "teach the controversy" as you always say... :) Dana boomer (talk) 11:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I answered before I edited, the last version was largely "clean." I think there is some mention already in the article about folks trying to get Mustangs to be considered reintroduced native species, but the last time I went too far in that direction, someone came in and attacked me for being a PETA bunny-hugger. I. Just. Can't. Win. sigh... I'll look over the cites and see if the argument can be expanded rather than subtly snuck in as it is at present. If you have any idea for a really short version and a suggested location, feel free to toss it out for feedback. Montanabw^(talk) 02:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh I get it, WP articles can't be made by "PETA" people, or people who "hug bunnies?" And, those POV's are not valid? And any citations provided by those kinds of writers are dismissed because they are coming in later? Is that WP's position? Even when DNA is revealed...it's "end of story?" Excuse me, who are you to claim "end of story?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grrace (talk • contribs) 17:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Grrace, I'm glad you started commenting on this page. The idea behind WP is that it should be completely neutral, and should follow the lead of the most reliable sources on a given subject. You should really never be able to tell which side of the story an author advocates in their personal life from the way they write on WP. Please see WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Montanabw has been the lead editor on this article for a while, and she understands the history behind this article. She also understands how sources need to be used and what should be considered in writing an article. I will repeat again, for the upteenth time - there seem to be only a couple of scientists who are arguing to have the mustangs considered as wild. That means that the article cannot be changed completely to say what they believe. The beliefs of just two scientists cannot dictate a large field of research work, government policy, and public opinion. This means that the article cannot simply say that mustangs are wild because that is not the position of the majority of the sources. the DNA of horses and the fact that there were horses on N. America in prehistoric times is not the issue - we have alrady agreed that there were. What is at issue is whether the horses today are considered wild or feral. Please comment on my proposed wording above - Montanabw has requested that it be shortened, and I tend to agree with her, but I would like your comments on it before I start giving it a haircut :) Dana boomer (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Dana, you have still not addressed my questions above, regarding "mestengo" meaning "feral." That seemed to be your whole basis for calling wild American Mustangs "feral." Now, you've changed it to "government agencies" consider them "feral." So, the questions again are, what are you basing your "feral" argument on, and lets go from there. If the WP definition cannot be used, what definition are you relying on?

Additionally, Montanabw, has lumped me in with "There is a movement, under the leadership of equine scientists Jay F. Kirkpatrick and Patricia M. Fazio, to change the status of the mustang from "feral" to "wild", at least as it is seen by the US government." Wow...thanks for the tip...didn't know there was such a "movement."

Therefore, how many scientists do you need? How old does a species need to be, before WP considers them native?

Also, Dana, you state above "I'd like to hear everyone else's opinions," however, I was unaware that this article was based on opinions. Do you not consider facts? Or, should we no longer converse because according to Montanabw, it's "end of story?" Oh yeah, and now I'm reduced to "fringe." Now that's like continuing to argue the world is flat, or Pluto is still a planet, citation:(http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.nl.html?pid=23558)...look the NM legislature decides to delare it a planet anyway! If you are not open to new scientific discoveries, such as Equus originated in North America, citation:(http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm), then I'm not sure what else will bring y'all up to speed.Grrace (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Grrace, please see the discussion on your talk page for my response on the mestengo issue. I have not changed my argument - I have simply continued to add up arguments as to why mustangs are considered feral, rather than wild. I have, several times, given you the definition of feral - an domestic animal that has escaped captivity, or the descendents of that animal. I am going to say again, Montanabw and I agree with you that horses were present in North America at one time and died out - we have no problem with that statement. The point that is being contested is whether mustangs today are wild or feral - and this is a point that you have not proven. You have proven that two scientists think they should be considered wild. My apologies if you don't like the word "movement", but if there's no movement, and it is simply two scientists that are arguing for a current definition of "wild", then that really falls under WP:UNDUE. WP is not run by opinions, but it is run by consensus, and the consensus of the editors that have worked and are working on this article is that the majority of sources, both research and government based, consider mustangs feral. You have provided sources that say that horses existed in N. America in the past - that is not being contested, and is in fact already present in the article. You have not, however, provided sources that say more two scientists think today's mustangs should be considered wild rather than feral - this is what is being contested. I have already explained all of this to you more than once, so I wish you would either: 1. Give your thoughts, without hyperbole, on the proposed wording above, which is supported by sources, 2. Provide sources that more scientists than these two are arguing for a change in definition, or 3. Drop the subject. Dana boomer (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

What is YOUR source that proves that wild mustangs are "feral?" Thank you.71.116.70.134 (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Grrace, I'm assuming that's you. Please see, among others:

• American Museum of Natural History, which says "mustangs...are actually considered feral".
• National Geographic, which calls them a "feral, exotic species".
• Natural History Magazine, which says "Customarily, such wild horses that survive today are designated "feral" and regarded as intrusive, exotic animals".
• Oklahoma State University, which says "The Mustang is a feral horse"
• The Encyclopedia of Historic and Endangered Livestock and Poultry Breeds, which says "mustang generally refers to all feral horses on rangeland controlled by the BLM"

...would you like me to continue? These were just brought up in a simple less-than-five-minute search. Dana boomer (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Dana, yep, that's me. I read all your sources, did you? 1. American Museum of Natural History..."quick facts." We don't know who wrote the "quick facts" page or when, as it is not signed by the author, there are no citations for the one unscientific sentence referring to wild horses considered "feral" horses. Sounds like it needs to be updated.

2. The scientist you quote in the National Geographic article is Joel Berger, and he is refuted throughout the article, with DNA evidence to the contrary. The article is written by Kirkpatrick! I'm glad you consider National Geographic a reliable source. I've seen another article I'd like to cite, when I find it again I'll post it here.

3. Another Kirkpatrick article, but I don't see who you are quoting to prove the "feral" part. But since you consider LiveScience a credible source, I'll place in my Live Science citation here http://www.livescience.com/animals/060501_extinct_horses.html. This source includes an additional scientist Michael Hofreiter, Department of Evolution genetics. I have emailed author Bjorn Carey as to her bio, but not heard back yet. Your article (source) actually proves my point, instead of yours. I quote your article "they (wild horses) were 'designated' feral, and regarded as intrusive exotic animals..." But why did you stop reading there? It continues "...But as E. cabullus, they are not so alien after all." Your article also continues on to compare Przewalski as equal to E. cabullus, genetically speaking.

4. This source is written by the BLM, not exactly a neutral party. Of course they're going to put out disinformation, wild horses compete with their land leases to ranchers.

5. Encyclopedia of Historic and Endangered Livestock and Poultry Breeds. I cannot find when this was written, the only date I can find is 1975. Author Janet Vorwald Dohner is a librarian. Not a scientist. However she does state (in her Preface) that she welcomes updates as DNA evolves. Addtionally, she also states, I quote her here, "Altough technically the word "feral" describes the animals, to most Americans these are wild horses, acknowledged by Congress with the THE WILD FREE-ROAMING HORSE AND BURRO ACT OF 1971. Therefore, 1975 sounds about right, and of course, we will always be able to find old sources that need to be updated.

So let's back up a moment. You stated that you are not disputing that wild horses were on the North American continent at one time. But are you disputing that American Wild Mustangs are a native North American species? If so, I have another citation loaded with additional scientists...if you need me to type out all their names, I'm happy to do so. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences http://www.pnas.org/search?fulltext=wild+horse+extinction&submit=yes&go.x=11&go.y=13fulltext=wild+horse+extinction&submit=yes&go.x=11&go.y=13

Thank you. Grrace (talk) 02:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Grrace, a feral creature is one DESCENDED from domesticated ancestors. It is extremely well-established that Mustangs are feral. This does not mean that they don't belong in the American West (I personally believe that they DO belong in free-roaming herds and strongly support efforts to protect them), but we have to call them what they are. There WERE truly wild horses living in North America prior to the arrival of human beings. These animals died out at the end of the last Ice Age (see evolution of the horse for more info), possibly in part due to being hunted by newly-arrived humans. The record is clear: there were no horses in North America from about 10,000 BC until 1493 AD. So, to the extent horses exist in North America today, it is because they were reintroduced from Europe. And only domesticated animals were reintroduced. The only true "wild" (as in never domesticated) horse in the world today is the Prezwalski's horse. See also wild horse for more on that. And FYI, the "bunny-hugger" comment was one directed at ME, not you. That was the funny thing! (Yes, at me) Montanabw^(talk) 02:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Why have you removed my last paragraph and citations? Grrace (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)71.116.70.134 (talk) 03:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Montana, Mustangs are not feral. You are using the word "feral" incorrectly. Mustangs are a native species to North America, therefore, cannot be classified as "feral." Thank you. 71.116.70.134 (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you are incorrect. Mustangs descend from domesticated horses, not wild horses. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you are incorrect. Mustangs descend from tamed horses as they are the genetic equivelent to the native North American species. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grrace (talk • contribs) 17:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Really? What sources do you have for your claim that they are genetically equivalent to the native North American species. Ah, let me guess, some of the mitochondrial DNA studies, which are nice to show maternal lineages. The Y-chromosomal studies show that there is just one paternal line, and that one differs from the very few wild horses it has been compared to. Microsatellite studies give an all together picture again. So, what sources do you base this claim on? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have already provided you with the sources, but apparently you have dismissed them. Thank you. Grrace (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I did not dismiss them, but pointed out to you that you are misinterpreting them. So, please explain how your sources support your claim? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wild versus feral AGAIN

I know, the wild versus feral discussion flares up every once and a while. Yes, the US government uses 'wild' for the feral horses called mustangs. That are policy documents, laws and they are free to use language as they like, but that does not make it proper usage. Equus ferus caballus is a subspecies of the Wild Horse, Equus ferus ferus. This wild species (Equus ferus ferus) roamed North America till about 10,000 years ago. They were never domesticated in North America on their own, and only reintroduced in the domesticated form after Columbus arrived. Some of those domesticated horses (Equus ferus caballus) became free-roaming again, resulting in herds of feral horses. Domestication has changed the wild horse (Equus ferus ferus) in many ways, to the point where scientists consider it a different subspecies (Equus ferus caballus). Domestication takes many generations, and is not lost within a single generation. The free roaming herds of domestic horses are feral horses. The ONLY free-roaming herds of true wild horse can be found in Mongolia, and belong to the third subspecies. Equus ferus prewalskii. Let me know if I need to explain aspects in more detail. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I suggest that people stop throwing titles etc around about their sources. It makes me feel you actually have no clue where you talk about and try to win the argument by using an appeal to authority. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is an old argument and current DNA analysis shows the evidence. Please read my sources. Additionally, I was told that WP references could not be used, however, all of you keep linking back to the WP "wild horse" article. I'm finished. Thank you Grrace (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I did read Janzen et al, and all the other molecular studies about horse ancestry. And the taxonomic stuff, etc. So, where do your sources disagree with what I was saying, because what I see is a lot of misinterpretation of those sources from your side. So, maybe we can discuss the issues in detail and get the much needed clarity on this subject. :-) -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You wrote: "Domestication takes many generations, and is not lost within a single generation." A generation in human terms is 35 years. What, in your mind, is it for the wild horse? Where did they get the horses to "domesticate?" Anwser...from the wild. The definition of domestication is "Domesticated animals are not just tamer than their wild ancestors; they are different genetically." So, therefore, the DNA evidence shows that wild horses were more likely tamed, instead of "domesticated" because the modern Mustang is a genetic equivilent to the wild horse that originated in North American. Thank you. 71.116.70.134 (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Grrace (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, domestication is a process that result in genetic changes. It is not the same as just taming. Prewalski horses are tamed, but not domesticated. Worse, there is no way you can actually ride a Prewalski, you are lucky if they accapt a halter. Domestication is a process, and it changes the animal. When you talk anbout DNA, it helps to know a bit about how it is transmitted (maternal, paternal, mixed) and the speed with with it changes (Mitochondial versus microsatelite versus Y-chromosoom versus nuclear). Most studies to unravel the ancersty of the domesticated horse use slowly mutating genes for a reason, it makes the study possible. If you used fast mutating DNA sequences like microsatelites, you get a different picture. But there is more; morpholgical and behavioural changes related to domestication are still present in the mustang. The domestication has not yet been lost. But what I really would like to know from you is what sources back you idea up? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Feb 2011 thread

Just one comment here- Przewalskij horse is not an ancestor of the domesticated horse (from Eurasian steppe) - it shares certain characteristics with the ancestor of the domestic horse - i.e., tarpan etc, but that is where it ends :) Furthermore Przewalskij was not domesticated and never used for transport - it was used for food and hide only (like onagers, wild asses etc) - its specific conformation disallows for any use related to ridding. As we have info (sources) from Eastern Europe during the early modern history the steppe and Forrest 'tarpan' horses were used both for food (including hunting for sport by nobles and kings) and domestication (thus transport), both stallions and mares, evidenced in Polish-Belorussian 'konik' horses. Latest genetic research disallows any involvement of Przewalskij horse in the domesticated horse ancestry at time of domestication and after DarioTW (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we know that the Prze is not the ancestor of the domesticated horse. But this conversation was almost two years old, and not a concern in the Mustang article. Montanabw^(talk) 09:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

So what that it is a 2 year old issue when it is material to the topic? Przewalskij versus equus caballus has been resolved through genetic testing but but it is not widely known... Does not it really relate to mustang article? I beg to differ, for there is here an entire paragraph about how Przewalskij is the only wild horse in 'the history of mustang' - well, this Pzewalskij history does not apply at all - this suppose to be a history of mustang, right?. Additionally the good half of the info in this 'history section' has nothing to do with history of mustang and it is but legend and horse lore nonsense (mustang coming form Florida he, he - show me a historical research where you can find this info, Arabs being ancestors to mustangs??? Andalusian (meaning PRE I suppose) ???? How about the Sorraia horse, how about the Marismeno horse, Read the documents form early 16th century related to horse shipping to Caribbean Island from Spain - see what horses were shipped there, even Deb Bennett does not provide this kind of nonsense, besides last 8-6 years new research from Spain has completely changed the whole Andalusian horse history etc. Also got to read old Spanish sources 9ro eg Powell's books on Chichimeca wars and appearance of mestenco horses), Indian history (Idnians ate first horses that they laid their hands on, riding came later, first 'wild' tribes to ride were Chichimeca and laterApache/Navajo/Jumano in the North America) and horse usage (Ewers, Calin Taylor, Goeroge Bent etc), and 17th-19th century sources, as well as genetic testing related to horse in the Americas. The history presented here does not contain recent history, establishment of sanctuaries, involvement of Indian tribes and private entities in protecting mustang herds, failure of adoption program, campaigns on the part of Federal government to eradicate the herds from the BLM lands under Bush jr. and Obama administrations, attempts establish breeds based on Mustang eg Spanish Mustang, mismanagement of herds by BLM. It basically is not a history but a sad example of wikiepdia's editors lack of education the the area of history, law and animal science and application of those to creation of a wikipedia entry -:) eg do read this part from a scientific article from Oxford http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/97/2/107.full and do correct this article, please : 'Horses only returned to the American continent (the New World) in 1493, with the navigator Christopher Columbus and during the subsequent Spanish colonization period (Bort 2004; Primo 2004). Those stallions and mares were bought in Seville's province, mainly from the peasant stock bred in the islands and salt marshes of the Guadalquivir River (marsimeño) (Bort 2004). by the way - Spanish mustang breed - from the same article - The Spanish Mustang breed was formed with horses that originated from feral or Native American stock from all over North America. 199.117.182.5 DarioTW (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Dario, you are misreading the article!! The article does NOT say that the Przewalski horse has ANYTHING to do with Mustangs! (In other words, I AGREE WITH YOU ON THIS) What the article is saying is 1) Mustangs are NOT "wild" horses (they are feral horses -- only the Prze can be called a "real" wild horse. 2) It is saying that HORSES (some wild species but NOT the Przewalski) did exist in North America but became extinct. (the horse subspecies that existed in North America does not appear to be related to either the Prze or the modern domestic horse) This sets up both sides of the argument over whether Mustangs are a reintroduced extinct species (broadly referring to genus equus, both donkeys and horses) or an introduced "foreign" species. As for the rest, I happen to agree with you that BLM management of Mustangs completely sucks, but getting all mad and ranting about it isn't going to help. Your historical information may or may not be reliable, the JSTOR source looks good, but what you need to do is provide proper links and sources, slowly, properly integrating them into the article instead of what you did, which was to throwing around names without enough data so other people can verify things. Your stuff on Native people from "17th to 19th century sources" is not going to pass muster because some of the 17th -19th century explorers were incorrect. There is enough modern history, archaeology and anthropology to verify which of those early sources had it right and which ones didn't. (You completely fail to mention the Comanche, for one thing). So step back and work it in slowly Montanabw^(talk) 01:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, then I think Przewalskii versus mustang should have a different entry/sub - eg wild horse versus feral horse sub? well, I fail to mention the Comanches because they do not appear on the 'horse map' - meaning ridding and using horses for transport and war - until 1710s, almost a century after Apaches (1630s) and possibly Jumanos been riding and trading horses across the Great Plains. Besides Comanches for the most of their history got most of their horses from ridding of the estancians and haciendas of the Spanish (in Tejas, Nueva Vizcaya, New Spain) and Mexican herds (one of the leading causes of the Mexican-US War according to this book by DeLAy http://yalepress.yale.edu/book.asp?isbn=9780300119329), but they were fond of eating mustangs and were active in capturing and then trading fresh mustangs to 'ciboleros,' 'comancheros' and Indian tribes. BUT - they did not trade trained mustangs to anyone, as these trained animals became part of the family (eg Pekka Hämäläinen, The Comanche Empire, p190) However Ute and Shoshones played a great part in Spanish horse dissemination , including to Comanches, during the late 17th and 18th centuries Well as per 17-19th century sources they were the observers who wrote down their observations, and in historical research they are given more credence than anything else (nature of this science, I suppose). BLM, Federal Government and laws passed since 1971 Act need to be included as they had terrible effect on the wild horse herds in the West. Lack of these developments simply does not deliver a history of mustangs but lore and legend - perhaps Mustang entry should have another sub on the legend and lore - beautiful and rich of folklore in itself.You are right about the need for sourcing the material presented, I am always behind that...DarioTW (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Dario, please read the related articles and understand the content fully before you go charging in, and while some of the sources you've provided will be useful, you can't just throw around random factoids, some of which are misinterpretations of the source material. Right now, you just sound like some angry person with an agenda, except you are so all over the map with your commentary, it's hard to even figure out what your concerns are. Montanabw^(talk) 06:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

well, aren't we engaged in a ad personam /ad hominem fallacy here? you seem not to understand what definition of 'history' is, strange indeed? - neither Przewalskii paragraph nor lack of post 1971 material in the history section makes this section/sub complete and scientific, absence of historical facts in favor of nonsense about Indians and farmers etc, lack of 19th century folklore, lack of Indian folklore, disregard/disrespect for one of the most important sources for 1830-40s i.e. Josiah Gregg, and disregard for 17th-19th century sources in general?? Lack of Spanish sources?? Disregard for scientific material via genetic testing? It is all in your present sub section know as history of free reaming wild horse aka mustang - :) And do enlighten me where exactly I misinterpret the source material? I know wikipedia is run by good hearted people but noblesse oblige, wouldn't you say. I my not so humble opinion this sub needs sources, editing and more sources, to achieve a more balanced, grounded in history presentation, and not this collage of patchwork opinions and hearsay. It is my understanding that there is no limit on wikipedia entires, is there? Besides, it is the juicy facts or your 'mediaword' straight from TV language known as 'factoid' that make reading these pages interesting, isn't it? So stop reverting the edits and rather make them footnoted or ask for proof(I am for one still green in area of adding footnotes in wikipedia,)So let's stop bickering and get to work on fixing this 'donkey' - what do you say?DarioTW (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Older thread

I am still waiting for you to answer the question, How many generations does it take to "domesticate" a wild horse? Thank you.Grrace (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Impossible to say. It depends on many factors, basically, on the degree of selection that is present. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And to add to Kim's excellent analysis and explanation, Mustangs today are routinely captured and trained, clearly showing that they retain domesticated traits. There are somewhere around 30,000 captured Mustangs in holding facilities all across the western US, awaiting "adoption" by new owners, many of whom train them to ride. When handled properly, they make excellent and trustworthy riding horses, a claim that most certainly cannot be made of truly "wild" animals such as the Przewalski's horse or the zebra. Montanabw^(talk) 00:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Because wild Mustangs have been captured and trained has not changed them genetically. They are no different than elephants trained to be ridden and balance on a balls in the circus. If the wild Amerian Mustangs were released back to the wild, they would return to "wild." The ease of training and taming does not change the animals genetics that link them to their fossils, it does not diminish a native species origin. Thank you. Grrace (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Grrace, that is true of ANY horse. In fact, during the 20th century, people used to routinely turn out domesticated stallions with wild herds to "improve" them. ("improve" being a relative term). By this argument, all horses are really undomesticated. The characteristics of domestication are clearly defined by science and most horse subspecies meet them. Mustangs are not even a subspecies, they are good old Equus ferus caballus just like the Quarter Horse or whatever. Montanabw^(talk) 17:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed wording (again)

I'm starting this in a new section to not disturb the discussion above. A few days ago, I had proposed wording for a new paragraph to be inserted, dealing with the issue of the people who wish mustangs to be defined as wild. Here was the original proposed wording:

There is a movement, under the leadership of equine scientists Jay F. Kirkpatrick and Patricia M. Fazio, to change the status of the mustang from "feral" to "wild", at least as it is seen by the US government. The definition of feral allows the mustangs to also be defined as an intrusive, exotic species, and called a threat to true native wildlife. However, Kirkpatrick and Fazio point out that since there were native horses on the North American continent at one point (albiet dying out at the end of the Pleistocene era), horses were once native animals and should still be considered as native animals, and therefore they should be defined as "wild". Kirkpatrick and Fazio claim that since the two main elements for defining a native species are whether or not it coevolved with its habitat and where it originated, the mustang can be considered to have done both, if you look at the ancient horse that went subsequently went extinct. Despite these arguments, the mustang is still regarded as feral and non-native by most government agencies,(Reference:The Surprising History of America's Wild Horses) and an exotic species that draws resources and attention away from true native species.(Reference:Wild Horses)

Montanabw asked me to shorten it up a bit, and I agree with her, so here is a secondary proposition:

Two equine scientists, to change the definition of the mustang from "feral" to "wild". Proponents point out that since there were wild horses on the North American continent before they went extinct, horses were once native animals and should still be considered as native, and therefore wild, animals. Two main elements for defining a native species are whether it coevolved with its habitat and where it originated. The North American mustang fulfills both these requirements, if you look at the ancient extinct horse. Despite these arguments, the mustang is still regarded as feral and non-native by most government agencies,(Reference:The Surprising History of America's Wild Horses) and as an exotic species that draws resources and attention away from true native species.(Reference:Wild Horses)

Kim, Ggrace, and Montanabw, what do you think of these two wordings? Dana boomer (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it still gives undue weight to a fringe theory and isn't yet neutral in tone. Let me take a crack at shortening it a bit more and trying to state everything neutrallly (I hope) Montanabw^(talk) 17:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)  :

Two researchers have advanced an argument that Mustangs should be legally classified as "wild" rather than "feral." They suggest that, due to the presence of Equus ferus ferus on the North American continent at the end of the Pleistocene era, horses were once native animals and should still be considered as native animals, and therefore defined as "wild" (Reference:The Surprising History of America's Wild Horses) and not viewed as an exotic species that draws resources and attention away from true native species.(Reference:Wild Horses)

Wild horse species are Equus ferus ferus and the stilt-legged horse. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue of the last living pleistocene horse species in North American prior to extinction confuses me. Do we just say Equus ferus ferus, or were there several subspecies? (This seems to be a debate in the evolution article too, and I confess that it's all a bit confusing to me)? Montanabw^(talk) 18:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You only have Equus ferus ferus. I have to check the literature for the stil legged horse, what the datings are on thise boned that they used to extract ancient DNA from. Equus feus caballus is the domestic horse, and was not present in North America before the Spanish arrived (Maybe the Vikings had horses with them, but that is not substantiated by archeological finds). -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

EFF works well enough for here. Note the minor change I made above. Montanabw^(talk) 21:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's looking good to me. Just as a note, one of the people is a reproductive physiologist who specializes in mustang fertility control, the other is an environmental historial who specializes in reproductive physiology, the monitoring of mustang ranges and the evolution of equids. Not sure how/if we want to work this in... Dana boomer (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Not, if their argument does not stand on itself, it would become an argument of authority, and those are invalid. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

How does the above work? I did another bit of rewording to mine. Montanabw^(talk) 22:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is my slightly modified version:

Two researchers have advanced an argument that Mustangs should be legally classified as "wild" rather than "feral." They argue that, due to the presence of Equus ferus ferus on the North American continent till the end of the Pleistocene era, horses were once native animals and should still be considered as native animals, and therefore defined as "wild" (Reference:The Surprising History of America's Wild Horses) and not viewed as an exotic species that draws resources and attention away from true native species.(Reference:Wild Horses)

-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. I'll find it a home and pop it in. Let me know if my placement and other tweaks work. Montanabw^(talk) 03:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Mustang: feral or not...

There have been several calls for ubiased opinion, so as someone who happened on the page by pure accident, and who knows absolutely nothing whatsoever about horses (applied linguistics is my branch of research), having read the article and all the monotonous talk pages, here's my two cents:

mustang |ˈməsˌta ng | noun an American feral horse, typically small and lightly built.
(Oxford American Dictionary
___
mustang Pronunciation: ‚m„s-ƒtaŠ Function: noun Etymology: Mexican Spanish mestengo, from Spanish, stray, from mesteño strayed, from mesta annual roundup of cattle that disposed of strays, from Medieval Latin (animalia) mixta mixed animals Date: 1808
(Webster's Dictionary)

1 : the small hardy naturalized horse of the western plains directly descended from horses brought in by the Spaniards; also : bronco
___
feral Pronunciation: ‚fir-„l, ‚fer- Function: adjective Etymology: Medieval Latin feralis, from Latin fera wild animal, from feminine of ferus wild— more at fierce Date: 1604

1 : of, relating to, or suggestive of a wild beast 2 a : not domesticated or cultivated : wild b : having escaped from domestication and become wild
Webster's Dictionary) __

Oxford and Websters are superior sources to WP, so it would be a waste of time to continue on a new tack and discuss here whether those revered lexical resources are right or wrong. The article as it currently stands is well written, has provided me (as a visitor) with sufficient encyclopedic info about Mustangs, and it has my vote. As a Wikpedia copyeditor, for the structure, the prose, and the placement of 'mustang' and 'feral' in the rest of the text, it has my vote. The correctly referenced and verifiable article by Drs Kirkpatrick and Fazio does what it is supposed to: provide the WP reader with further information. Their article posits arguments on the genetics of ferality vs. wildness & domesticity, and still leaves the conclusion open to further research and debate (around the dictionary definitions) above, and are not the concern of Wikipedia talk pages. What do not get my votes are pedantic, prescriptive POV, and the use of the Wickpedia as an Internet forum for violent general discussion; the mission of an encyclopedia is to report, not to contend, and debate on the content of third party research is therefore generally disallowed. The Wiki editors have nicely phrased their reporting of the LiveScience.com article, thus on the actual semantics, Grrace will just have to hold her horses...--Kudpung (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Kudpung. I think the issue has been settled, but if it picks up again, your source material here will be quite useful. Of course, the Mustang isn't actually interchangeable with "bronco," which is simply a bucking horse (few broncos are Mustangs and nowhere close to all Mustangs are broncos! LOL!) so even dictionaries aren't perfect (grin), but it's good for the feral/wild question and the etymology bit, which has also been a source of spatting at times. Your help is much appreciated! As for the rest, ah a wiki-world absent "violent general discussion." Sigh... would we even recognize the place without it??? LOL!!! Montanabw^(talk) 01:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

mention car

why is there no mention of the ford mustang????? wtf?? at least a quick and short snip about the horses's legacy or use in popular culture today —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiffyguy (talk • contribs) 09:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You will notice that at the top of the article there is a link to the Mustang (disambiguation), and on that page there is a link to the Ford Mustang, which is an entire article about the car. There is some discussion of the Mustang horse today in the "Mustangs today" section of this article, and there are quite a few different uses of the term Mustang (most of which can be found on the disambig page) , so it wouldn't be practical to discuss in this article which of those the horse influenced and which it didn't (not to mention finding sources for all of those claims!). Hope this helps. Dana boomer (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Photo too "formal"

Should the photo of a feral/wild (I'm not trying to get involved in that debate just yet) be so...formal? The photo for the Brumby shows the animal in the wild. Shouldn't the photo of the Mustang do the same? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.78.82 (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

We used to have a photo of a wild herd and just switched it out for this one, which is a more representative example of what the horse type actually looks like. (I guess it's a no-win debate) We have lots of free-roaming photos in the body of the article. Arguably, we should put a more representative posed photo to the top in Brumby too. The debate is probably due to the fact that photos of the horses in their feral state are often either of poor quality or taken at odd angles that don't show the horses in a favorable light. Montanabw^(talk) 19:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

History

early history - -horse returned to the Americas in 1509 with Alonso de Ojeda whose entrada landed in the delta of Rio Atrato with 40 head horse herd (some were eaten for lack of food in the jungle or other sunk in the ship disaster off Darien), and the first breeding and horse herding on the continent took place in Panama in 1514 - shipment and horse increase certified by padre Gomara and Vasco Nuñez de Balboa. Several months before Corts landing in Vera Cruz, another Spanish entrada took place in Nicaragua and Honduras starting in September 1519 (source eg Bennet, Conquistadors, p 181-183, 184-85) Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo y Valdes (in 1570s) writing history of the Conquest and Spanish colonies stated that during la conquista horses were bred in the islands of Cuba, Jamaica and Hispaiola, where they multiplied rapidly. Conquistadors demanded these Caribean bred horses because they could withstand the climate and campaign hardships better than European bred horses imported from Spain and Portugal. Thus de Soto took horses from Cuba to decend onto Florida and American Southeast, Garay from Jamaica, Heredia from Hispaniola, Cortes from Hispaniola and Cuba etc . First 'wild' Indians to ride horses were members of Chichimeca central and Northern Mexico tribes who had fought the Spanish and their Indian allies for almost 50 years in the 16th century, causing lots of livestock to go stray and become wild. Also that war led to 'reducidos' Mexican Indians being able to ride horses without punishment of law, first native vaqueros or cowboys appear about that time in Mexico. First mustangs appeared in Mexico in 1570s in Central Mexico, along with strayed cattle. DarioTW (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC) More recent history incomplete or missing from this history - (under president Kennedy )Wild Horse Protection Act of 1959 Public Law 86-234- prohibited the use of a motor vehicle and airplane to carry on the mustanging' or capture of wild horses. Next protection of wild horses signed by President Nixon into law: Public Law 92-195 in 1971 known as Wild Free-Roaming Horse & Burro Act, was amended in 1976 (under president Ford) to allow helicopters for roundups etc - Sec. 9. In administering this Act, the Secretary may use or contract for the use of helicopters or, for the purpose of transporting captured animals, motor vehicles. Such use shall be undertaken only after a public hearing and under the direct supervision of the Secretary or of a duly authorized official or employee of the Department. The provisions of subsection (a) of the Act of September 8, 1959 (73 Stat. 470; 18 U.S.C. 47(a)) shall not be applicable to such use. Such use shall be in accordance with humane procedures prescribed by the Secretary. then came The Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 -(Public Law 95-514) passed under Bible preaching and peanut farmer president Jimmy Carter - stating that (4) continue the policy of protecting wild free-roaming horses

     and burros from capture, branding, harassment, or death, while at
     the same time facilitating the removal and disposal of excess
     wild free-roaming horses and burros which pose a threat to
     themselves and their habitat and to other rangeland values;

Then a Great case came ; Kleppe v. New Mexico ruled in favor of wild horses by our then fine Supreme Court - can be read here http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5533598699102508441&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr On May 19, 2005 by a vote of 259 to 149, the US House of Representatives passes an amendment to the 2006 Interior Appropriations bill that prohibits taxpayer funds from being used to commercially sell or slaughter federally protected wild horses and burros for one fiscal year. In addition, a bill (H.R. 297) was introduced by Representative Nick Rahall (D-WV) to permanently restore the protections removed from the 1971 Wild Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act. Both actions are taken to undo a rider to the 2004 Omnibus Appropriations bill by Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT) that removed a prohibition on the commercial exploitation of wild horses and burros (see 2006 and 2007 for further actions). On October 26, 2005 the US Congress passes an amendment to the 2006 Agriculture Appropriations bill to stop the use of taxpayer dollars to fund horse slaughterhouse inspections as required by law, effectively banning horse slaughter for one fiscal year. President George W. Bush jr signed this bill into law on November 11, 2005.On May 18, 2006 the US House of Representatives passes by unanimous consent an amendment to the 2007 Interior Appropriations bill that prohibits taxpayer funds from being used to sell or slaughter America’s wild horses. Legislation by Representative Rahall to permanently restore protections to the Wild Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act dies when Congress adjourns without acting. On September 7, the US House of Representatives passes H.R. 503, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, by a margin of 263 to 146. The US Senate fails to act on the measure before the end of the 110th US Congress. Rider to this 2005 appropriations bill, permitted the BLM to sell horses it has rounded up that are over 10 or haven't been adopted by the third try through its own program to be sold to the lowest bidder (slaughter). On April 25,2007 the US Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee holds a mark-up for S. 311, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, voting 15 to 7 in favor of sending the bill to be considered before the full US Senate. On April 26, the US House of Representatives votes 277 to 137 in support of H.R. 249, legislation to permanently restore protections to the 1971 Wild Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act (see 2005). On July 27, the US House of Representatives passes the 2007 FARM Bill (H.R. 6124), which includes language sponsored by Representatives Steve Israel (D-NY) and Michael Doyle (D-PA) to prevent Class B dealers and unlicensed individuals from selling dogs and cats to laboratories, as well as the sale of stray animals for this purpose. The US Senate version includes ambiguous language not supported by AWI; the final version of the FARM Bill passed by the US Congress removes the Pet Safety and Protection Act and inserts language calling for a “study” of the issue. On August 22, 2007 the US Congress again passes an amendment to the 2008 Agriculture Appropriations bill to stop the use of taxpayer dollars to fund horse slaughterhouse inspection, effectively banning horse slaughter for one fiscal year. http://www.awionline.org/ht/d/sp/i/11676/pid/11676 2008 and Barrack Hussein Obama's secretary of Interior Ken Salazar plans to sterilize wild horses and burros and remove them from the West http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/08/ken-salazar-plans-to-tran_n_314023.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/07/AR2009100703237.html , plans go further http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/article_0407911c-0f0a-5bbd-bece-8d105ff3ffe4.html Cloud foundation link to pdf responding to BLM and Salazar plan to obliterate wild horses http://www.thecloudfoundation.org/index.php/news-events-a-media/news/resources/556-report BLM works hard to crush Ms Madeleine Pickens efforts to save the removed wild horses http://www.madeleinepickens.com/news/care2-blm-crushes-pickens-plans-for-wild-horse-sanctuary/ Tribal sanctuaries http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Mar-23-Wed-2005/news/26135268.html most famous wild horse sanctuary http://www.gwtc.net/~iram/ DarioTW (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Dario, you have some nice sources, but others are not so good. (personal web sites don't meet the verifiability standard) And claiming that 1959 was under "President Kennedy" is precisely the problem I'm talking about with you playing fast and loose with facts (Kennedy was elected in 1960 and inaugurated in 1961). Also, calling this article a "donkey" or referring to the President as "Barrack Hussein Obama" is not making you any friends. And some of the above material you claim is "missing" from the article is not in fact "missing" at all -- you just haven't read the whole article, because the 1971 act is mentioned, so is some of the more recent legislation. I suggest that you go ahead and add the sources you find here on the talk page, but with enough info that others can go look at them. It will take some time to get around to this article, as we have a few other articles in the queue, but I happen to partially agree with you that the article needs some improvement, but I also know that it's not in as bad of shape as you claim it is. Montanabw^(talk) 21:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

oy vey, we are at war or something :), well, let us bury the swords and get to some work here; you're right that Eisenhower singed the 1959 Act ( I forgot to check before posting), but Kennedy became a president on Januay 20, 1961 :) . Obama's middle name is Hussein and I happen to like that name (and also it listed as such in wikipedia), so what is the 'offending wrong' here? I call it 'donkey' for the history part is a 'donkey,' not a full bloodied mustang yet -;) Ok, so we agreed it needs improvement and after this 'war' is over and if time is right, I am willing to collaborate and improve as this subject - wild free roaming horse of America - is dear to me (did a bit of writing and legal research on in in law school), but i think i will tackle the 1971 Act and amendments first (it needs a creation of a proper page). Au revoir for now !DarioTW (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No, not at "war," just irritated for all the reasons I've already noted. But write an article on the 1971 Act and I may become less irritated. That's an article that needs to happen. If you can do it, you'll be part of the solution. Montanabw^(talk) 06:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Article discussion

Moved this discussion here from my talk page. Montanabw^(talk) 15:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Editing Mustang Article and Mustang entry this disambiguation page.

Hello, I writing in the hopes that we can find my common ground and some compromise. I have read and thoroughly studied the article on Mustangs. As you know, the word "feral" is contentious with some people being in favor of it use an others being adamantly opposed; instead preferring the term "wild." I propose that we remove the word from this disambiguation page as it is not relevant there. Does it help people find the article on mustang the horse rather than mustang the airplane? No. Also I propose, having one section within the article that deals straight forwardly with controversy and neutrally while removing the word feral from the article as an adjective. I have a several reliable peer-reviewed articles showing that "feral" is not an appropriate description for these horses. I also can show that the dictionary definitions list opposite meanings for the word including "wild, undomesticated" to "formerly domesticated". Therefore, the word itself is ambiguous and not a service to the reader who may completely unaccustomed to the word as used by in the content that I think you mean. I plan to begin editing the mustang article. And in good faith and in the hopes that we can achieve a compromise, I make the above propositions. Please respond and let me know what you think. Sincerely Catty Wampy (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Catty Wampus

Well, removing both "wild" and "feral" on the disambiguation page would probably solve that problem. However, the wild/feral thing on the topic is unquestionably an issue. The horses there now are, beyond question (backed by peer-reviewed literature), descended from previously domesticated ancestors, which makes them feral by the standard definition. However, as the species equus was once native to the Americas, there is an argument to be made that horses in general are a reintroduced native species, hence "wild" in that sense. And politics is wrapped up in all of this, so, like climate change and other hot topics, the science is really a sideline in the battle between various special interests. Montanabw^(talk) 16:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Montanabw, I appreciate your willingness to discuss this issue and hope that we can find enough common ground so that I can help make the Mustang article even stronger. First, I do think that we should remove the word feral from the disambiguation page. All that page really needs to say is "Horse". Neither the word "feral" nor "wild" need to be included. There are certainly many Mustangs that are neither.

Second, yes, I absolutely understand how contentious the issue of feral vs. wild is. I do know what you mean by the standard definition of feral but let me point out a couple of things. I'm quoting from the Webster's Third New International Dictionary, please bear with me here. "Feral: 1 a : suggestive of a beast of prey; specif: characterized by inhuman ferocity. b: being, characteristic of, or suggesting an animal in a state of nature c: lacking in a human personality due to being reared in isolation from all or nearly all human personality due or nearly all human contacts: not socialized. 2 a : existing in a state of nature: not domesticated or cultivated b: having escaped from domestication and become wild.

Do you see that the definition that you use is that last and that the definition preceding it is the opposite of the definition you use?

I agree that some of the animals leaving free on the range are, in fact, feral: those horses who truly escaped or were dumped onto the ranges/mountains by their owners. About other the horses, however, could you call a horse that has descended over hundreds of years feral even by definition 2 b? My answer to this question is that only the horse who escaped is "feral" by def. 2b. Remember the horse evolved in North America over 160 million years. If you removed a zebra from the African savannah and then re-introduced its off-spring a hundred years later would the off-spring's off-spring be feral?

Do you see my point? If the animal didn't "escape from domestication" but instead was sired by stallions and mares that have lived free and undomesticated over hundreds of years they aren't feral by definition 2b.

However, the most important point to make is that the reader is not going to know what you mean by feral. Do an experiment and ask a collection of people what it means, you will get very different answers.

You reference J. Edward De Steiguer's book "Wild Horses of the West". In that book, he states "The antihorse faction, however, continued to call the free-roaming animals "feral", a term used more in derision than in the spirit of scientific correctness." Further, he rephrases environmental historian Patrica M. Fazio who states that the "designation "feral" is entirely a human construct and has little to do with biology or the horse".

My goal with this long message is not to convince you but to demonstrate a) the ambiguity of the term "feral" and b) to ask you to reconsider its appropriateness in the mustang article.

If you have scientific, peer reviewed articles showing that feral is an appropriate term for these horses than I would love to see them. From everything I've seen, I see people using the term but not taking the time to a) define it and then b) cite their definition.

Thank you for your time. I sincerely hope that we can reach a friendly compromise. Taking the word "wild" out of the article would not be correct. The horses that are living free and are roaming BLM land are truly wild.

Please note that in an effort to establish my good intentions with you, I have not edited the Mustang article yet.

Please respond at you earliest convenience. I would like to edit the mustang article immediately but want to reach a friendly solution with you first. Catty Wampy (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Catty Wampus

• Catty, check the disambig page, I think my changes today will work. I appreciate your willingness to work in good faith. The rest of this we need to move to the Mustang page and discuss it there. Before we go further, I'd also encourage you to review WP:V for the general hierarchy of reliable versus perfect, versus adequate-for-now sourcing. The Mustang article is an old one that has had many hands on it over the years and needs careful work to not throw out the good with the bad. But just so you know, the definition of feral animals in general is a longstanding topic over at the feral article also, so to the extent we argue the general definition, I'd prefer to just avoid that general drama and focus on horses.-- Mustangs can be fully re-domesticated, not merely "tamed," so unlike a zebra or the Przewalski's horse, Mustangs have not lost their domesticated traits. To me, that meets the definition of "feral" and other than when there is a political agenda at work, no one else really argues otherwise. We have also had this argument at Brumby, at Sorraia, and at almost every other article about the free-ranging landrace breeds. Mustangs fit the same model as the others -- their DNA clearly traces to domesticated ancestors. Now, that said, politically you need to know that personally I favor strong protection of "wild" horses in the west and am very frustrated with the pro-cattle views of the BLM. I also was amongst those who booted Conrad Burns from the Senate! But I'm not going to let my own views or emotions get in the way of hard science. Montanabw^(talk) 22:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Good morning, Montanabw. I hope your weekend will be a good one. I have reviewed WP:V. Thanks for the tip. I understand the concept of perfect vs. adequate.

I suggest we take out the word adjective feral when not necessary and move it to a section that deals defines it and then makes the case for its use vs. the use of wild. Where feral is necessary for the point of the sentence then I suggest we direct the reader to the section that discusses the contention. Reasonable, intelligent people on both sides have good reasons for their choice of feral vs. wild.

I have to insist that we define the terms. Where does your definition of feral come from? We need a citation. I am happy to put it in but I can't find your definition. Also, have you read this article? http://www.awionline.org/ht/d/sp/i/18457/pid/18457 I also propose removing "Equus ferus caballus" from the article because the references used to support it are wrong. I followed the link and searched the article but did not find support to call the horses that we are writing about "Equus ferus caballus". (If you are the person who put that in and you have the reference please send it to me, I will be happy to fix it.) I have many articles supporting the scientific name "Equus caballus". Please read the article above, it is not long but represents, I believe, the latest DNA research on the topic. I agree about "not throwing the baby out with the bathwater." The article has many strengths. Obviously, much work has gone into it. I have privileges at the UC Berkeley library (my alma mater) so I will be doing more research after work next week. Thanks for your compromise on the disambiguation page. Let me know your thoughts about my suggestions above. Hope you have some fun this weekend. To me, Montana sounds like fun. But the Bay Area is pretty nice too. Catty Catty Wampy (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)Catty Wampus

Catty, the equus ferus caballus issue is a non-starter. We have a professional taxonomist who advocated for this across ALL our horse articles, and it is correct terminology (though like all things, taxomists have some debates over the issue). We may need to tweak the references, perhaps. I can see the value of putting in a more detailed "wild vs. feral" discussion here and perhaps using the term "free-roaming" where it fits would be suitable, but the REAL issue not "wild" versus "feral," it is "native" versus "introduced". This is the intense political debate-- IS modern horse is a reintroduced native species or an invasive species? I do agree that a good analysis of that issue would be a useful addition here. There is NO question that all horses DID become extinct in the Americas after the last Ice Age and that ALL horses here today descended from European imports. To say otherwise is junk science that violates wikipedia's policies at WP:FRINGE, though that belief could be discussed in the article as one viewpoint. Animal Welfare Institute is one source, but with a bias, and thus has to be balanced by the views of people like, for example, these folks (see "Myth #11). We have to take a balanced approach here per WP:NPOV. For example, this writer and this writer are both trying to outline the dilemma. Montanabw^(talk) 15:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

do mustang horses depend each other

do mustang horses depend each other for food, safety, and companionship? if so, how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.83.113 (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Mustang should be respected

If the mustang is an "invasive species", what do you call individual people with who are not Native American? Why not focus on the common black fly as a feral species and leave these beautiful species alone. I know this will never make it past the editors, but please not my passion! My husband and son are Native American. Blood lines do not matter. John Hopkins proved that. Mustangs are part of the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meredithfs (talk • contribs) 22:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This article presents both views. There is a difference between history and genetics. There is no evidence that the modern mustang is in any way a direct descendant of the ancient wild horse that went extinct in North America; that said, the horse as an animal, even if a different subspecies, clearly DID exist in North America, hence the discussion of indigenous versus introduced is different here than, say, in Australia where the [{Brumby]] clearly was introduced to a land that never knew horses. There was a reference in here to the Native American saying "the grass remembered them," but it was deleted because we could not find a source for it; if you can find one, that would be helpful. Montanabw^(talk) 17:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)