Talk:Mustang

Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please post the sources for this content here. Unless we can see the sources and content it supports it's hard to judge whether this content should be included. Sources are only as reliable as the content they purport to support. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Littleolive oil: Done. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Excellent! Littleolive oil (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't gone through the source material yet, but for just wikignoming, I think we can use the Harringtonhippus and "stout-legged" names, they seem to be supported by the 2017 studies (I think). I don't want to get into the "many names" stuff. Let's use the current science, and if it changes (again) we update. But my biggest concern with that version is the phrase "outside the ancestry of living horses". That's totally wrong: The horse evolved in the Americas, so SOMETHING in America was its ancestor! So here's how I'd say it:

The taxonomic horse family "Equidae" evolved in North America 55 million years ago.[1] By the end of the Late Pleistocene, there were two lineages of the Equine family present in North America, the "caballine" or "stout-legged horse" and Haringtonhippus, or the “stilt-legged horse”, which have been referred to by various species names.[2] Recent ancient DNA studies of ancient DNA suggest that the North American caballine horses included the were closely related to and possibly the same species (Equus ferus) of the ancestral horse that gave rise to the modern horsethree modern subspecies of horses, but are outside the ancestry of living horses.[3][4] At the end of the Last Glacial Period, the non-caballines went extinct and the caballine was extirpated from the Americas, possibly due to a changing climate or the impact of newly arrived human hunters.[5] The youngest physical evidence for the survival of Equids in the Americas prior to the Columbian Exchange dates between between 7,600 and 10,500 years old.[6]

Thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 23:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The taxonomic horse family "Equidae" evolved in North America 55 million years ago.[1] By the end of the Late Pleistocene, there were two lineages of the Equine family present in North America-the "caballine" or "stout-legged horse" and Haringtonhippus, or the “stilt-legged horse”. Recent studies of ancient DNA suggest that the North American caballine horses included the ancestral horse that gave rise to the modern horse. At the end of the Last Glacial Period, the non-caballines went extinct and the caballine was extirpated from the Americas, possibly due to a changing climate or the impact of newly arrived human hunters.[5]

The youngest physical evidence for the survival of Equids in the Americas prior to the Columbian Exchange dates between between 7,600 and 10,500 years old.[6]

I've reposted, above, the paragraph with out the strike out content so its easier to read. I included a few possible copy edits. The only concern I have is that the last sentence seems disconnected from the other content. The lay reader would probably need a clear connection (to the paragraph beginning, "The taxonomic horse....").

Several months ago I looked at the content and its sources and found that this is an incredibly complicated subject (no news to anyone here). The lay reader needs to see a clear progression from the lineages of the ancient horse to the modern horse. If they need more information the article has sources which points the way to more material. What we shouldn't do in my opinion is veer off into content that explores the various theories on the Mustang lineage a confusing discussion for those readers who don't have expertise in this area. Some thoughts. Littleolive oil (talk) 01:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I've been too busy to get deeply re-involved in this. I'm okay with how this is (finally!) shaping up, though honestly I prefer my simpler treatment (in the "Overall, I think the way to fix much of this coat-racking problem, and the misleadingness problems, will be to pare down all the stuff that doesn't really pertain" paragraph, in a section above).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I left out the endnote about the fringe theory that horses never became extinct. We don’t have consensus to include it, and it was part of what started this round of drama. So I’m opening a new thread just on the question of whether, and if so, how, to handle it. I think every single person here agrees that it’s nonsense, but it happens to be nonsense that’s out there on “teh intranetz”, and rather than dealing with the occasional but persistent drivebys who want to put it in, I think it is a preemptive strike to note it and dispose of it. There’s basically two versions, one being the goofy “ancient legends” stuff, and the other being those who question the science. Opening discussion... Montanabw^(talk) 22:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per

Fringe views, products, or the organizations who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way. However, meeting this standard indicates only that the idea may be discussed in other articles, not that it must be discussed in a specific article. If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether. If no independent reliable sources connect a particular fringe theory to a mainstream subject, there should not even be a link through a see also section, lest the article serve as a coatrack.

Fringe theories should be discussed in context; uncontroversial ideas may need to be referred to in relation to fringe theories. Discussion of mainstream ideas should be sourced from reliable mainstream sources. Links to non-fringe articles in fringe articles can also help aid the reader in understanding and remove the threat of creating a walled garden. In contrast, many mainstream articles do not link to articles about fringe theories. This is the principle of one-way linking for fringe theories.

Given that this theory isn't mentioned by any mainstream sources it should not be included at all. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My take is that it’s a popular idea in the advocacy community. this is probably the best version of the theory, for better or for worse. I disagree with their historic analysis as well as their attack on the science, as it is quite well established that horse officially reached what is today New Mexico with Juan de Oñate in 1598 and was in the northern Rockies by 1680 or so. But... it’s kind of like Bigfoot, I suppose. How do you handle those who insist on trying to prove a negative? Montanabw^(talk) 23:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore it. If it ever permeates into any kind of reliable source, we can include a sentence dismissing it. GPinkerton (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would not generally be considered a RS because of lack of oversight/publication. No need to include it. The university and a PhD dissertation are not reasons; lack of oversight is. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is discussed (and dismissed) at the BLM’s web site. See “myth #12” here. I guess that’s the crux of my position: it is (is it?) pervasive enough that it should be raised and explain why it is wrong. Montanabw^(talk) 00:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That link doesn't mention the theory. It just says they're not native and why. Then it puts a spin on it about "debate over whether these animals are native or non-native" which relates to the merits and demerits of horses as ecosystem architects in North America. It doesn't mention the fringe belief they never went extinct at all. There's no basis there for including the thesis of this person. GPinkerton (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with that. I think I’ll “park” the content in question here, but collapsed, per the comment of RexxS below.

If you reach a consensus not to include the fringe theory, you can always pin a Consensuses reached section to the top of this page explaining and pointing to this discussion (you pin a section by simply not including a timestamp). That allows you to point any advocates to it and it's easy for an admin to enforce. --RexxS (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link an example from another article? ( I do best with examples).Montanabw^(talk) 00:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I second RexxS' idea. (I don't have an example.) - Tim1965 (talk) 04:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019 (which actually uses a template {{Current COVID-19 Project Consensus}}) or Talk:COVID-19 pandemic #Current consensus (which transcludes a subpage Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Current consensus). We wouldn't need to go to those lengths, but it's an illustration of what it can look like. I'd be happy to take care of any technical aspects if you tell me you've agreed a consensus. --RexxS (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I’m intrigued. Thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 05:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is a moment in time event. Pointing to previous consensus as an argument to not address the issue anew will accomplish nothing but force articles to go stale and obsolete. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, consensus is the mechanism we rely on to create stability in articles. Repeatedly rehearsing the same rejected arguments does nothing to improve articles, and the rest of Wikipedia manages to use consensus records without those articles going stale and obsolete. One could hardly level that accusation against the articles I suggested as examples. --RexxS (talk) 02:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's all about the context of the discussion. This whole bruhaha started on June 6 when an editor tried to bring some new scientific information into one section and was told "This issue has been extensively discussed, it’s what we are saying, and what’s in the article is a well-established consensus." Old consensus should never be a reason to dismiss new information. If no one does that at the articles you brought up, great. But it obviously happens at this one. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the whole bruhaha kicked off on 16 April when an editor inserted content that "All Late Pleistocene caballine horses in North America are now though to belong to Equus ferus", and after the objection "we just said that above,but can keep the source", they reinserted it on 5 May "I think I didn't make this clear enough the first time" instead of taking it to talk. Of course, you're entitled to think otherwise. Nevertheless, if, for example, that issue had been discussed and a consensus reached and recorded here, it would have dramatically simplified the process of examining new information in the light of prior consensus. --RexxS (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, the editor was bold twice before taking it to talk. I have a feeling the outcome would have been the same if they were only bold once.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, the sequence is BRD, not BRB. You can speculate as much as you want, but failing to go to D after the first R is the root cause of the problems. --RexxS (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: It's pretty odd and to be quite frank, rude to be discussed like this in the third person as simply "an editor" when I was the opener and a main participant in the discussion. I thought that my original wording was unclear, so I changed it for the second time as another bold edit, it wasn't merely adding the same wording again. When this was again reverted I then opened up this discussion to resolve the issue. I thought that it would be a simple change that I could easily justify, and I had no idea that it would grow into this. I don't see how adding the content for a second time would change how this discussion went, the main driver of the length of this discussion was the conflict in editoral direction between LynnWysong and Montanabw, a longstanding issue around the editing of this article which I was previously unaware of and had no part in other than pinging the participants. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, BRD is only a suggestion. And anyone who reverts under that suggestion needs to remember: The most important part is discussion. Good faith discussion, not: "I'll let you guys discuss this, but when I mosey back here, if I don't like what you did, I'm reverting again."

And, back to the idea that the "fringe theory" should be included. I feel it should, because I watch the discussions of mustang history off wiki (facebook groups mostly), and I've seen it discussed enough that it should be debunked here. But, even before facebook, I knew one old-timer that was promoting the theory. The information on where the theory originated, and that it was disputed at the time as reported in the Chicago Tribune does not give it undue weight is useful to people coming here to try to find information on what they are hearing from less reliable sources. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, I think the coverage in the Chicago Tribune is substantial enough to pass

WP:FRINGE, and alongside LynnWysong's anecdotal evidence has convinced me that it probably at least deserves to be debunked in a footnote. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

It is not within our remit to prove a negative, to rebut what any of us sees or reads offline, or to right great wrongs. A reliable source is needed to add content even in a footnote. Anecdotal evidence is not the kind of evidence we use here and for scientific content either is the Chicago Tribune. If we are adding a rebuttal to content we can't even add because there is not a RS for it we are creating OR and are going several steps too far in terms of Wikipedia content. Littleolive oil (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or, instead of saying what is not within our remit, we can say what is: Providing reliable information on subjects that people come here to find. The Chicago Tribune article is a reliable source of what two scholars said on a subject that people might be curious about. There is no OR in that.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 10:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe part of the problem here is that this is the wrong article for this footnote. Maybe it belongs in

Evolution of the Horse.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• If ideas are introduced that are outside of our policies and guideline then I prefer to deal with them and get them out of the way, before going into what is within out remit
• Unless we know what the content is going to be we can't verify whether a source is reliable for that specific content: A source is not reliable in general. " Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article."
• The Henderson article (on which some of the Tribune article is based) is not a reliable source in my opinion: First, there is no oversight of the sourced article. Despite Henderson's PhD status at the time of writing, at a very good Canadian University, I haven't seen oversight from either a publisher or even the university. I'd suggest we are introducing content that is not even fringe, there is so little of it. That changes if we can find more.
• If we introduce content to rebut something we have added to the article then we are creating Original Research because we require the reader or ourselves to make the connection between the content and its rebuttal. If we add content that contains both the content and its rebuttal within one source then we're OK. However, in this case, the source for the claim is not reliable by our standards because it lacks oversight, and the Tribune is only republishing that non-reliable content. Bennet may be a reliable source for the rebuttal.
• The Tribune is not a good reliable source for what should be scientific based content in my opinion.
• I'm one editor. This is one opinion and I will happily go with consensus on this but only if we are clear about the status of the content and its source before a decision is made. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"" Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article." The source, the Tribune article, is a reliable source for the WP article says, which is that, in 1991, Henderson put forth a theory, and that Bennett rebutted it. The WP article doesn't say "There is a theory..." That would go beyond what the Tribune article says. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Tribune is not a reliable source in my opinion because there is no oversight on the Henderson article nor is it a good source, probably, for what should be scientifically based content. It's an article based on educated opinion. The Tribune cannot create reliability out of an non-reliable source. And we cannot claim reliability of that 2x removed sourcing. If the Henderson article was reliable then yes, the Tribune article could be a RS but whether to include content of this kind of fringe, of the fringe is another matter. Further, there were suggestions in the discussion above to rebut the Henderson content outside of the Tribune article, I may have misunderstood that. That is OR. If the Tribune were reliable then including the content with the rebut and Henderson's article would not be OR. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can't be off wiki for long, it seems. OK, so here's my take. On the core issue of whether non-extinction happened, none of us disagree: it didn't and the theory is fringe. But when the question of including the footnote about non-extinction was taken to the Fringe Theories noticeboard by Hemiauchenia, one of their regulars, GPinkerton came over here and joined our conversation and offered some useful insights. Per above, once we got the other stuff sorted out about the taxonomy (after the article was locked down), and a consensus was reached, the one thing we hadn't sorted out was the footnote. So, I raised it for discussion. For now, it's out because it appears the consensus was to do so. My primary concern was that this is a perennial issue and an occasional topic of driveby edits and so I wanted something to acknowledge that we've considered it, but our answer is no. So, the question of whether to put it in a talkpage note here was proposed as a possible solution. Thus it's a simple question for consensus:

1. Do we put the footnote about the non-extinction argument back in, probably at the end of the taxonomy section? OR
2. Do we NOT mention the issue anywhere in the article, but instead put a little talkpage note at the top of the page here so that if there's drama later, we can point to the discussion? OR
3. Do something else?

Thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 20:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First off, calling readdressing an issue "drama" is being pretty dismissive. As I said above, consensus is a snapshot in time, based on the information available at that time and the perspectives of those participating in the discussion. If it is truly a "perennial issue" maybe that's an indication that it should be included since it is obviously information people are looking for in the article. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:CCC "Editors may propose a change to current consensus ... That said, in most cases, an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion." That should explain the value of having a record of current consensus; it informs editors who seek to change that consensus, and that is undoubtedly a good thing. --RexxS (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, starting off this post with I "have a fundamentally wrong understanding of consensus." is pretty insulting, especially when you back up what I said with

"Consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia". That pretty much confirms it IS a snapshot. And, it's not like I have an objection to having a record of the discussion, it's the idea that all one has to do is point to that discussion to shut down reopening the issue. That's abuse of process. If someone feels that the previous consensus didn't consider key information, they should not be dismissed summarily. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

When you display a fundamentally wrong understanding of consensus, you really can't be surprised when somebody points it out to you. I'm sorry, but an "ongoing process" is exactly the opposite of a "snapshot", and I'm astonished that you don't seem to realise that. I do agree completely that having a record of consensuses should not be used as a stick to shut down discussion. If you read back, you'll find that I advocate it because it informs editors who seek to change consensus. It surely encourages editors who can then identify they have something new to discuss; and hopefully discourages editors with nothing new to add who merely want to re-litigate something the editors here have already agreed. What's the problem with that? --RexxS (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was opened up at the RS noticeboard, not the Fringe theories one, Just as you were writing that comment I opened up a thread on the fringe theory noticeboard, so hopefully some of the regulars will participate here and help drive the discussion towards a concensus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hemi, I kind of wish you hadn't. We've got a lot of the cooks in this kitchen as it is already. Montanabw^(talk) 21:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the question of if the non-extinction question is a perennial issue, you and I agree: it is. On the question of whether we should say something about it, somewhere on Wikipedia, we also agree. The question now is if we want to restore the end footnote (with or without changes) to the article or not. So, do we pick from the above door #1, door #2, or door #3? Once we decide that, then we can also look at if we want to tweak the content. I actually also prefer door #1 (so we agree on that), but as some of the outside editors are pointing us to a broader wikipedia-wide approach to fringe theories in general, let's give everyone else who has been involved about 24 hours to weigh in on the issue. I for one don't get a ping off wiki every time someone makes an edit. Montanabw^(talk) 21:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would say #1.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with any of the solutions suggested. Wikipedia is set on policies and guidelines that guide rather than rigidly control. If there is agreement for a footnote so be it. I wanted to make sure to explain the issues I saw. Editors can with consensus override Policy/ Guideline if they feel it supports the article in a positive way. My only warning would be that if as a group the editors, and again, this is my analysis, are overriding policy/ guideline this may come back to bite you later on because it creates an opening for controversy. Consensus based on solid policies /guidelines could outlast consensus where the delineation of guides is blurred. There's nothing wrong with this kind of consensus and given how fast human knowledge is changing on the origins of all species on earth we may be here soon with some more information.Littleolive oil (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

#2 GPinkerton (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been tracking the discussion on the three noticeboards where Hemiauchenia posted, and those folks seem to hold the view that it’s best left out of the article. So, with some reluctance, I have to give a nod to Littleolive oil’s comment that overriding a general guideline that is applied across Wikipedia could “come back to bite you later on.” Maybe the way to go is #2, to create the talkpage notice, incorporating the endnote and its sources, then later, if there’s some new uproar about the issue (outside of Facebook social pages, wild horse chat forums, and the stuff about the Book of Mormon angle that Hemiauchenia found — that was quite interesting and something new to me, hadn’t run across that one), we can just pull the talkpage notice language and pop it back into an endnote if needed? Any objections? Montanabw^(talk) 01:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon is an interesting place to plop some of the debunking, perhaps. jps (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article states:

"Mustangs are often referred to as wild horses, but because they are descended from once-domesticated horses, they are actually feral horses."

Okay, we humans call them "feral" horses.

But how much do they really differ from wild horses? Obviously the gene pool of these horses was mainly that of Spanish horses. But after enough years of living in the wild without human intervention, some amount of natural selection and also what I will call "de-domestication" will take place.

I am curious to what extent these horses still show characteristics of being the descendants of domesticated horses, and to what extent they are almost indistinguishable from wild horses.

If someone is knowledgeable about this, I hope they will add a section addressing these questions.216.161.117.162 (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a myth that the feral horses in the U.S. descend mostly from Spanish horses. Most of them descend from ranch horses brought to the Great Basin in the last 150 years.

• "Feral" means that they were once domesticated. It is an important distinction when you consider whether a species continues to exist as wild where they became feral. Feral species are usually detrimental when introduced into an ecosystem they are not suited to, and is not suited for them.

• True wild horses are smaller than many breeds of domestic/feral horses that were "bred up" in size. Especially when in ecosystems such as the Great Basin Desert that is not suited for large herbivores, the large size of feral horses is a problem.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

mustangs are wild if you go to the outer banks you can see all of them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C60:6400:C2BE:990E:E36E:FEDC:F5FD (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are Banker horses, not Mustangs. And they are feral too. Montanabw^(talk) 10:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).