![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
I updated the section on potential predation on Mustangs to reflect reliable and up-to date sources. There is no basis for the statement "Where there is natural balance of predators and prey, mustang numbers tend to stay in balance. However, for the most part, natural predators have been eliminated from the ecosystem" The source for it was biased and unreliable, and is now a dead link. More scientific sources indicate the it is simply untrue that: " natural predators have been eliminated from the ecosystem" at least where the horses are found. There's no reliable study that documents that predation can balance, for the long term and/or large geographic scale, mustang numbers. It's simply wishful thinking on the part of those that want to blame predator control to prevent livestock loss that by stopping the control, predators would increase in number and start preying on mustangs. It's not that simple. Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 16:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 21:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 16 external links on Mustang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.letemrun.com/cnn.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Not all "supporters" of free-roaming horses believe the "ecological niche" theory. Restored previous version that was more nuanced. Also reworked the predation section. The starvation bit was a good point to add, but just because Nevada is overloaded with mustangs doesn't mean that it's the only place that has them, so the content on predators needs to reflect a wider range of habitats. Montanabw (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I also removed these paragraphs, for the same reason I removed them the first time:
The first source in the paragraph says absolutely nothing like what it supposedly sources, edit: and if the wayback machined\ can find where the AWHP once said that, it is only one entity, not "some" that say that. Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 09:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
NAC1982
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).The first source in the paragraph is FUBAR. If you're not going to take the time to add proper sources, don't mess with things. In addition, you removed an interim reference with different page numbers for the first part of the second sentence and made the sentence complete synth. You have not provided a source that says that anyone cites to the 1982 report, much less that it is often cited to. Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 09:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
ref # 110 in the article
I get a link to a Japanese roofing company. Anybody else see this.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 02:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC))
Okay, I completely reworked the section into a two tier approach that I believe makes it flow much better. I took a lot of time, making sure the content reflects the sources cited, and it relies heavily on the 2013 National Resource Council Report, which is an impeccable source. So, if anyone sees something they think needs to be changed, PLEASE make sure you aren't messing up the sources.
I mistakenly cited misuse of synthesis as a reason to return content to visible article main space rather than to the hidden content but debunked refers to an earlier change. Adding the content with out debunked is fine in my opinion. The word debunk is fine if sourced to the ref as it was but doesn't debunk the entire range of research which may be misunderstood if we use debunk in the article. I've removed debunk and returned content to visible main space. While this content is fringe to mainstream sources, Downer seems to be an expert in the field and a short statement is acceptable and perhaps even necessary since it refers to Native histories. ( Littleolive oil ( talk) 15:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC))
Just as a note: All sources are biased and they are used per weight in the mainstream and the article if verifiable and reliable. The Mestengo source is not usable because it has copyright infringement notices and is an opinion piece wit out publishers oversight and so is non- verifiable and so also is not reliable.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 17:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC))
Article text:
"whose history predates modern land use practices, and thus the animals have an inherent right to be on public lands."
Source text:
"The horse evolved on the North American continent, maybe it left for a while, but as far as I’m concerned they have a place on the Western landscape as a reintroduced native species."
The article text encapsulates the meaning in the source.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 04:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC))
Yeah, that's pretty much what I described. It was just within the same source. Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 13:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
And therein lies the issue. If you can't take the time to do it right, leave it alone until you can. Also, I changed back the Blood marker analysis. I know what I'm talking about there. Blood markers are not DNA testing, they are more similar to the ABO system in humans. Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 15:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
...and by the way my first edits were to try and clean up a citation needed tag. Tagging content is a request for clean up.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 17:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC))
Lynn, the bottom line is that the phrasing you used was awkward and not particularly readable. It also was overbroad. I suggest that instead of making 50 mini-edits that make it impossible to track your editing, why not just use appropriate citation needed or dubious – discuss tags on the sources so we can keep things straight? It would also be useful if you would assume good faith and avoid casting aspersions on other editors, including myself. Montanabw (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I am Monniasza talk and I want afromentioned page go to Mustang (disambiguation) instead. Monniasza talk 13:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
This portion of the discussion concluded
| |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Montanabw keeps reverting my edits to the "Prehistory" section of the article stating "Article is accurate, please do not keep changing this" diffs [2] [3] My main issue is that Montanabw keeps removing the sentence stating that some represenatives of Equus (but possibly not all, the taxonomy of Pleistocene New World Equus is a mess) in North America have been suggested to be literal wild horses I.e. Equus ferus proper, which is the same as the Tarpan and Przewalski's horse, and of course from which the Domestic horse descends. The evidence for this is ancient DNA from some North American Equus is within variation of known wild horse specimens, see these papers Weinstock et al, 2005 Barrón-Ortiz et al, 2017 in PLoS one, the latter of which states: "The caballine equid species appears to be conspecific with [the same species as] E. ferus Boddaert, 1785, and this is the name we propose should be assigned to this material". Heintzman et al 2017 states: "...many dubious fossil equid taxa have been erected, a problem especially acute within Pleistocene Equus of North America. While numerous species are described from the fossil record, molecular data suggest that most belonged to, or were closely related to, a single, highly variable stout-legged caballine species that includes the domestic horse, E. caballus." The fact that the wild horse was possibly native to North America (not merely Alaska and Yukon, which functioned as an extension of Siberia as part of Beringia and was separated from most of North America by the Laurentide ice sheet) and was merely expirated from the continent, rather than it being a different species from all the Pleistocene American horses seems like an important fact to mention in the section, considering the whole controversy about Mustangs being "invasive species". As far as I can understand, the main issue about previous discussions of prehistoric North American horses have revolved around unreliable sources, but these papers are published in reputable journals, so there is no reason to question their reliability on their face. Pinging @ LynnWysong: @ Carrite: @ Littleolive oil: @ SMcCandlish: who were involved in the previous discussion. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC) References
I don’t think people will understand “caballine horses” any better, particularly where I agree with
SMcCandlish that “E. ferus in particular was already living in the Americas in ancient times, this is not actually clear from the science (and probably irrelevant for another reason: it wasn't E. f. caballus). Something at least very close to E. ferus did live there at one Pleistocene point, but exactly how to identify it is a scientific debate.” Basically, this is one of those surprising situations where it appears that SMcCandlish,
LynnWysong and myself all basically agree as far as this narrow issue goes. So Hemiauchenia, I think it’s time to drop the stick.
Montanabw
(talk)
22:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
As one can see, the other living equines are more closely related to each other than they are to the horse. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC) Follow up I was looking at the non-caballine species (asses, zebras), and it appears their divergence was about 4mya, but it’s not as well studied, so I guess my take is that we are still on safer ground to just say that the ancestor of the modern horse (i.e. the so-called “stout-legged” horse) existed in North America. To go beyond that is for a different article, not this one.
Montanabw
(talk)
22:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
@ LynnWysong:, Montanabw removed the Horse continuity theory, and I agree that it is WP:FRINGE and has no evidence to support it, so whether including it is WP:DUE weight is debatable. I think your footnote idea is excellent and wholeheartedly support it. @ SMcCandlish: what are your thoughts on the footnote idea? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Been off-wiki a few days, but overall I think most of the changes by
LynnWysong and
SMcCandlish were helpful and improved things. I think the new and improved endnote discussing the continuity theory works and it was restored with sources explaining the contest, so I think it has appropriate weight and is in a neutral tone. I went through and touched things up a bit, mostly for flow and to stay within NPOV and the source material cited, but made no real substantive changes. I’m good with this.
Montanabw
(talk)
18:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
|
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
I updated the section on potential predation on Mustangs to reflect reliable and up-to date sources. There is no basis for the statement "Where there is natural balance of predators and prey, mustang numbers tend to stay in balance. However, for the most part, natural predators have been eliminated from the ecosystem" The source for it was biased and unreliable, and is now a dead link. More scientific sources indicate the it is simply untrue that: " natural predators have been eliminated from the ecosystem" at least where the horses are found. There's no reliable study that documents that predation can balance, for the long term and/or large geographic scale, mustang numbers. It's simply wishful thinking on the part of those that want to blame predator control to prevent livestock loss that by stopping the control, predators would increase in number and start preying on mustangs. It's not that simple. Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 16:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 21:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 16 external links on Mustang. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.letemrun.com/cnn.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Not all "supporters" of free-roaming horses believe the "ecological niche" theory. Restored previous version that was more nuanced. Also reworked the predation section. The starvation bit was a good point to add, but just because Nevada is overloaded with mustangs doesn't mean that it's the only place that has them, so the content on predators needs to reflect a wider range of habitats. Montanabw (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I also removed these paragraphs, for the same reason I removed them the first time:
The first source in the paragraph says absolutely nothing like what it supposedly sources, edit: and if the wayback machined\ can find where the AWHP once said that, it is only one entity, not "some" that say that. Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 09:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
NAC1982
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).The first source in the paragraph is FUBAR. If you're not going to take the time to add proper sources, don't mess with things. In addition, you removed an interim reference with different page numbers for the first part of the second sentence and made the sentence complete synth. You have not provided a source that says that anyone cites to the 1982 report, much less that it is often cited to. Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 09:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
ref # 110 in the article
I get a link to a Japanese roofing company. Anybody else see this.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 02:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC))
Okay, I completely reworked the section into a two tier approach that I believe makes it flow much better. I took a lot of time, making sure the content reflects the sources cited, and it relies heavily on the 2013 National Resource Council Report, which is an impeccable source. So, if anyone sees something they think needs to be changed, PLEASE make sure you aren't messing up the sources.
I mistakenly cited misuse of synthesis as a reason to return content to visible article main space rather than to the hidden content but debunked refers to an earlier change. Adding the content with out debunked is fine in my opinion. The word debunk is fine if sourced to the ref as it was but doesn't debunk the entire range of research which may be misunderstood if we use debunk in the article. I've removed debunk and returned content to visible main space. While this content is fringe to mainstream sources, Downer seems to be an expert in the field and a short statement is acceptable and perhaps even necessary since it refers to Native histories. ( Littleolive oil ( talk) 15:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC))
Just as a note: All sources are biased and they are used per weight in the mainstream and the article if verifiable and reliable. The Mestengo source is not usable because it has copyright infringement notices and is an opinion piece wit out publishers oversight and so is non- verifiable and so also is not reliable.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 17:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC))
Article text:
"whose history predates modern land use practices, and thus the animals have an inherent right to be on public lands."
Source text:
"The horse evolved on the North American continent, maybe it left for a while, but as far as I’m concerned they have a place on the Western landscape as a reintroduced native species."
The article text encapsulates the meaning in the source.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 04:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC))
Yeah, that's pretty much what I described. It was just within the same source. Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 13:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
And therein lies the issue. If you can't take the time to do it right, leave it alone until you can. Also, I changed back the Blood marker analysis. I know what I'm talking about there. Blood markers are not DNA testing, they are more similar to the ABO system in humans. Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 15:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
...and by the way my first edits were to try and clean up a citation needed tag. Tagging content is a request for clean up.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 17:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC))
Lynn, the bottom line is that the phrasing you used was awkward and not particularly readable. It also was overbroad. I suggest that instead of making 50 mini-edits that make it impossible to track your editing, why not just use appropriate citation needed or dubious – discuss tags on the sources so we can keep things straight? It would also be useful if you would assume good faith and avoid casting aspersions on other editors, including myself. Montanabw (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I am Monniasza talk and I want afromentioned page go to Mustang (disambiguation) instead. Monniasza talk 13:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
This portion of the discussion concluded
| |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Montanabw keeps reverting my edits to the "Prehistory" section of the article stating "Article is accurate, please do not keep changing this" diffs [2] [3] My main issue is that Montanabw keeps removing the sentence stating that some represenatives of Equus (but possibly not all, the taxonomy of Pleistocene New World Equus is a mess) in North America have been suggested to be literal wild horses I.e. Equus ferus proper, which is the same as the Tarpan and Przewalski's horse, and of course from which the Domestic horse descends. The evidence for this is ancient DNA from some North American Equus is within variation of known wild horse specimens, see these papers Weinstock et al, 2005 Barrón-Ortiz et al, 2017 in PLoS one, the latter of which states: "The caballine equid species appears to be conspecific with [the same species as] E. ferus Boddaert, 1785, and this is the name we propose should be assigned to this material". Heintzman et al 2017 states: "...many dubious fossil equid taxa have been erected, a problem especially acute within Pleistocene Equus of North America. While numerous species are described from the fossil record, molecular data suggest that most belonged to, or were closely related to, a single, highly variable stout-legged caballine species that includes the domestic horse, E. caballus." The fact that the wild horse was possibly native to North America (not merely Alaska and Yukon, which functioned as an extension of Siberia as part of Beringia and was separated from most of North America by the Laurentide ice sheet) and was merely expirated from the continent, rather than it being a different species from all the Pleistocene American horses seems like an important fact to mention in the section, considering the whole controversy about Mustangs being "invasive species". As far as I can understand, the main issue about previous discussions of prehistoric North American horses have revolved around unreliable sources, but these papers are published in reputable journals, so there is no reason to question their reliability on their face. Pinging @ LynnWysong: @ Carrite: @ Littleolive oil: @ SMcCandlish: who were involved in the previous discussion. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC) References
I don’t think people will understand “caballine horses” any better, particularly where I agree with
SMcCandlish that “E. ferus in particular was already living in the Americas in ancient times, this is not actually clear from the science (and probably irrelevant for another reason: it wasn't E. f. caballus). Something at least very close to E. ferus did live there at one Pleistocene point, but exactly how to identify it is a scientific debate.” Basically, this is one of those surprising situations where it appears that SMcCandlish,
LynnWysong and myself all basically agree as far as this narrow issue goes. So Hemiauchenia, I think it’s time to drop the stick.
Montanabw
(talk)
22:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
As one can see, the other living equines are more closely related to each other than they are to the horse. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC) Follow up I was looking at the non-caballine species (asses, zebras), and it appears their divergence was about 4mya, but it’s not as well studied, so I guess my take is that we are still on safer ground to just say that the ancestor of the modern horse (i.e. the so-called “stout-legged” horse) existed in North America. To go beyond that is for a different article, not this one.
Montanabw
(talk)
22:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
@ LynnWysong:, Montanabw removed the Horse continuity theory, and I agree that it is WP:FRINGE and has no evidence to support it, so whether including it is WP:DUE weight is debatable. I think your footnote idea is excellent and wholeheartedly support it. @ SMcCandlish: what are your thoughts on the footnote idea? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Been off-wiki a few days, but overall I think most of the changes by
LynnWysong and
SMcCandlish were helpful and improved things. I think the new and improved endnote discussing the continuity theory works and it was restored with sources explaining the contest, so I think it has appropriate weight and is in a neutral tone. I went through and touched things up a bit, mostly for flow and to stay within NPOV and the source material cited, but made no real substantive changes. I’m good with this.
Montanabw
(talk)
18:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
|