:You have no right to "insist" on anything, particularly a POV-pushing agenda to focus excessively on the state of Nevada (or Texas, for that matter). What you originally inserted into the article was several different edits that contained various content, most of which was irrelevant or inaccurate. Your new proposal is not acceptable because it puts undue weight on Nevada and the "we must use all sources" argument is absurd, we could easily add five more books; Dobie's "guess" is the outlier, and we don't need a bunch of other in-between guesses for here or there. All sources are not created equal and the 100,000 in Nevada is IRRELEVANT to the legislation. (Please read WP:UNDUE) I also took a look at your single legitimate original point - that the five million number in Evans seemed dodgy, and I agreed with you on that point, we are using the Dobie number simply because is so widely disseminated that it needs to be mentioned in a proper context.  Your edits to the lead, your rambling edits about Texas, and your "extrapolation" of a wholly made up number (the 200,000 nonsense) was poorly done and inaccurate. At this point, I already proposed material on the BLM numbers of 1971 for the "Implementation" section, where I think it fits. I would not object to some comment as to current numbers being added there and you can even say that the majority today are in Nevada if the stats verify that ( The language of the history section where Dobie is mentioned now is short, consied and puts Dobie's comment in context.  I don't think it needs to be changed now.  We don't do a "stated by this expert and that expert" type of writing in wikipedia as much as you suggest, Evans is, as you pointed out, the editor of a horse encyclopedia.   

 :I suggest we break down the proposal into component parts: 
 #Should we add info on the numbers the BLM found in the 1971 census?  I say yes if done concisely and properly sourced.   
 #If so, should we add the wording " A census of animals in 1971 determined that there were approximately 17,300 horses and 8,045 burros found on lands subject to the Act.(ref to myths source already in article)." as I proposed above for the first paragraph of the "implementation" section?  I like it, but am open to better ideas or improved, if brief phrasing.   
 #Should we add ANYTHING about estimates from Nevada circa 1900?  I say no, it's irrelevant because those numbers are guesses as much ad Dobie's, and unless we want to go on and make a chart of something that contains Orgon, Wyoming, etc., it's just trivia.   
 #Should we add any other estimates besides Dobie's 2 million number?  Maybe if there is another similarly respected source with an overall estimate (If Amaral estimates for the entire west, or if Ryden has numbers, I'd be interested in seeing these.) but I don't see a need for a laundry list, particularly one that is only for one state.  "All" sources?  No, that's just silly.    

 Those are four solid discussions.  If you want to add other suggestions, break them down to a single topic so we can assess each in context.