Talk:Tarpan

message: The links had been removed, because it was about the Przewalski horse subspecies. But that is not true. It is about all Eurasian wild horses, the Przewalski horse is also mentioned, and linked to the Przewalski subspecies page on the IUCN red list. See text from that link:
"This assessment is for the wild horse, not for the domesticated horse or any of its feral populations. Of the three subspecies that lived in historical times (since 1500 AD) two are Extinct while the third survives only in captivity or as highly managed introduced or reintroduced populations. Wild animals survived in eastern Europe (Poland, Belarus, Lithuania and Germany) through the eighteenth century, with the last wild individuals killed in 1814 (Novak 1999). The subspecies, known as the Plains Tarpan, lived on the steppes of southern Russia and the Ukraine. Its disappearance is attributed to interbreeding with domestic horses; hunting by people for sport and to protect their mares and forage; and the rapid settlement and cultivation of the steppes in the ninereenth century (Novak 1999). The last known wild individual died in Ukraine in 1879 (Novak 1999). Przewalski's Horse (E. ferus przewalskii) is the only subspecies still extant, but only as 'captive' populations. The last know sighting of animals in the wild was made in 1969 in Mongolia. All subsequent expenditions to find animals in both Mongolia and China have failed to find any evidence for their continued survival in the wild. For further details, see the account for this subspecies."
Wild Horse (text from this link): IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Equus ferus
Przewalski Horse: IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Equus ferus ssp. przewalskii
Pmaas 22:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  IUCN Link: Equus ferus 

message: :ru:Тарпан gives a Turkic etymology of the name, unfortunately without reference. I can imagine a meaning of "flying forward", but I have more difficulty believing the term means "to be born in full gallop", that sounds a little too picturesquely Sapir-Whorfish. There is also an anecdote about Tarpan-hunting I would like to quote here, but unfortunately also given without source. dab (ᛏ) 11:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: the name

message: The opening para says Tarpan was a species, but the (very informative) taxonomy section describes it as being (in fact, if not by naming convention) a breed of horse. By the definition in species it sure looks like a breed.  Perhaps we should use a more generic turn of phrase than the meaning-laden "species" in the opening para.  Perhaps we should change "The last specimen of this species died" to "The last tarpan died", or something like that? (note: I'm not proposing we get into the breed/species matter in the opening paragraph, that would just be clunky and uninformative). Darryl Revok 21:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Species vs breed

message: Why does it say that the last specimen died in 1918 or 1919 when the taxobox says it became extinct in 1879? ??????? Thylacinus cynocephalus (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The species would be extinct when there was no chance for breeding, even if a surviving specimen remained alive.  Do horses live forty years?  Geo Swan (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extinction date 

message: I just changed the order in which the two projects appeared in the article. Not "knowing" which of the two is or was "better", and not interested in such judgement (at least not here and noew), it is obvious that the Heck project should be listed first for reasons of alphabetic and esp. chronological order (provided the dates given in the respective WP articles are accurate).  147.142.186.54 (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Back-breeding" projects 

message: This page was one of the many pages moved by Una unilaterally like more cases, in order to change policy. Tarpan is very clearly the primary topic, and this highly controversial move should have been discussed. If this discussion does not generate consensus to leave it here, it should be moved back as a controversial move unapproved. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If this requested move is highly controversial, then all the relevant WikiProjects should be notified.  Kim, have you done that? --Una Smith (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternatively, did YOU notify the relevant projects BEFORE moving this? Where is the consensus for the move demonstrated prior to the move? You can't brush away objections to your unilateral actions by suggestions that other people need to do work you should have done. You need to stop unilaterally doing things, period, until it's clear that you almost always would have had consensus for it. ++Lar: t/c 01:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not think the move was controversial.  --Una Smith (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Una, you clearly thought wrong.  As such, I request that from now on you assume all moves you would like to make are potentially controversial, and go through WP:RM, since the criteria you use to make this determination is quite apparently woefully inadequate.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a somewhat blunt way of putting it. But I tend to agree... something is off in your "should I move this?" evaluation process, Una. Sometimes you get it right, but often, you do not and then there is a big mess to clean up. Perhaps moving things really isn't where you should be spending any of your time, Una. Instead perhaps there are other more productive uses? ++Lar: t/c 02:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I had notified the wikiproject listed at this talk page. I have now notified some additional iwkiprojects (mamals and extinction). Feel free to expand on that. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  --Una Smith (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

text: *I think on reflection I'll support a move back. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 04:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But it doesn't redirect here: the common name points at an unconvincing dab page.  Readers would have to know which scientific name they want. Kanguole (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Frickeg, neither of these examples has an associated dab page.  Could you explain how they relate to the problem here?  --Una Smith (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, your argument is that, as an extinct species, it is necessary to have the article at a scientific name. As this is a subspecies extinct since 1600, this does not apply, and I cited two other examples of species/subspecies extinct during that period as examples. "Tarpan" is definitely most commonly used for this subspecies, and thus the disambiguation page would be perfectly fine linked from the top of the article. (For other uses, see Tarpan (disambiguation).) The Atlas Bear example was perhaps not the best, but I think the thylacine is relevant, as it could be argued that "Thylacine" is applicable to the entire family Thylacinidae. Frickeg (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Thank you. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Una: There were no ad hominums offered by editors other than yourself, in my view. Nonetheless, thank you for honoring consensus, Una. We all of course expect no less, but it's worth thanking you anyway. In future, if you think there is any chance at all that a move might be remotely controversial, play it safe and seek consensus first. It will decrease the amount of ill will directed at you, significantly. ++Lar: t/c 17:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Move back simply to stop the usual end runs around policy", above, is an argument ad hominem: it addresses another editor's presumed intent, rather than the merits of the proposal at hand.  Meta-discussion of such purported "end runs around policy" can be found on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions.  --Una Smith (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as you continue to do it, it will remain necessary to alert other editors of Wikipedia of your intent to avoid a meta-discussion of the change you are implementing on Wikipedia.  Go ahead and post your meta-discussion of your proposed policy change to make all of Wikipedia redirects and the warnings to other editors will become unnecessary.  Meta-discussion of such end runs around policy should be found somewhere, but they're not, because you don't intend to discuss and attempt to gain consensus for your policy changes.--KP Botany (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved back, per the very overwhelming consensus above. Una Smith, please do not make moves that are clearly against consensus. Prodego talk 03:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: * Move back. Nominator.  -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think on reflection I'll support a move back. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 04:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But it doesn't redirect here: the common name points at an unconvincing dab page.  Readers would have to know which scientific name they want. Kanguole (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Frickeg, neither of these examples has an associated dab page.  Could you explain how they relate to the problem here?  --Una Smith (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, your argument is that, as an extinct species, it is necessary to have the article at a scientific name. As this is a subspecies extinct since 1600, this does not apply, and I cited two other examples of species/subspecies extinct during that period as examples. "Tarpan" is definitely most commonly used for this subspecies, and thus the disambiguation page would be perfectly fine linked from the top of the article. (For other uses, see Tarpan (disambiguation).) The Atlas Bear example was perhaps not the best, but I think the thylacine is relevant, as it could be argued that "Thylacine" is applicable to the entire family Thylacinidae. Frickeg (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: As is proper, I disregard the ad hominem arguments offered here by some editors.  However, I am persuaded by the arguments to the point, so I have moved the disambiguation page to Tarpan (disambiguation).  --Una Smith (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Una: There were no ad hominums offered by editors other than yourself, in my view. Nonetheless, thank you for honoring consensus, Una. We all of course expect no less, but it's worth thanking you anyway. In future, if you think there is any chance at all that a move might be remotely controversial, play it safe and seek consensus first. It will decrease the amount of ill will directed at you, significantly. ++Lar: t/c 17:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Move back simply to stop the usual end runs around policy", above, is an argument ad hominem: it addresses another editor's presumed intent, rather than the merits of the proposal at hand.  Meta-discussion of such purported "end runs around policy" can be found on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions.  --Una Smith (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as you continue to do it, it will remain necessary to alert other editors of Wikipedia of your intent to avoid a meta-discussion of the change you are implementing on Wikipedia.  Go ahead and post your meta-discussion of your proposed policy change to make all of Wikipedia redirects and the warnings to other editors will become unnecessary.  Meta-discussion of such end runs around policy should be found somewhere, but they're not, because you don't intend to discuss and attempt to gain consensus for your policy changes.--KP Botany (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved back, per the very overwhelming consensus above. Una Smith, please do not make moves that are clearly against consensus. Prodego talk 03:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: The sentence about cave paintings showing Equus ferus ferus does not have an adequate source.  This is important because most cave paintings of horses that are in color show dun, not grullo horses;  also, most cave paintings are not adequate to distinguish between Equus ferus ferus (this article) and Equus ferus przewalskii.  --Una Smith (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The other painting could also be a mutation of the dun gene rather than the Agouti gene... You know, a bay ;) Pitke (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Several kinds of horses are known from cave paintings (even with different kinds depicted in the same caves), no one has claimed all were Tarpans. FunkMonk (talk) 23:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, so the point is that the one on the right looks way more like a Tarpan than the one on the left, so shouldn't it be used in the article? To my knowledge, only the grey ones have been identified as tarpans by any authors. FunkMonk (talk) 13:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No way anyone could know, as there was about 20,000 years between the paintings and the last known Tarpan that died in a zoo. So far those paintings have been claimed to be the ancestors of every horse breed that exists today in the region!  (sighing)  Montanabw(talk) 03:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no problem with calling these individuals tarpans. Based on genetic data, there has been only one undomesticated subspecies in Europe, and that is then effectively the Tarpan. DNA analysis has now confirmed the pressence of the three colors depicted in the cave paintings. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, what's the name of the paper on the colours? FunkMonk (talk) 04:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.pnas.org/content/108/46/18626 -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue, though, is that these ancient cave paintings could also have been of the ancestor of the domesticated horse -- the aficionados of modern domesticated breeds often make such claims (they are probably at least partly wrong as they all claim "pure" unbroken lineage too, but that's a different issue). Thus, all we know is that they most likely were images of horses that lived in the area, whether the Tarpan or another subspecies is speculative, as there is no horse DNA to be found in art!  And the dun coloration is clearly one of the genes that is a wildtype coloring, but it also exists in modern domesticated animals as well as the remaining genetically wild ones.  Montanabw(talk) 05:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We know when domestication took place and where. We know what colors the horses present in that time had. We know that domesticated horses only arrived in Europe long after those cave paintings were made. Really, the horses there are Equus ferus ferus.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 10:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

text:  These cave paintings are from the pleistocene, when Europe was a steppe-like habitat. The left picture is very likely to show a przewalski's horse, which may have been present in europe during that time. Or at least, similar forms. Pruvost et al. also describe that one from Lascaux as being of the przewalski phenotype. The Tarpan refers to the Holocene type in Europe, and there likely have been more than one type during the pleistocene. I think that the right one would be better suited for the article, mainly because it does not look like a przewalski but like a different type of horse. Concerning the colour of the right one; the upper red horse definitely looks like bay to me, while the lower one may be a grullo. -- DFoidl (talk) 06:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cave paintings 

message: Out of curiosity what are the assertions that Tarpan=Equus ferus ferus based from?  I just typed "Tarpan" into google and the first 10 links pan out as such (ignoring wikipedia/wikicommons and duplicates of sites): 
*Tarpan/Heck/Konik are alive/same animal/same name 
*Tarpan/Heck/Konik are NOT alive/the same animal/same name
*Redirects to Przewalski's Horse
Comments on the links found.  Montanabw asserts that the connection between the term "Tarpan" and the bred back horses is not a major aspect.  However from the results of my quick informal search ~2/3 of the links treat the two as one and the same. many mention that "wild" Tarpan went extinct in the 1800 but go on to treat Heck & Konik breeds under the same name and with descriptions ranging from "similar to" to "the same as" when equating E f. ferus to the breeds.  Of the sites that treat the "Tarpan" as extinct 2 mention the Heck & Konik breeds.  One, link 8, states its not correct to refer to the breeds as "Tarpan". One, Link 7, talks about the breeds without comment on how to refer to them.  And one, link 9, Doesn't mention them at all. (and lists the Trarpan as "Equus caballus gmelini" showing how outdated it is!).  The last link, link 10 (and link 11), simply states "See: Przewalski's Horse".  Thus it is clearly NOT a simple issue.
Another important aspect is the statement that keep resurfacing is that "Tarpan" is THE official name for the subspecies.  It has been stated that MSW3 is the official source for WP:Mammals for Common names.  The MSW3 page on "Equus caballus ferus", which as was noted earlier hasn't been updated since 2002, does NOT list ANY common name for the taxon.
Also brought up in the first page of the search were two MORE usages of the word "Tarpan":  here Apparently a Hindu ritual? and here UK plumbing and heating.
I think that while not a option liked by some this article if it is going to be about E. f. ferus is would be best have it located at Equus ferus ferus.  The page titled "Tarpan" should be used as a disambiguation page set up similar to the one used for USS Enterprise as there are multiple different things both living and not that people may be looking for when they search for "Tarpan".--Kevmin (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have one response this this generally. if we would always just bluntly take what the majority (in whatever way we want to measure it) thinks is right, evolution would be listed as invalid, unsubstantiated etc, and creationism would be listed as real. Yes, Tarpan is used for different breeds, because of the nostalgia related to having a "WILD Horse", but does that mean wikipedia has to bow to that just because such a group exists? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 06:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a bit of a straw man argument as the debate is over the validity of evolution as a theory.  I was asking who is being referenced when the statement "Tarpan" is the official common name for E. F. ferus".  The official source for WP:Mammals does not list any common names for the subspecies so where is the statement coming from?--Kevmin (talk) 06:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The true Tarpan is extinct.  Some people have "bred back" a bunch of coarse, dun-colored ponies until they look kind of like a Tarpan and are now calling them "Tarpans" to help promote them.  I'm not sure if this fully explains things, but I happen to recall directly reading in the horse magazines of the time when some of the first "bred back" so-called "tarpans" were introduced to the public, and it was in the 1970's.  Given that the last "real" Tarpan died in a zoo in the 1800s, the species is obviously extinct. If you skim Heck horse, you will get the general history of the so-called modern "Tarpan," which is, as Kim points out, a romantic PR name.  In fact, the aficionados of this creature point out how nice and gentle it is!  But the real Tarpan was WILD and never domesticated!  It's sort of like comparing a wolf and a wolfhound... I hope this clears things up. A dab to Heck Horse would solve the entire ambiguity problem. Montanabw(talk) 07:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, not the point and not answering the questions posed.  I fully agree that the "bred "back"" breeds are NOT real E. f. ferus.  Now who are is the authority being cited for the use of Tarpan as the name for E. f. ferus?  and what make having this page NOT a disambiguation page better considering the myriad misuses and completely unrelated uses of the term "Tarpan" which are present currently.   Why shouldn't a page along the lines of Saber-toothed cat be employed here to inform people and direct them to the place they are actually looking for.--Kevmin (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL!  Well at least we have agreement on one point (bred back "tarpans", which also include the Konik as well as the Heck horse, by the way are not real Tarpans).  As for the saber toothed cat solution, there is far less ambiguity here than there.  I'll leave it to Kim and others to discuss the speciation and taxonomy details, but there are basically two animals, maybe three that get called "tarpan," the real, but extinct one and the Promotional lingo for the bred back ones.  The wiki article on the Kiang makes an unsourced comment that it might sometimes be called a tarpan, but like so many things on wiki, who knows where that came from, and even if true, it doesn't mean it's correct.  (I mean some people call Alzheimer's disease "Oldtimer's disease" -- which doesn't make it correct terminology, not matter how common.) Everything else getting raised here is a red herring or OR, or theory.  Not sure this is an answer, but it's my story and I'm sticking to it!  (grin) Montanabw(talk) 08:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Montanabw, Ummmm, Nooooo......YOu will notic I used very specific wording.  The "..."bred "back"" breeds are NOT real E. f. ferus." While I agreed with you in principle about the bred back, I did not say I was in anyway convinced of the usage of the term "Tarpan" for E. f. ferus.--Kevmin (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Montanabw, as I understand him Kevmin does not agree with you.  Furthermore, no issue that I have raised here is original research. --Una Smith (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To the contrary, except for assertions of some wikipedia editors, I have not seen any references to reliable sources that actually say that not all European wild horses are tarpans, the issue raised here. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Sorry kevmin, it was posted under a specific header, so I assumed that you primarily had that in mind. But now I see that you want to reopen the discussion about primary use, as was done above when discussing whether tarpan should remain a disambig page. Tarpan for breeds is used as an alternative, and most references to those breeds use thos actual names. For the wild horse to the contrary, Tarpan is the primary use. So, I think it is fair to see which of the usages of tarpan as the main namegiver, tarpan is used for the most, and that is for Equus ferus ferus. Maybe that Tarpan in google count hits is used more for some of the breeds, but I think they are less used for those than the actual names of the breeds. For that reason, I do not see why th9is page should become a disambig page. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Again I ask what is this assertion "So, I think it is fair to see which of the usages of tarpan as the main namegiver, tarpan is used for the most, and that is for Equus ferus ferus" is based from.  From what I can see MANY sites use the term from both the extinct and bred back horses.  Also you are still not addressing the issue of the myraid OTHER uses of the word "Tarpan" and the issue of the one vowel different "Tarpon"--Kevmin (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here we come full circle to why I moved the article to  and made Tarpan a disambiguation page.  Alternatively, Tarpan could be an article about the folk taxon "tarpan":  historical free-roaming, typically grullo equines in central Europe that might have been wildlife and not feral, also certain modern horse breeds reputed to derive from these historical equines.  Those are the two reasonable choices:  dab page, with each equine usage in a separate article;  or folk taxon with all equine usages combined.  I thank Kevmin for drawing my attention to folk taxon articles such as saber-toothed cat.  --Una Smith (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that you split the common name from the scientific name, which is incorrect. if there is sufficient argument to disambiguate Tarpan, the page should be moved to Tarpan (wild horse). -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Splitting the two is incorrect only if they are one and the same.  Unfortunately neither Equus ferus ferus nor "tarpan" is described well enough that a reasonable observer can say they are one and the same.  Also, splitting the common name from the scientific name is standard practice on Wikipedia when dealing with folk taxa such as "tarpan".  --Una Smith (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Una states: Splitting the two is incorrect only if they are one and the same. Exactly, they are the same, so there is no reason to split. That the description is not to your liking does not invalidate that all European wild horses are considered of a single subspecies, and that the valid name for that subspecies is tarpan. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 06:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Kim, do you have a reliable source providing evidence that they are one and the same?  --Una Smith (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See for example Tatjana Kavar and Peter Dovč (2008) Domestication of the horse: Genetic relationships between domestic and wild horses. Livestock Science 116(1): 1-14 doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2008.03.002 and Melinda A. Zeder (2006) Documenting Domestication  . I will request the Olsen book to be delivered from the library. In short, each of them calls all Equus ferus ferus Tarpans. Which is the issue at hand. We know already that some other horses are called Tarpan (Heck and Konik) and that some might have confused wild horses with feral horses, but that does not invalidate that the correct name for Equus ferus ferus is Tarpan. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Kevmin, of the various topics for which Tarpan is the primary use (Wild horse, car etc), and not secondary use (breed backs), which one is the primary topic it is used for? Basically, if only one topic can be discussed at this page, which of the following pages (Tarpan, Grullo, Heck horse, Konik horse, Tarpan Honker or PZL M-4 Tarpan) would you move to this page? Tarpan is only for Equus ferus ferus its primary use, for all the others, it is either an alternative to the main name or part of a more extensive name. As such, I think it is more than sufficient to use Tarpan (disambiguation) to address all those other useages. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary usage question

message: Equus ferus ferus is a scientific name based on a holotype.  Tarpan is a common name for grullo colored equines formerly known in the wild in Europe.  The two may be considered to be "the same kind of animal", or not.  Because this is a choice, and a matter of scientific debate, it is appropriate to have separate articles for the two.  --Una Smith (talk) 07:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice original research here. Before making such a massive change, I suggest that you first discuss these before implementing these. If you want to make a point because you could not have it your way, you made it, so please undo this and discuss it first. Per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I will revert your edits so we can discuss them first at Talk:Tarpan.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The original research would be equating Equus ferus ferus with the Tarpan based on the evidence available. Especially if the holotype is a description, equating the two is conjecture. Fortunately for Wikipedia, that conjecture has already been made and can be cited, but it seems appropriate to make it clear that it is in fact conjecture, and having two separate articles is one way of doing that. Although I disagree with Una more often than not, in this case I agree, and certainly this article as she wrote it makes the salient points in a clear manner.--Curtis Clark (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

text: for my response, see: Talk:Tarpan#Split_Tarpan_and_Equus_ferus_ferus -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good god, the grullo is NOT the Tarpan!  Tarpans ARE an extinct group/species/subspecies of horse.  There may or may not be some link between the extinct tarpan and the modern domesticated horse, but if there is, the lineages diverged 5000 years ago.  There is ONE source, circa 1906, that Una uses where some author claimed that grullo horses were called Tarpans.  That is just b ad nimenclature.  There is NO "scientific debate" about grullo horses.  It's just the dun gene over a black base coat color.  Dun may be linked to primitive horses (all the primitive wild breeds appear to have been dun), but grullo is nothing special.  Una, LET IT GO.  You have some interesting theories, but they are OR, and so go get them published in peer-reviewed literature and then come back in a year or so and tell us all about it.  Montanabw(talk) 02:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Equus ferus ferus vs tarpan

message: Re this version:
An important question here is the typification of Equus ferus ferus.  Here, Kim thinks the type is a specimen in a museum in Moscow.  Would someone with access to the nomenclatural literature please check this? --Una Smith (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are taxidermy mounts of the now-extinct Tarpan in existence.  That particular creature has been classed as Equus ferus ferus.  What is the problem? Montanabw(talk) 02:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Type specimen

message: Re this version:
A number of errors about this taxonomy exist on the web.  They include naming the wrong author with the surname Gemlin, and using the description by the nephew Gemlin in place of the one by the uncle that is the type of the name.  --Una Smith (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No!  Sometimes the internet is wrong?? You mean we CAN'T believe everything we read on the internet!  Horrors!  =:-O  (The preceeding is a lame attempt at humor).  Montanabw(talk) 02:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Errors on the web

message: There is a parallel conversation going on over at Tarpan, to which this article above redirects.  Una is splitting editors here, or engaging in her usual tactic of WP:ASK, and I strongly urge that everyone go over to Tarpan and consolidate this discussion in one place.  We are ALMOST at a solution there, I'd hate for a legitimate editor with views worth considering to be left out of the discussion.  Montanabw(talk) 03:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a separate discussion, about the scope of that article.  I would like to keep it separate.  --Una Smith (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Una, you are wasting everyone's time.  By splitting the discussion, you are just confusing everyone and hiding your own tracks.  This talk should have been moved and merged with the article.  Let it go.  Consolidate the discussion on one talk page and work with the community to reach consensus.  Montanabw(talk) 04:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consolidation? 

message: I posted a bunch of thoughts about the taxonomy of the horses on the Wikiproject Equine here, because of its cross article scope. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Horse taxonomy discussion at wikiproject

message: I realized that actually there is no section really describing what the Tarpan presumably looked like. There is only the reference to the konik horses and others, and that photo, but that is not enough in my opinion. For example, after Puvrost et al., the grullo coat is not the only coat colour that appeared in the Tarpan. I'll spend some time gathering references for the appearance of the Tarpan, and then create a section for that. -- DFoidl (talk) 06:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we need Kim.  Desperately.  Kim?  Oh Kim?  Montanabw(talk) 23:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! Let him collect the data, and we go from there. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the long delay, I now started that section in the article. -- DFoidl (talk) 09:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a positive start. I did some cleanup, and one source was just plain wrong, so I updated that with more relevant material.   However, can you please use proper Wikipedia citation format, including a URL that goes to at least an abstract of all the things you are citing, most of which appears to be peer-reviewed material that is online.  For guidelines, please see WP:CITE. Thanks!  Montanabw(talk) 22:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Seems legit, if there are issues with it, we need to be able to cite counterclaims. FunkMonk (talk) 12:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would probably be hard to find counterclaims for that, since this paper has not been disputed in any way in the literature. However, we could write instead of "these colours have been identified" this sentence: "Pruvost et al. identify colour as the following". --  DFoidl (talk) 12:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The way it was originally worded was incorrect, as there have been markers for the dun gene located in modern breeds.  As I rewrote the sentence in a manner that tossed the source (which at the time had no URL and I wasn't going to go hunting for it when I had a different source available), I presumed it was either wrong or badly misquoted.  Apparently, here it was the latter.  The problem overall, DFoidl, is that I don't think English is your first language, and some of what you add sounds very odd.  I'm doing a lot of cleanup, but I can only work with what is there, we definitely need URLs to your sources so I can directly check them, and for English WP, it's best if most are in English.  Montanabw(talk) 16:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Well, I went with what I read in the article you cited as a source, which noted a different ecosystem for each; but IMHO, even selectively bred animals do develop some landrace traits, at least if they live outside, as horses do.  Montanabw(talk) 19:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

text: On wiki, we have to stick to what we can source, otherwise we violate WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH if we try to draw too broad a conclusion from the sourced data.  Environmental factors will play a role in horses allowed to live outside, even if in a "grazing project" - terrain, length of day, climate, all that sort of thing is a factor, one can clearly see this in breeds like the Clydesdale, a fully domesticated breed, but with a dramatically different body type for those bred in (very hot) Australia compared to those bred in their original Scotland.  I don't know if anyone has studied this, but I will bet that even the Przewalski's horses bred for multiple generations in different zoos develop somewhat different phenotype.  Washington DC (where they have a small herd) has a radically different climate from, say, Mongolia ;-)  Montanabw(talk) 22:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: One article was about Hucul, not Heck horses, my mistake. FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right!  I was thinking the Heck horse and the Hucul were different names for the same breedm but they aren't.  Wonder if that bit is even relevant now? Montanabw(talk) 01:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regarding the Heck horse, you reverted my edit stating they have a strikingly different breed history from koniks because you thought it goes beyond what the reference I cited says. Have you read this book? http://www.abu-naturschutz.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=265&Itemid=74 That's the one I cited. If not, you can't tell anything about its content and wether a certain passage is present or not. --DFoidl (talk) 08:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in German, so it really should not be used at all on en.wiki.   But I'm not disputing that the Konik and the Heck horse are different, it was how you worded it.  Montanabw(talk) 22:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

text: I think there is some kind of procedure for using foreign language sources, but I'm not sure where to find a description FunkMonk (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I just looked and it's here WP:NOENG.   In practice, the basics are that if an English language source exists, use it.  If the English source is accurate as far as it goes, but isn't ideal, use BOTH the English and the foreign language sources so one supports the other (with translation as needed).  If no English source,  and there is a question (which often will happen, sooner or later) then pinpoint the citation and ideally provide the sentence of so of foreign language text supporting the statement in question (in the footnote) so that people can translate just that bit and not hunt through the whole document.  To give you an example, the language issue was really well handled at Finnhorse where virtually all existing reliable sources are in Finnish with no English translation and not very many people speak Finnish (plus Google translate mangles it).  You can see there that the English statements in the article that are sourced to a Finnish source pinpoint precisely the section of the Finnish source, with the precise text used for the statement provided in the footnote so if someone really wants to verify it, they can.  As for the precise statement, I tossed it for two reasons, first because it was not in the English source.  If it's in the German source, best to cite page number and at least a relevant sentence as opposed to "it's in there somewhere, good luck finding it."  The second reason is that it's sort of obvious - and stated elsewhere - that the two breeds have two different breeding histories.  Plus, bless you DFoidl, but some of your earlier edits actually haven't been phrased in a particularly accurate manner, mostly, I suspect, due to the language barrier.  I have no problem if a statement such as "due to the different bloodlines that created the two breeds" is re-added IF the German source verifies it, (and is footnoted as such with the relevant snippet) but as I said, the English source does not support it.  I know detailed citations are a pain in the butt to do up, but it's the best way to handle foreign language material.  I hope this helps!  Montanabw(talk) 19:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appearance of the Tarpan 

message: There is a clear consensus that they are.  Unless one can change that consensus through convincing argument here on the Talk page, this should not be changed in the article to suggest that there is some disagreement on this point. Agricolae (talk) 07:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 1)There is a clear consensus that they are.
2)There is a clear consensus that they are not.
1 or 2 ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 08:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extinct 

message: there is source of survival of this subspecies
 Genet. Mol. Res. 10 (4): 4104-4113 (2011)
 Received March 25, 2011
 Accepted August 8, 2011
 Published October 31, 2011
 DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.4238/2011.October.31.7
du u:a refer this to blogpost ? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 07:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The paper only postulates that the Hucul is a surviving relic population of Tarpans as an explanation for the Hucul's sharing so much Tarpan DNA: the paper leans towards its suggestion that the reason why they appear to be directly descended from Tarpans is because they are/were Tarpans, but does not actually outright state as such.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  blogpost or p/r journal 

message: Regarding the following paragraph: "In modern use, the term has been loosely used to refer to the predomesticated ancestor of the modern horse, Equus ferus, to the predomestic subspecies believed to have lived into the historic era, Equus ferus ferus, and to all European primitive or "wild" horses in general. The modern "bred-back" horse breeds are also promoted as "tarpan" by their supporters, though researchers discourage this use of the word, which they believe should only apply to the ancient E. ferus ferus.", currently marked as "citation needed," this is a summary of the contents of one of the sources referenced in the following Taxonomy section, which contains a shorter version of the same material ("It is debated if the small, free-roaming horses seen in the forests of Europe during 18th and 19th centuries and called "tarpan" were indeed wild, never-domesticated horses, hybrids of the Przewalski's horse and local domestic animals, or simply feral horses.") I have just restored the reference in the Taxonomy section, where it was likely removed because the link was broken for some time due to the PLOS Paleocommunity Blog being migrated to The Official PLOS Blog. I suggest to restore it in the Name and Etymology section as well because, while the wording is different, the contents clearly refer to the same source. I marked it as "<ref name=Castelli>" in the Taxonomy section.Kileytoo (talk) 12:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing reference in the Name and Etymology section 

message: A recent study by Librado et al. 2021 found that the horses called "tarpan" came about by hybridization between domestic horses and wild horses, in particular the Cherson tarpan. It never was clear if the horses called "tarpan" were truly wild or feral horses, but the new study seems to suggest they were hybrids and therefore not synonymous with the original European wild horse. A distinction should be made between the horses of the Russian steppe from the 18th to 20th century that were called tarpans, and the actual European wild horse. I suggest to split the article into two, one for the tarpan and one for the European wild horse. In the current form, the article is misleading and compares apples to bananas. DFoidl (talk) 11:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think this is premature splitting, based on one WP:PRIMARY report. At least for the time being, it looks to me like this would be better dealt with within the article, explaining the situation here, while we wait and see how the scholarly community deals with Libredo's conclusions.  Otherwise, we are left with some pretty arbitrary decisions that could be off in two totally different directions.  Given that they only tested a single tarpan from 1868, can we really be sure that the tarpan 'first described by Samuel Gottlieb Gmelin in 1771' was similarly admixed, when we already refer to the hybridization process ('By 1880, when most "tarpans" may have become hybrids)?  On the other hand, this could be a distinction without a difference. The authors don't actually describe their horse as a hybrid between wild and domestic horses, but rather a hybrid between a Western European wild horse lineage (CWC) and a sister lineage to that from which domesticated horses arose, meaning this could be a completely natural hybridization between two wild horse popuations that predates domestication entirely and they are just European wild horses that are more genetically diverse than your average European wild horse. This is not a case (is there ever one?) where Wikipedia editors should be out on the bleeding edge, not based on a single tarpan sample in a single paper. Agricolae (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I re-read the paper by Librado et al. now. As far as I understand, the authors of the paper nowhere say that the horses associated with the Corded Ware culture were wild horses. As far as I know, the Corded Ware culture also had domestic horses. So I don't see where we get the certainty from that the CWC horses were predomestic wild horses. Or am I misunderstanding something? Thanks, DFoidl (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a hold-over from the prior version of the page, but for what its worth, the CWC horse site is a hunting camp in a cave, with no indication of livestock domestication. Agricolae (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's interesting, do you have some source for that? We could add that to the article, then. Thanks, DFoidl (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unfortunately, I am going to have to walk this back. I had found an account that reported the site as a short-term hunting camp, but that was referring to an earlier period, in the 6th-millennium BCE, than that to which the horse finds date. The wild/domesticated status of those horses seems to be ambiguous, according to this description of the study with specific mention of the Hohlen Stein near Schwabthal (Corded Ware) horses, so the description as 'wild' definitely needs to be removed. Agricolae (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The tarpan is not the European wild horse 

message: In the article it is written that the "tarpan" individual that was used in the study by Librado et al. was the "Shatilov tarpan" which died in 1868. The study, however, does not say that explicitly, it just says it was a "tarpan" from the Kherson region that is now in the collection of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Sankt Petersburg. I think we would need additional references for the nickname and death date of that "tarpan" and that it was indeed the one that was used in the study to clarify this, especially since some sources refer to the "Cherson tarpan" as "Shatilov's tarpan" because that individual was donated to the Moscow zoo by Shatilov in 1884 according to Falz-Fein cited in Oelke 2012, causing confusion - or have I overlooked something? Thanks. DFoidl (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't say much about this, but out of curiosity, are there any stuffed tarpans today? FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No, unfortunately not. Only one skeleton including a skull and a skull without lower jaw that is from the "Cherson tarpan" is preserved, as far as I know. But the sources are sometimes conflicting on that, thus there is confusion regarding the tarpan remains, but no individual was stuffed. DFoidl (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tarpan individual in Librado et al. 2021