Talk:Grullo

message: .... an early twentieth century speculation for the name Tarpan?  It doesn't say they were called Tarpans, they were thought to be Tarpans, or anything similar, it says they seemed to have been. "regarded as Tarpans."   "Disputed for over a century," followed by the quote "F]or more than a century all the horses living in a wild state in Europe, ..., seem to have been regarded as Tarpans," also disingenuously implies that this is an on-going debate.  It's not.  It should be deleted until it can be sourced as more than a single author's singular speculation in an hundred year old publication.  --KP Botany (talk) 04:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is a PDF on Google Books, and as the source explains in greater detail, there was considerable doubt that most of the "tarpans" described in the literature were anything but ordinary horses, albeit grullo horses.  Because tarpans were extinct already in 1906, that doubt remains to this day.  --Una Smith (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw the source.  While other information in the source may be illuminating about what a tarpan is or was or was not, the issue is whether or not grullos were called tarpans, and the quote you included seems to be about that, ie what I thought it was about.  Your comment here is uncertain.  So, back to the issue, does the source say that horses with grullo coloration were known as tarpans?  It does not appear to say this, the quote you provided does not say this, but rather that all "mouse-dun" colored feral horses in Europe in the 19th century "seem to have been regarded as tarpans," and it's a single source, and rather old in addition to the author being so cagey about what was what.  So, better source needed.  --KP Botany (talk) 06:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is wholesale OR and needs to be reverted, which I am about to do.  Grullo is a variant on the color dun (see dun gene), it is a dilution gene over a black base coat. Grullo is a coat color in many breeds and the new material here really doesn't fit at all.  Montanabw(talk) 21:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not original research, just plain research. --Una Smith (talk) 09:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grullo tied to .... 

message: The introduction of a whole paragraph using ancient references to argue that grollo's might have been considered Tarpans around the turn of the last century seems to me as a case of undue weight. It also feels like making a point, in context of the unilateral move without discussion of Tarpan to Equus ferus ferus in order to make Tarpan a disambiguation page. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Re what people thought 100 years ago, what more reliable source is there than a contemporary 100 year old peer-reviewed article published in Nature by a leading authority of the time on the Tarpan?  As for making a point, Kevmin and I and some other editors have been working on Equidae taxonomic articles for weeks now, with little interest from anyone here.  A number of articles got moved.  Only Tarpan got noticed.  --Una Smith (talk) 09:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes, it seems about as pointed as all of the early 20th century references used to bolster the inclusion of everything in the tumbleweed article.  I can't seem to make the counter point understood that contrary to proving the point of the need for a dab by adding a half dozen early 20th century google book references, it seems to prove the contrary, that a dab won't stand with solid research.  --KP Botany (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It "seems" to prove the contrary.  Do some solid research then, and prove it.  I like Google Books;  the source is right there for any Wikipedia reader to read.  Don't assume I use Google Books because I cannot find any other reliable sources.  --Una Smith (talk) 09:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Una, you are the individual attempting to insert a 1906 source into an article otherwise based on modern research.  It is you who bear the burden of proof. I mean, 100 years ago, people still thought that Newtonian physics fully explained gravitation too!  The work on the taxonomy articles is irrelevant here.  You are trying too hard to make a connection between one variant of the dun family and primitive coloring, but you should know that correlation does not mean causation.  Find sources that are published in the 21st century and then discuss them here before making wholesale changes to these articles.  For the millionth time, please work WITH the wikipedia community.  You can disagree without being disagreeable.  Give it a try sometime.   Montanabw(talk) 04:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Montanabw, I provided a reliable source.  You challenge it on grounds that it is old, but you don't provide any source.  Can you provide any source that refutes mine? --Una Smith (talk) 06:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Actually, Una, you need to do some solid research first, before anyone needs to refute your singular quest to establish the almighty dab-o-pedia.  Google books is not the source for what you are trying so very hard to prove.  I think backing off of your "everything's a dab" promo might give you time for the research.  Google books is a useful tool.  I find myself trying to pull a page off of it rather than walking to the next room for one of my plant texts.  That doesn't make it a useful, accurate, reliable, or quotable reference tool for all types f research on Wikipedia.  Montanabw, by the way, people didn't really think Newtonian mechanics explained gravity in 1909--they new it didn't, which was part of the then great race in physics.  Me, I thank God for quantum mechanics: comprehensible physics.  --KP Botany (talk) 07:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, KP!!!  And yes, I agree with you.  Montanabw(talk) 19:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight and making a point