Talk:Wild horse

message: As other editors have noted on this talk page, this article is about the species Equus ferus.  However, it contains unrelated content about a horse breed selected to look like extinct members of this species, and about feral horses.  This article probably should be made into a disambiguation page, and its various contents dispersed among other articles.  --Una Smith (talk) 08:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is PRECISELY why this article exists.  Younger students want to learn about "wild horses," but don't really understand what they are.  This article discusses ALL the colloquial uses.  IT isn't a scientifically-oriented article the way Przewalski's horse is, for example.  The POINT is that it should explain what is and is not a "wild" horse.  It isn't a perfect article, but it needs to exist because if it doesn't someone is going to come in and recreate it anyway.  To make it just a disambiguation page fails to understand the level of reader at which an article like this is directed. Sure it can be improved, but it needs to exist. Montanabw(talk) 19:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wel at first I was for the creation of such a page, but not anymore. The feral horse part in the article is small and indeed an explanation that can remain here as many people think they are wild horses. And that part refers to the main article on feral horses. As well does the comment at the top of this article. The same comment does mention that there already is an disambiguation page, namely Wild Horses. I think with a cleanup and adding more information (for example on the extinct Pleistocene subspecies, etc.), it can remain to be about the species Wild horse or Equus ferus. And I think it SHOULD be scientifically-oriented article, only with a small part on feral horse included. Peter Maas\talk 21:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have some flexibility on the issue.  All I really know is that every fourth grader looking for info on Mustangs is going to search for "wild horse," so I want to help our younger wikipedians and also minimize a lot of "tee hee" kids edits to the page.  Of course, the extinct subspecies were ALL "wild" as in fact, as after all, I don't think that our human ancestors really had ANYTHING domesticated yet!  LOL!  As long as we have good faith editing and consensus on anything really big, I am groovy with Pmaas' general proposal, as long as we aren't duplicating content in evolution of the horse, equidae and equus (genus).  Montanabw(talk) 22:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, there need indeed to be consensus on anything really big. And I think this is the place to discuss major edits before actually changing the article. And I agree that we should not duplicating content or create confliction information between the Equine related articles. At the moment I have no good suggestions on how to improve this article exactly. As to me the whole taxonomic status of the Equus ferus subspecies is confusing. Even the scientific papers are not on the same line. At the moment I'm doing research on this for my own website  for a major update on its page on the Tarpan, and I can say to you it gives me a headache. At the moment I don't have the time to do major work on my own website as well on Wikipedia. Maybe in the near future. Peter Maas\talk 22:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I oppose this. This article IS the taxonomic article and if anything, that part should be expanded. If the lead makes clear that wild horse (lower case) is used to indicate feral horses and some efforts to breed back wild-type horses, that should be enough is we make clear links to that. Those sections can then be removed to their respectively pages. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Kim, I agree with you that the content on Equus ferus needs to be expanded.  I think we disagree only about the page name of the article about Equus ferus.  You want the article to remain at Wild horse;  I want the article to be at  and to make Wild horse a disambiguation page.  That would address Montanabw's concerns stated earlier on this talk page about readers seeking information about "wild horses" meaning mustangs and other feral horses. --Una Smith (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We can solve the issue of what people are looking for easily by devoting one clear paragraph in the lead to this.  The current explanation is not clear and adds a lot of weight to all kind of extinct species. I will have stab at it later. Most non-equine Wild HorseS disambig entries are plural to start with, so to bring them to a singular page is just more confusing. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would vote for the move to the namespace Equus ferus and changing "Wild horse" into a disambiguation page.--Kevmin (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes, I think we should steer clear from a very broad Wild horse article, as it includes many things that are called wild horses in vernacular, but are not really wild horses. In my native language, we actually have a more subtle way of distinguishing between Wild and Rewilded (=Verwilderd; sorry, had to make up a word here = feral) horses, which takes away much of the problem in English. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just thought I would chime in here.  I agree this article should be about Equus ferus as the modern extinct species which is still classifiable as wild.  The Section regarding feral horses should be summerized into 1-2 sentances as explanation of the difference, and the section on "other species" not needed at all, its just uncited clutter with one reference on the last line.--Kevmin (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All I care about is that we somehow direct people who know squat about the wild vs feral thing to the proper articles, everyone looking for stuff on mustangs or brumbies or whatever is going to be starting here.  I guess I'm mostly in line with Kim's thinking on this and disfavor making this a disambiguation page.  I also think it's completely ludicrous to have a disambig for both Wild Horse and Wild Horses, if this winds up a disambig, then the two may have to be merged to avoid yet more confusion.  Montanabw(talk) 16:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  --Una Smith (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Kim and I are still working on the lead, especially the (now) second paragraph that distinguishes wild horse in the sense of E. ferus from wild horse in the sense of feral horse.  Take a look?  --Una Smith (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

text: No argument here.  We probably should explain that in more detail, recently just had a spat at the Mustang article about that issue.  What we can benefit from are some good, ideally peer-reviewed journal articles, that explain this -- and also address the "definition of feral" issue (some folks --not me -- argue that feral animals are only first generation, after that they become wild again. ) If you can point us to some good source material to support this, that would be helpful.  Montanabw(talk) 17:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Below is text from Horse, to be merged into this article and/or article on the two subspecies.  --Una Smith (talk) 07:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was not moved. -- PeterSymonds (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text from [[Horse]] 

message: *Oppose. The talk page discussion was anything but conclusive about such a move. There is already a disambig page Wild Horses that covers all cases that use the plural as well as the singular use entries. Wild horse is the proper name for the species, and unless there are overriding arguments to change that, it should remain under that name. The vernacular use of "wild horse" to indicate feral horses is not such a argument, to the contrary, catering to that notion would endorse the usage of wild horse for feral horses which is incorrect. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *A WP:RM proposal such as this is the established method of dealing with controversial page moves. --Una Smith (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

text: *From what I Can see after reading WP:USEENGLISH it doesn't even apply to taxonomic articles.  Where you need to look is the Tree of Life articles titles section. These are the guidelines which are utilized most in taxonomic articles. --Kevmin (talk) 06:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

text: *Note my comment above, WP:USEENGLISH is not applicable to this case.--Kevmin (talk) 06:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm afraid it is. The page you cite says: "In cases where there is a formal common name (e.g. birds), or when common names are well-known and reasonably unique, they should be used for article titles." I think the argument I and other editors are making is that "Wild horse" applies to Equus ferus and "Feral horse" applies to feral examples of Equus caballus. Any ambiguities can easily be addressed by a top-of-the-page disambiguation notice (For other wild horses, see "Feral horse") rather than an entire disambiguation page, which would completely override the conventions of WP:MAMMALS which have been to use common names unless none has been given. In this case one has. Frickeg (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

text: *Sorry, the ruling of the ICZN mentioned in the article overrules that, and therefore it would be Equus ferus caballus. See http://www.iczn.org/BZNMar2003opinions.htm#opinion2027 -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *I would like to clarify further that only extant or very recently extinct mammals use the common names.  The vast majority of extinct taxa, from Eomaia, Fruitafossor to Brontotherium and Smilodon are found at their Scientific names and not even mentioned in MSW3.  Speaking of which MSW3 does not list a common name for E. ferus making your point invalid.--Kevmin (talk) 06:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *A 2003 opinion overrules a 2005 publication? And I've been invalidated? Well, it was a nice run. I could continue the drahmaz, but I'm not much interested in the horse articles anyway. I still oppose and I still think the MSW3 taxonomy should be used as it is on the other 5,000+ other mammal articles, but whatever. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 12:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The opinion is indeed binding. Most likely, the newer article overlooked the ruling. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

text: The issue is complex, and it involves not just this page, but Una Smith's attempts to change the policy about titling articles, making it far more complex than it appears to be even here.  This is not the place to discuss a particular move, when the move is an attempt to change policy, rather than a specific attempt to deal with the article attached to this talk page.--KP Botany (talk) 07:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Uh, what policy did I try to change, and where and when did I do that?  --Una Smith (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

text: "Wild horse" is used in a US federal act to protect the mustang, to distinguish between protected and unprotected feral horses, and that distinction is widely used.  --Una Smith (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed to neutral. This dispute boils down to whether Equus ferus warrants being the treated as the primary use of the term. I have no idea. Hesperian 04:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

text: (Comment moved here from WP:RM by Una Smith (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Please explain how the requested move would result in "forcing everyone to go through a dab page".  --Una Smith (talk) 02:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now users typing in "wild horse" get taken to this article, and odds are pretty good that that will be the article they are searching for.  If it is, then they have reached it directly, without having to go through a dab page.  For those actually looking for feral horse, they are one hat note click away.  With this move, everyone will be taken to a dab page, and then will have to click on whichever meaning they are looking for.  Thus, with Wild horse being a dab page, everyone typing in "wild horse" will be forced to go through a dab page before getting to the article they want.  Only the minority not looking for this article nor the feral horse will have one extra click. Make sense? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you figure those odds?  Based on the Google search hits reported below, the topic of this page per its lead opening sentence (namely, Equus ferus) is a minor topic.  --Una Smith (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I just discovered that Tarpan was moved without any discussion to Equus ferus ferus, unilaterally by Una. I have requested the move to be discussed and undone if no consensus for the original move exists. See Talk:Equus_ferus_ferus#Requested_move -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unilateral move of Tarpan to Equus ferus ferus 

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: OK, here's where I am at.  Kim is explaining what she is doing and where she is going, and, with her explanations, I am becoming more comfortable with her approach.  Yes, Kim, please do add in a bit that explains the four foundations in more accurate terms, I think that a solid explanation will help people in the future.   Kev, please note that Kin handled this by assuming that I am an intelligent human being capable of being swayed by logic, reason, and legitimate sources.  Amazing how that can work sometimes.  Bottom line is that the problem I am still having with the "most likely ancestor of the domestic horse" line in the lead is that it feeds all the "bred back Tarpan" crowd and implies that the wild prototype IS a domestic horse.  I would prefer something to the effect of the lineage was the source of the domestic horse, not implying that the 1800's extinct horse could have just been saddled up and taken out for a spin, which it obviously was not.   Montanabw(talk) 01:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Montana, yes, I think you are very intelligent, and I respect you very much as an editor. I have no problem adding something about the four foundations hypothesis. Vila actually addressed that hypothesis in her 2001 study using genetics, and concluded that it is not supported by the genetic evidence (with which I agree). What I think we have to do is add a section on the history of thought regarding domestication, and how it has evolved, both here and in the "domestication of the horse" article. Bred-back breeds maybe have a bit more recent wild horse genes, but they are NOT the wild horse, and I took a stab at it explaining that a bit better in the lead. I think it is a necessary part of the lead. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Kim.  I'm good with both of the above if you are taking the lead on it.  Material from Villa would be great (I will actually try and read that article, very busy in real life, do not always have time to access the paid databases over in the college library) The "bred-backs" may not necessarily have more wild horse genes at all, I would want to see a study on that before I'd buy it (amazing what only a few generations of selective breeding can do to a phenotype if you are breeding aggressively for something)...to me the Heck and Koniks look pretty similar to a lot of other drafty-pony breeds of Northern Europe, particularly the Icelandics and such. Also, there is the "our breed is the pure one from the ancient wild subspecies" stuff that exists in many breeds and, as you know, is one of my pet peeves.     Anyway, my latest edits on the article are intended as "wikifairy" work, to clarify what is being said, in hopes that it is a little clearer to the average reader.  If in my edits I changed a meaning or nuance, just fix it, as all is happening in good faith. Montanabw(talk) 05:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job clarifying! -- Kim van der Linde at venus 05:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: OK, so, summing up all of the above

message: I have this photo of a Danish specimen of "Equus ferus" from 9100 BC, at the Zoological Museum in Copenhagen. Anyone know what the taxonomic status of such animals is beyond that? Would the photo be helpful in the article (I have it in higher res, and I could perhaps remove the glare)? We don't seem to have photos of other specimens, only some teeth. FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty cool!  With the horse being domesticated about 3000 years later, I'd say equus ferus is really all we need and all we can really say unless the exhibit had a more detailed taxonomy.  See the infobox for the full thing.  Montanabw(talk) 20:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The classification didn't go further than that. I've added the image with the full details. I'll try to take a new one with less glare at some point, but luckily it doesn't overlap the skeleton itself. FunkMonk (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good addition, thanks!  Montanabw(talk) 03:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo of fossil 

message: You guys are making me taxonomically dizzy.  :)  I'll ask this as a layman:
IF THE FOLLOWING TWO ITEMS ARE ACCEPTED AS FACT (tell me if the premise/conclusion is broken logic):
* All horse subspecies have a common root (evolved from) a horse in North America.
* Domesticated horses were in fact brought over in the 15th century, subsequently escaped, and formed a feral horse breed.
Does this mean then that the following is true?
* The horses were no longer present in the Americas prior to the re-introduction in the 15th century?  In other words, is it argued that to some degree, a small percentage never left?
It's a distinction that I'm not seeing spelled out.Tgm1024 (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean, never left America? There were horse species in North America until the ice age (like the Western horse and the Mexican horse), but they all went extinct. And it wouldn't be subspecies that originated in North America, but the entire family itself. The modern horse species evolved in Eurasia. FunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: See evolution of the horse for the details of the earliest ancestors of the horse.  For here, the short explanation is that there were NO horses of any kind in the Americas for about 10,000 years. No, there was not a small percentage of original horses "left behind,"  Horses that once existed in the Americas before the end of the last Ice Age Interglacial period either migrated off of the continent via the Bering Land Bridge or died out.  The modern Mustang and other feral breeds can, arguably, be deemed a "reintroduced" animal, but they are definitely NOT the same subspecies that was once found in the Americas.  DNA studies of fossil horses compared to modern ones have shown no direct links.  Montanabw(talk) 23:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request clarification of a debate 

message: This article defines "Wild horse" as "the species Equus ferus, which includes [...] the domesticated Equus ferus caballus" and "The wild horse [...] includes as subspecies the domesticated horse", but wouldn't the normal definition of the term "Wild horse" be to refer to the non-domesticated wild subspecies, as opposed to the domesticated subspecies. I doubt most sources would conceder the domestic horse to be a type of wild horse. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said elsewhere, this is a taxonomic classification thing.  Equus ferus caballus is the domestic horse; Equus ferus is the now-extinct wild ancestor, Equus ferus przewalskii is the extant (living) true wild horse.  All other "wild" horses are feral horses.  Montanabw(talk) 19:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Taxonomy aside, my point exactly. At Talk:Aurochs you said "[I]n horses [...] "Wild" means "ancestors never domesticated.", and I would think that most RS would agree that the domestic horse is not a type of wild horse. Even if the wild horse is the same species as the domestic horse, "domestic wild horse" would probably be conceded an oxymoron by the standards of most RS, yet the article says "The wild horse [...] includes [...] the domesticated horse". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: But we can't set "taxonomy aside."  Scientific consensus to acknowledge the mutual wild ancestor of all the modern subspecies may seen illogical, like turning your car's wheels into a skid, but I get their reasoning. And when we include the material omitted here by ellipses, it makes sense.  I'm open to ways of explaining it better, though... Montanabw(talk) 18:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the domestic horse a type of wild horse? 

message: I think the wild horse should be classified as a extinct species rather then a endangered species because wild horses no longer exist and the only horses that roam free in the wild are feral horses including the Przewalski's horse. Dennis the mennis (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the Przewalski's horse was a feral horse but a 2021 research showed that the Botai horse and its descendants were not domesticated but still wild Dennis the mennis (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the situation with the Przewalski horse is quite unsettled, I think we’re going to just leave it be. This particular article encompasses both feral horses and the potential wild ancestors and any extent species, so I think it is best we just wait for the science to shake out. Clearly, the taming of Przewalski horses was a failed experiment, and the distinction of  “wild” versus “domesticated” is complex.  Montanabw(talk) 17:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extinct or Endangered 

message: It really makes no sense to call Equus ferus the wild horse. It means that the domestic horse is a type of wild horse as someone else here already pointed out, surely you guys see the logical incoherency with that right? 
I propose this:
Equus ferus = horse
Equus ferus caballus = domestic horse
Equus ferus przewalski = wild horse/Przewalski's horse
Please let me know what you think. Mason1999 (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The domestic horse is a type of wild horse. Just like the domestic cow is a type of aurochs. FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

text: What's a species or a subspecies is arbitrarily determined by humans. It's exactly the same scenario whatever you call the taxa involved, a domesticated form descended from a wild ancestor. FunkMonk (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposition 

message: Another editor violated WP:3RR in trying to remove the name and description "European wild horse" in the lead. With the plurality of sources using this terminology, even with some modern disagreement on its accuracy, I'll reinsert the phrasing in three or so days unless there are others who oppose this. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Courtesy note

message: I note that as at 28 April 2023 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wild_horse&oldid=1152087373) the name for this taxon is stated to be Equus caballus (changed at some point from E. ferus) which is incorrect - E. caballus (or sometimes E. ferus caballus) is the domesticated horse, whereas E. ferus (which is sometimes held to include caballus as a subspecies) is the wild form (nomenclature of the latter as per ICZN Opinion 2027 (2003)). That the name has been changed in this article (inconsistently I may add) is clear that in the taxon box which at that point read "Equus caballus Boddaert, 1785" which makes no sense, Boddaert being the author of ferus, not caballus.
I think it is possible that the erroneous content originates from MSW 3 (2005) which did indeed use caballus as the "larger" taxon i.e. inclusive of ferus, caballus and przewalskii, however this was in contravention of the ICZN Opinion listed above and was subsequently admitted to be an error in Groves & Grubb, 2011, p.8 (https://books.google.com.au/books?redir_esc=y&id=XAX0bqw-I2oC&q=caballus#v=snippet&q=caballus&f=false); according to ICZN and all other subsequent "authoritative" sources other than MSW 3 (including ITIS, Groves & Grubb, 2011 and the ASM Mammal database, as well as the IUCN Red List) the correct name for the "inclusive" taxon is ferus; whether or not this also includes przewalskii as a subspecies, or whether the latter is admitted as a full species, appears to be an open question at this time (some sources say subspecies, others species).
Accordingly I have done my best to change everything relevant to the wild horse from caballus back to ferus (which is what I think was the original situation with this page) to correct this misunderstanding. If any of my changes are not quite right, or are subject to further debate, please feel free to advise further by commenting here. Regards - Tony Rees, Australia Tony 1212 (talk) 06:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  This is an overview of the concept that includes the complicated history if the original e. Ferus.  So yes…you are correct. Montanabw(talk) 00:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correcting scientific name 

message: Why equus ferus is listed as endangered species despite being widely abundant around the world? 2404:8000:1027:85F6:E11A:3B9E:4CFC:C573 (talk) 07:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversation status