Talk:Mustang/Archive 1

message: Looking over the article for historical tweaks, I noticed there appeared to be something of an anti-mustang bias to what is written. I am not a wild horse romanticist, but I also am not a cattle ranching apologist.  So, I took a stab at trying to improve upon the neutrality of the article, or at least to sharpen the horns of the dilemma and outline where the controversies are and who the players are.
There was also just a need for a little more rearranging and editing.  Hope the overall effect was an improvement.  Montanabw 22:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating the article 

message: I notice a portion of this article comments on wild horses in America dying off from the great flood, and directs people to read about BIBLE/GENESIS/NOAH - is this article really the place to include something like that?
--Deathsushi 16:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was vandalism and removed.  Horses in North America died out at the end of the last Ice Age from a combinatin of climate change and possibly also from overhunting by the first people to arrive on the continent. Montanabw 21:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biblical References? 

message: An anonymous user wrote that mustangs live 4000 to 8000 years. I removed that sentence. Does anyone know how long feral mustangs really live?
Rockoval 1:57 30 Dec, 2006 (UTC)
:Depends on many factors, but 10-15 years is common.  Will check the article.  Montanabw 22:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Life Span?

message: This article gives the etymology of the word Mustang as being derived from the Spanish "Mesteño". I am not aware of any such word in the Spanish language.  If there any proof of this etymology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 09:56, February 1, 2007 (talk • contribs) 09:56, February 1, 2007
:There is such a word.  Take a look at the Spanish Royal Academy's online dictionary.
Tmangray 03:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mesteño? 

message: It's unlikely, and indeed, my dictionary demonstrates that the word mustang does not come from the formal name of a particular association of pastoralists in Spain.  Actually, La Mesta derived its name from the same common source as the word mustang.  A mesteño (became mestengo in New Spain/Mexico) is a stray animal.  It could refer to a domesticated animal on the loose, or a feral animal. A mesta was a meeting of pastoralists to sort out which animal belonged to whom.   LA Mesta was not the only mesta.  The word mesteño also often carried the sense of a mongrelized animal since animals on the loose typically did not care to follow the breeding rules of pastoralists.  This sense has its roots in the Latin origin of both mustang and La Mesta: mixta (Medieval Latin) and mixtus, past participle of miscere "to mix".  This sense has been preserved in the familiar usage "mustang", as one of their essential characteristics is their wildly mixed pedigree. Tmangray 03:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some problems with the explanation above. For starters, there is no way mestengo can derive from mesteño. In fact, it is the other way around. Mestengo is an older word, that became mesteño both in Mexican and Castilian Spanish, although in both places the older form survived as well. Secondly, the word mesteño refers to animals on the loose, but the assumption that it carries the meaning of mixtus makes no sense. There are plenty of words for mixed animals in Spanish, starting with Old Spanish misto, that would make it unnecessary to use a word, mestengo, derived from mesta by the addition of the suffix -engo, which means belonging to (compare realengo, madrileño, etc.) A third point I would like to make is that bringing up the masculine singular mixtus is only creating confusion. All these words are derived from the plural mixta, from animalia mixta. Tmangray should at least say what dictionary s/he is referring to, just so we can compare sources. Mine is the etymological dictionary written by Joan Coromines (Juan Corominas). To sum up: animalia mixta > mixta > mesta > mestengo > mustang 72.89.115.41 13:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Websters has mestengo deriving from mesteno, and shows mestengo as a Mexican Spanish derivative.  The Royal Spanish Dictionary does not even list mestengo at all.  I find your point about the ending "engo" interesting as far as ownership.  This would however translate to "belonging to the mixed" (as Madrileno means belonging to Madrid) which leaves the matter of mixed in what sense still ambiguous.  The common root of all is the Latin miscere.  This verb simply means "to mix".  It is the root of miscegenation and mestizo as well as mustang.  In fact, this Latin root is used almost exclusively with respect to animals (including humans) to refer to their mixed pedigree.  It can't mean "mixed ownership" since the animals to which it was applied were either singularly owned albeit strayed, or owned by no one because they were feral.  It might have meant "belonging to the mesta", but that begs the question as to the derivation of the word mesta itself since presumably it derived its name from the animals it dealt with.  You find yourself in a circular definition ad infinitum. Tmangray 21:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're taking this all wrong.  I'm trying to reconcile what you say with what Webster's says (okay, the OED conflicts), and trying to make logical sense out of the Latin derivation.  I'm also baffled by the point about "belonging".  Someone (you?) said that's what the ending -engo referred to, so I followed the logic out.  You saying now that Madrileno DOESN'T mean "belonging to Madrid"?  Then what WAS the point? Tmangray 18:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: OK campers, cease fire, please.  I made a sandbox below...just edit the paragraph and improve it.  Use verifiable sources, and if no consensus is reached, we "teach the controversy," i.e. "some experts, A,B,and C, say this, but other experts, X, Y, and Z, say that..." Montanabw(talk) 22:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology

message: Why not just say that the horses were brought to America by the Spanish, or by Spaniards, rather than talking about Conquistadors or invaders? It is common knowledge that the Spaniards conquered/invaded America (or parts of it. In fact, the areas were mustangs are most common were not necessarily under Spanish control).
72.89.115.41 16:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The very first horses in the North American mainland after the Ice Age arrived with Cortez.  He was a conquistador.  I am tired of the whole pissing war over this, but I also feel that it silly to fight over. The priests and the farmers didn't bring most of the early horses, the soldiers did.  And they were brought north by Native Americans as much as anyone as people like the Comanche and the Shoshone adapted to a horse culture quicker than a lot of more settled tirbes.  So if someone wants to go through the whole history from Cortez, DeSoto, Coronado, the intermixture with horses from the east, etc., plus the horses dumped on the west coast by the Brits, etc., we can, but I haven't the energy to take on the project.   I also suggest that most of these various editing wars are ended when people start adding inline citations to their edits. Sorry to be a little snappish today, I just get to feeling some days like I am the only person editing the horse articles who has a clue about the nature of this miraculous thing called a footnote. Montanabw 00:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I asked a question in the discussion page, I didn't change the conquistador/invader thing. No editing war here. I am not sure why Montanabw feels like he has to be involved in any project related to this article. I guess that attitude will just bring him more frustration and snappishness. Oh, and saying sorry to be snappish does not fix it. If you are aware that you are being snappish, just stop it. Otherwise you will alienate potential (new, learning) collaborators. Although perhaps that is what you want. 71.167.224.145 14:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having just ended a huge edit war over someone who insisted on calling Conquistadors "invaders" right on the heels of fixing major POV screwups that had totally trashed this article during the time it was off my watchlist, plus, on the other side, dealing with an anal-retentive citation-tagger who cares nothing for the article but just likes to nitpick, has me actually way more than a bit snippy.  I have no intention of biting newcomers, but I am tired, tired, TIRED of the whole discussion. Oh yes, and also reverting the nonsense edits and vandalism of fourth-graders.  And endlessly explaining the difference between a feral horse and a wild horse.  I have probably personally put a good 10 or 15 hours of work into just this article, spent a lot of time doing research to verify material added by others, spent even more time removing stuff that is simply incorrect, trying to mediate an always-impending war between different pro- and anti- mustang factions, and wish others would simply be careful, verify their edits, and just follow the wiki guidelines and rules. It isn't that difficult.  Again, sorry to be snappish, don't take it personally.  You will have moments like this also.  We are all human, deal with it. Montanabw 18:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good for you. Abtract 19:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think all of the above was my way of saying "I think I need a wikihug"  Are there wikihugs?  Montanabw 21:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invaders, Conquistadors, Spanish 

message: OK campers:  Here is the text in the article as it stands today (July 18).  Start editing -- but add verifiable sources, I will wordsmith and attempt to mediate spats, and if we ever get to something EVERYONE can live with, it will be moved into the main article.  Ready!  Set!  Go! Montanabw(talk) 22:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology sandbox/battleground 

message: Please discuss improvements or changes to this article here other than minor edits.  There are active editors and many POV issues surrounding the topic, making a need for consensus and collaboration part of this process.  Thanks!  Montanabw(talk) 21:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvements to article

message: In the caption to the photo. What does that mean? "Good" is not a scientific qualifier, but a subjective evaluation. Is this innuendo? "Good bone." I would change it to something more descriptive, but I have little knowledge on the subject.97.113.110.19 (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good bone in horse terms means that the lower legs are sturdy and well made, i.e. the "bone is good". This is important because the better the bone, the less likely the horse is to break a leg. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And hence, a term of art.  Montanabw(talk) 04:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Good bone"

message: I despratly need a picture of a mustang, if you can please find the link copy it and add a reply to this with the link in it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.136.48 (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several pictures of mustangs in this article, and there are more pictures to be found in the Commons category, which can be found here. Dana boomer (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

text: My only concerns are that even in N. AZ there were multiple terms used, the source isn't ideal, but more than that, there are a couple dozen other nicknames across the west (broomtail, cayuse, etc.), some regional, and once the laundry list starts, it never ends.  I'd prefer to either have a comprehensive list of nicknames worked out here on the talk page, or else just leave it be.  Montanabw(talk) 20:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mustang 

message: Mustangs are feral horses, because they have domesticated ancestors. They are not wild horses. Please discuss here if you have a different opinion. Dana boomer (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is now sourced. And the tag you need is . -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, as it is now sourced, please provide alternative sources that indicate that this is wrong, and what the origin of the word actually is.
Your source for mestengo, still does not include the word "feral."  Please remove the word "feral."  Thank you. Grrace (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Fixed. It refers to stray livestock animals, so I indicated that. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wild vs. feral 

message: I know, the wild versus feral discussion flares up every once and a while. Yes, the US government uses 'wild' for the feral horses called mustangs. That are policy documents, laws and they are free to use language as they like, but that does not make it proper usage. Equus ferus caballus is a subspecies of the Wild Horse, Equus ferus ferus. This wild species (Equus ferus ferus) roamed North America till about 10,000 years ago. They were never domesticated in North America on their own, and only reintroduced in the domesticated form after Columbus arrived. Some of those domesticated horses (Equus ferus caballus) became free-roaming again, resulting in herds of feral horses. Domestication has changed the wild horse (Equus ferus ferus) in many ways, to the point where scientists consider it a different subspecies (Equus ferus caballus). Domestication takes many generations, and is not lost within a single generation. The free roaming herds of domestic horses are feral horses. The ONLY free-roaming herds of true wild horse can be found in Mongolia, and belong to the third subspecies. Equus ferus prewalskii. Let me know if I need to explain aspects in more detail. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, I suggest that people stop throwing titles etc around about their sources. It makes me feel you actually have no clue where you talk about and try to win the argument by using an appeal to authority. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I did read Janzen et al, and all the other molecular studies about horse ancestry. And the taxonomic stuff, etc. So, where do your sources disagree with what I was saying, because what I see is a lot of misinterpretation of those sources from your side. So, maybe we can discuss the issues in detail and get the much needed clarity on this subject. :-) -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, domestication is a process that result in genetic changes. It is not the same as just taming. Prewalski horses are tamed, but not domesticated. Worse, there is no way you can actually ride a Prewalski, you are lucky if they accapt a halter. Domestication is a process, and it changes the animal. When you talk anbout DNA, it helps to know a bit about how it is transmitted (maternal, paternal, mixed) and the speed with with it changes (Mitochondial versus microsatelite versus Y-chromosoom versus nuclear). Most studies to unravel the ancersty of the domesticated horse use slowly mutating genes for a reason, it makes the study possible. If you used fast mutating DNA sequences like microsatelites, you get a different picture. But there is more; morpholgical and behavioural changes related to domestication are still present in the mustang. The domestication has not yet been lost. But what I really would like to know from you is what sources back you idea up? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Wild versus feral AGAIN

message: Just one comment here- Przewalskij horse is not an ancestor of the domesticated horse (from Eurasian steppe) - it shares certain characteristics with the ancestor of the domestic horse - i.e., tarpan etc, but that is where it ends :) Furthermore Przewalskij was not domesticated and never used for transport - it was used for food and hide only (like onagers, wild asses etc) - its specific conformation disallows for any use related to ridding. As we have info (sources) from Eastern Europe during the early modern history the steppe and Forrest 'tarpan' horses were used both for food (including hunting for sport by nobles and kings) and domestication (thus transport), both stallions and mares, evidenced in Polish-Belorussian 'konik' horses. Latest genetic research disallows any involvement of Przewalskij horse in the domesticated horse ancestry at time of domestication and after DarioTW (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, we know that the Prze is not the ancestor of the domesticated horse. But this conversation was almost two years old, and not a concern in the Mustang article.  Montanabw(talk) 09:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Dario, you are misreading the article!! The article does NOT say that the Przewalski horse has ANYTHING to do with Mustangs!  (In other words, I AGREE WITH YOU ON THIS)  What the article is saying is 1)  Mustangs are NOT "wild" horses (they are feral horses -- only the Prze can be called a "real" wild horse.   2)  It is saying that HORSES (some wild species but NOT the Przewalski) did exist in North America but became extinct. (the horse subspecies that existed in North America does not appear to be related to either the Prze or the modern domestic horse)  This sets up both sides of the argument over whether Mustangs are a reintroduced extinct species (broadly referring to genus equus, both donkeys and horses) or an introduced "foreign" species.  As for the rest, I happen to agree with you that BLM management of Mustangs completely sucks, but getting all mad and ranting about it isn't going to help. Your historical information may or may not be reliable, the JSTOR source looks good, but what you need to do is provide proper links and sources, slowly, properly integrating them into the article instead of what you did, which was to throwing around names without enough data so other people can verify things.   Your stuff on Native people from "17th to 19th century sources" is not going to pass muster because some of the 17th -19th century explorers were incorrect.  There is enough modern history, archaeology and anthropology to verify which of those early sources had it right and which ones didn't.  (You completely fail to mention the Comanche, for one thing).  So step back and work it in slowly  Montanabw(talk) 01:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Dario, please read the related articles and understand the content fully before you go charging in, and while some of the sources you've provided will be useful, you can't just throw around random factoids, some of which are misinterpretations of the source material. Right now, you just sound like some angry person with an agenda, except you are so all over the map with your commentary, it's hard to even figure out what your concerns are.  Montanabw(talk) 06:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Feb 2011 thread

message: I am still waiting for you to answer the question, How many generations does it take to "domesticate" a wild horse?  Thank you.Grrace (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Impossible to say. It depends on many factors, basically, on the degree of selection that is present. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And to add to Kim's excellent analysis and explanation, Mustangs today are routinely captured and trained, clearly showing that they retain domesticated traits.  There are somewhere around 30,000 captured Mustangs in holding facilities all across the western US, awaiting "adoption" by new owners, many of whom train them to ride.  When handled properly, they make excellent and trustworthy riding horses, a claim that most certainly cannot be made of truly "wild" animals such as the Przewalski's horse or the zebra.  Montanabw(talk) 00:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Grrace, that is true of ANY horse.  In fact, during the 20th century, people used to routinely turn out domesticated stallions with wild herds to "improve" them.  ("improve" being a relative term).  By this argument, all horses are really undomesticated.  The characteristics of domestication are clearly defined by science and most horse subspecies meet them.  Mustangs are not even a subspecies, they are good old Equus ferus caballus just like the Quarter Horse or whatever.  Montanabw(talk) 17:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Older thread

message: I'm starting this in a new section to not disturb the discussion above. A few days ago, I had proposed wording for a new paragraph to be inserted, dealing with the issue of the people who wish mustangs to be defined as wild. Here was the original proposed wording:
There is a movement, under the leadership of equine scientists Jay F. Kirkpatrick and Patricia M. Fazio, to change the status of the mustang from "feral" to "wild", at least as it is seen by the US government. The definition of feral allows the mustangs to also be defined as an intrusive, exotic species, and called a threat to true native wildlife. However, Kirkpatrick and Fazio point out that since there were native horses on the North American continent at one point (albiet dying out at the end of the Pleistocene era), horses were once native animals and should still be considered as native animals, and therefore they should be defined as "wild". Kirkpatrick and Fazio claim that since the two main elements for defining a native species are whether or not it coevolved with its habitat and where it originated, the mustang can be considered to have done both, if you look at the ancient horse that went subsequently went extinct. Despite these arguments, the mustang is still regarded as feral and non-native by most government agencies,(Reference:The Surprising History of America's Wild Horses) and an exotic species that draws resources and attention away from true native species.(Reference:Wild Horses)
Montanabw asked me to shorten it up a bit, and I agree with her, so here is a secondary proposition:
Two equine scientists, to change the definition of the mustang from "feral" to "wild". Proponents point out that since there were wild horses on the North American continent before they went extinct, horses were once native animals and should still be considered as native, and therefore wild, animals. Two main elements for defining a native species are whether it coevolved with its habitat and where it originated. The North American mustang fulfills both these requirements, if you look at the ancient extinct horse. Despite these arguments, the mustang is still regarded as feral and non-native by most government agencies,(Reference:The Surprising History of America's Wild Horses) and as an exotic species that draws resources and attention away from true native species.(Reference:Wild Horses)
Kim, Ggrace, and Montanabw, what do you think of these two wordings? Dana boomer (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wild horse species are Equus ferus ferus and the stilt-legged horse. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue of the last living pleistocene horse species in North American prior to extinction confuses me.  Do we just say Equus ferus ferus, or were there several subspecies?  (This seems to be a debate in the evolution article too, and I confess that it's all a bit confusing to me)?  Montanabw(talk) 18:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You only have Equus ferus ferus. I have to check the literature for the stil legged horse, what the datings are on thise boned that they used to extract ancient DNA from. Equus feus caballus is the domestic horse, and was not present in North America before the Spanish arrived (Maybe the Vikings had horses with them, but that is not substantiated by archeological finds). -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: EFF works well enough for here.  Note the minor change I made above.  Montanabw(talk) 21:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's looking good to me. Just as a note, one of the people is a reproductive physiologist who specializes in mustang fertility control, the other is an environmental historial who specializes in reproductive physiology, the monitoring of mustang ranges and the evolution of equids. Not sure how/if we want to work this in... Dana boomer (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not, if their argument does not stand on itself, it would become an argument of authority, and those are invalid. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Done.  I'll find it a home and pop it in.  Let me know if my placement and other tweaks work.  Montanabw(talk) 03:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed wording (again) 

message: There have been  several calls for ubiased opinion, so  as someone who happened on the page by pure accident, and who knows absolutely nothing whatsoever about horses (applied linguistics is my branch  of research), having read the article and all the monotonous talk pages, here's my two cents:
mustang |ˈməsˌta ng |
noun
an American feral horse, typically small and lightly built.
(Oxford American Dictionary___
mustang
Pronunciation: ‚m„s-ƒtaŠ
Function: noun
Etymology: Mexican Spanish mestengo, from Spanish, stray, from mesteño strayed, from mesta annual roundup of cattle that disposed of strays, from Medieval Latin (animalia) mixta mixed animals
Date: 1808
(Webster's Dictionary)
1 : the small hardy naturalized horse of the western plains directly descended from horses brought in by the Spaniards; also : bronco___feral
Pronunciation: ‚fir-„l, ‚fer-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Medieval Latin feralis, from Latin fera wild animal, from feminine of ferus wild— more at fierce
Date: 1604
1 : of, relating to, or suggestive of a wild beast
2 a : not domesticated or cultivated : wild b : having escaped from domestication and become wildWebster's Dictionary)
__
Oxford and Websters are superior sources to WP, so  it  would be a waste of time to  continue on a new tack and discuss here whether those revered lexical resources are right or wrong. The article as it  currently stands is well written, has provided me (as a visitor) with  sufficient encyclopedic info  about  Mustangs, and it  has my  vote. As a Wikpedia copyeditor, for  the structure, the prose, and the placement  of 'mustang' and 'feral' in  the rest  of the text, it has my vote. The correctly  referenced and verifiable article by Drs Kirkpatrick and Fazio does what it  is supposed to: provide the WP reader with further information. Their article posits arguments on the genetics of ferality vs. wildness & domesticity, and still leaves the conclusion open to  further research and debate (around the dictionary definitions) above, and are not the concern of Wikipedia talk  pages. What  do not get my votes are pedantic, prescriptive POV, and the use of the Wickpedia as an Internet forum for violent general discussion; the mission of an encyclopedia is to report, not to contend, and debate on the content of third party research is therefore generally disallowed. The Wiki editors have nicely phrased their reporting of the LiveScience.com article, thus on the actual semantics, Grrace will just have to hold her horses...--Kudpung (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Kudpung.  I think the issue has been settled, but if it picks up again, your source material here will be quite useful.  Of course, the Mustang isn't actually interchangeable with  "bronco,"  which is simply a bucking horse (few broncos are Mustangs and nowhere close to all Mustangs are broncos! LOL!) so even dictionaries aren't perfect (grin), but it's good for the feral/wild question and the etymology bit, which has also been a source of spatting at times.  Your help is much appreciated!  As for the rest, ah a wiki-world absent "violent general discussion."  Sigh... would we even recognize the place without it???  LOL!!!  Montanabw(talk) 01:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Mustang: feral or not...

message: why is there no mention of the ford mustang????? wtf?? at least a quick and short snip about the horses's legacy or use in popular culture today  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiffyguy (talk • contribs) 09:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You will notice that at the top of the article there is a link to the Mustang (disambiguation), and on that page there is a link to the Ford Mustang, which is an entire article about the car. There is some discussion of the Mustang horse today in the "Mustangs today" section of this article, and there are quite a few different uses of the term Mustang (most of which can be found on the disambig page) , so it wouldn't be practical to discuss in this article which of those the horse influenced and which it didn't (not to mention finding sources for all of those claims!). Hope this helps. Dana boomer (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  mention car 

message: Should the photo of a feral/wild (I'm not trying to get involved in that debate just yet) be so...formal?  The photo for the Brumby shows the animal in the wild.  Shouldn't the photo of the Mustang do the same?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.78.82 (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We used to have a photo of a wild herd and just switched it out for this one, which is a more representative example of what the horse type actually looks like. (I guess it's a no-win debate)  We have lots of free-roaming photos in the body of the article.  Arguably, we should put a more representative posed photo to the top in Brumby too.  The debate is probably due to the fact that photos of the horses in their feral state are often either of poor quality or taken at odd angles that don't show the horses in a favorable light.  Montanabw(talk) 19:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo too "formal" 

message: early history - -horse returned to the Americas in 1509 with Alonso de Ojeda whose entrada landed in the delta of Rio Atrato with 40 head horse herd (some were eaten for lack of food in the jungle or other sunk in the ship disaster off Darien), and the first breeding and horse herding on the continent took place in Panama in 1514  - shipment and horse increase certified by padre Gomara and Vasco Nuñez de Balboa. Several months before Corts landing in Vera Cruz, another Spanish entrada took place in Nicaragua and Honduras starting in September 1519  (source eg Bennet, Conquistadors, p 181-183, 184-85)
Gonzalo  Fernandez de Oviedo y Valdes (in 1570s) writing history of the Conquest and Spanish colonies stated that during la conquista  horses were bred in the islands of  Cuba, Jamaica and Hispaiola, where they multiplied rapidly. Conquistadors demanded these Caribean bred horses because  they could withstand the climate and campaign hardships better than European bred horses imported from Spain and Portugal. Thus de Soto took horses from Cuba to decend onto Florida and American Southeast,  Garay from Jamaica,  Heredia  from Hispaniola, Cortes from Hispaniola and Cuba etc .
First 'wild' Indians to ride horses were members of Chichimeca central and Northern Mexico tribes who had fought the Spanish and their Indian allies for almost 50 years in the 16th century, causing lots of livestock to go stray and become wild. Also that war led to 'reducidos' Mexican Indians being able to ride horses without punishment of law, first native vaqueros or cowboys appear about that time in Mexico. First mustangs appeared in Mexico in 1570s in Central Mexico, along with strayed cattle. DarioTW (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Dario, you have some nice sources, but others are not so good.  (personal web sites don't meet the verifiability standard)  And claiming that 1959 was under "President Kennedy" is precisely the problem I'm talking about with you playing fast and loose with facts (Kennedy was elected in 1960 and inaugurated in 1961).  Also, calling this article a "donkey" or referring to the President as "Barrack Hussein Obama" is not making you any friends. And some of the above material you claim is "missing" from the article is not in fact "missing" at all -- you just haven't read the whole article, because the 1971 act is mentioned, so is some of the more recent legislation.    I suggest that you go ahead and add the sources you find here on the talk page, but with enough info that others can go look at them.  It will take some time to get around to this article, as we have a few other articles in the queue, but I happen to partially agree with you that the article needs some improvement, but I also know that it's not in as bad of shape as you claim it is.  Montanabw(talk) 21:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  oy vey, we are at war or something :), well, let us bury the swords and get to some work here; you're right that Eisenhower singed the 1959 Act ( I forgot to check before posting), but Kennedy became a president on Januay 20, 1961 :) . Obama's middle name is Hussein and I happen to like that name (and also it listed as such in wikipedia), so what is the 'offending wrong' here? I call it 'donkey' for the history part is a 'donkey,' not a full bloodied mustang yet -;)  Ok, so we agreed it needs improvement and after this 'war' is over and if time is right, I am willing to collaborate and improve as this subject  - wild free roaming horse of America - is dear to me (did a bit of writing and legal research on in in law school), but i think i will tackle the 1971 Act and amendments first (it needs a creation of a proper page).  Au revoir for now !DarioTW (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not at "war,"  just irritated for all the reasons I've already noted.  But write an article on the 1971 Act and I may become less irritated. That's an article that needs to happen. If you can do it, you'll be part of the solution.  Montanabw(talk) 06:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Moved this discussion here from my talk page.  Montanabw(talk) 15:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, removing both "wild" and "feral" on the disambiguation page would probably solve that problem.  However, the wild/feral thing on the topic is unquestionably an issue.  The horses there now are, beyond question (backed by peer-reviewed literature), descended from previously domesticated ancestors, which makes them feral by the standard definition.  However, as the species equus was once native to the Americas, there is an argument to be made that horses in general are a reintroduced native species, hence "wild" in that sense.  And politics is wrapped up in all of this, so, like climate change and other hot topics, the science is really a sideline in the battle between various special interests.  Montanabw(talk) 16:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Catty, the equus ferus caballus issue is a non-starter.  We have a professional taxonomist who advocated for this across ALL our horse articles, and it is correct terminology (though like all things, taxomists have some debates over the issue). We may need to tweak the references, perhaps.  I can see the value of putting in a more detailed "wild vs. feral" discussion here and perhaps using the term "free-roaming" where it fits would be suitable, but the REAL issue not "wild" versus "feral," it is "native" versus "introduced".  This is the intense political debate-- IS modern horse is a reintroduced native species or an invasive species?  I do agree that a good analysis of that issue would be a useful addition here.  There is NO question that all horses DID become extinct in the Americas after the last Ice Age and that ALL horses here today descended from European imports.  To say otherwise is junk science that violates wikipedia's policies at WP:FRINGE, though that belief could be discussed in the article as one viewpoint.  Animal Welfare Institute is one source, but with a bias, and thus has to be balanced by the views of people like, for example, these folks (see "Myth #11).   We have to take a balanced approach here per WP:NPOV.  For example, this writer and this writer are both trying to outline the dilemma. Montanabw(talk) 15:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article discussion 

message: Hello, I writing in the hopes that we can find my common ground and some compromise. I have read and thoroughly studied the article on Mustangs. As you know, the word "feral" is contentious with some people being in favor of it use an others being adamantly opposed; instead preferring the term "wild."
I propose that we remove the word from this disambiguation page as it is not relevant there. Does it help people find the article on mustang the horse rather than mustang the airplane? No. Also I propose, having one section within the article that deals straight forwardly with controversy and neutrally while removing the word feral from the article as an adjective.
I have a several reliable peer-reviewed articles showing that "feral" is not an appropriate description for these horses. I also can show that the dictionary definitions list opposite meanings for the word including "wild, undomesticated" to "formerly domesticated". Therefore, the word itself is ambiguous and not a service to the reader who may completely unaccustomed to the word as used by in the content that I think you mean. 
I plan to begin editing the mustang article. And in good faith and in the hopes that we can achieve a compromise, I make the above propositions.
Please respond and let me know what you think.
Sincerely Catty Wampy (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, removing both "wild" and "feral" on the disambiguation page would probably solve that problem.  However, the wild/feral thing on the topic is unquestionably an issue.  The horses there now are, beyond question (backed by peer-reviewed literature), descended from previously domesticated ancestors, which makes them feral by the standard definition.  However, as the species equus was once native to the Americas, there is an argument to be made that horses in general are a reintroduced native species, hence "wild" in that sense.  And politics is wrapped up in all of this, so, like climate change and other hot topics, the science is really a sideline in the battle between various special interests.  Montanabw(talk) 16:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Catty, the equus ferus caballus issue is a non-starter.  We have a professional taxonomist who advocated for this across ALL our horse articles, and it is correct terminology (though like all things, taxomists have some debates over the issue). We may need to tweak the references, perhaps.  I can see the value of putting in a more detailed "wild vs. feral" discussion here and perhaps using the term "free-roaming" where it fits would be suitable, but the REAL issue not "wild" versus "feral," it is "native" versus "introduced".  This is the intense political debate-- IS modern horse is a reintroduced native species or an invasive species?  I do agree that a good analysis of that issue would be a useful addition here.  There is NO question that all horses DID become extinct in the Americas after the last Ice Age and that ALL horses here today descended from European imports.  To say otherwise is junk science that violates wikipedia's policies at WP:FRINGE, though that belief could be discussed in the article as one viewpoint.  Animal Welfare Institute is one source, but with a bias, and thus has to be balanced by the views of people like, for example, these folks (see "Myth #11).   We have to take a balanced approach here per WP:NPOV.  For example, this writer and this writer are both trying to outline the dilemma. Montanabw(talk) 15:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing Mustang Article and Mustang entry this disambiguation page. 

message: do mustang horses depend each other for food, safety, and companionship? if so, how?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.83.113 (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: do mustang horses depend each other

message: If the mustang is an "invasive species", what do you call individual people with who are not Native American?  Why not focus on the common black fly as a feral species and leave these beautiful species alone.  I know this will never make it past the editors, but please not my passion!
My husband and son are Native American.  Blood lines do not matter. John Hopkins proved that.  Mustangs are part of the US.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meredithfs (talk • contribs) 22:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This article presents both views.  There is a difference between history and genetics.  There is no evidence that the modern mustang is in any way a direct descendant of the ancient wild horse that went extinct in North America; that said, the horse as an animal, even if a different subspecies, clearly DID exist in North America, hence the discussion of indigenous versus introduced is different here than, say, in Australia where the [{Brumby]] clearly was introduced to a land that never knew horses.  There was a reference in here to the Native American saying "the grass remembered them," but it was deleted because we could not find a source for it; if you can find one, that would be helpful.  Montanabw(talk) 17:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mustang should be respected