Talk:Colonial Spanish horse

message: The two terms are not interchangeable.  Spanish Mustang is a breed of horse that was derived from a variety of sources; feral, Tribal and domestic.  The breed was given the name "Spanish Mustangs" because by the time the registry was established, most horses called mustangs had no or little Spanish blood in them (as is still the case).  But, although Spanish mustang (small "m") is an accurate term for the few herds that do have Spanish blood, it is confusing, because most "Spanish mustangs" (small "m") are not eligible for registration in the "Spanish Mustang" Registry, most notable the Kigers and the Pryors.
That being said "Spanish Mustangs" (capital "M") are Colonial Spanish Horses.  But, they really aren't a strain, since they are derived from many different strains, but are more of a breed, for which there is no category in the article yet.  And, as in the case with most things horses, there was much disagreement about which horses should be registered, so there are splinter registries, The Painter Barbs, the Southwest Spanish Mustangs, the Southwest Barb Breeders Association, etc.  The Horse of the Americas recognizes all the horses registered in the Spanish Mustang Registry and the splinter registries, and so considers itself the "umbrella registry of the North American Colonial Spanish Horses. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Spanish Mustang" vs "Mustangs considered to be Colonial Spanish Horse Strains" 

message: *http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/97/2/107.full.pdf+html  "Iberian Origins of New World Horse Breeds" (Cothran et al., 2006) Montanabw(talk) 07:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  More sources 

message: Let's break out this question because it's easy.  Do we "explain the controversy" and put the stuff that is claimed to be Spanish but either not proven (Gila Bend) or conclusively disproven (Chincoteague) into a little section in this article, or do we just toss the both of them, but create an article on the Gila Bend horses?  I probably favor the former, due to the myths and legends stuff, but I could live with the latter.  Montanabw(talk) 00:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it the way I think it should be.  I personally don't think the Gila Bend horses are notable, except for the controversy over trying to stop them from destroying one of the few riparian ecosystems in the desert.  Those who are trying to allow it to continue are asserting they are CSH in order to drum up support. But, if someone wants to write an article about the issue, that's where the discussion belongs.   Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple issue 

message: *The link to the Sponenberg treatise at the HOA site gives a 404.  But it's probably this one. Montanabw(talk) 04:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Random break

message: classification of horses in this article is very confusing. I read some discussions above and see some of it was already discussed.. will edit few things according to my understanding and feel free to correct. 89.216.113.98 (talk) 11:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  very confusing 

message: Reverted back the article to the version I spent some time and effort updating to the sources, and correcting information.  Please stop making a succession of excuses, (first POV pushing, then synth and overgeneralization, then that I must respect status quo) to obstruct editing.  If you want to help improve it, engage in thoughtful and informed editing.  Don't just obstruct. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Yes, I would like to see Montanabw post here, but you made a bold edit, it was reverted and the onus is on you to explain why it is an improvement. I haven't seen you make the case. "time and effort" does not qualify as an explanation.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

text: Thanks.  I get BRD.  It doesn't work when the reasons for reverting are a succession of aspersion casting. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No aspersions from me.  The problem is that, as usual, there is an editorial tone that is POV-pushing and the usual problems with SYNTH from sources.  Some of the content helped and I was trying to integrate it, but the constant reversions and personal attacks (one from a sockpuppet account -- now you SLW) make it difficult to get anything done.  Montanabw(talk) 18:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh for crying out loud.  Stop with the histrionics. Just ignore the troll and stop using it as an excuse to not engage in good faith collaboration.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

text: And, when did you stop beating your husband?  You make accusations and cast aspersions left and right as though they are foregone conclusions, and not something you are obligated to prove. Or, as in the case of  earlier, just play around with an editor because you think they are a sock you don't have to take seriously.  If you would collaborate in good faith rather than continually resorting to such tactics, things would go better.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not going to engage on this further.  You have been repeatedly warned about your penchant for misusing source material and if you could do less of that so I could trust your edits to be fully accurate, our different points of view would be far easier to resolve. Focus on content. Montanabw(talk) 02:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisions to article 

message: Good talkpage discussion, but it belongs over here, so moving.  Continue.  Montanabw(talk) 22:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: So, , can you please point to any policy or essay that condones reversion based on the idea that status quo must be maintained? Because BRD (which isn't policy by the way) states: Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed.  There's nothing there about reversion being justified just because you don't want the article changed until you've approved the changes on talk.  Especially after your first two reasons for reverting was an unsubstantiated accusation of COI, then an unsubstantiated accusation of synth and cherry picking.  Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:PRESERVE, but the first thing I saw was "blood markers" VS "genetic markers" and there was no justification for "blood markers" unless you work in forensics. Atsme📞📧 20:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't see anything about status quo in WP:PRESERVE. And I have no idea what you are talking about "blood markers" VS "genetic markers."  Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I understand...but before we move forward, I ask that you please look at this edit, and when you see "blood markers", let me know. Atsme📞📧 21:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, where is your authority that "blood marker" is not a valid phrase in this case? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

text:  We can.  But first, I would like to post this source:  where the term is used by impeccable experts.  Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's dated 1996, Lynn - we could also say the Edsel is the car of the future. It's not a term that's used in the 21st Century. Atsme📞📧 21:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Source? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will as soon as I catch my breath from laughing over Bull Pucky. Haven't heard that in a while. Wish we were having this discussion with country music playing in the background while drinking our favorite beverages! Atsme📞📧 21:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: See the following (quick picks): , and . Hope that helps. Atsme📞📧 21:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't.  The first is discussing DNA.  The second is talking about why some Blood marker tests are outdated.  But the article is talking about the blood marker typing that was done in the past.  It is a valid term to use in the context of the article.  Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from my talkpage 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Pryor Mountain Mustang which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 05:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: This, like the Tiger horse, seems to be an attempt to re-create an imagined memory of the jennet, with both gaits and spots; or perhaps it's an attempt to make a buck or two. It appears to completely non-notable in its own right. I suggest merging/redirecting both pages here, but am fullly open to suggestions of better or alternative redirect targets. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Spanish Jennet Horse]]