Talk:Mustang (horse)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ü

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mustang (horse) article.
Article policies
WikiProject Equine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance assessment scale
Horse breeds task force
 This article is within the scope of the Horse breeds task force.
Agriculture
Agropedia Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Agriculture, which collaborates on articles related to agriculture. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

With the way that Mustangs are being taken out of the wild at a higher percent each year, why is that because the horses are living off of forage that cattle and other domesticated animals can not even begin to eat. Are the people in the govenrment being to harsh on the Mustangs that helped found our Country? Mustangs are the first horse to roam the west!

Contents

[edit] Is Mustang really a horse breed?

Take a look to The natural horse by Jaime Jackson. After many years of study of US wild horse, he says that Mustang is not a breed, but a complex mixtures of almost any existing breeds. Wikipedia has no entry "wild horse" so far. Can anybody solve this problem? I'm Italian, and my English is not so good.

--Alex brollo 18:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The Mustang is not a wild horse -its ancestors are escaped domestic horses, which makes it a feral horse. The horse article has a good discussion of this issue.
Mustang is the common term for the feral horse of the North American west. It is not a general term for feral horse - see Brumby for another local term for a feral horse. Mustang is also not used for the feral horses of the eastern US (such as those on Assateague).
Whether it is or not the Mustang is a formal "breed" is pedantic in my humble opinion. It does apear to meet the definition of breed in the wiki article, but perhaps not the definition used by certain horse enthusiasts. This article does explain that the Mustang's ancestral stock includes a wide variety of horses.
If you want to start a Feral horse or Wild horse article, please do so. However, I think this article should stay where it is. Toiyabe 00:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I fully agree with you - if I'll ever write a wild horse page, I'll add many of your remarks. The problem is that the difference among wild horse and feral horse is a very subtle, specialistic issue.
Nevertheless, the wrong idea that Mustang is a specific breed has important conseguences (please be patient with my rough English). Observations on soundness, diet, environment, movement and so on coming from all Mustangs as a composite group af breeds, are true for any breed and conformation present in such a group. This adds a lot, in my opinion, to the studies of Jaime Jackson because they apply to a large series of breeds and conformations. In other words: many domestic breeds can enjoy the perfect soundness, stamine, agility, etc if they live in a feral condition or in a domestic, how-much-is-possible "feralizated" (=naturalized) condition. --Alex brollo 17:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
OK, I see your point. I think the way to handle it is to state that the ability of the Mustang to thrive in a harsh enivironment without human assistance appears to be due to traits common in domestic horses, rather than adaptations specific to the Mustang. Breed is a loose term, and should be avoided as much as possible - you'll notice that it's not used in the article itself, only in the category and disambig message.
Mustangs do exhibit a wide variety of physical forms (size and color are the things I often notice). Many populations are inbred and don't have the beauty, grace and agility sterotypical of Mustangs. Even a healthy herd usually has old, sick or injured individuals which are very noticible when they take flight. So I'd be careful of overemphasizing the healthiness of feral horse populations. Toiyabe 19:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Updating the article

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)

I Love Mustangs.It is a beutifull Horse.With a big and very wild Heart!

[edit] Biblical References?

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)

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)

[edit] Life Span?

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)

[edit] Disambiguation

Disambiguation at the top of an article might be needed when someone types in a term, but goes to an article for a different subject. For example, if someone wanted to find out about "House" the TV show, they would type in house but read an article about buildings.

It is not reasonable to suppose that a person would type in "mustang (horse)" when they are thinking of an Automobile or any of the other meanings of "mustang". We can assume that everyone viewing this article intends to read about horses. So there is no purpose to disambiguation here. Also, neither "wild horse" nor "feral" redirect to this article, so there is no need to mention them either. --Yath 00:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well and good, but can you cite to me the wikipedia article that explains disambiguation in detail? Further, there are hundreds of wikipedia articles that do not use the disambuguation in this fashion you suggest, and it is my understanding that these sorts of references can also be used to help people find what they are looking for...while a person may not type in Mustang (horse) in the search box, there are certainly many times that the phrase is pipe linked to be [[Mustang (horse)|Mustang]] and god knows I have edited out enough references to sports teams from this article, so SOMEONE sure can't read. We need to include this material in some fashion because people clearly are being misdirected somehow! Montanabw 04:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Disambiguation is explained here: Wikipedia:Disambiguation. When a piped link is used as you describe, the context in which it is used should make the subject clear.
If people are being misdirected, then the source of the misdirection should be found and fixed. For example, if a link to a "mustang" sports team is given as [[Mustang (horse)|Mustang]]s, that is an error in that article.
If people are adding irrelevant links or items to this article, they are probably new editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia's disambiguation practices. The same thing happens in Ruby all the time - they add links to Ruby (programming language) even though the language is linked from Ruby (disambiguation). The solution to this problem is to keep removing the unnecessary links. The new editors and readers pick up on the principle rather quickly. Cluttering up the top of the article, however, is not the solution. --Yath 14:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. One person's "clutter" is another person's "helpful links to any alternative articles with similar names." I feel that in this case, "Bottom links are deprecated. Such links are harder to find and easily missed." I really see nothing in the disambiguation article that justifies your removal of this material. Frankly, yes, the problems are mostly from inexperienced editors, but good links help minimize it, and I don't know about you, but I DO have a life outside wikiland, and frankly, even in wikiland, Mustangs are not my priority, they're just on my watchlist. I get tired of always removing this junk. I see no violation of wikipedia policy in having one simple disambiguation link, and am going to make one more try at having something simple that is not "clutter." Perhaps the use of a neat template will be a sufficient compromise that puts a clarifying statement at the beginning of the article but doesn't "clutter" up the page. Montanabw 18:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
This is not simply a matter of a difference of opinion. There is a definite use for top-disambiguation: when someone searching for a different subject would likely have come to this article first. It would be useful if someone searching for any of the other meanings of "mustang" were likely to end up on this article.
However, they do not. Anyone who wants one of the articles linked from mustang will likely type "mustang" into the search box, and will end up at mustang. They will not end up at mustang (horse) unless they clicked a link that was obviously about the horses. Do you see how this works? It is not entirely clear that you understand this. --Yath 18:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Fine, I'll leave it, but I just encourage you to keep the article on your watch list and we can track the number of stupid edits. I put the disambiguation link at the top for a reason; I felt there were too many amateur edits of material that was elsewhere. Yes, I grant that if you search for "Mustang" you get the disambiguation page. And, I can check what links here, but yes, probably most piped links are in the context of the horse and not the car. But the reason I am having trouble with this is because I have come across dozens of pages that aren't this way--the primary topic doesn't always come up in a search, but the page that comes up doesn't really have a disambiguation page, either. There is the "otheruses" template explaining some, but in other cases, well...
I don't see a violation of policy here. Many pages are otherwise cross-linked at the top rather than in "See also" links at the bottom. Now maybe they're ALL wrong, but Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) suggests, "...if you find that another editor has felt the need to create such entries, please do not remove them. If you feel such an entry should be included, please add an invisible comment and/or a note on the discussion page of that disambiguation page to explain why." AND "Break rules--For every style suggestion above, there's some page which has a good reason to do something else. These guidelines are intended for consistency, but usefulness to the reader is the principal goal. So ignore these guidelines if you have a good reason."
So I am just frustrated that you are being so fussy about a "guideline" when the goal is to help people find material.
If you want to see another situation, try "bay" as a search for the color bay in horses...the article is there, just dig and see what's out there. Or, my very favorite example of a disaster area, the sort-of disambiguation page for white horse. It just doesn't seem to be wrong to me that when a person gets to this page that they shouldn't be able to access the disambiguation page for more uses of a word... I'll leave it alone for now, but I really do think you're being too fussy. Montanabw 01:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I am curious as to what sort of bad edits are involved here. I tried to make some guesses above, such as the Ruby (programming language) links being added to the top of Ruby, but that was just a wild guess. It would be helpful to see some examples. --Yath 18:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm mostly trying to figure out the disambiguation standard because it is unevenly applied. Put simply, I really don't see the "crime" in cross-linking an article back to the disambiguation page. For example, White horse doesn't get you the article about white colored horses, it gets you a kind-of disambiguation page that lists pubs in England and a "oh by the way, here's other stuff it could mean." I guess I am trying to figure out what is the huge problem that will crash Wikipedia with having a link to the Mustang disambiguation page and the wild horse articles at the top of this one. Seems that a cross-reference at the top is useful for more than just for disambiguation...for example, a person reading an article on horses clicks the piped link that says "Mustang," and comes to this article, but then while reading, thinks "what about the car or the ball team?" I really am not convinced that I was misusing the concept by putting two handy and commonly used cross-references at the top. I mean, it's true we have no cross-reference to English pubs on the White (horse) page, but that's not a real common problem. This is not worth an edit war, however. I suppose what we now have is a policy dispute. Montanabw 19:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mesteño?

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?

There is such a word. Take a look at the Spanish Royal Academy's online dictionary.

Tmangray 03:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

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)

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)

You both will be able to settle this if you would simply cite to verifiable, authoritative sources. How about both of you actually providing a full citation to "my dictionary" in a proper footnote, and if there are multiple definitions (try the etymology of buckaroo, if you want to see a REAL mess), then present them both and discuss the controversy. I am tired of these kind of discussions when a few footnotes would solve many a problem. And maybe create a sandbox section here on the talk page to work out an acceptable definition instead of having an edit war in the main article. JMHO. Montanabw 00:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

Well, I have had some similar discussions over Buckaroo, Vaquero, Bakhara, and if the word is Latin, Arabic or even African in origin. Usually the best approach is to just "teach the controversy" as they say. Unless, of course, we have a medieval Spanish scholar amongst us. (but then, the African origin theory of Buckaroo did some from some scholarly type, meaning even they can be wrong) Ah words... Montanabw(talk) 21:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I already said above that there is no way mestengo can derive from mesteño. Check ANY book about the evolution of the sounds of the Spanish language (Ralph Penny's is probably easy to find in the US, or the old Menéndez Pidal), or a Spanish etymology dictionary, like the Corominas one mentioned in the Mesta article. Or even the brief etymology note in the OED, if you can't read Spanish (oh, and by the way, OED is the Oxford English Dictionary, not the uncredited, unreliable online etymology dictionary I have sometimes seen quoted in wikipedia). It is mesteño that derives from mestengo. The word "derived" is obviously wrongly used in Websters. Tmangray's statements about what words are supposed to mean are absurd, based in his idea that his interpretation of the English word belonging has to translate exactly into the meaning of the suffix, which shows how little he knows about philology (Or is madrileño supposed to mean belonging to Madrid?). If you actually care about finding out what is really known more than you care about winning petty arguments, you will check it yourselves in the books I mentioned. Me, I have better things to do. 72.89.121.75 13:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)

[edit] Wild and feral horses

what kind of horse is not a wild horse

Almost all of them! See the article wild horse and feral horse. Mustangs are feral horses. Most "wild horses" are actually feral.Montanabw 00:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help out and be nice

Far too much sarcasm in both edit summaries and in previous edits. If you have something constructive to add, please add it and cite it to a verifiable source. If you have a problem with the article and have neither the time nor ability to fix it, then please bring it here and don't just trash the article with excessive tags. This is no longer cute. Montanabw 23:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Howdy. I can't speak for others, but I will be tagging uncited facts regardless of whether such makes the article look 'trashy;' though if you'd prefer, you can remove the offending statements entirely. I generally avoid outright removal, as the information may be valid--but the reader must be advised that factuality has not been confirmed. I agree that adding references rather than tags is preferred and often I will attempt to do so, but I did not posit these statements and I do not know (and may not have access to) the author's source.
On the subject: you removed some of my tags because they were in the middle of the sentence, which seemed “rude”. Those were 'attribution required' tags, and they are to be placed after descriptions of a group of persons, such as "serious scholars / scientists / researchers," "historians / philosophers / scientists," "some / many people," and the like.[1] Such generalizations often serve as a vehicle for writers to input their own opinions, adding a sense of legitimacy. Such is the case with the group “supporters of wild horses:” who are these ‘supporters’? Are there specific institutions or individuals who may be cited? If not, from where is the author drawing this information? (See also: Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words)
I understand your objections, but please understand that I do not seek to degrade the quality of this article--my intention is quite the opposite. To this end, I have created a modified version of the attribution tag which is shorter and thus less distracting; I hope you will find this improved version more agreeable.
Best regards, --Xiaphias 09:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The smaller, more discreet tag is an improvement. I also appreciate that the material has not been removed, because the statements, though general, can pretty much be found at any website discussing the issue. As I didn't put in some of the original material, it takes longer to locate authoritiative sources (as opposed to hysterical and POV sources, which this topic has more than its fair share), and I hope other editors who care will step in and help out in this respect. That said, it still looks silly to put in an attribution tag in the middle of a sentence, even if not totally incorrect form, but it is a bit more polished (and less snotty-looking)to put it at the end. On that note, those who care may want to access this web site and place a citation to it in assorted appropriate locations. http://www.cnr.uidaho.edu/range456/hot-topics/wildhorse.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 18:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Why has half the article simply been deleted? How rude. The article cited above is grossly outdated.

The large-scale blanking is better known as "vandalism." I restored the article, anyone can do that, and it's very helpful to do so. As for the article cited above, looks like it was written in 2002, though some of the material cited is older. But it is at least a verifiable source from a University web site instead of some hysterical rant from an interest group on one side or the other. If someone has a better piece that is verifiable and reasonably NPOV, add the link here. Xiaphias rightly points out that this article needs more footnoting, and we need some good sources to cite that are not horribly POV, which is tough to find for this topic. Montanabw 20:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invaders, Conquistadors, Spanish

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)

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)
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)
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)
Good for you. Abtract 19:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
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)

[edit] Etymology sandbox/battleground

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)

The English word "mustang" comes from the Mexican Spanish word mestengo, derived from Spanish mesteño, meaning "stray" or "feral animal". The Spanish word in turn may possibly originate from the Latin expression animalia mixta (mixed beasts), referring to beasts of uncertain ownership, which were distributed in shepherd councils, known as mestas in medieval Spain.[1] A mestengo was any animal distributed in those councils, and by extension any feral animal.