Misplaced Pages

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

• • • @Montanabw, you appear to be having difficulty with your concepts. No analogy is involved, so calm down and stop driving yourself crazy, as you put it (no one else is doing it, so that finger points one way); not only is it bad for your health, but it does your argument not a scrap of good (in e-fora no one can hear you scream!) The reasons that most breeds are capitalised is either that they commonly appear in the headings of pages (No one, please note, insists that the article heading should be "mustang"), or at the beginning of sentences, or that they contain proper names (like "Burmese cat", "Newfoundland dog", "Clydesdale horse", "New Hampshire chickens", and "Hamburgers"), or that the writer has an impediment in his literacy or logic. There is no reason to avoid lower case "tumbler pigeons", "legbar chickens", "crested ducks", "karakul sheep", or "large white pigs", even though none of those is a species, please note, though each is a breed of long standing. You speak of mustangs being a breed (or at the very least a landrace) although you grant that not all mustangs are of the mustang breed or landrace. No one contested that with more than a politely smothered yawn. You might have a case if you changed your name by deed poll to "Mustang" (carefully making sure that through no disastrous clerical cockup you might have got registered as "mmustang" instead) and registered the breed in your name, but short of such desperate measures, I don't see how you could influence the WP:MOS. Furthermore, you then would have to police a lot of literature to ensure that no one demeaned a pedigreed Mustang with lower case, or spelt "sulphur" with a capital, or besmirched the honour of the breed by spelling the feral horse "Mustang". Then what would you do if you found that someone, in the WP Mustang article used an upper case for a feral mustang of no breeding to speak of? Did you imagine that the article is about Thoroughbred Mustangs and nothing else? Frankly, if you wished to hijack the word "mustang" for your exclusive use as a mustang breeder, I think you would need more muscle and money than it would be worth, unless you ran for congress on that ticket (and won!). Now one more time: you could save yourself no end of blood pressure spikes (and us a lot of tedium) by quietly repeating to yourself: "They already know that 'All mustangs are horses; not all horses are mustangs', that 'this is not a separate species', that 'not all feral horses are mustangs, nor all mustangs feral', that no one 'is arguing that no breed names should be capitalized' (remember the Burmese cats etc). Some of them even know what a breed is and what a species is." Then, when you have relaxed a bit, you might find it more comfortable to accept that we (and WP:MOS and indeed simple English) do indeed insist that "some animal breeds should but others should not be capitalized", as determined by the grammar of proper nouns, right? All of which I have carefully explained with several pertinent examples. Examples, please note, NOT analogies. I should hope that with my examples before you, you should have no difficulty in listing which is which. And please note that "mustang" and "sulphur" would fit comfortably into the lower case category, and no one the worse for it. JonRichfield (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Save your condescension, Jon. Breed names should follow the structure of specialists and specialist publications who know the topic, not the generic. It is a longstanding classic rule of statutory construction in law that where there is a discrepancy between two "rules", the specific overrrides the general. This applies to capitalization and grammar here as well. Montanabw 00:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Retain your opinion as you please, but kindly stop characterising unwelcomely factual arguments as sarcasm (or other rhetorical unfair or otherwise offensive tactics). If you think that a solitary point in what I said was either inaccurate, illogical, unfair, or irrelevant, let's hear it. "Mustang" is a far wider term than merely a breed name (if one concedes that it is a breed name at all). Even Montanabw accepted that (indeed, he asserted it unasked). Even if it were a genuine, unambiguous breed name, but not a proper name (as opposed to say, a Morgan) then there would be no logical compulsion to capitalise "saddlebred" or "racking horse". Appealing to "specialist horse organizations", "possibly the equivalent of academic sources" (what a speculation!) as "definitive" is simply pathetic. Roles such as you mention hardly count as relevant to a matter of philology or lexicography, no matter how rarefied their status in "academic" matters concerning animal husbandry, history, genetics, or equitation. They do not concern us except when they touch the image, policy, and practice of the encyclopaedia. Not even when our refutation of invalid argument in favour of WP:MOS reduces the opposition to impotent imputations of sarcasm. JonRichfield (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

For the purposes of this debate, Mustangs are a breed, with multiple substrains based on geography and so on. No one is impressed by your command of big words, Jon. Montanabw 00:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I stand by my comments. No one suggested your ".... solitary point in what I said was either inaccurate, illogical, unfair, or irrelevant," I did however imply that your tone was unnecessary. (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC))

MY tone? Littleolive oil, you are kidding us, right? How am I to reply to invalid, off-the-point and repetitious POV shouting down of the opposition and make the culprits like the fact that they are not having it all their own way, even though I religiously avoid ad hominem attacks? You think I am being nasty or unfair? Have a look at Montanabw's immediately foregoing: "For the purposes of this debate, Mustangs are a breed, with multiple substrains based on geography and so on. No one is impressed by your command of big words..." How's that for tone? Not that I am complaining, and I would not even have bothered to mention it if you had not raised the subject, but I ask you; never mind the wording, note the tone and logic of the content: suddenly we are to accept that two centuries of usage of "mustang" (more like four centuries if you count the Spanish origin) goes out of the window at his personal behest? Suddenly the article is about a recent unilateral pre-emption of an established word, because someone decided to appropriate it as a name for a breed and to dictate the spelling whether in referring to the notional breed, or to real mustangs? And he demands that we do it in the face of WP:MOS? Granted that WP:MOS isn't god, and can be overridden by Misplaced Pages:IAR etc, that isn't free license for riding roughshod over rival preferences. "For the purposes of this debate..." for crying in the bucket! Where does he get off, telling everyone else who is concerned in the article, not just what he is talking about, which might be helpful, but what they they are talking about? The "purposes of this debate" I beg leave to point out are pretty plainly put right at the top: "A mustang is the free-roaming horse of the North American west that first descended from horses brought to the Americas by the Spanish. Mustangs are often referred to as wild horses, but there is debate over terminology. Because they are descended from once-domesticated horses, they can be classified as feral horses." Looking through the article as it stands, I see precious little reference to anything like a mustang breed by that name, so Montanabw's obvious option is to ignore this article which patently is in no way what he is talking about, nor what he says the debate is about, and create a new article entirely, called say... Mustang (breed) or possibly Mustang (horse breed) or the like. Then all he needs do is make his proper prostrations to the five pillars and to WP:MOS and adhere to their strictures well enough to silence the wikilawyers. There wouldn't even be any objection (quite the contrary, actually) to copious cross-linking between the articles. That way you would establish perspective and avoid confusion with fighter planes, cars, feral or mongrel horses, and such like. If you happen to know why he hasn't long since followed such a rational course, please explain. By all means temper your tone and word length to please him, but there is no need to mind my delicate feelings. All I am trying to do is help get this tedious mess sorted out. JonRichfield (talk) 10:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

JonRichfield, your comments are constituting personal attacks on people who disagree with you. Please tone it down. This is a debate about capitalization, and there are no new arguments being raised on either side. Assume Good Faith and stop attacking people. Montanabw 18:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• • DrChrissy.This is an RfC which means editors give an opinion. You don't have to agree but please, you don't have the right to tell editors to go somewhere else or that they shouldn't use the examples they did.This RfC will be closed by an uninvolved editor, let that person decide which points are pertinent and strongest.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC))

    I don't think he's telling him to go away. He's just refuting the nonsensical rationale that Ched presented. Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

    • @Littleolive oil. As you state, in an RfC, editors give their opinion. I gave an opinion on the suitability of examples that were offered as support for capitalisation. After looking at the source, I decided, in my opinion, that because it seems confused about what is a species and what is a breed, it was of poor quality. I tried to warn the editor about this poor quality. In no way did I attempt to tell the editor to "go somewhere else". However, your previous edit "This RfC will be closed by an uninvolved editor, let that person decide which points are pertinent and strongest" suggests you are telling me not to make further edits...perhaps you would like to clarify?__DrChrissy (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• There is nothing to clarify. I did not tell anyone to not make further edits, but simply added a reminder that this RfC will be decided on by an uninvolved editor, that none of us should be discounting any other cmts. This, " If editors do not like that, take it up on the WP:MOS talk page." is not what an RfC is for in my opinion. We are asked to comment. Suggesting and Implying an editor's opinion isn't valid, and that they should go back to MOS to change MOS to suit that opinion is probably not particularly respectful of other opinions, or the RfC process. An RfC in my opinion is in effect, asking for the variations in opinion that must occur with input from multiple editors. I'm not going to get any further into discussions of who meant what. No need for RfCs to be this unpleasant and if they are no need to stick around. I once again stand by my cmt. Sources that are written by professionals in the field of horse breed/ species are the most reliable and represent the " mainstream". WP:RS overrides (pun intended) MOS, a style guide, always.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC))
  • My comment regarding taking comments to MOS were because the previous comment appeared to be expanding the capitalisation issue to breeds in general, rather than this mustang article. I think that we are all agreed that this is not the subject of this RfC.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Folks, while the capitalization debate above is raging, I would graciously ask two things:

1. If you want to revert capitalization, please do it with search and replace, not reverting, as there are intervening edits that may be caught up in a mass revert.
2. If you want to make other changes, can you please DISCUSS them here first? Some things (like two lead photos) are there for a reason.
3. If you find good sources, feel free to post them here. Always room to add solid new content. (OK< so that's three things)

Thanks Montanabw 10:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

When I undid Fyunk's capitalizing, I carefully preserved other changes including the photo change. I guess there was no way to keep you happy there. Dicklyon (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: there may have been some intervening edits between yours and mine. Montanabw 18:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

When I removed the second lead image, it is because it is convention to have only one, unless they show male and female images. It seems strange to me to have an image of a captive individual for what is described as a "free-roaming" animal. If other articles followed this lead, we would have an image of the animal in the wild and an image of the same animal in a zoo. If you wish to highlight the activity of the organisation in the caption, this should be done in the main body of the text. Perhaps the reason for having the first lead image can be stated?__DrChrissy (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@DrChrissy:, I'd be open to explaining if that will help. The tame animal is not in a zoo - these are animals decended from previously-domesticated stock and as such, once captured off the range can often be trained and made into perfectly decent horses for use by humans for riding and so on. I don't think there are any Mustangs in a zoo, they aren't "wild" horses even though they (or their ancestors) live in the wild. But you clearly didn't read the entire article, which explains the adoption thing - even in the lead! Also, there is very, very little sexual dimorphism in horses between male and female (even breed standards that argue for a little more height for males aren't realistic, though males on average are slightly larger than females within a given breed, it isn't consistent - the mare Zenyatta was 17 hands (68 inches, 173 cm) and stallion Seabiscuit only about 15 hands (60 inches, 152 cm) ) This two-image lead is an WP:IAR to reflect a unique thing about Mustangs: Many Mustangs are "adopted" off the range due to population pressures. They do not cease to be Mustangs when removed. The animal that was in captivity is an excellent example of a modern Mustang, and the other image, showing the animals in their "wild" range condition demonstrates the wide variation seen in these animals. To the extent the lead needs some work, it may need some work, but you don't understand that there were reasons for this decision. (For one thing, for a while, there was a big debate over whether to use the wild or tame photp, using both is a compromise AND illustrative of body types.) Montanabw 18:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I did read the entire article and I get quite fed up of seeing editors write that others have not read the article simpley to cover up an inadequate article. I didn't understand the reason for having 2 images because we are not told in the caption. It should be made clear that these adopted mustangs are "modern" (your word) mustangs and are different from other mustangs. If the image and caption are to remain, it should include the word "modern" - we should not have to expect readers to go through the article and then to the talk pages simply because editors are being careless with captions. Regarding animals in Zoos, I was actually talking about animals in captivity in general. We have a donkey sanctuary in the UK - I think I need to put a second lead image on the Donkey article of a donkey on a lead. Then I will go to the zebra page and put on a second lead image of a zebras towing a carriage, or jumping fences.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The article is B-class at best, and I will be the first to agree it's not ready for a GAN yet. But the "inadequacies" are a topic for discussion, not drive-by random edits that don't help anything. I am fed up with people who criticize and don't want to do all the work of reading the research and creating actual content. (IF you wanted to start an article on the Sulphur Mustangs, by the way, that would be cool, we don't have one yet.) Changes like using forced image sizes (i.e. 250 px instead of using the "upright" parameter) are outdated editing methods, and things like tag-bombing the article is really not helpful Montanabw 00:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The two images settled an editing discussion where some people felt that the article's original image - the adopted horse - was not representative because he was more fat and healthy than a free-ranging Mustang, while others felt that the image of the range mustangs was not representative because it showed scrawny, ill-fed horses. Both arguments had merit and the compromise was to teach the controversy and show them both. @Ealdgyth: was one of the photographers on this. One horse illustrates what the animals look like when they are owned and loved by a human owner (fat, well-muscled, groomed, shiny, happy, good quality animal), the other is how they look in the wild (scrawny, ungroomed, wary of people, but probably pretty happy that way too, and the quality is still there). The DNA of these animals is pretty much the same, they aren't two different strains. We specifically used an image of an animal BORN ON THE RANGE, captured, and adopted - precisely for that reason. (Is some part of "adopted from the BLM" unclear?) As for the donkeys and zebras, I suppose we could add photos of stray, ungroomed poodles to that article as well. The logic is equally silly. (And if you can find a zebra pulling a carriage or jumping a fence with human riders, go for it) Montanabw 00:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for causing this "little drama" but this is not being helped by some of the language you are using on this page and others which appears to be intended to humiliate me or belittle my intentions. As for my not "creating actual content", please see my user page. I would not presume to write any article on horses because (and this is the central issue) I would not have any structured guidance from the WP:MOS - horse articles do not even use SI units! As for images of tamed zebra, "...you clearly didn't read the entire article".__DrChrissy (talk) 13:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy, I am trying to be nice, but I am getting very frustrated with you. We have had some good collaboration in the past, but you are behaving very differently all of a sudden, and I am surprised. You are raising issues that have been resolved for YEARS and not asking or discussing (the SI units issue has also come up repeatedly, we have a whole convert template created to resolve that one (it does a three-way conversion, in any direction), all we need to do is keep adding it to older articles, and you can too!) We have dozens of articles about the technical language of horses, we have created glossaries, templates, etc., all you need to do is ask. As for the zebras, you want to add those images, have a good time, I don't watchlist zebra articles, you can deal with them if you want to be POINT-y. Montanabw 22:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

You may be perceiving a difference in behaviour because you are making what I take as personal attacks - I am having to defend myself, rather than my edits. I have no idea what a "POINT-y" is, however, I suspect it is a further personal attack. Please stop immediately.__DrChrissy (talk) 12:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The applicable article is WP:POINT. Your edits are disruptive and I cannot figure out why someone like yourself, who has been a pretty solid editor in the past, good about discussing things and previously quite reasonable, is suddenly behaving the way you are behaving. Montanabw 21:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Please focus your comments on the edits I have made and why you might disagree with them. Saying that I am being disruptive is yet another personal attack, and one I take extremely seriously. Please indicate where you believe I have been disruptive and we can take this to an external assessment authority ....whoever/wherever that might be.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I did. You are now in WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT territory. You are making disruptive edits across multiple articles now, I see, so I think it best this discussion continue at your talk page. Montanabw 20:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

No - do not bother taking this to my talk page. If you are serious about this, raise an ANI and be prepared for my counter aguements which I have chosen not to express in public because I have tried to remain civil in my tone. You keep complaining about not having enough time to make constructive edits. Why then persist in this inflammatory method of communication? Please raise an ANI and do not take this to my talk page.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm tempted. So far, you've screwed up five different articles. But I have enough drama here. Way up above, I explained the two image thing, I addressed your "today" problem, the image captions have been explained, and so what's left? Montanabw 00:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Why do you keep attempting to hide from readers, your personal attacks on me? - I am sure people reading this are sensible and intelligent enough to make up their own mind when to stop reading this discussion. Again you have made a personal attack on me by saying that I have "screwed up" five different articles. This is yet another serious accusation and I strongly recommend that you take this to ANI so that independent persons can support or refute your multiple accusations.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you totally and have absolutely no desire to carry this on. However, an editor is making personal attacks on me here which I take extremely seriously and I feel I must defend myself. I have suggested here and at other places that the other editor raises an ANI so that it will take the issue away from here, but the other editor is currently refusing to do so. Apologies to you and other readers who may not be wishing to read this. I totally understand and sympathise.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm collapsing this discussion. I have no interest in continuing this drama at ANI or anywhere else. The ball is totally in the other user's court. Montanabw 03:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

This: "By 1900 North America had an estimated two million free-roaming horses" is not the same information as this "At their peak population, there was a maximum of two million free-roaming horses west of the Mississippi". so no need to replace one with the other. If we are gong to retain this "At their peak population, there was a maximum of two million free-roaming horses west of the Mississippi" Please supply a page number/numbers so sources can be checked by all. I don't see one given. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC))

I can't supply page numbers for the 1900 date, because they doesn't exist. As I said in my edit notes, Dobie didn't say what is being attributed to him. What Dobie did say was: "All guessed numbers are mournful to history. My own guess is that at no time were there more than a million mustangs in Texas and no more than a million others scattered over the remainder of the West." (pages 108-9, of the edition I'm referencing-it's in the last paragraph of Chapter VI). So, if you want to use Dobie as the source for your numbers, it needs to be changed to reflect the fact that Dobie never gave a date for the maximum number, just the number itself. Unless I see a reasonable rebuttal within the next couple of days, I'm reverting it back. Lynn Wysong 08:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

These aren't my dates nor is it my content. I'm trying to verify what you added.You removed content and then added content that has a different meaning, is different information. I can't see reasons for that unless I have sources. Your edit summary seemed to indicate that the original date, 1900, was a date for the estimate of a peak number of mustangs, and you seem to be arguing that point, but that's not what the 1900 date refers to. It never says anything about peak; its just a number per a date. Maybe let's not talk about revering anything until we can find sources for content.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC))

User:SheriWysong is right about Dobie, though the form of her edit was also not quite right, either, as even Dobie admitted to considerable speculation on his out part. The 1900 date is not verifiable, and though Dobie is the source of the two million estimate, it needs to be rephrased a bit and I have done so in line with the issue as discussed by the BLM, which is going to be the most reliable source on this matter. This is, by the way, a spillover from Talk:Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, where I took the basic wording from the currently protected version of the article (yes, it is my own phrasing) and I most certainly hope that @Dreadstar: will watchlist this article here and protect it if the same dispute spills over. Montanabw 05:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

1. I said the number was a "peak" because that's what Dobie, the source that was being referenced at the time, said: " at no time were there more than a million mustangs in Texas and no more than a million others scattered over the remainder of the West" 2. Why is the BLM being given credit for being the most "reliable source" on mustang history? It's a land management agency, for crying out loud, and one that doesn't even hire historians, like the National Park Service does. Why is what the actual source, written by an actual historian published by a University press, says now being repressed in favor of an interpretation of what the BLM is interpreting Dobie said? When, I made the edit, the Dobie book was referenced, now that reference has been removed in favor of the BLM website. Just quote Dobie, and then there is no argument about what he said, and the information goes back to the actual source, which is the practice of all good reference. But, I'll wait to change it until there's a resolution on the other article, because there should be consistency between the two. Lynn Wysong 08:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Surely, for balanced reporting, BOTH sources should be used. If the wording of a source is open to interpretation, perhaps make a direct quote.__DrChrissy (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Both sides are being reported, the best we can; the problem is that mustangs are like abortion, people get polarized and have little middle ground. I'm doing my damnedest here. Montanabw 06:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Both sources could be used. But in the case of User:Montanabw's edit, she replaced the Misplaced Pages preferred secondary source https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources, a University Press published book written by a respected professor of Western history, with her interpretation of what a BLM website, a non-independent source https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Independent_sources, had said. On top of that, I see three problems with the edit: 1. it uses "American West" instead of "West of the Mississippi". "American West" can be interpreted to mean "West of the Rockies". If you read Dobie, or even his quote, he is clearly writing mostly about West of the Mississippi and East of the Rockies. So, since "West of the Mississippi" encompasses both east and west of the Rockies, it is a better term. 2. The way it is phrased, it makes it sound like Dobie simply pulled the number out of thin air. As stated earlier, Dobie was a respected professor of Western History. As such, it was not just a guess, but an educated guess. 3. It uses the term "scientific census". Dobie used the term "scientific estimate", but that does not translate to "scientific census" I believe the term "comprehensive census" is better as it a) does not preclude the use of other reasonable population estimations, and b) There's no real "science" behind the census's, especially the 1971 census. The BLM simply flies over the HMA and counts the horses it can find. But, it didn't even do that until 1975, at which point, even accounting for population growth between 1971 and 1975, it determined that that population was twice what the 1971 "scientific" number stated. Since user:DrChrissy suggested we use both sources, I went ahead and made those changes, and added Dobie's reference back in. We can still discuss using Dobie's direct quote, but with the changes I made, I'm not sure it's necessary. Lynn Wysong 15:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll be leaving this discussion. I'd note my concern was with identifying page numbers so I could see the source/sources. I reverted to the then stable version until I had sources given one piece of information was being swapped for another.WP preferred sources? Dobie's book was published in the 30's. Information gathering is more sophisticated now, so I'd be wary of saying one of the sources is better than another. Primary sources are useful and acceptable per Misplaced Pages although care must be taken with their use. Best wishes all.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC))

apologies looks like I moved a signature.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC))

• The last set of edits almost worked, I made a couple changes, but kept the sourcing. "American west" is a deliberate choice, as there are no firm estimates and the issue of wild horse populations on either side of the continental divide is just a red herring, it is absurd to get into a debate over geography; there were mustangs in North Dakota, there were mustangs in Nevada. "West of the Mississippi" is not ideal; after all, the Mississippi runs through Minneapolis. There were no reliable estimates at all earlier, we use Dobie because he was highly respected and if you want to cite his book directly over the BLM's site, that's fine. But the BLM has the most modern research on the current Mustang situation. Wild horse advocates have some solid critiques of BLM management, but I have little reason to doubt their census numbers, at least as opposed to anyone else's. Montanabw 06:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

You gave no justification for several of your edits, and is it stands now, the history is misleading; not neutral and balanced. Your opinion that "wild horse populations on either side of the continental divide is just a red herring" is just that, your opinion. It is an important distinction to understanding how the population got from an educated guess of a maximum of two million to where we are today. What actually qualifies as a "red herring" is your statement "But the BLM has the most modern research on the current Mustang situation...I have little reason to doubt their census numbers..." since we aren't talking about census 'numbers' just whether censuses took place-and to be more accurate, we're not even talking about those but "scientific estimates." Your statement "'West of the Mississippi' is not ideal; after all, the Mississippi runs through Minneapolis." is in direct conflict with your sentence just before: "there were mustangs in North Dakota" since North Dakota is just west of Minnesota. The other change you made: "Since settlement of the West began under the auspices of the General Land Office in the latter half of the nineteenth century, the mustang population has been reduced drastically" which you changed to "By the 1950s mustang population dropped drastically" also represses information that makes the history more clear, since there all credible sources indicate that most of the population drop occurred prior to 1900 (before my edits, the article read "Since 1900, the mustang population has been reduced drastically." So, as user:DrChrissy suggested, I directly quoted to make the history more accurate, neutral and balanced. Lynn Wysong 08:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Can I suggest that editors looking at this section try to focus on the message/s they are trying to convey. I am now lost in what has become a tangle of detail, some of which is related, some of which is not. The passage dives all over the place from historical writings to capture of mustangs by airplane and poisoning! It has also become so US oriented that only people with knowledge of American geography can follow it. Please make this passage more accessible.__DrChrissy (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Good point DrChrissy. Does the latest edit make it better? Also, if no one has a source that states population numbers dropped after 1934, I'm happy to let the number stand at Dobie's "a few" in 1934 without conjuncture that it dropped after that point. But, do need to clarify that since the horses reproduce quickly, large numbers could still be removed each year without lowering the base population. Lynn Wysong 15:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so I tried to make "Because mustang numbers can double every four years, they were rounded up in large numbers and the abuses linked to certain capture methods..." sound a little less disjointed, as user:DrChrissy pointed out, but the edit was removed because "neither of those statements is supported by the source cited" I actually didn't cite a source, but one could easily be found since there are a lot of non-independent ones (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Independent_sources), if anyone else cares to try to make the paragraph flow better before I can get around to finding an independent source.Lynn Wysong

The removal doesn't have anything to do with "independent sources", however. You're trying to insert new information into a section of the article that is already sourced, without providing a source for the new information. What you inserted was "Because mustang numbers can double every four years,<ref name=Quickfacts>{{cite web|last1=Gorey|first1=Tom|title=Quick Facts |url=http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/whbprogram/history_and_facts/quick_facts.html|website=Bureau of Land Management|accessdate=March 1, 2015|date=January 28, 2015}}</ref> and horses were no longer needed, for the most part, for their "horsepower", they began to be rounded up in large numbers to simply be eliminated because they competed with profitable livestock for forage on the range." right before "The abuses linked to certain capture methods, including hunting from airplanes and poisoning, led to the first federal wild free-roaming horse protection law in 1959.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wildhorsepreservation.org/wild-horse-annie-act |title=Wild Horse Annie Act |publisher=Wildhorsepreservation.org |accessdate=2014-07-23}}</ref>" ... the section you inserted your information in was cited, however, so when you inserted it, it made it look like your second part (the "and horses were no longer needed, for the most part, for their "horsepower", they began to be rounded up in large numbers to simply be eliminated because they competed with profitable livestock for forage on the range." part) was ALSO cited to the citation for the next sentence (the sentence beginning "The abuses linked to certain capture methods...: which is cited to "Wild Horse Annie Act") which indeed does not support the information you are putting in. This is a basic part of editing an article - if you insert something you need to also insert a source, ESPECIALLY if there is already a source attached to the information you are inserting into. A good basic rule is never insert any information without a source. It saves a lot of bother all around. Another thing that would be helpful is if you would quit going back and editing your posts multiple times. This makes edit conflicts happen and is very annoying to people trying to reply to you. And please sign your posts with four tildes ... this allows people to have a link back to your talk page, so they can easily communicate with you. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I am guilty of frequently forgetting the four tildes. As far as editing my posts, it seems like it's less annoying to edit them than to post several unanswered posts-I didn't realize you were trying to respond to me at the same time (which I know can be annoying-I just tried to post this answer, and had an edit conflict with a totally different person). Also, I was not trying to imply that I was using the wild horse preservation page as my source. As I said, I was simply trying to tie the two concepts together, and since both statements I inserted seemed to me to be "common knowledge" I didn't think a citation was necessary. But, if one is necessary, I would rather not use a web page by an organization that puts out information on a subject to solicit money, since that is not an independent source, although looking through the rest of this article, other pages on the wild horse preservation site could be cited to try to make the paragraph less disjointed. So, if someone wants to do that or just to rephrase what I wrote to so that it doesn't sound like the source of "and horses were no longer needed, for the most part, for their "horsepower", they began to be rounded up in large numbers to simply be eliminated because they competed with profitable livestock for forage on the range", is the wild horse preservation site, that's fine.Lynn Wysong 13:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SheriWysong (talk • contribs)

Okay, so, I KNOW I added the four tildes that time (and this time) Am I doing something wrong? Lynn Wysong 14:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SheriWysong (talk • contribs)

I have made a draft rewrite of the History section hopefully to provide a balanced view with a little less extraneous detail. I am aware that some of these changes may be controversial so I have put the rewrite on te Talk page. Please choose/ignore any changes I have suggested.

History

Capture and husbandry

The first mustangs descended from Iberian horses brought to Mexico and Florida. Some of these horses were sold, escaped or were captured by Native Americans, and rapidly spread by trade and other means throughout western North America.

Native Americans quickly adopted the horse as a primary means of transportation. Horses replaced the dog as a travois puller and greatly improved success in battles, trade and hunts, particularly bison hunts.

"Mustang runners" were usually cowboys in the U.S. and vaqueros or mesteñeros in Mexico who caught, broke and drove free-ranging horses to market in the Spanish and later Mexican, and still later American territories of what is now Northern Mexico, Texas, New Mexico and California. They caught the horses that roamed the Great Plains and the San Joaquin Valley of California, and later in the Great Basin, from the 18th to the early 20th century.

In the 1800s, horses belonging to explorers, traders and settlers that escaped or were purposely released, joined the gene pool of Spanish-descended herds. It was also common practice for western ranchers to release their horses to forage for themselves in the winter and then recapture them in the spring, along with any additional mustangs. Some ranchers also attempted to "improve" wild herds by shooting the dominant stallions and replacing them with pedigreed stallions.

Numbers

According to historian J. Frank Dobie "No scientific estimates of their (mustangs in the western U.S.) numbers was made...All guessed numbers are mournful to history. My own guess is that at no time were there more than a million mustangs in Texas and no more than a million others scattered over the remainder of the West." During the late 1800s, most of these were moved north and east, or were removed for other reasons until, by 1934, there was just "a few wild horses in Nevada, Wyoming and other Western states". Because mustang numbers can double every four years, they were rounded up in large numbers.

Legislation

During culls, abuses linked to certain killing methods (e.g. hunting from airplanes and poisoning) led to the first federal wild free-roaming horse protection law in 1959. This statute, known as the "Wild Horse Annie Act", prohibited the use of motor vehicles for hunting wild horses. Protection was increased further by the Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971. From that time to the present, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is the primary authority that oversees the protection and management of mustang herds on public lands, while the United States Forest Service administers additional wild horse or burro territories.

Okay, so now would it be okay to do it like this:

Numbers

According to historian J. Frank Dobie "No scientific estimates of their (mustangs in the western U.S.) numbers was made...All guessed numbers are mournful to history. My own guess is that at no time were there more than a million mustangs in Texas and no more than a million others scattered over the remainder of the West." During the late 1800s, most of these were moved north and east, or were removed for other reasons until, by 1934, there was just "a few wild horses in Nevada, Wyoming and other Western states". Because mustang numbers can double every four years, and horses were no longer needed, for the most part, for their "horsepower", they began to be rounded up in large numbers to simply be eliminated because they competed with profitable livestock for forage. Lynn Wysong (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

1. Dobie, The Mustangs
2. Rittman, Paul. "Spanish Colonial Horse and the Plains Indian Culture" (PDF). Retrieved 18 January 2015.
3. "Seeds of Change.", Corpus Christi Museum, Science and History educational resources. Accessed June 1, 2007.
4. C. Allan Jones, Texas Roots: Agriculture and Rural Life Before the Civil War, Texas A&M University Press, 2005, pp. 74–75
5. Frank Forrest Latta, Joaquín Murrieta and His Horse Gangs, Bear State Books, Santa Cruz, 1980, p. 84
6. ^ Dobie, The Mustangs pp. 108-109
7. ^ Dobie, The Mustangs p. 321
8. ^ Gorey, Tom (January 28, 2015). "Quick Facts". Bureau of Land Management. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
9. "Wild Horse Annie Act". Wildhorsepreservation.org. Retrieved 2014-07-23.
10. Mangum, The Mustang Dilemma, p. 77
11. "Background Information on HR297" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-08-09.
12. Mangum, The Mustang Dilemma, p. 75
13. "Wild Horse and Burro Territories". Retrieved 2009-01-29.

This still needs a verifiable source - who said they were rounded up in large numbers and killed, who said they competed with livestock?__DrChrissy (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

well, the "large numbers" part was never cited (that's not my wording) and I didn't use the word "killed". That they compete with livestock for forage seems like it should be considered common knowledge, given the current massive media attention on on the subject. But, no matter. I'll peruse some good, independent sources on the subject and rework this. Four tildes coming next....Lynn Wysong 14:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SheriWysong (talk • contribs)

The word "killing" was my own - the previous form appeared to be a euphamism. I'm afraid what might be "common knowledge" to North Americans receiving massive media coverage may not be so common to other people worldwide who are likely receiving none of this media coverage.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, "eliminated", in that they were either 1)killed on the range 2)rounded up and sent to slaughter, or 3) rounded up and claimed by the ranchers (who may have then have sent them to slaughter, but not necessarily). It wasn't meant to be a euphemism, just a catch-all phrase that didn't imply they were simply rounded up and euthanized. I believe that one of the other sections of the History section deals more with that, or at least should. Four tildes coming...Lynn Wysong 20:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• See, this is the WP:SYNTH and the "quoting too much stuff" problem. DrChrissy is right. Montanabw 22:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Funny, because DrChrissy is the one that suggested quoting. Because we couldn't agree that what was being paraphrased was "summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication" (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:STICKTOSOURCE&redirect=no) it just seemed like that was the logical thing to do. No one seems to have a problem with it but you.Lynn Wysong 23:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SheriWysong (talk • contribs)

Maybe the problem is, you don't understand what a quote is. Because, I notice you attributed "quoting too much stuff" to DrChrissy, and I don't see where she actually said that. You have done that to me before, also. So, I'm going to attribute your putting that phrase in quotations to ignorance of understanding what a quote is, and so perhaps I can understand what your objection to quoting is. It doesn't mean just putting the OPPOSITE of what someone actually says inside quotation marks, it means that what is in the quotation marks is word for word what they did say.Lynn Wysong 23:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SheriWysong (talk • contribs)

• First off, without doing something like using strikeout and underlining to show what's being changed, it is difficult to put up side by side windows to see the before and after versions. Such mass edits are confusing everyone. Montanabw 22:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this better?:

Numbers

According to historian J. Frank Dobie "No scientific estimates of their (mustangs in the western U.S.) numbers was made...All guessed numbers are mournful to history. My own guess is that at no time were there more than a million mustangs in Texas and no more than a million others scattered over the remainder of the West." During the late 1800s, most of these were moved north and east, or were removed for other reasons until, by 1934, there was just "a few wild horses in Nevada, Wyoming and other Western states". Because mustang numbers can double every four years, and horses were no longer needed, for the most part, for their "horsepower", under the auspices of the Taylor Grazing Act federal land management agencies, that only recognized the value of cattle and sheep, (edit: with which the horses were competing for the forage) told ranchers they must remove their horses from the public rangelands. Thereafter, they began to round them up by the thousands for extermination because they even though many ranchers objected to the eradication of "their" horses.. Lynn Wysong 14:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

1. Dobie, The Mustangs pp. 108-109
2. Dobie, The Mustangs p. 321
3. Gorey, Tom (January 28, 2015). "Quick Facts". Bureau of Land Management. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
4. Amaral, Anthony. Mustang Life and Legends of Nevada's Wild Horses. Reno: University of Nevada Press, (1977) pages 139-141),

HA! figured out why my signature didn't work right!Lynn Wysong (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

How do you keep the footnotes in the same section as the text? When DrChrissy put her's in, they stayed in the section, but when I copied and pasted a subsection, they went to the bottom of the talk page.

Wow! After reading through some of the archived discussions from a few weeks ago, I had no idea what a hornet's nest I had walked into. So, I can see why there was some, what I thought was unwarranted, hostility. I assure everyone here, that I'm here in good faith, that I have never had another account, and any blunders are due to the fact that the only other articles I ever edited (basically wrote) were biographies of obscure, long dead people, and didn't realize how easy it can be to step on toes. That being said, I have done extensive research on this subject (especially the history), and am aware of all the politics, and how they influence the writing of a page. So lets try to move forward and all learn from each other. I considered myself pretty well versed on this subject, but have already learned some things that are giving me a different viewpoint on some issues. (four tildes coming)Lynn Wysong (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

That being said, I'm trying really hard to get this so that it's well written and accurate, and that everyone agrees is neutral. So I keep going back and editing it. Now what does everyone think?

Numbers

According to historian J. Frank Dobie "No scientific estimates of their (mustangs in the western U.S.) numbers was made...All guessed numbers are mournful to history. My own guess is that at no time were there more than a million mustangs in Texas and no more than a million others scattered over the remainder of the West." During the late 1800s, most of these were moved north and east, or were removed for other reasons until, by 1934, there was just "a few wild horses in Nevada, Wyoming and other Western states". Because horses were no longer needed, for the most part, for their "horsepower", so were no longer being removed by the ranchers to sell and use for such, and ,since mustang numbers can double every four years, under the auspices of the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act federal land management agencies, that were issuing permits for the grazing of cattle and sheep, with which the horses were competing for the forage, told ranchers they must remove their horses from the public rangelands. Thereafter, they began to round them up by the thousands for extermination even though many ranchers objected to the eradication of "their" horses.. Lynn Wysong (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

1. Dobie, The Mustangs pp. 108-109
2. Dobie, The Mustangs p. 321
3. Gorey, Tom (January 28, 2015). "Quick Facts". Bureau of Land Management. Retrieved March 1, 2015.
4. Amaral, Anthony. Mustang Life and Legends of Nevada's Wild Horses. Reno: University of Nevada Press, (1977) pages 139-141),

I think it is also important to reflect, that by saying "removing thousands" it wasn't because there was hundreds of thousands to begin with. My own "guess" that what Dobie meant by "a few" was well under 100,000, probably less than 50,000. But, just saying, if there was 100,000 and the population was doubling every four years, 25,000 horses a year could be removed, and with other die off the population would slowly dwindle down to the 17,300 the BLM estimated in 1971.Lynn Wysong (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this. From my side I feel it has a lot of language and not enough clear cut information per an encyclopedia. My comment below explains my position more.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC))

I agree, it doesn't read very well yet.Lynn Wysong (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

How about this:

"No scientific estimates of their (mustangs in the western U.S.) numbers was made...My own guess is that at no time were there more than a million mustangs in Texas and no more than a million others scattered over the remainder of the West." During the late 1800s, most of these were moved north and east, or were removed for other reasons until, by 1934, there was just "a few wild horses in Nevada, Wyoming and other Western states". As motorized vehicles and tractors became commonplace, horse populations were no longer being kept in check by the ranchers removing them for sell and use, and after decades of unregulated cattle, sheep and horse grazing, the range was becoming overgrazed. Upon passage of the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act federal land management agencies, that were issuing permits for the grazing of cattle and sheep, told ranchers they must remove their horses from the public rangelands because they were competing for the forage. Many ranchers left their horses on the range, and the BLM and the US Forest Service began to round them up by the thousands for extermination even though many ranchers objected to the eradication of "their" horses. Lynn Wysong (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

1. Dobie, The Mustangs pp. 108-109
2. Dobie, The Mustangs p. 321
3. Amaral, Anthony. Mustang Life and Legends of Nevada's Wild Horses. Reno: University of Nevada Press, (1977) pages 139-141),

OK, I am open to improving this article; I have long wanted to take it to GA. I acknowledge it is not yet ready for GAN, but it won't be until the article is stable. But, the above wall of text is just drama. So, I'm pretty much ignoring the tl;dr of User:SheriWysong (signing herself as "Lynn Wysong") as it's all second verse to what she was doing at Talk:Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971‎ that got that article protected. By trying to insert material here she can't get in there, Wysong is "WP:ASKing the other parent" - Wysong continually keeps trying to insert the same badly formatted, irrelevant, and improperly sourced material here that she could not get into the legislation article (which got locked down due to her edit-warring). Because this user has a bad habit of playing fast and loose with the facts (see below) and loves to copy and paste long passages from other writers (see below), I am going to only address the actual status of the article as last edited by Dr.Chrissy. Here's what we have:

1. Parenthetical comments in article body text is just bad writing.
2. Don't need all the long, dramatic "mournful to history" quotes from Dobie, a summary is fine
3. You can't WP:SYNTHesize "Because mustang numbers can double every four years" with "they were rounded up in large numbers." That wasn't the reason.
4. The history and ancestry sections probably need to be integrated better, I can see the value of moving the Przewalski horse bit to ancestry, just don't want people to think they are actually ancestors; the point is that the horse was extinct on the North America mainland between c. 10,000 BC and the arrival of the Spanish c. 1500, and it was these Spanish Colonial Horses that are the ancestors of most Mustangs. I reverted, but mostly due to the need to revert everything else. I am open to that particular move, but perhaps with some general improvment of both sections. Thoughts?

So. I'm open to concrete suggestions, not endless, lyric, unencyclopedic paragraphs filled with bad writing. Montanabw 21:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I think what we have to know clearly first is what are we trying to say. What is the information we want in the article? Then we need to say that in a straight froward way.There is no reason for a long quote or quote of any kind in my opinion, and especially that the language of an older source is somewhat archaic. Further, I consider BLM a reliable source for information on numbers in this article given they have more exacting ways of ascertaining numbers than was the case 70 years ago.

I agree we have to make sure language in encyclopedic, and to watch out for and not include WP:OR, Its tempting to add conjecture but not appropriate in an encyclopedia.

I don't mind entering this discussion again now that edit warring is not a possibility and hopefully things can be friendlier. I am not attached to anything except a good article.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC))

The earliest numbers the BLM has is for 1971. So, if you want them before that time in history, Dobie is your best bet. Since there was probably not a significant decline in numbers between 1934 and 1971, maybe it doesn't matter. But the only other known credible estimates are in the 1977 Amaral book. Lynn Wysong (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

So,there's this alternative:

No known "scientific" estimates of the population of feral horses was made until 1971 (BLM). The only known population estimates for where the horses are currently found are for Nevada, where Velma Bronn Johnston campaigned and where almost half the horses subject to the Act are currently found. Anthony Amaral estimated that, at their peak in 1900, there were 100,000 feral horses in that State (Amaral, page 24), based on Rufus Steele's assertion that there was 70,000 in 1911. Horse numbers were declining because ranchers removed them from the range to free up forage for their sheep and cattle. Lynn Wysong (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is what I want: a history that reflects that the maximum number of horses that once roamed were not where they are now. Because, it needs to be understood that the Great Basin desert, where most of them are now, would never have been able to support the number that Texas and the Great Plains did. I don't want to get into a big argument about the horses vs the cows, but the reality is that when the early explorers crossed the Great Basin, they didn't see any wild horses, nor buffalo. Just antelope, and maybe elk and deer up in the mountains, and not that many of those. It is not good habitat for large ungulates without man's intervention and management. The Indians along the fringes of the Great Basin had some horses, but not in the interior. So horses never adapted there like they did on the plains.Lynn Wysong (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you see that all of this is original research. Its conjecture. I don't have time to look at this for a few days but will.....I'm somewhat alarmed when an editor says, this is what I want.... this is a collaborative community and that kind of statement moves against collaboration. What this article must reflects is not what any of us wants but rather what we have in the sources.That's it.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC))

I concur. And another editor has already said in this thread "I am open to concrete suggestions...". Both editors should consider they are showing almost indefensible signs of WP:ownership.__DrChrissy (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess I don't have a problem with an editor saying I'm open. Hopefully we're all open. Let's move beyond personal comments, and I apologize if I opened the door for that kind of discussion.(Littleolive oil (talk) 05:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC))

• This discussion is now moot: . Looks like Wysong was a sockpuppet account trolling this page. And given the amount of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR being proposed, I would be grateful is someone other than me would kindly archive this discussion. I am open to concrete suggestions to improve the article - the above tl;dr was not it. Montanabw 07:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

"the report of my death was an exaggeration." Block gone, Apology made, and we move on. I just wanted to clarify the paragraph about what "I want". When Littleolive said: "I think what we have to know clearly first is what are we trying to say." I was trying to clarify my perspective, which is to try to prevent what I see as misleading information, or at least give the "alternate" history to what a lot of people think: that there were two million wild horses in the U.S. in 1900 (which is where we started will all this) located where they are now, and that over the ensuing 75 years, they were all rounded up and sent to slaughter. The actual history is not that simple. I know that the history needs to be concise, and a long drawn explanation not feasible, so it's very tricky to get the wording right so as to not perpetuate a distorted history. So, yes, what I wrote in the paragraph may be original research, but I can back up every word of it. I wasn't suggesting putting it the article, just saying that what is put into the article should not imply that something else happened.Lynn Wysong (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The only information we can give or use is what is in the sources. So what we have to have is a source that specifically supports every piece of content. If we are looking at numbers we need to have a source that specifically says there were 1900 horses, a source that says "they were all rounded up..." (which can hardly be true since all is a definitive... as an aside). Its not just that the history must be concise, it must be supported very specifically by sources. We can't tack together pieces of information to create something new or prove something else or to make a point.

If we are talking about numbers per dates we need sources for each number on that date. In 1900 how many horses were there, in 197i, today. That's all we can say. If a source tells us why there were these numbers we can say that too....We cannot say unless sourced that there were X number of horses in 1900 and Y number in 1971 and since mustangs breed in a certain way and since ranchers rounded many up, that's why there were fewer horses in 1971... This is just an example, but what this is is WP:OR and speculation and is not encyclopedic. One might write a research paper this way but not an encyclopedia where what we are doing is dealing with what is in sources.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC))

I understand the concept, LittleOlive. But, whereas Misplaced Pages policy does discourage original research, it also says that those policies are not written in stone, and that if it improves an article to do some minor analysis, that's okay. I think this would be a good example of that, rather provide isolated pieces of raw data with nothing to tie them together, provide an explanation even though there may not be a source that explicitly does so. Lynn Wysong (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I mean, isn't that why Misplaced Pages is open to everyone? To hopefully draw in subject matter experts who can assess whether the information is portrayed accurately and provide bridges for some of the gaps in information?Lynn Wysong (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

P.P.S. (See, I told you this would be really annoying) https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research Lynn Wysong (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but I would say no across the board. A core pillar of WP and of sourcing is that the content can be verified. What you are suggesting is not verifiable. I would never agree to it and you should have consensus to ignore all rules which is what you are suggesting. The "concept" protects an encyclopedia from opinion rather than verified information and what you are describing is an opinion.

WP is open to anyone so everyone can take part. Its not open to anyone so editors can add opinions, and with out verifiable information.

I am concerned because you are trying to push that opinion into this article. I would suggest going back to the sources and working from there. (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC))

I'm sorry, could you please be specific about you believe to be my opinion? Maybe I could better reference sources. Did you read the link I provided? Lynn Wysong (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)