Talk:Brumby/Archive 1

Stuff to add?
This material was added to the feral horse article, but was removed because it ws extreme POV and what wasn't fits better here. However, it also isn't terribly well written, so am putting it here in case some editor of this article finds something useful that is worth adding to the brumby article. Thanks Montanabw 19:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC) (I didn't write this, I'm just the messenger...) The feral horse also known as the Brumby was introduced to N.S.W., from the United Kingdoms, on the First Fleet with other introduced species. But, from 1788 the feral horses roamed all over the other Australian States or Region. In the centre of Australia, feral horses can graze large amounts of land because they travel up to 50 kilometres to search for food. The feral horses degrade or erode areas which are close to waterholes, which cause critical endurance of many native animals and plants. With the need of food sources the native plants and animals can become locally extinct. The feral horses always compete for food and water with native animals and other feral animals. But, because of that the horse has always been more dominant than many other native animals, because of their speed and has always eaten or destroyed grass and other vegetation mainly from the wombat, kangaroo, and bilby, which explains a little problem why the bilby is now endangered. Despite their reason for introduction, the feral horses have no positive impact in environment and are major pests that cause many native animals and plants to suffer.

The NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service has commenced a plan to reduce brumby numbers by passive trapping in the Oxley Wild Rivers NP. Ref. "Draft Feral Horse Management Plan", January, 2006 Cgoodwin 06:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Toss that in, I'll wordsmith. Put the tags on either side of your source and you will be good to go! Montanabw (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Disambig
Following discussion with various rugby union people it was decided to have its own link on the Brumby page. Londo 06  20:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Then does it need the disambiguation link, do you think? It seems a bit odd to have the only two pages link to each other and link to a disambiguation page which only covers the two already linked to - three pages where two would do.  Just trying to avoid redundant links. I'm a rugby union person (I go to every Brumbies home game) and good rugby is all about simplicity ;-)  --Ossipewsk (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I cannot claim to have seen the Brumbies at Canberra Stadium but it is fairly common for clubs nicknames, emblems or logos to be directly linked off a main article page rather than through disambiguation. Londo  06  20:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As one of the horse articles editors, I could not care less about the issue, but note that the article Cowboy just links to a disambig page, in spite of the fame of the USA Dallas Cowboys American football team, and the article Mustang also just links to a disambig page in spite of the fame of the car model known as the Ford Mustang as probably a couple dozen minor-league teams named the "Mustangs" in various sports. So all I can say is that usual wiki protocol is to just have as simple a disambig link as possible, though occasional exceptions get made for things like edit wars, move wars, etc... How about someone cite to the wikipedia guidelines and follow the consensus as to best practice?   Montanabw (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Montanabw. I agree the single disambig link is all that is needed - and grateful that you point out the precedent/policy for similar situations.  I've looked at the Disambiguation and Hatnotes pages.  The current situation is not covered precisely, but it's pretty clear that the use of a Hatnote (which is what the extra non-disambiguation line is) in addition to a Dismabiguation link is superfluous and discouraged.  Anyway, having them both makes whoever put in the hatnote look like they're unsure of what they're linking to.  Londo06, are you able to take Montanabw's advice onboard and that the disambiguation link addresses your comment that "it is fairly common for clubs nicknames, emblems or logos to be directly linked off a main article page", as that approach seems to be different from usual practice?  --Ossipewsk (talk) 02:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation?
Just a thought: is it worth including one of those phonetic pronounciation guides here? I'm just curious as to how you say "brumbies" (either the animal or the rugby team!). Do you pronounce the second 'b'? -- MLD · T · C · @: 14:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you definitely do pronounce the second b in the word brumby. Also, by the way, the noun is spelled pronunciation, you lose the second o.Philryan (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments
Firstly the statement that there were brumbies in the Kimberley in 1840 is very unlikely as it is a very remote area and was not traversed by explorers until about 1879, almost 40 years later. We also need to remember that kangaroos also make tracks, too, although many refuse to acknowledge this. In the mountain areas and national parks there stock such as horses and cattle in controlled numbers reduce the fuel build up that leads to the hugely destructive fires that have taken hold in places such as around Canberra and Victoria in recent years. These fires destroyed plants, habitat and animals and somes fires were then followed by devastating floods and erosion caused by a lack of vegetation. Cgoodwin (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Feel free to dive in and dispute, rewrite or toss any of that new material. Someone else wrote it and put it into both feral horse and horse Dana and I both tossed it from those articles per WP:UNDUE, and I pitched it here as the best place for it.  As far as I can tell, the material is very POV, comes from only two main sources and makes it sound like brumbies are the reason civilization as we know it is coming to an end--even worse than rabbits!  LOL!  Had the material been placed in Mustang (horse), I would have thrown it out as blatent POV, as it sounds like typical anti-mustang propaganda here, but I don't know much on the ecological impacts of brumbies in AU, so figured I'd leave it for others to fight over.  It's all yours. mate!   Montanabw (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I realize that there may or may not be scientific evidence on the claims of brumbies in the Kimberley in 1840, but consider that horses start breeding in wild by about 3yo, and that the first documented release of horses to the wild was 1804. Yes, horses were valuable to the early Australian colonists, and so maybe not many were let go, but it only takes a few to start a breeding colony. In other words, it doesn't take settlement or travel by white man explorers for wild horses to be able to spread.Philryan (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no clue on any of this for AU, I just cut and pasted the stuff from another article where it clearly didn't belong. If you and Cgoodwin think it's questionable or not properly cited, work it out with good source material and otherwise do as you see fit.  I was just the messenger and have no ownership of the content.


 * However, based on what happened in the USA, domesticated horses back in the 'day were often allowed to grow up in a semi-feral state, particularly where pasture was poor and they had to roam far and wide to get enough to eat. When the annual roundup occurred, it was common for a few to go missing. (Escaping to the wild, being stolen by others, dying, etc...)  However, as far as herds spreading, they wouldn't go too far each generation, as first they have to develop sufficient population to break into multiple herds with multiple territories, then overrun existing range, etc.  In the US, most of the various Mustang herds are actually quite distinct genetically -- herds from, say, Montana can be easily distinguished both by DNA and by visible phenotype from those somewhere like northern Nevada.  The root stock were different animals - brought by settlers of different regions. (or, in the USA, also distributed by Native American people who either stole or traded for horses with both whites and one another).  So while I don't know the geography of rural AU well enough to have an opinion on the Kimberly issue, I will say that natural distribution is generally a whole lot slower and more limited in geographic scope than is distribution via human exploration or settlement.   Montanabw (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Would like to add that in Central Arizona wild horses were call´d Brombys or Broomies. Ryttar, 8 Dec. 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryttar (talk • contribs) 20:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That was short for "Broomtails." And it referred to Mustangs.  Different ancestry than Australian Brumbies, but interesting.   Montanabw (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

GA
I have jumped in and nominated this for GA. Hope that I have not done the wrong thing?Cgoodwin (talk) 05:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope, go for it, and good luck, but brace for impact! When I take stuff to GA, I practically have to live with the article for a week and scramble madly to fix sources and make a lot of decisions whether to fight to defend something that is questioned, or just say "OK" and change it.  If you get in a fix, call on Dana (the Queen of equine GA) for help if you need it!  (She's gotten so good at fixing things ahead of time that hers now fly through!)   I'll keep an eye on things too.  Ealdgyth is the goddess of sources (and also has many GAs and FAs), so if you get in trouble there, ask her to help.   Montanabw (talk) 06:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just as a quick comment, you may want to add publishers to your web sources. Some reviewers ask for them (I usually do), some don't - it's usually just easier to do them in advance rather than trying to scramble during the actual GA review if the reviewer turns out to be anal like me :) Good luck on the GA, and let me know if you would like help with anything. Dana boomer (talk) 13:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Fact tags and the new content
I think the stuff that has just been tagged with the "fact" template all comes from the respective cites at the end of the paragraphs. If you can find the source, it's worth seeing if it is a) blatently one-sided POV itself and hence not reliable per WP:CITE and WP:V or b) misquoted by the editor who put it in, possibly "cherry picking" data or taking statements out of context. (I have seen this happen every now and then) The Nimmo piece in particular (which is the main cite used over and over again in that new material) seems to be kind of one-sided for an apparently scientific article...?

Also, based on what has worked for me in other controversial articles (like rodeo), what I'd do is find contrasting sources and edit some sections to do a "one side says X, but this is disputed by the other side, which says Y." Won't ever satisfy the fanatics and trolls, but it usually works with everyone else. You might want to see what was done (much by me - grin) in Mustang (horse) which has similar controversies to this article. Montanabw (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You have improved the article, but Environmental impacts still sounds as though it was written by a "town greenie" in an airconditioned office. I have not noticed any brumby impact on eucalyptus trees and some of the other claims don't have any factual support. It is a difficult call and I'm uncertain as to how best to deal with it. Cgoodwin (talk) 03:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If there is any way to find the source material and check what it actually says against what is written, that would be ideal. On the other hand, the person who wrote all of this hasn't been back, so if you want to just toss the most dubious stuff, I sure won't kick because all I did was a copy and paste and have only been trying to wordsmith other than that.  My expertise is on American Mustangs, and the ecology of the Western US is different, thus as I don't know Australian ecological conditions well, I shall defer to you.  (but we get edits like this in Mustang too, which I usually just summarily toss )   Montanabw (talk) 05:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.ecoman.une.edu.au/staff/kvernes/Ashton.pdf

This is an honours study on the effects of bark chewing by feral horses on native trees, I quote "Bark chewing by the wild horses on the Red Range Plateau causes widespread and in some areas, intense, damage to eucalypt species." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.132.1.1 (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't like this phrase "disapproval is high amongst those that believe it is inhumane.[15]" That doesn't even make any sense! Why would those who believe it is inhumane approve of it, unless they were sickos? Shouldn't it say something about "Some believe it is inhumane" or "Disapproval for this practice is high due to the belief that it is inhumane"? I read that and well, the sentence made no sense. --Rubystars (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The flooding thing
OK gang, I restored the content that has been removed about the flooding issue, but to be fair to both sides, tagged the statement with the "dubious" tag. Per wikipedia guidelines, it is improper wikiquette to remove sourced material, but if questioned, it can be tagged and then discussed here. So I tagged it so it can be discussed here. I am not the Brumby habitat expert, so I'll play referee if needed, but this is the place to chat about it. OK, to your corners and no low blows! (smile)  Montanabw (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I been editing for a couple of years now, so it gets frustrating having to explain everything. The article in question:

"Fuel reduction, staff levels, logistics, training and damage compensation are expected to be the focus of the State Government bushfire inquiry. After releasing the terms of reference for the bushfire inquiry this week, Emergency Services Commissioner Bruce Esplin urged all those affected by the fires to make submissions. Mr Esplin told The Sunday Age that lessons learned from previous fires had taught Victoria's firefighters some valuable lessons and helped minimise the human cost of this summer's fires. "The inquiry is not being held because of any massive failure. Every time we have an emergency we will learn to do it better the next time," he said. During January and February, raging fires in Victoria's remote alpine and Gippsland areas burned almost 1.4 million hectares of public land, killing large numbers of livestock and wildlife, but only one human life was lost - a professional firefighter drowned in a flash flood. However, improvements could still be made, Mr Esplin said. It was clear that forest management and fuel reduction would be core areas of inquiry, he said. The VicNats and some unions have already been critical of the lower levels of fuel reduction - or controlled burning - in the state, blaming it partly on policy and partly on cutbacks in departmental firefighters, which have meant there were fewer trained professional firefighters available for forest management, Community and Public Sector Union state secretary Karen Batt said. While Mr Esplin said he hoped the inquiry would help develop ways to "fire-proof" Victoria, Australian Conservation Foundation campaign director John O'Connor said the public needed to "learn to live with fire". The ACF submission will also deal with issues including misinformation about where the fires started, criticism of the National Parks Association and the failure to acknowledge the impact of greenhouse pollution and climate change. Shire councils, individual farmers, the CFA, the Victorian Farmers Federation and many other groups are also expected to make submissions to Mr Esplin in coming months. The inquiry has already attracted criticism: firstly, that Mr Esplin, as Emergency Services Commissioner, is not sufficiently independent of government to hold the inquiry, and secondly that Mr Esplin is unable to accept verbal submissions. While Mr Esplin refused to comment on the politics of the inquiry, he dismissed the criticism about verbal submissions in public hearings, saying he expected to talk to people in the fire-affected areas about the issues. Mr Esplin's report is due for release in September, but will be preceded by the Auditor-General's inquiry into fire management and prevention by government departments. The report was commissioned a year ago and is due to be released within two months.It will cover areas such as back-burning, forest access, fire restrictions and fire training. The commissioner said he expected to look closely at the Auditor-General's report and would also be co-ordinating with the coroner's inquest on the death of the female firefighter last month."

- "Inquiry takes on lessons of fires", KIRSTY SIMPSON, LIZ GOOCH, and STEPHEN MOYNIHAN


 * Makes no mention of horses or flooding. Ottre 02:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Put simply “no fuel no fire” and in this context brumbies may help reduce the fuel load that was previously reduced by the now removed cattle and cattlemen that regularly held controlled burns in parks and forests. Logging, too, now has been restricted and/or stopped in many places. There have been complaints from hikers and others concerning overgrowth and weeds in areas where there are now no livestock, including brumbies. As for the 2003 Victorian bushfire it is a FACT that it was followed by severe flooding in areas where water had not flowed before. The other references all make mention of this flooding.

“The last person to try to make sense of it was the current Emergency Services Commissioner, Bruce Esplin. After the Alpine fires of 2002-03, Esplin found that between 1988 and 1998, the government’s fuel reduction burning - low-intensity fires that remove flammable bush build-up such as bark and leaf litter - had dropped off.” Unfortunately there will probably more dialog along these lines again with little positive action again. Cgoodwin (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Flooding is an established consequence of wildfire, especially in the year immediately following the wildfire. --Una Smith (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

as what Ottre said above, the references makes no mention of horses or flooding or horses and fire, in fact the word 'horse' or 'brumby' cannot be found anywhere in those articles. To link A=B=C would be the same as stating that the Black-striped wallaby is endangered due to feral horses overgrazing in it's habitat. You cannot just make up connections like that. If you want to leave that unreferenced statement in the article, then we should be allowed to add some statements about endangered wallabies being wiped out due to feral horses, as I can find plenty of reliable references stating that certain Wallaby species are endangered due to loss of habitat, and feral horses overgraze, therefore causing loss of habitat. See how A=B=C in my case too?Kelly2357 (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Balance concerns
I've commented above and one point raised is the issue over balance between feral pest vs heritage and conservation, not specifically related to usefulness in reducing fuel lad there is coverage of postive aspects and pro brumby groups like in Outrage over brumbies hit squad and there was some similar issues in WA but having problems tracking that down atm. Gnangarra 13:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, not much using "Web of Science" tool either. I need to read fulltext of Nimmo article mentioned before I comment further (and get the darn book from teh library) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate everyone's work on this. What strikes me is the cultural side of things, whereas in the USA it's horses versus cattle, in Au it's cattle and horses lumped together.  Anyone for moderation in all things?  I toned down a few adjectives in the article edits, and I really must insist upon using the less inflammatory terms where possible.   Montanabw (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Animal Welfare? The RSPCA is an animal welfare group, The RSPCA condone the culling of feral horses, so the statement that animal welfare groups are opposed does not make sense. "Animal rights groups have criticised the RSPCA for condoning recent horse kills." http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/the-killing-fields/story-e6frereo-1111114841138 I have also restored possible vandalism. I saw that some good information (that was correctly referenced) had been removed for no reason? Lisahow (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but I happen to be one of the major contributors to this article. I do not vandalize articles and as an editor of over four years' experience, your comment violates AGF and is personally quite insulting. I changed the terminology because "Animal Rights" implies nutcase groups like PETA and is an insult to the groups favoring Brumbies (some of whom appear to be affiliated with the cattle industry, hardly bunny-huggers).  To the best of my knowledge, I did not remove sourced information, rather I restored some.  There were some blatently POV terms used that are simply not appropriate for an encyclopedia where NPOV is the standard.  We can certainly  debate if different groups have different views, but it is clear that to imply that Brumbies are all evil and of no use at all is quite serious POV and a very unbalanced view.   Montanabw (talk) 03:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we remove the whole sentence relating to this then, as nothing is mentioned in the referenced article about 'animal welfare' groups. The article only mentions 'animal rights' groups. The RSPCA are an animal welfare group, the biggest in Australia, and they are NOT opposed to the culling of feral horses. Can you please elaborate on what POV terms you believe were used as I am having trouble finding them. Lisahow (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, nothing is mentioned about 'animal welfare' groups, only 'animal rights' groups. Either remove the whole sentence referring to animal welfare, or replace it with 'animal rights' as the reference correctly states. Kelly2357 (talk) 04:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Your sources sound "tabloidy" in tone. We can state that the RSPCA favors culling, while "Save the Brumbies" is opposed.  Naming the specific groups may be superior to fighting over labels..."Animal Rights" implies the belief that animals have equal rights to humans (at least according to the wiki article) and hence that label distorts the positions of the pro-Brumby groups, who seem to favor rehoming and such (not that animal rights groups don't also join the pile-on).  To say that the numbers of Brumbies rehomed is "low" in the lead also appears abitrary...who did a poll? What sort of numbers are out there? It is mentioned later in the article, doesn't need to be beaten to death.  And to say "horse lovers and animal rights" is condescending and belittling, not at all NPOV.   Montanabw (talk) 06:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Brumbies reduce bushfires ?
I have never heard of this statement and cannot find any studies or papers that link a Brumbies grazing habits to an decreased risk of bushfires. The links that were previously given contained no reference to Brumbies or wild horses.

I suggest removing this unreferenced and unheard of statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelly2357 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Kelly, you need to STOP now. This is not a "be bold" situation.  This article has been carefully worked on by a number of experienced editors to reach Good Article status, as well as to have a proper Neutral point of view and your wholesale rewrite is not appropriate here.  You need to discuss your concerns, make proper use of  tags and explain why your source material is suitable and RECOMMEND what should be added.  In fact, the material you criticize IS sourced -- the intro lacks footnotes because the material it summarize is all reproduced, with footnotes, in the body of the text.  If you read the whole article, you will see the footnotes and can review them for yourself. But discuss your proposed changes here before you go barging in and change an article that you clearly didn't even bother to read in its entirety before you began chopping it to bits.   Montanabw (talk) 07:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It is actually a complex situation as at teh same time an introduced/feral species regarded as a pest by many and a cultural icon by many others. I haven't had a chance to look through the two versions fully and need to do so as I think it merits investigation. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for being bold, but this wiki is not very well written and seems to not follow a NPOV. The writing style here is WP:UNDUE - People that think Brumbys contribute something POSITIVE to the Australian environment are a small minority. WP:UNDUE - "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all."

Do not get me wrong, I love horses, but the feral horse population in Australia is a major environmental issue that should be outlined more in this wiki.

The Brumby and bushfire link is unheard off, I even asked a couple of my environmental scientist mates and they had heard nothing of the sort. I have removed this statement as it has no references and sounds like some sort of fringe theory, see WP:FRINGE. To link A=B=C would be the same as stating that the Black-striped wallaby is endangered due to feral horses overgrazing in it's habitat. You cannot just make up links like that. - - - Kelly2357 (talk) 02:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Kelly, you have now removed sourced material! The rule is DISCUSS, then edit. You are edit warring that this need to stop.  Now.  There was a perfectly legitimate source there.  There IS evidence for that position, and, clearly, "talking to your mates" is not research. There are equal arguments for Brumbies as valued and Brumbies as pests.  (We have a similar dispute in the USA over Mustangs and equally heated opinions)  We can explain both sides but you need to respect existing material and the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate that what is to be added is needed.  Per WP:MOS you don't put footnotes in the lead when they are sourced elsewhere in the article.  There MIGHT be a place for you to CAREFULLY add additional material. But you are making no friends to go in and trash an article that met GA standard by people who were neutral on the topic.   Montanabw (talk) 03:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

"There IS evidence for that position" - can you please provide this evidence? Otherwise this will statement will keep on being challenged & removed. It seems like a fringe theory. Other users have previously discussed this in talk - there is no mention of wild horses or brumbies in ANY of those references. Cgoodwin & yourself are the editors that made this a GA article, both of you are horse lovers and over 95% of your wiki edits are related to horses - hardly neutral on the topic wouldn't you agree? "There MIGHT be a place for you to CAREFULLY add additional material" - I am sorry, but you do not 'own' the article - Information relevant to Brumbies may be added by ANYONE at ANYTIME, people are not required to go to the talk page to discuss it with you everytime they make an edit.Kelly2357 (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh Kelly, you would be VERY unwise to use that other editor's comments as support, she has been blocked (more than once) for tenditious editing against consensus. You really don't want to go down that road, dearie! I will review the source material myself and get back to you with some thoughts. However, the burden is not on us, the burden is on YOU to demonstrate that Brumbies are, as you claim, utterly useless pests that apparently should be completely exterminated.  So where's your proof?   Montanabw (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Montana asked me to comment here. I can't offer an entirely independent opinion, because I've had disputes with Kelly before in similar situations, but I can offer a second opinion for whatever it's worth. It's hard to see exactly what the issue is, so if someone could explain, I'll try to make a suggestion.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 03:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue of feral horses in Oz is a vexed one - my loading time is insanely slow, but SV look at the segmente removed by Kelly in the past four or five revisions - one issue is whether a source (ref 27 on this version) adequately references the sentence it purports to. The other is how much adverse enviroemental impact to put in the lede. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Preliminary Assessment
 * I am comparing the article as it was prior to your first edit to what it was when you edited and then asked to have the article locked here:
 * 1) Statement 1: "People that think Brumbys contribute something POSITIVE to the Australian environment are a small minority."  Where is your polling data?  Please provide a source. But also, what does polling info prove other than what popular opinion is?  And does this mean we exclude minority views?   (But if you have polling data, it might make an interesting addition to the article)  Here we are talking two sentences sandwiched in between data giving the other side  Montanabw (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) "hardly neutral on the topic wouldn't you agree?" No, I do not agree. The article is balanced as it was:  It mentioned that Brumbies may be viewed as pests, and Cg actually put in TONS of stuff on their negative impacts, but to be balanced, mentioned there may be some positive aspects too.  You seem to want the article to say that they are all negative and there is nothing positive about feral horses at all -- or am I misunderstanding your views?     Montanabw (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) The issue appears to be if grazing animals reduce fuels and thus reduce brushfire risk, and specifically if grazing horses might be of use, particularly feral grazing horses. Have I outlined the "horns of the dilemma" properly? If so, even a cursory Google search shows plenty of articles suggesting that grazing animals in general reduces fire risk in some areas at some times, but that it's controversial and not without potential environmental problems.  So to be, that suggests we need to mention this view.  For example, Here's a link to an abstract about horses grazing firebreaks in Italy, found a lot of stuff in the US like this -- will take more research on Au (found material on cattle grazing in Australia to reduce brushfire risk, it is controversial, I see) but clearly there is information to look for.  Montanabw (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Source analysis: Please note that I was not the editor of the section in question, so I am not "owning" my own work here.  I am assessing the work of the other editor, who, yes, I tend to support, though we have not always agreed on everything.   The SIX sources used for the most disputed material are as follows.  Montanabw (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/22/1047749985031.html :This is a news article on brushfires and suggests that reducing fuel loads is probably a good idea, but there aren't enough people or enough money to do as much as is needed. Shows that wildfires are a problem, fuel reduction might help. Montanabw (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-01-27-aussie-fires_x.htm This is another news article that discusses that fires occurred and did a lot of damage.   Montanabw (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/water/rivers/docs/ovens_catchment_report.pdf This is an article on flash flooding.  Verifies that flash flooding occurs after a fire, why it occurs and why it is a bad thing.  Montanabw (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) dead link, found one link via wayback machine (used widely on wiki to preserve otherwise dead links) at   This is another article on brushfires and flooding, discussing all the related problems linked to climate change.  Talks about policy issues in broad langauge, no mention of grazing issues. Nice piece, by the way.   Montanabw (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 5)   Dead link, found wayback link at here  Newsletter that contains some articles on flooding after brushfires and the bad things that happen to water quality.  Montanabw (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) dead link
 * So far, I hope we are in agreement on the following: 1) Brushfires happen  2)  Brushfires are bad  3) Flooding occurs due to brushfires 4) Flooding is bad.  5)  Fuel reduction may help reduce brushfires.  So far, so good?  Montanabw (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Now, the rest:
 * 1)  dead link, found one link via wayback machine (used widely on wiki to preserve otherwise dead links) at  I'm home on a dialup and it's not loading, so may have to check this tomorrow.  Or someone else can.  04:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)   Dead link, searching wayback machine generates several links, Same slow dialup problem.  Will review w/in next 24 hrs or so.  Montanabw (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) [http://www.oesc.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/OESC/resources/file/eb460a49d5c6fd9/Dr%20Amanda%20Lynch%20-%20Adaptation%20in%20the%20Face%20of%20Extremes%20-%20PART%204.pdf this is another dead link, wayback couldn't generate a new version. Appears to be another article by Amanda Lynch.


 * Here is another which mentions brumbies and bushfires: here. It is only commonsense that the increased fuel loads will enevitably lead to bushfires and an increase in weeds etc. One has only to visit areas where livestock have been removed to see this. I enjoy the bush and N Parks, but have been frustrated to see land locked away and allowed to degenerate in many cases, into wild weed infested country. Marsupials too will not graze in the long rank areas, but will seek out sweeter, shorter grasslands. It is a pity that the greenies have not seen more of the results that ensue from livestock removal and these lockups. Cgoodwin (talk) 06:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * See? (grin) Cg and I aren't a monolithic unit -- by USA standards, at least, I AM a greenie! ;-) But I still agree with Cg that the opposition to feral horses in appropriate terrain and managed numbers is not automatically a problem. (We need more scientific sources, though... can you re-find those articles that now have dead links...we had insufficient bibliographic cites for me to do a new search other than via wayback..)    Montanabw (talk) 07:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Upon review of the literature presented in footnotes, what we have is pretty good evidence that brushfires occur, that brushfires can be linked to flooding, and that both are undesirable. The lockdown removed a reference to Brumbies grazing down hiking paths that was in a newspaper article that had no web link. I accept that link as AGF accurate for what it says, though it would be cool if there WERE a URL for it. My recommendation is that we add some additional source material showing that animal grazing may have a role to play in reducing wildfire risk and discuss the weight of the evidence. We really are only talking about the inclusion of one or two sentences here, so I really don't see a WP:UNDUE problem with an attempt to balance the article. So, on that note, I did some digging and propose a review of the following sources (more to come):
 * My assessment
 * 1)  Excerpt from a book discussing an experiment in Galacia where horse grazing of forest understory reduced fire risk.
 * 2) Another European study showing that horse grazing in certain types of firebreaks helps reduce fire risk.
 * 3) USA source stating that grazing in grasslands reduces fire risk. See page 13.
 * 4) real clearly-written appendix to larger work, stating that grazing, where appropriate, is a tool for "biological fuel reduction."
 * 5) Another article explaining that livestock grazing reduces fuel load and fire risk.  Montanabw (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

What we appear to have beneath all this is a political issue in Australia centered around CATTLE grazing in sensitive alpine terrain, with graziers arguing that cattle grazing reduces fire risk, while the other side says there is no evidence for this. Article mostly on domestic cattle grazing in alpine areas in Au and the associated problems. Doesn't mention Brumbies and little on horses other than past history of overgrazing. Montanabw (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC) The position of the other side is outlined in what appears to be a blog entry (yes, I know it's a blog entry) here. Would be nice to find the pdf the fellow submitted, would pass WP:V. Montanabw (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Follow up: Found some suporting docs: toc of report, mostly about cattle. Clearly a political hot potato. Montanabw (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe the contested material can be restored if additional sources are added and existing sources are consolidated (they are repetitive, I think we can use one good one and may not need all five that are still live) I have not found specific scientific studies addressing Brumbies or horse-grazing in Australia, other than general mentions that horses or feral horses have contributed to historic overgrazing in the past, in articles discussing modern problems with cattle. However, there are abundant studies from other parts of the world that suggest that grazing, including that of horses, in the right place at the right time, can be beneficial for reduction of fuel loads and thus reduced risk of certain kinds of fire. I have also noticed that there is conflict all over the world on the role of feral horses, their competition with cattle and/or wildlife, the desirability of cattle grazing in sensitive areas, etc. So the "are they pests or are they of benefit?" question is not confined to Australia. Because Cg has some evidence that there exists an argument in Australia that favors Brumbies as grazing animals that can help keep down tall grass and thus reduce fire risk, (whether a minority view or not doesn't really matter) and because this is backed by evidence in other countries, may I suggest that the deleted material be restored with some altered wording that basically places each fact with each source, something along the lines of: "brushfires are a worry in Australia (cite). Brushfires may lead to flooding and other problems (specify and cite).  Grazing cattle and horses in appropriate areas may reduce fuel loads and decrease fire risk (cite).  Certain people (explain who) support the presence of grazing Brumbies to accomplish this purpose.(cite)"  This sentence would still be sandwiched between the material stating the potential problems brumbies cause. I'd also restore the words "may" instead of the more imperative language Kelly inserted -- clearly, grazing horses-- brumbies or otherwise -- don't inevitably damage the land everywhere; only if the wrong land, if the wrong time or if overgrazing. Thoughts? Montanabw (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Conclusion


 * comment saw this discussion via a talk page message left for User:Casliber and thought I'd have a look. The suggestion that Brumbies reduce fire fuel loads is not supported by one citeable reliable source but by a compilation of sources which are studies about cattle, studies overseas issues and a blog. That to me is an analysis of published material that isnt advanced by the sources, such analysis' doesnt belong on Wikipedia. The solution rests not in chosing the number, type, placement of sources required to write a neutral paragraph but in finding at least a single relaible source that has already done the analysis of the proposition (brumby grazing reduces fuel loads) and use that as a basis for inclusion. Gnangarra 05:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Response: Thanks for coming in as a neutral view!  I do see your point about analysis and synthesis, which also concerns me a bit.  However, my concern is also that, as noted in the discussion that started all this, there is definitely a concern that the faction on the Brumby issue that wants to paint the animals as utterly worthless pests with no justification for preservation presents an unbalanced view.  (I may be exaggerating the views of the other side, but they have yet to weigh in on any of this since I began to assess the situation, and this is how I interpret their remarks) I see a need to locate some benefits, as the Brumby clearly has a significant number of avid supporters, and though the blog isn't going to make it per WP:V, there may be some other sources.  As there was one source that did not have a web link that corroborated a more limited use, I'd like to take an AGF on the second, more minor benefit and include that much at least.   What's bugging me is that the Australian government uses remarkably similar arguments to that of the USA's BLM for Mustang management, but over here we have the studies that effectively argue the other side. (And in the US, it's sort of a wild horses versus cattle issue, while in Au, it appears to be wild horses AND cattle versus everyone else).  Anyway, the article is due to be unblocked in another day or so, and I'd value your (and anyone else's) further thoughts on the issue.   Montanabw (talk)

This highlights one of the pitfalls of synthesis - and why we need to wait for a cohesive source which makes all the links (preferably in a peer-reviewed journal) Australia never had hoofed animals, so the damage done by horses has been described as different to Australian vegetation compared with that on other continents. Yes there has been discussion about managing grasslands in some of the highland national parks with sheep, but sheep =/= horses. We can keep this open a while and start hunting peer reviewed literature. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree there's a danger of a SYN violation here. Looking through Google Scholar, I came across Burning Bush: A Fire History of Australia (1991) by Stephen J. Pyne, published by University of Washington Press. It seems to have a section on the introduction of horses around page 321, but neither Amazon nor Google Books will let me see it. Pages 199–200 talk in passing about the introduction of cattle, sheep, and horses, and how they "devoured the fine fuels that could carry fire." Perhaps someone could look for this in a library? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 02:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep. I can pick that up on Tuesday from the uni library. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's great, thanks. Hope I'm not sending you on a wild goose chase. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 05:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The political situation around optimal time intervals between fires is a vexed one. The media is often anti-environmentalist - many plant species are eradicated by too-frequent burns in national parks, yet there are loud complaints the same burns are not frequent enough on talk-back radio and the popular press - issues with housing developments which abut national parks...anyway, we'll see what the book says. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be good to include the statement that a Brumbies grazing directly reduces the chances and severity of bush fires, but only if a source is found about Brumbies doing this. Kelly2357 (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Response: WP:SYNTHESIS - Cool! I did not even know this 'rule' existed Gnangarra, Thanks. I did mention this same issue a few times on this talk page, but with no reply. It is silly to try and link A to B to C and then state that A = C. Kelly2357 (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Conclusion


 * (very belatedly) did get the Burning Bush book mentioned above but not very exciting -pp 199-200 don't mention brumbies and focus really on the farmers burning and clearing the land and mention that introduced livestock ate what would be fuel for fires (close cropping) and hardened the soil with hooves. Nothing at p. 321 at all. p. 177 mentions that horses arrived early (along with a whole menagerie of animals) - by May (1788?) there was a stallion, 3 mares and 3 colts in the settlement. P. 296 mentions graziers herded wild ponies in SW WA...and that's it for the book...Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think there is little harm in stating that Brumby advocates point to evidence that livestock grazing reduces fuel loads. I'm pretty sure that was the point of that original news source.  What makes me laugh my butt off is over here in the US, cattle ranchers love to talk about how grazing reduces the risk of wildfires, while simultaneously screaming for wild horses to be removed because they harm the grazing (for cows), when the modern beef cow is an introduced non-native species that is even more selective than the horse for leaving all the weeds to dry out and catchon fire!  And speaking of grazing, cowpies dry out and petrify out here and kill the grass under them for years...took about four years for the petrified cowpies on our pasture to go away!  In contrast, bison poop, from a native species, disintegrates much faster) while the Mustang is the reintroduction of equus caballus, which was originally native to the America.  (And horse poop, left to dry and fall apart, is gone from a pasture in a year or two at most, sometimes within months if it's at all wet).  It's a no-win situation, and the bottom line is it's probably all really a question of whose ox is being gored. (If I may mix my metaphors...)  No real thoughts on comment, just chitchat and a minor rant.   Montanabw (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Brumby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100603215827/http://ohhawa.wildhorses-wa.com:80/horsenews_stories12.htm to http://ohhawa.wildhorses-wa.com/horsenews_stories12.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091023225318/http://www.kalandanfoundation.com.au/brumby_camps.php to http://www.kalandanfoundation.com.au/brumby_camps.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091028051145/http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/57270/hor-cop.pdf to http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/57270/hor-cop.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Brumby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.invasiveanimals.com/downloads/FeralHorse_web.pdf
 * Added tag to http://avacms.eseries.hengesystems.com.au/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Brumby_Research_Lecture_09
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091210081042/http://www.snowyriverfestival.com:80/Snowy-River-Stockman-s-Challenge.html to http://www.snowyriverfestival.com/Snowy-River-Stockman-s-Challenge.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070829033319/http://www.ecoman.une.edu.au/staff/kvernes/Ashton.pdf to http://www.ecoman.une.edu.au/staff/kvernes/Ashton.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091202035359/http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au:80/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA20020626034 to http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/PARLMENT/hansArt.nsf/V3Key/LA20020626034

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Capitalization
The article itself states that the etymology of the word is unclear, so we cannot claim with any certainty that it is based upon a person's name. Furthermore, I can find no mainstream dictionary that uses a capitalized spelling. I therefore question the editorial decision to capitalize "brumby" throughout. Krychek (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There's a long drawn out debate over animal breed name capitalization conventions. (i.e. Poodle or poodle) Just like there's a similar one over calling animals "it' instead of "he" or "she." When used as a breed name (as here), it is capitalized. There is also a political aspect to this (those viewing them as invasive vermin tend to use lower case, those favoring preservation tend toward breed identification) So,  do you really want to waste endless bandwidth debating this one?   Montanabw (talk)  09:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The WP Manual of Style is actually pretty clear: "Lower-case initial letters are used for each part of the common (vernacular) names of species, genera, families and all other taxonomic levels (bacteria, zebra, bottlenose dolphin, mountain maple, bald eagle), except where they contain a proper name (Przewalski's horse, Amur tiger, Roosevelt elk), or when such a name starts a sentence (Black bears eat white suckers and blueberries)." I don't see how that's up for debate. We should follow the MOS, not politics or individual preference. Krychek (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It should therefore be lower case.  The etymology is dubious and unknown, and the animals are known as brumbies, not "Brumby horses" comparable to the examples used for upper case. --Dmol (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't a species, it's an animal breed; totally different issue. That section of the MOS is irrelevant because we aren't discussing a species, genera or whatever.  We have had animal breed naming discussions across multiple articles recently and I am tired of this issue.  There was a person named Brumby, highly likely to be the source of the name of the horse, and "Brumby" being a surname (like Przewalski) thus it is a proper name.  Yes, there are other theories, but Occam's Razor suggests that the most obvious answer is likely correct, particularly as the horse was not native to Australia, hence there really would not have been any aboriginal word.    Montanabw (talk)  05:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to wonder how this can be so clear-cut to you when dictionaries, who are the experts and arbiters on matters of etymology, maintain that the origin is unclear and prefer to use the lowercase spelling. Occam's Razor indicates that the dictionary people are correct. Krychek (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, brumbies are not a breed; it is a generic term for any wild horse in Australia. The word "breed" indicates domestication, which is by definition not the case here. In any case I think the MOS passage I quote applies either way. You don't capitalize poodle or mustang; you do capitalize the 'G' in German shepherd and the 'S' in Siamese. Capitalization is not a matter of respect or the lack thereof. It is done to distinguish proper names of unique things (like Germany and Siam) from words that apply to classes of things (like rocks, trees or chimpanzees). Krychek (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There exists a registry as well, just because it doesn't contain all animals does not mean there is not a distinct type. Further, all "wild" horses in Australia are feral; they re not "wild" animals, they are descendants of domesticated animals that got loose. As you obviously know squat about horses, please don't lecture here.  And actually, dictionaries, like encyclopedias, while persuasive sources, are not gospel from heaven, they are tertiary sources. Go fight this battle elsewhere, it is not one that is worth fighting here, there is sufficient ambiguity in the name and respect needs to be given the the people who are the most knowledgeable about the animals themselves.    Montanabw (talk)  08:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced that the MOS does not apply here. I'm changing it back to lowercase. Please make a formal Request for Discussion/Moderation if you cannot be more civil. Krychek (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The WP:BURDEN is on you to justify your changes. You have only your own condescension and rudeness to blame here.  James Brumby is a proper name, it is a plausible source and thus there exists sufficient ambiguity on this matter.  Further animal breed name capitalization issues are not going to be resolved at this article.   Montanabw (talk)  19:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

asks a fair question: should "Brumby" be capitalised? The reasoning given for lower-casing it is however faulty. Some points for consideration: Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * MOS:LIFE makes no mention of breed names; it is about species, taxa, etc
 * In Wikipedia, as elsewhere, breed names are normally capitalised: our article on the German Shepherd Dog is at German Shepherd; "Mustang" is capitalised throughout our article Mustang; the word "poodle" is not capitalised in Poodle because the poodle is not a breed but a group of breeds; Standard Poodle, Miniature Poodle and Toy Poodle are capitalised because they are breeds
 * The Australian Brumby is treated as a breed, and reported as such to DAD-IS
 * However, Australia also reports the Guy Fawkes River National Park Brumby, the Kosciusko Brumby and the Namagdi National Park Brumby
 * So I think there's a case to made for either moving this page to, or treating "brumby" like "poodle", as a group of breeds, and therefore lower-cased
 * There's no possible advantage in edit-warring over this (or anything else) in the article; it needs to be worked out here, on the talk-page.

Thanks for pointing out the "group of breeds" issue with P/poodles and such. We DO have analogous articles with horses; warmblood should always be lower case (as that is a group of breeds or a breed type) as is draft horse. (I also fixed an overcapitalization at heavy warmblood.) Here, we are in a gray area, as there is probably an argument that these groups are all various landrace breeds, but arguably "Australian Brumby" may encompass the others. JLAN, does the FAO define these animals and does it have any kind of entry for just "Brumby?" (i.e. is the word a shorthand?)  Montanabw (talk)  22:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have plenty of articles about not-breeds that use lower case, such as Fat-tailed sheep. No, those are the only hits I get for brumby in DAD-IS; and all they report for each is the name. I agree it's a grey area, and an interesting one. The "landrace" business is pretty much a red herring - breeds are treated as such in serious sources whether they came about through scientific selection or just the old hens-that-don't-lay-well-still-make-good-soup kind of selection, or indeed the put-them-all-on-the-mountain-and-see-what-survives kind of selection, which is pretty much what happens with feral populations. To a Brit, "landrace" is a sort of dirty word - "British Landrace" is what they called the imported Danish pigs that wiped out most of the native breeds. Anyway, I have less than no idea if those other three brumbies are considered regional sub-populations of the Australian Brumby, or if they are regarded as distinct like the Kiger Mustang, or what. I note that there is an Australian Brumby Research Unit in the School of Veterinary Science of the University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, and that "Australian Brumby" gets a good number of hits on Google and in G-books. Can our Australian friends shed any light? I think is one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * CG is an Aussie, but hasn't edited here in a very long time. Maybe ping Casliber, I think (if memory- possible faulty- serves) he's both an Aussie and has some side interest in horses.  As for landrace, I sort of got sucked into that article thanks to our good mutual friend SMC, but actually wound up doing some serious research - Sponenberg at Virginia Tech actually has done some work on the concept as part of his stuff with rare breeds. Someone else, off-wiki, was telling me that the whole concept in animals was sort of transplanted from the plant world (pun intended) and is at best an awkward fit.   Montanabw (talk)  03:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

A - it's capitalisation, and b - brumby is lower case. Quite a jarring read when one encounters a common noun capitalised for no reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.76.2 (talk) 11:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Scrubber to Brumby
I removed the following from the article at Brumby shooting. It was off-topic there but appears well sourced, if any editors would like to work it in here. If copying it directly, please use an edit summary which attributes it to the page history of Brumby shooting. Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Around 1862 the words 'brumbie' and 'brumby' started to appear, replacing 'scrubber' which until then, was in common use. In 1875 a correspondent felt it necessary to explain the name: "But, returning to 'brumbie'-shooting, — do your town-readers know what it is, — or who, or what is a 'brumbie'? It simply means a wild horse." and in 1876 a comment - "a mob of scrubbers; or, as they have been called in the latter days, 'brumbies'" - suggests it was newly coined.

Letters to the Sydney Morning Herald in 1896 and an article in the Lithgow Mercury in 1938 assert it was an aboriginal word which originated from the Barwon, Narran, Balonne, Nebina, Warrego and Bulloo rivers region. One of these letters said that in this area the local aboriginal word for 'unbroken horses' was 'baroombie' pronounced with the "a" cut short. This letter also gives 'Yarraman' as the local word for a broken-in horse for which there is corroboration  and adds some credibility. Also, in a vocabulary of the language of aborigines on the Weir and Moonie rivers (tributaries of the Barwon), the meaning of 'Brumbie' is given as 'wild horse.' Although it would have been compiled earlier, this vocabulary is dated 1887, which presents the possibility that word crossed from English - the horse being relatively new to the aborigines. This possibility must have also occurred to the compiler, Mr. James O'Byrne, and we should trust he was confident the word was an aboriginal invention.

A less probable, alternative explanation for the origin of 'brumby' was that they were descendants of horses set free by a Sgt (or - depending on the source - Private, Lieutenant or Major ) Brumby, when he left NSW in 1804 for Tasmania. As well as all reports being hearsay and no reports from the time having been produced - the earliest being 1896, it is unlikely horses would be set free when they could readily be sold with prices at the time ranging from "one hundred to one hundred and fifty pounds sterling for a common mare". The number of horses is not given and several are implied, but even one would represent an immense amount of money to a sergeant in the NSW Corps. Then there is the question of how the word 'brumby' could go unrecorded for sixty years (cf. 'scrubber' and 'mustang' ) and then suddenly emerge in the NSW-Queensland border area.

The first known mention of 'Brumbies' in print is in 1871 from Walgett, which is in this area, and it has the connotation of an inferior or worthless animal - "a fine grazing block, lightly timbered ... is suddenly metamorphosed into a mass of scrub, only fit for a mob of 'Brumbies'".

Next mention - "like an ill-bred fellow, as he is, (he is only a brumby)" - is from the Balonne River area and is in the description of a horse in the third race at the 1874 St. George Annual Races. The context implies that the brumby was regarded as an ill-bred horse. As it turns out the brumby won, so not all brumbies were worthless but mention of a horse being a brumby, which in the main were seen to be inferior, may have improved the betting odds.

All references at the time equate 'brumbies' with a nuisance, weed or pest. Anthony Trollope, in 1877, associated the euphonious name of "brumbies" with the shooting of the "nuisances". This was on his second visit to Australia. In his writing about the slaughter of wild horses on his first visit, 'brumbies' was not mentioned, suggesting the word was not in use at that time in the districts he visited on that trip.

Probable nonsense reverted
This edit has been reverted. Andrewa (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Andrew you need to spend more time on your eddits. This page has to many ifs and maybe's to be built on reputable evidence based science. I think that you should start your feral horse page. Shenqijing (talk) 10:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Page reverted back due biased, towards term of feral
This page is biased due to its intention, The insistent nature of its main editors is to keep a narrative that demoralises and allows the exploitation of the Australian Brumby. First to my knowledge the name feral has been federally legislated against and second of all it is not acceptable to completly revert this page and accusing me the editor of being obsessed by personal views. The page in parts is plagued with biased science with far to many "may" or "maybe's' to be good evidence based science. There is far to little real current evidence to justify the edit reverts back to the way it was. In fact I feel that I have done this page justice by consistently bringing it back on topic the " Brumby" The science and numbers of wild population has not been revisited or revised since the bush fires here in Australia and the world pandemic. This is happening at a time the a cull of these wild bush horses is being proposed. So I call

1.That the traditional editing on this page is biased and uninformed.

2, The word " Feral" to describe the Australian Brumby has been legislated against therefor illegal termanology that allows the demoralisation and exploitation of the Australian wild bush horse or Brumby

3.The Intention of this page is to present biased ecology against the Australian Bush horse or Brumby and demonstrates exactly my point in my prior objection.

So my suggestion at a minimum would be to erase all the ecology and divert it to a more inclusive and purpose built page, to be more impartial. Or get rid of it all together because it is off topic and quite misleading for the reader. Revert the page back to the Brumby or wild bush horses as it's description. Or erase this page untill a mediation of terminology and content is agreeable. Or start the Ferial horse page and go for your life. Shenqijing (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Feral appears to be commonly used, sources, - Common names: feral horse, brumby, wild horse, you just added this reference, Feral horses in Australia are known as brumbies., feral horses, clear scientific evidence of the environmental damage caused by feral horses., The name Brumby for Australian feral horses, soaring numbers of feral horses. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Brumbies are by definition feral. They are not native, are descendents of freed livestock, and are no different to feral camels, feral goats, feral cattle, feral pigs, etc. There is a big push in Australia to portray these animals as some iconic emblem of our past and completely ignore the appalling damage these animals cause to fragile ecosystems.

The term feral has been used on this article for over ten years, and the recent edits are a significant change without consensus.--Dmol (talk) 09:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for starting a discussion, . We call feral animals by that name throughout the encyclopaedia, it's the correct scientific term for populations of domestic animals that live as if they were wild; and of course we already have an article on feral horses. Although "wild" is often used to describe some feral (and indeed other) horses, it is not really correct; there's only one remaining species of wild horse, Przewalski's horse, and there's doubt whether even that is truly wild.


 * If – however improbable it sounds – there's Australian legislation that forbids the use of the words "Brumby" or "feral", then it will surely have been reported in the quality press, and with suitable references could be noted in the article as a curiosity. But Wikipedia is not subject to Australian law, so we're not going to change the terminology we use because of it.


 * Recent edits appear to have introduced a mass of unsourced and non-neutral content, and numerous errors of spelling, grammar and syntax. I propose reverting to, and asking Shenqijing to discuss any proposed changes, with suitable sources that support them, on this page. any thoughts on that?


 * Shenqijing, please excuse my curiosity, but how do you go about writing something like "the wild bush horse as a maroallyie in ehfight tnagainstus firess, dueo t theiabilitylleto hydrate the earttnd a alsdue oo t tirngrazing g pattern of reducing the forist h famafebale gracesces, sticks and oldkbraken, all working towarhthe e expectionof a increado f nauural fire disaersnaround d thW wor.s"? Is that text copied from somewhere, perhaps a pdf file? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, the article should be reverted to the earlier version., WP:BRD means that attempting a bold change is fine, but if its reverted, unless there's something that would be universally acknowledged as a mistake, the right course is discussion rather than repeated reversion to the changed version. That brumbies are feral horses and that is accepted by Australian governments should be non-controversial . Please avoid such assertions without evidence, adding large quantities of text without (reliably) sourcing it, or straying into original research. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 10:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The problem as I have started is there are some questions about the ecology also. There is a Wild bush pig here that has been deviating the ground cover. I have seen the photographs and evidence but are unable to sight it with my own eyes as it is to dangerous to enter the forist at the moment because vof reports of people with guns Shenqijing (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

There are two sides that I can see with this page. One the phisical idea of the Ferial horse and the other the one named the Brumby and as it pertains to Traditional Chinese Medicine they are both as real as each other. If you like because a majority of people name the wild bush horse the Brumby, the Brumby lives and not the Ferial. So because we infact have two horses here living in side by side in a constructive reality. We will need to have in all seriousness two pages to honer this story. Shenqijing (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , feral pigs have nothing to with this article, which is about feral horses in Australia. It doesn't matter whether you dare enter the forest or not, because Wikipedia is built on what is reported in independent reliable sources, not on personal observation. Unfortunately you have not yet proposed one single such source to support any of what you have added to the page. And please, what on earth does traditional Chinese medicine have to do with anything here? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

On the subject of feral I have sighted the document that states the use of the word feral has been legislated against in federal government in Australia and should not be used as a term as it undermines then and allowed exploitation. In Chinese medicine, that has now been included by the WHO, the terms post and prior  Natal essence is used ( yuan yin and yang Jing), this is about genetics, lock and key. So how the enviroment affect the DNA of the subject. Without getting into to much, in Chinese Medicine the Brumby is Native or Naturalised to the eco system due to its now symbiotic relation ship with the homeostatic enviroment. In Chinese medicine we are also taught to read the intention of words for external diagnosis and this page is not impartial as it sits with my training and learning. Amituofo 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼 Shenqijing (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi just getting around talk here, I am in Australia and yes when it comes to the the argument of the ecology to this page wild pigs do have standing. As much of the ground fauna and and native species destruction can be attributed to them. As I have said, there are two different horses that we are talking about one is the feral horse and the other is the Brumby they both have standing but not on the same page. As the intention of this page is Brumby information on this page should be oriented toward the support of this narrative or it could have medical ramifications for the reader. Shenqijing (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Affecting their mental health. As the intention of this page is for the reader to go to the Australian Brumby page and not the reality of the dark feral horse. You all will need to think deeper on this one. Amituofo 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼 Shenqijing (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Chinese medicine is a integrated medicine, for thousands of years now our medicine has not seperated nature, mind and personal health. It is a unified medicine. So this subject is what it is all about. Sustainabile integrated inviroments,eco systems and it's inhabitants. Many thing are changing in science now, due to the climate crisis. Once again Traditional Chinese Medicine is "now a thing" i think that we will need to start sighting other professionals and linking to Chinese Medical pages that highlight this fact. Once again this is a Brumby page, it is not correct on this page or when it comes to current phisical or mental health science to uses the term feral, and we as educators and historians must move with the times. Maybe we could include for future generations to see the inclusion of the word as a reference to how life was decided in worth and held in such low regard when it comes to the self needs of man. If this is getting more of a moral debate, then so be it as confucianisum( morality and Sentience) is integral to Chinese Medicine also so we could start including that also. Shenqijing (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Amituofo 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼 Shenqijing (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * There is no law in Australia against calling brumbies/wild horses/feral horses "feral horses". Usage varies; e.g. Vic Department of Environment seems to mostly use "feral" (https://www.parks.vic.gov.au/get-into-nature/conservation-and-science/conserving-our-parks/feral-animals) and here's something from the federal Department of Enviroment using the term too (https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/b32a088c-cd31-4b24-8a7c-70e1880508b5/files/feral-horse.pdf). NSW Department of Environment seems to prefer "wild", but not exclusively - they also use feral (https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/-/media/OEH/Corporate-Site/Documents/Animals-and-plants/Pests-and-weeds/Kosciuszko-wild-horses/kosciuszko-national-park-draft-wild-horse-management-plan-160271.pdf).
 * A brumby is a feral/wild horse; there is no distinction as Shenqijing suggests here: "As I have said, there are two different horses that we are talking about one is the feral horse and the other is the Brumby they both have standing but not on the same page." You can confirm that in the sources I've linked above. Nowhere do they suggest a distinction between the two, and what would the distinction be in any case? It seems Shenqijing is distinguishing between the romantic idea of a "brumby" and the reality of a "feral horse"; I agree that there's a difference there, but that is captured by the "In popular culture" section. --Sanglorian (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * A brumby is a feral/wild horse; there is no distinction as Shenqijing suggests here: "As I have said, there are two different horses that we are talking about one is the feral horse and the other is the Brumby they both have standing but not on the same page." You can confirm that in the sources I've linked above. Nowhere do they suggest a distinction between the two, and what would the distinction be in any case? It seems Shenqijing is distinguishing between the romantic idea of a "brumby" and the reality of a "feral horse"; I agree that there's a difference there, but that is captured by the "In popular culture" section. --Sanglorian (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * After reading Shenqijing's comments above, I support Justlettersandnumbers proposal, revert the page and asking Shenqijing to discuss any proposed changes, with suitable sources that support them, on this page. I also strongly agree with what on earth does traditional Chinese medicine have to do with anything here?. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I support the proposal by Justlettersandnumbers . Go right back and discuss any significant changes.  Thank you everyone for your input.--Dmol (talk) 09:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Their is a legislative inclusion that prohibits the use of feral, not the stopping of culling. Shenqijing (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Romantic was a term also used to undermine the real emotionals of citizens at the start or the dark ages. Respectfully you will need to contemplate the facts that dibide, domestic pets, stock and Feral. The Subject title would be then considered romantic the Brimby supporting my eddits. That have not deleted any content but impartialy included it's additives first instead of its dificencys, so for any editor to raise concerns to this would suggest bias and have as a natural elaboration on this an agenda to defaim the subject. So as I have said the starting of a page called the Feral horse page. Shenqijing (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

For a description of how traditionaly Chinese medicine is relivent please look under wuxing tradional Medicine Shenqijing (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So, I took the comments here of, , and  to constitute a clear consensus in favour of reverting to the last good version as I had proposed, and so did that. The change has been reverted by ; do those editors agree with that reversion? Shenqijing, do you understand that this project works by consensus between editors, and that editing against a clearly-established consensus could be be seen as WP:DISRUPTIVE? You appear to be paying little or no attention to what others have said – for example, higher up this page I told you that (of course) we already have a feral horse page, but you have again suggesting starting one. Why? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Justlettersandnumbers - I support reverting it back to the last stable version, and if Shenqijing doesn't agree to abide by consensus, and discuss major changes to the article here on the talk page, I would support a topic ban or partial block from editing this article. Since May 30 when Shenqijing suddenly became interested in this article, they have made over 25 edits to the article based on, , , what the hell is that? Original research?. They change the content, but leave the refs which don't support the changes. And now they are edit-warring to their preferred version. I don't know if this is a competence issue, language barrier or if they are just here to WP:RGW, but their disruptive behavior needs to stop.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:green">(talk)</b> 12:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

You need to back off and help me upload the evidence as I am new to edits on this platform. Your decisions are not impartial and are showing bais, The Federal Court of Australia. File No 1569 of 2018. On 8may 2020 The ABA Inc. vers the Vict Parks Inc Judge O'Bryanj Section 19 Ruled that the use of the term had undesirable conditions by Parks Vic, the wild horse was not the best choice as it has a historical background of being introduced so the use of the term Brumby was and is the impartial name for the Australian equine. I also have up-to-date ecolagy reports from colleges arriving expectantly to support the pages now fair naritave of the Australian Brumy and not that from a totally ecologically outdated and bias and demeaning perspective. Shenqijing (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The pages references first to the destructive nature first of the "Brumby" rather than highlighting the biased naritave. Shenqijing (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I have already stated that I have a vote of no confidence on all the recent editors on this page. And we had better start improving this page with current up-to-date Science. I would like to have a descision and colaberation with these other editors. As all I have seen so far is complete reverts of my also hard work and others trying to move this page into a current realtime informative page. Complete reverts are unexceptionable from both sides.look forward to our continued conversations, we may have a time difference in communication because I am in Australia in the Mountains. So please be patient as we move forward. As a foot not the information on page has not been changed just impartialy suggesting the positive to the negitive. Take for example. Through Europe,New Zealand and America the fire of wild horses and ponies native seeds in there fur for rejuvenation if the eco system and creates biodiversity according to Dr M Frazer, my self and other professionals around the world. This page as one example, originally before my edit only mentioned the spreading of weeds. This as outlined in the Federal Court, presided by judge J O'Brian is exactly a direct example of the impartial content on this page. Shenqijing (talk) 12:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Para 19 of that case (in which judgement went against the Australian Brumby Association, with costs) states:

The ABA's preference for using the term "brumby" is understandable as it more closely connects with the heritage values that the ABA seeks to protect and relies on in this proceeding, and therefore has heritage connotations. Conversely, Parks Victoria's preference for the expression "feral horses" is understandable because it more closely connects with the ecological issues that are at the forefront of Parks Victoria’s Plan, and therefore has ecological connotations. In these reasons, I would prefer to avoid using either expression so as to avoid the connotations the expression might convey. However, as explained in Dr Norman's evidence, it is inaccurate to use the expression "wild horses" because that term is used to describe horses that have never been domesticated, such as the endangered Przewalski's horse which is native to the steppes of Central Asia. For reasons of convenience, I have chosen to use the expression "brumby" when referring to the horses that are the subject of the proceeding while expressly putting aside any connotations associated with the use of that name.
 * So:
 * You have previously falsely claimed that the case made the term "feral" illegal with reference to the brumby.
 * You have previously tried to force in to the lead the term "wild bush horse" when the case you are trying to use to support your position expressly states it is inaccurate to use "wild" with reference to the brumby.
 * You have just falsely claimed that the judge ruled that the use of the term brumby was the impartial name, when he instead wrote that he was using the term for convenience while expressly putting aside any connotations associated with the term. Note that he uses the generic "feral horses" in para 81 in comparing two populations.
 * ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 12:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to point out that the beginning of para 19 was left out in the above quote: (emphasis mine) - In their evidence and submissions, the ABA tended to use the word “brumby” while Parks Victoria tended to use the expression “feral horses”. The expressions are synonymous, but each carries connotations. The origins of the name “brumby” are unclear. It is an Australian term for feral horses and its use can be traced back to the 1870s. Banjo Paterson’s poem “The Man from Snowy River”, which is referred to in the National Heritage values of the Australian Alps, does not use the expression, referring to the feral horses in the poem as the “wild bush horses”. However, his poem “Brumby’s Run” was published in 1894 — So the judge acknowledges that brumby is an Australian term for feral horses as well, and so do reliable sources, which is what matters the most, information that is reliably sourced and verifiable.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:green">(talk)</b> 16:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I only just became interested in this page because I was pointed to it as a being completely bias and I suggest that justlettersandnumbers should be blocked because all that I am suggesting is for the page to be fair and unbiased as it is not. I have supplied evidence on the Federal Court hearing. And have asked to collaborate to move the page forward. I will take this higher than this group. Shenqijing (talk) 12:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I have not stated that the case was won but that the use of the term Ferial is not the correct term and that is supported by this case. That I have supplied Shenqijing (talk) 13:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The Wild bush horse is the local name for the Brumby, So either Brumby or Wild bush horse would be better than a derogative term of feral. Why do you insist on a total revert and what is your interest in the insistence of undermining this horse breed, please explain. Shenqijing (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

"would prefer to avoid using either expression so as to avoid the connotations the expression might convey" Shenqijing (talk) 13:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

That says it all Shenqijing (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I have sent a message for Arbitration on this page. Thankyou Shenqijing (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The page has been revered back to non basis version. We can not say that the wiki editors apinion of the term ferial should not go above the decision made by a judge and the local termanoligy of bush Horse Shenqijing (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I have sent a message for Arbitration on this page. Thankyou Shenqijing (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The past comments about a federal case does not pertain to the evidence that I have provided, As this evidence I think is sufficient is current and on topic, I would like to remind everyone that the subject of this edit is about the word feral being used as a description for the Brumby, because of thelis the Science resourcing supports the parks Victoria case and not that of a free roaming horse. and because I have stood up for this injustice in name and intention I have been told that the Science and medicine that I study and apply in a clinical and enviromental setting and cappasity has no weight, the idea of the Brumby is a romantic version of the horse, and that I may not be able to speak English and communicate due to a cultural barrier. This I would find demeaning if I was a person that took my self to be more important that the cause. Unlike what I see on this page from the editors on this page. I gave up my name many years ago. Once again you disagree with a judges judgement on the implications of the word feral as it pertains to the Australian Wild bush horse as they are known to the local Brumby supporters and the Term Brumby as a appropriate term for this horse bread, as outlined and linked to on page. And I am so sorry to say this, but God save us if this is the state of our greatest acedemice minds and I can only start to imagine the bullying and trolling that happens behind the scenes with the amount of fake profiles that are weighing in on the game, I am completely open to working on a fear impartial movement forward but will not be bullied by people with the tech know how to make this right but choose to not because of the obvious Milgram effect (Milgram experiment). Do not hit the button please. Shenqijing (talk) 02:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

So revert back and punishment adding a feral horse link, ok. Shenqijing (talk) 03:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)