Talk:Spanish Mustang

Introduction and History
I have started this edit in order to improve this entry that I think was lacking and it is still lacking in both language and scholarship. since my English is not the best perhaps someone could edit that part of the edit -thanks. I shall provide literature and footnotes shortly (DarioTW (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC))


 * You seem to be confusing this article with the Mustang (horse) article. The "Spanish Mustang" in the USA is a specific sub-set of Mustangs.  Take a look at [{Mustang (horse)]] and see if there is some overlap.   Montanabw (talk) 03:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * well, with all do respect that is not a case, i.e. Spanish mustang is not a subset of mustang, actually Dan Phillip Sponenberg described what the type of horse Spanish mustang is (and many travelers did that in the 19th century - goolge books allow reading many old and rare books on US and Mexican 19th century travel etc) and he himself names horses from HMA Suphur, Pryor, Kriger etc as Spanish Mustangs - see eg pages 122-127 in his Equine genetics, 2ed. So called Spanish Mustang seems to be the original horse that came from Mexico with de Onate circa 1597 and later became the feral horse (mesteno, mustang) of the American West, ancestor to Appaloosa, Quarter horse, American Indian warhorse and buffalo runner, Texas cow pony etc;  presently it is still the original Spanish horse albeit reduced a bit due to malnutrition and limited gene pool, at least in some areas. Today majority of the US BLM wild horses aka mustangs are just a mix bred of many different horse breeds, a 'mongrel' if you will, with the notable exception of the Spanish Mustnag, Buffalo Runner, Spanish Barb etc).

Spanish author, PRE historian and probably the most noted Spanish PRE authority Juan Carlos Altamirano wrote this article about the horses that went with Columbus et al. to the Caribbean http://www.jcaltamirano.com/ - there is an English translation but the Spanish version is better. I also got 4 scientific articles and studies dealing with the genetics of American (meaning North and South ) horses and their Spanish ancestry - they are accessible on the net. Just got no time right now to footnote the article and rework it some more. DarioTW (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me clarify why your history belongs at the mustang (horse) article. Please read that article and you will see what I trying to say.  I'm not arguing that mustangs don't have Spanish horse ancestry.  Of course they do!  But they did not arrive on American shores as "mustangs."  They were various Iberian horse breeds (another article you may find room to improve, by the way) and my understanding is that there was not one single "Spanish" horse -- there were several types, each adapted for different uses (the Jennet, the PRE/Andalusian, some Barbs, and a number of tough little native landrace breeds etc...) But just as many people call the Thoroughbred the "English Thoroughbred," likewise the term "Spanish Mustang" is loosely used.  In the USA, there is a horse recognized by a breed registry called a Spanish Mustang, that's what this article is about.  Some, but not all feral Mustangs may qualify.  The Pryor herd, for example, I agree it is considered a close descendant of the orginal Spanish Horses, (see also Colonial Spanish Horse) while other herds are more the "mongrels" you describe, I also agree.  What I am saying is that this article is focusing on horses eligible for registration with the Spanish Mustang registry.  A discussion of the genetics of the feral herds more properly belongs in the Mustang article.
 * If you have google book links, feel free to post the URLs on this talk page and we can all review them. We DO, sad to say, have to use English sources for English wiki, for the most part (there are some exceptions, wee WP:V)  .  Sad to say, the BLM doesn't give a flying you-know-what about these genetics, they just rounded up half the Pryor herd and are selling off a bunch of them because they say they are overpopulating the range.  No attempt to preserve the herd genetics, just sort of a random roundup.  Drives me nuts.   Montanabw (talk) 03:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Long time but nevertheless important - there was no Pre/Andalusian prior to 1570-80s (scientific research knows not language boundaries, so using only English language sources is not scientific and irrational, in the USA people created breeds based on horse color - he, he, but to each  its own :)  -  a bit on Spanish Mustang per scientific literature : ''The Spanish Mustang breed was formed with horses that originated from feral or Native American stock from all over North America. All were selected based on a phenotype that was believed to represent Spanish ancestry. The Mustang group also is a collection of horses with feral origins and presumed Spanish physical characteristics. It is likely that the Kiger, Florida Cracker, and Sulphur Mustang breeds experienced bottlenecks or a limited number of founders, resulting in lower diversity. The Sulphur Mustang has the lowest diversity with only two haplotypes found among six individuals. The Spanish Mustang and Mustang groups have the highest diversity of the North American breeds, comparable to the higher values for the other groups, which reflects their more diverse origins.'' from this Oxford article :) http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/97/2/107.full#ref-3 it would be nice to read it and analyze it a bit, don't you think? DarioTW (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sigh...Dario. There are some people who call all Mustangs "Spanish" Mustangs, while the "Spanish Mustang" here is a particular breed name chosen by a bunch of people who have their own little club.  And there are Mustangs that are more or less genetically "pure" or unique than others.  (Meaning, partly, that no one ran a bunch of draft horses in with them in the late 1800s to make cheap farm horses, or threw in a Thoroughbred to "improve" them)  It's far more complicated than your snarky commentary implies.  Thanks for noting a good source, and it's worth more study, but you have to gain a bit of credibility by writing with more quality and not throwing facts around so loosely -- the Andalusian in Spain clearly dates to about the 1300s.  (See Andalusian horse) And your comment that Americans created breeds based on horse color is utter nonsense.  You insult long-standing quality breeds such as the Morgan, the Standardbred, the Tennessee Walker, and others. (Yes, there are also SOME American breeds based on color NOW, none of which were defined as such until the 20th century)  Such comments severely diminish your credibility.  And if you want to provide sources, source to them properly.  Just saying last name and date without the full cite somewhere in the article text is useless.  For example, don't just say "(Smith 2010)"  Put it in a proper footnote with ref tags, and first time, use the full cite like: :Smith, John (2010) "Title of Article," Title of Journal Volume X, number Y, (blah, blah, blah...)  see WP:CITE.  After that, a footnote to "Smith 2010" can be used.   Montanabw (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)  And yes, I have read http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/97/2/107.full.pdf+html  It has some interesting stuff.  But the point of that article is that yes, the Iberian peninsula was the primary source for these American horses, which is something I don't think anyone is disputing here.  So... your point is...   Montanabw (talk) 06:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

you have a peculiar way of going for ad hominem and not to the facts - and gingerly picking through my writing - I must say I find it very disturbing - eg draft horses came to US when? draft within the meaning of the present definition or 19th century definition? Complicated - in your article nothing is complicated, you are jsut as staunch on your points as Mount Rushmore wooden faces - :) Sourcing - it is a scientific way of sourcing by citing name of th author and giving the year of publication, if the name of works appears in the text of bibliography- that is how wed are doing it in Law and history and anthropology :) And per Paint and others - well, I am insulting anyone here stating that breeds are based on color in US? here in Colorado lots of people find it ridiculous but not insulting -:) point of my cite was that according to scientific literature Spanish Mustang i.e. American breed, originated from feral and Indian held horses - end of citation - :) It is relevant to the history of this 'new' XX century breed, so stop attacking me and look at the writing. As per 'snarky' - funny word - well, one got to throw in some humor, satire and irony here, always necessary when it comes to discussing history of horses with horse people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.117.182.5 (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Dario, if you are trying to be funny, it's not working. You sound rude, insulting and engaging in personal attacks.  You are also making tendentious arguments and I'm tired of it.  Learn to properly edit on wikipedia and become a member of the community.  I'm through arguing with you because you aren't making any sense.   Montanabw (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Spanish mustang → Spanish Mustang — To restore capitalization of proper names consistent with WPEQ capitalization conventions. Note: WikiProject Birds has similar form for common names of birds. Nothing in title or MOS precludes this. Montanabw (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Support as nominator per my reasons in the above tag. This move was made over longstanding consensus at WikiProject Equine and none of us were notified.  Horse breed names are treated as proper nouns and thus capitalized.  In particular "Mustang" when referencing the horse breed, is not a "generic animal" term. However, nothing in the animal naming conventions at WP:MOS indicates that BREED names are to be lower case, and here we are talking breed names. Likewise, Wikipedia:NC excludes proper names from lower case second words. I also reviewed Naming conventions (fauna) and note our standard for horse breeds appears to be similar to that used by WikIProject Birds for common names of birds.  (i.e. Peregrine Falcon).   Montanabw (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per long-standing WikiProject Equine consensus. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support as this is not about a generic mustang which is Spanish (owned by a Spaniard, or living in Spain) 76.66.193.119 (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per Montanabw and Kim. Dana boomer (talk) 10:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article improvement
This article needs to be upgraded, but let's try to do it along the lines of other horse breed good and featured articles. Here are links to an FA on another American horse breed: Appaloosa and a couple of GA links to other Colonial Spanish Horse-type articles:  Florida Cracker Horse and Sorraia. I'd be glad to offer help and some mentoring on these. Montanabw (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessary repetition in the Caption
Please indicate why it is necessary to repeat this is a Spanish mustang in the caption when this is already stated in the title above the image.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Fair question. I suppose it's because the MOS tends to favor captions. (see MOS:CAPTION)   To be honest with you, I would agree that there are cases where maybe a caption isn't particularly needed, ("unambiguous depiction of the subject") but, basically, a look at our FA=class articles for WPEQ horse breeds, most have captions. Two that don't are Trait_du_Nord and [Poitevin horse]]. Many do state the obvious, but among them, Andalusian horse, Boulonnais horse, Appaloosa all have been WP:TFA - with simple Foo horse caption. No one has ever, to the best of my knowledge, said "dump the infobox caption" in any of these reviews.  Some captions clearly are needed, as at Icelandic horse (where the horse is performing a distinctive gait) or Haflinger (where we have a mare and foal).  I suppose "this is a foo horse" captions aren't absolutely needed, and though it might be helpful to identify if the horse is a stallion, mare or gelding in some cases (there is little sexual diphormism in horses, even experts sometimes have to bend over and look at what's hanging under there...), I don't suppose it is needed here.  I suppose that makes it an ILIKIIT and OTHERSTUFF issue.   Montanabw (talk)  00:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

"Spanish Mustang" vs "Mustangs considered to be Colonial Spanish Horse Strains"
The two terms are not interchangeable. Spanish Mustang is a breed of horse that was derived from a variety of sources; feral, Tribal and domestic. The breed was given the name "Spanish Mustangs" because by the time the registry was established, most horses called mustangs had no or little Spanish blood in them (as is still the case). But, although Spanish mustang (small "m") is an accurate term for the few herds that do have Spanish blood, it is confusing, because most "Spanish mustangs" (small "m") are not eligible for registration in the "Spanish Mustang" Registry, most notable the Kigers and the Pryors.

That being said "Spanish Mustangs" (capital "M") are Colonial Spanish Horses. But, they really aren't a strain, since they are derived from many different strains, but are more of a breed, for which there is no category in the article yet. And, as in the case with most things horses, there was much disagreement about which horses should be registered, so there are splinter registries, The Painter Barbs, the Southwest Spanish Mustangs, the Southwest Barb Breeders Association, etc. The Horse of the Americas recognizes all the horses registered in the Spanish Mustang Registry and the splinter registries, and so considers itself the "umbrella registry of the North American Colonial Spanish Horses. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * We need to upgrade this article with proper source material, that's for sure. There is a Spanish Mustang registry and it is a breed, and I think you and I do agree that it is one of several breeds grouped as "Colonial Spanish Horses" but not all Colonial Spanish Horses are "Spanish Mustangs."  I think it best to keep "wild mustang" politics out of this and focus on what it is, not what it is not. I think it's fair to discuss some of the various registries within a single article, but there are a lot of politics involved, and they aren't all notable.  What do you think of the entries in the standard breed encyclopedias?  (Hendricks, Lynghaug, etc...)   Montanabw (talk)  01:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Just pointing out that this article is pretty schizophrenic, and so was the Colonial Spanish Horse Article (which I went in and did some editing, but still needs work). But, when you moved the page from Spanish mustang to Spanish Mustang, in my mind you should discuss the breed, which is defined by the horses registered in the Spanish Mustang Registry.  "Spanish Mustang" is a name and so is capitalized as a proper noun.  "Spanish mustang" is a noun (mustang) and an adjective "spanish".


 * I don't have a lot of time (or interest) to devote to this particular article; but it was intended to be about the Spanish Mustang, as in the breed, not the Colonial Spanish Horse, which is a group of breeds (including Spanish Mustang, Florida Cracker, Marsh Tacky, etc...). I have heard some M/mustangs on BLM land  colloquially called "Spanish mustangs" (whether of Spanish type or not) but this article should focus on the breed. All for article improvement here.  Montanabw (talk)  04:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I suggest it be moved to "Spanish Mustang and Barb" because they are essentially the same horses, all started out as Spanish Mustangs, then split up over arguments as to whether or not they should be called Barbs, and which horses should or should not be excluded. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * No, I think that goes into OR territory (Unless you have a source that says this?) this isn't about our own theories - we now have a modern breed called the "Spanish Mustang" and this article should be about it.  We also ahve Barb (horse), which is another article that needs work.   Montanabw (talk)  07:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Barb horses are in Morocco. "Spanish Barbs" are horses the Moors took to Spain, then their progeny, with some native Spanish horses mixed in, were brought to the New World by the Spanish.  Then modern breeders start arguing if today's "Spanish" mustangs should be called Barbs.  That's why  Conquistador Magazine lumped them together.


 * BTW, just for full disclosure, one of the websites in the references in the article is mine. I put it together over ten years ago, and someone used it at some point in editing the article. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Which source? IMHO as long as it passes WP:RS, and it wasn't you that inserted it (could even have been me, for all I know), we are fine, though in a perfect world, we might want to find another source to verify the same info to avoid the dreaded WP:COI tag. Meh. As for the Mustang/Barb thing, it's irrelevant. The current Spanish Mustang breed is the topic of this article, we can debate the rest over at the Colonial Spanish Horse article if terminology is a thing. Montanabw (talk) 03:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This one: http://www.frontiernet.net/~ranchotamarisque/SponenbergFrame.htm.  None of it is my writing, it's all Sponenberg's.  And, I don't agree that that Spanish Mustang/Spanish Barb thing is irrelevant.  It's two names for the same thing.  In this guideline, it says:  "Reliable sources do not always use consistent terminology, and it is sometimes necessary to determine when two sources are calling the same thing by different names. This does not require a third source to state this explicitly, as long as the conclusion is obvious from the context of the sources."  The difference between the "breeds" is the name and exclusions/acceptances of certain strains by the four entities that register them (I listed them in the article).  "Spanish Mustang" is not synonymous with "feral strains of Colonial Spanish horses".  As you can read in this article, "The SSMA registry is still active today, and registers mainly horses of Choctaw and Cherokee bloodlines."  The Spanish Mustang Registry foundation stock also included Native American horses (http://www.spanishmustangfoundation.org/history-of-the-spanish-mustang.html). NONE of them register Pryor or Kiger horses.  Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * IN a perfect world, we probably need to cite the info to the original sources or to other studies that say the same thing, but unless we want to take this particular article to GA, I'm not going to insist on a perfect world, at least not yet. (On the Mustang article, I do, but...)   Montanabw (talk)  22:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * So we write about what the Spanish Mustang registry does and does not include. I'm not making an argument, I'm just saying that this article is about the modern Spanish Mustang, not mustangs or Colonial Spanish Horses in general; I thought we agree on that(?) So in the article we may want to touch on terminology-- We mention Sponenberg's clarification. We can note that "Spanish mustang" is an anachronism from the past and is incorrect for both feral Mustangs and Colonial Spanish Horses.  Words evolve, this term did.  I'm not seeing a dispute here.  Let's just write the article and see how it goes; we seem to do pretty good when editing one another's contributions until we're both OK, and going to talk if we get stuck.   Montanabw (talk)  22:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, then, we should say in the lead "A Spanish Mustang is a horse registered in the Spanish Mustang Registry." But, I think it should say "A Spanish Mustang, also called a Spanish Barb, is a Colonial Spanish Horse registered in one of the several Spanish Mustang or Spanish Barb registries.  Also once known as "Indian Ponies" they are horses descended from those introduced from Spain during the early conquest of the Americas, a type that today is extremely rare in Spain." Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Not sure I agree, per various sources stating variations on "The Spanish Barb is known by several names; Colonial Spanish Horse, “Spanish Barb” and “Spanish Mustang.” ,, basically we'd be on firmer ground putting that bit in the CSH article.  As far as I am concerned, the modern Spanish Mustang is becoming a standardized breed.  It's frustrating that the terminology is all over the place, but we need to focus on today. "Indian pony" is loaded phrasing, though I suppose we could teach the controversy of the SW registry split, that's within the scope.  Montanabw (talk)  02:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)