Talk:Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971/Archive 2

Round two
I cannot access the Anthony Amaral book until later this week due to the schedule of the library where it is held. In the meantime, I am looking at Google scholar and Worldcat to see what he's published. It appears that Amaral published primarily in the 1960s and 1970s, with an interest in Will James. The only other "A Amaral" who appears in other cited works is an Adam Amaral, apparently a biochemist. Based on this list, it appears that, like Dobie, the work cited needs to be looked at to see its proper context. But even so, the number of wild horses in Texas or Nevada circa 1900 is really rather irrelevant to this article, which is about legislation passed in 1971. As noted above, Wild horse preservation may be a more suitable article for this information to be discussed. Montanabw (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Mustang : life and legends of Nevada's wild horses; Anthony A Amaral Reno : University of Nevada Press, 1977.
 * 2) The Wild Stallion: Comments on His Natural History; A Amaral - Brand Book, 1969.
 * 3) Will James, the gilt edged cowboy, by Anthony A Amaral, 1967 - Los Angeles: Westernlore Press
 * 4) Will James, the last cowboy legend; by Anthony A Amaral Reno, Nev. : University of Nevada Press, 1980.
 * 5) Comanche: The Horse that Survived the Custer Massacre, AA Amaral - 1961 - Westernlore Press
 * 6) Movie horses: their treatment and training; AA Amaral - 1967 - Bobbs-Merrill
 * 7) Motion picture horses. by Anthony A Amaral [Pomona? Calif.], [1962]
 * 8) The West of Will James: A Portfolio of His Drawings; W James, AA Amaral - 1978 - University of Nevada Press
 * 9) How to train your horse. A complete guide to making an honest horse. A Amaral - New York : Winchester Press, ©1977.
 * 10) A Dedication to the Memory of Will James 1892-1942; A Amaral - Arizona and the West, 1968 - University of Arizona Press
 * 11) Lace curtains and bootjacks, by Anthony A Amaral [Carson City, Nev.] : Ormsby House, ©1972.
 * 12) The west of Will James : a portfolio of his drawings by Will James; Anthony A Amaral Reno : University of Nevada Press, 1978.

Okay, tell you what. You take all references to the number of horses out, and then there won't be a need to qualify it. I was merely trying to correct the glaringly inaccurately quoted figure of Evans. Since I have a well-balance collection of books on mustang history, I happen to own all the books in question and can reference them at any time.SheriWysong (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, so now Evans is "glaringly inaccurate" again. Glad we have cleared that up.  Here's the deal:  the BLM is a reliable source on the Act, and the article as it sits quotes the BLM's explanation of the Dobie 2 million figure and how it is to be assessed.  No other number has a similar analysis that I can see.  Dobie's "guess" alone would not be sufficient per [{WP:PRIMARY]]; it is the BLM analysis that makes it relevant.  Perhaps a helpful thing to do is to add the BLM's census numbers from 1971. The myths and facts article at the BLM web site says both " There were an estimated 25,300 wild horses and burros in 1971," and "That number was 17,300 wild horses (plus 8,045 burros)" - which added up, is 25,345.  Would you support a new sentence in the "Implementation" section so the first paragraph reads something like this (new stuff underlined): "The WFRHBA gave jurisdiction over challenges to BLM and Forest Service management of feral horses and how the act is implemented to the Department of the Interior's Board of Land Appeals.[13] The act also contained provisions for the removal of excess animals; the destruction of lame, old, or sick animals; the private placement or adoption of excess animals; and even the destruction of healthy animals if range management required it.[14][15] A census of animals in 1971 determined that there were approximately 17,300 horses and 8.045 burros found on lands subject to the Act.(ref to myths source already in article)."

Comments welcome. Montanabw (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote a little more carefully. I SAID "I was merely trying to correct the glaringly inaccurately quoted figure of Evans." Meaning, what he said was QUOTED (or paraphrased) glaringly inaccurately In THIS article. And, you have also inaccurately portrayed what the BLM said. The BLM simply explained where the number came from, not that it agreed that, taken out of context, it was an accurate number relevant to the Act (I plan to contact the BLM and tell them they should rewrite that passage and put what Dobie wrote in better context. But the fact that it is poorly written it not an excuse for you to twist it to sound like something different and ignore context that you know exists). If you are really serious about Wikipedia's integrity, then you should not want to imply that, 115-150 years ago, there were millions of horses in that same area where they are found now, and that in 70-105 years, ranchers and the government killed all but 17,300 off. Because that IS what you are doing. The reality is, the number I used, 200,000, or double the number given by Amaral for Nevada for 1900, is MUCH closer to the PEAK population of feral horses on the range west of the Rockies, and gives a much more accurate idea of the rate of population decline. Put what you want in the implementation page, but if you want to use Dobie's number, I INSIST that you qualify it. So, either take it out, or put it in Dobie's context-that the area he was talking about was for the most part, NOT the area relevant to the WFRH&BA. SheriWysong (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The Evans material of 5 million was clarified and then upon review, removed. That is a dead issue.  200,000 is WP:OR and you CANNOT use that number unless there is someone other than you who quotes it.  (It's irrelevant anyway)  You also CANNOT "extrapolate" if from other sources, first off, because you have none, and second, because even if you did, that is WP:SYNTH.  I did "quantify" Dobie's number as a "guess" - or to be more specific, the BLM did in their little rant about it.  And we cannot quote or paraphrase the BLM too closely as that is a WP:COPYVIO (which, dear Lassie, I think you understand only too well).  We must phrase their intent in our own words.  If it will end this drama, and you really want to add the link to the Dobie book where the quote appears, I'll go along with that - if it is paired with the BLM site as a double citation.    Montanabw (talk)  23:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Somehow, I do not believe that your snidely calling me "dear lassie" qualifies as "playing nice" (and BTW, you can copy the BLM website all you want. Federal publications are not copyrighted, although, why you would portray what the BLM said as a "rant" and then insist upon using it as a source, calling it a "reliable" source no less, is beyond me). And, to portray BLM's statement as a "rant" completely justifies what I am saying: You have an agenda to try to make the history sound much worse than it was, and do not really care about the integrity of Wikipedia despite all the the little codes trying to make it sound like you do. I stand on my ground. If you are going to use the Dobie number (oh, and BTW, it's really not much of a concession to reference the book; that fact that you've been resisting doing so is totally unjustifiable), you also have to use the Amaral number, and explain why the two are so different. You may not repress sources because they don't support the history you prefer to be depicted. SheriWysong (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's one you missed: http://www.frankhopkins.com/biography.html  John Fusco used this article in writing the screenplay for Hidalgo.

URL's of Books and articles that use Amaral as a source: http://learningtogive.org/papers/paper344.html https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/tcm02  https://books.google.com/books?id=YiWui8_B4i8C&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=anthony+amaral+mustangs&source=bl&ots=7JqUtObF2O&sig=5SvCQ8J9OVRi3741B-v357-zmOw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CNfrVJfJFIa-ggSilIDICQ&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=anthony%20amaral%20mustangs&f=false  for starters. I could easily come up with a dozen more. Just because you never heard of him doesn't mean he was an obscure author or that no one else thinks he's a credible source.SheriWysong (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * First, please stop attributing motive to me, you have no idea what my "motive" is - though for your information, it is simply to have a neutral article with facts, presenting each side of the issue reasonably. AND, not making stuff up like you did with your "200,000" number.  Second, the BLM page does "rant" a bit in its tone.  Doesn't mean it's wrong, just means that someone who wrote it was having a day when they were feeling a bit testy and they used too many exclamation points and overused boldface.  Second, for a GA-class article, even public domain content needs to be properly sourced and cited or this article will lose its GA status.  Third, I see absolutely no reason to use the Amaral estimate for Nevada other than as a comparison to 1971 Nevada, and that again is irrelevant to THIS article.     Montanabw (talk)  02:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * BTW Frank Hopkins is far from a reliable source for anything, and if you seriously think Hildago is an RS, we are done here. (examples:, , ,  I will look at the Amaral book, when I can get to the library where it is housed, but really, even if he had a reliable estimate for how many Mustangs were in Nevada in 1900, it's totally irrelevant here anyway.  As for your Hat Act of other sources, that's fine and dandy, but they are not relevant The other issues are red herrings, as I said, THIS article is about a piece of legislation.  There are other, more suitable articles (like Wild horse preservation where the issue can be discussed in more detail.   Montanabw (talk)  02:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm standing my ground. Either use all available numbers; they are all EQUALLY RELEVANT and credible (Stop trying to throw me off track by saying the content of links I provided are red herrings, as I CLEARLY stated, they were put up to show that Amaral is a respected and well published and HIGHLY UTILIZED SOURCE author on the West, particularly horses of the West, as was Dobie), and explain why they are different, or use none of them. If you truly want to have a "neutral article with facts, presenting each side of the issue reasonably AND, not making stuff up like you did with your '200,000' number" (as you well know, I did NOT make up the 200,000 number. I've explained several times where it came from. I supported it with reliable sources, which, BTW both the Amaral and the Dobie books ARE [see wikipedia's list of reliable sources  books published by university presses], STOP throwing that accusation at me), you would have no problem with that. If you don't think they are equally relevant and credible, stop just declaring them so, and provide rationale. Otherwise, there can be no other conclusion than that you are trying to repress information and manipulate how people would potentially perceive the history behind the Act.

Also, if you really want to keep the GA status for the page, I suggest you stop reverting my changes, which were all made in good faith and were not, as you said in your last unwarranted warning threat in my messages, unconstructive, but were made under Wikipedia's policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment. I changed the Contents section because one of the online BLM sources no longer stated what had been attributed to it (which is a good reason not to use online sources in general. As I pointed out earlier, your refusal to allow a reference to the Dobie BOOK in favor of the blurb the BLM had (which was NOT a rant) is completely unwarranted-anyone knows you should go back to the original source if possible, even if the original source says things you really don't want to come to light). And the content page was mixing in regulations derived from the Act, saying that they came from the ACT themselves. It was also crafted misleadingly, implying that HMAs have the same protection as Wild Horse Ranges. Up further on this talk page it is states that this page was split off from the Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range Page. So, the contents page may have been appropriate for that page, which talked about a wild horse range, but when talking about the ACT, it needs to be changed. Also, the fact that this page was split off from the Pryor Mountain page, which is not neutral, absolutely justifies my sense that there is bias in the legislative page. I believe that featuring the Ryden book, the only one listed in the external links, also indicates that bias. SheriWysong (talk) 11:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You don't understand. This article is about the legislation, not the issue of wild horse preservation in general; you don't know what you are doing here, you have never written a GA article or been through the GAN process and you don't under proper sourcing, relevance, or, frankly, anything about the legislative process. If mentioning 100,000 Mustangs in Nevada in 1911 will and this drama, we can add that there were 100,000 Mustangs in Nevada in 1911, according to Foo source.  Yes this article contains SOME material first written in another article, we are required to note that origin, even if the material has subsequently been changed. But you are creating a red herring with your insistence on synthesized statistics and your ad hominem attacks. You WP:SYNTHesized the 200,000 figure based on a 100,000 figure you say is in Amaral plus your wild guesses that have zero support anywhere.  You provided a source for 100,000 Mustangs in Nevada in 1911, and I am questioning its relevance. The two million Dobie figure is an outside estimate and relevant because it is widely quoted, as noted by the BLM itself.  If you have a source where the BLM assesses other 1900 figures, provide it, it might be relevant.  And the rest of your edits had nothing to do with anything you are listing in the paragraph above, they were mostly about Texas history and other early material and as such, irrelevant.  The Ryden link is merely an external source; as a major proponent of the Act, it is relevant, though it could be formatted differently and if it's that much drama to you, we could list both Ryden and Amaral as External links.  Would that settle the drama with you?   Montanabw (talk)  21:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You know nothing about my background, so all of your discussion of my comprehension, shortcomings and credentials are just accusations to throw off the discussion. I'll let you in on a little tidbit about me though: I do know biased writing when I see it. The BLM does NOT say that Dobie's number is widely quoted, but that it is widely ABUSED. IT IS ABOUT TEXAS HISTORY, which you keep saying is irrelevant. If you don't want to talk about texas history, just leave out the Dobie number; the only reason I went into it was to try to put it in context. The Amaral figure, which is about Nevada history IS relevant, because that is where almost half of the horses are today. And, once again, for about the fifth time, the 200,000 number is NOT a wild guess, but an extrapolation, based on current numbers of horses now found in and out of Nevada, which is a perfectly acceptable form of estimation, as long as it is disclosed how it was extrapolated. I'm asking again, that you STOP that accusation. If Dobie is a reference, Amaral and Dobie should both be references, the numbers from each put in context for time and place. And, Amaral's estimate was for 1900, not 1911. SheriWysong (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You are merely arguing for the sake of arguing here. It doesn't matter what you call your 200,000 number, we cannot "extrapolate" on Wikipedia (arguably, if you have circa 1900 numbers for Oregon, Washington, Montana, Wyoming, etc., we could simply add, but you don't, so we can't)  Read WP:SYNTH.  End. of. Story.  Until you get that, any edit you make is suspect with me unless I can specifically verify the material because you clearly are willing to "extrapolate."  Like Buttermilk, I'm sure the cream will rise to the top here.  You can't even keep your sources straight here, just above you said, "Amaral's source for his number is Rufus Steele's 1911 article...which estimated 70,000." So, you really are playing too fast and loose with the facts to be adding them to this article.   This article is about a 1971 piece of legislation, and all the 2 million number was for was a bit of  context, the other appropriate number is the census of 1971.  Anything in-between is anyone's guess.  If we wanted to have a suggestion that said that there were X horses in each state with a HMA in 1971, contrasted with a best estimate of Y in 1900, a chart or something could include estimates such as Steele or Amaral. Otherwise, it's just random trivia out of context.   Montanabw (talk)  23:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Sigghh. Yet another accusation. Yes Anthony Amaral wrote that it was 100,000 in 1900, based on Rufus Steele's 1911 number of 70,000. I don't care if you suspect everything I say, because I'm savvy enough to make sure I can back it up, and don't twist facts to fit my agenda. And your suggestion of how to go about estimating is no better than my extrapolation. I do not agree with your assertion that disclosed extrapolation is against Wikipedia's guidelines, but since you continue to use the extrapolated number to drag this discussion down the same old rabbit trail of accusations that I'm making stuff up, LETS JUST DROP IT. You know, if you really want to wrap up this "drama" stop with the accusations and engage in a rational discourse. All you do is take the debate round and round in circles. At this point, I'm sitting back and patiently waiting for you to slowly realize you can't repress valid, relevant and credible sources because they give evidence of a history you don't want to face up to. You know, this discussion is going to be part of this webpage. You aren't coming off really well. SheriWysong (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If you were truly interested in putting out accurate, relevant, well-sourced and BALANCED historical context to the Act, it would read something like this:

 "Some sources (Ryden, Walker) say that millions of feral horses once roamed west of the Mississippi. J. Frank Dobie, noted there is no way to determine their their peak population, writing:  'All guessed numbers are mournful to history.  My own guess is that at no time were there more than a million mustangs in Texas and no more than a million others scattered over the remainder of the West.'  However, all referenced sources agree that the vast majority of these horses would have been found east of Continental Divide.  As stated by Evans: 'The greatest numbers occurred in the Southwest, especially west-central Texas. At the end of the 1800s, most wild horse concentrations were found west of the Rocky Mountains.'   Currently, almost half of the feral horses subject to the Act are found in Nevada.  Anthony Amaral estimated that, at their peak in 1900, there were 100,000 feral horses there, based on Rufus Steele's assertion that there was 70,000 in 1911. By 1971, when the Act became effective, there was (look up number of horses counted in Nevada in 1971) in Nevada and 17,300 overall, that came under the protection and management of the BLM."

The part of what I wrote that is in bold could be argued to be irrelevant to the Act. Take that out if you want. I personally would rather leave it in, because it provides perspective on the popular but misinformed belief that there was once millions of horses where they currently are now (a misconception which is obvious to me that you hold, are trivializing, distorting and trying to repress evidence that reveals it to be a misconception and a misconception you are trying to perpetuate). However, I insist that the "millions" number be left in context, and that all the book sources, Ryden, Walker, Dobie, and Evans are included in the references (taking the Ryden book out of the external links). As written, it accurately reflects what the BLM wrote on its website (which shouldn't be relied on too heavily as a source anyway, because it may very well be edited). It credits all sources equally, and gives the reader the information to follow up on them. The second part of the paragraph gives a true sense of the rate of decline in the 70 years prior to the Act, and does not imply that the Federal Agencies (The Forest Service and Grazing Service/BLM) had exterminated millions of horses, since they had not been established until after 1900.

Lets come to a concensus on this, and then we can discuss my other edits that you arbitrarily reverted. SheriWysong (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You have no right to "insist" on anything, particularly a POV-pushing agenda to focus excessively on the state of Nevada (or Texas, for that matter). What you originally inserted into the article was several different edits that contained various content, most of which was irrelevant or inaccurate. Your new proposal is not acceptable because it puts undue weight on Nevada and the "we must use all sources" argument is absurd, we could easily add five more books; Dobie's "guess" is the outlier, and we don't need a bunch of other in-between guesses for here or there. All sources are not created equal and the 100,000 in Nevada is IRRELEVANT to the legislation. (Please read WP:UNDUE) I also took a look at your single legitimate original point - that the five million number in Evans seemed dodgy, and I agreed with you on that point, we are using the Dobie number simply because is so widely disseminated that it needs to be mentioned in a proper context. Your edits to the lead, your rambling edits about Texas, and your "extrapolation" of a wholly made up number (the 200,000 nonsense) was poorly done and inaccurate. At this point, I already proposed material on the BLM numbers of 1971 for the "Implementation" section, where I think it fits. I would not object to some comment as to current numbers being added there and you can even say that the majority today are in Nevada if the stats verify that ( The language of the history section where Dobie is mentioned now is short, consied and puts Dobie's comment in context.  I don't think it needs to be changed now.  We don't do a "stated by this expert and that expert" type of writing in wikipedia as much as you suggest, Evans is, as you pointed out, the editor of a horse encyclopedia.  Montanabw (talk)  19:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I suggest we break down the proposal into component parts:


 * 1) Should we add info on the numbers the BLM found in the 1971 census? I say yes if done concisely and properly sourced.  Montanabw (talk)  19:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) If so, should we add the wording " A census of animals in 1971 determined that there were approximately 17,300 horses and 8,045 burros found on lands subject to the Act.(ref to myths source already in article). " as I proposed above for the first paragraph of the "implementation" section? I like it, but am open to better ideas or improved, if brief phrasing.  Montanabw (talk)  19:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Should we add ANYTHING about estimates from Nevada circa 1900? I say no, it's irrelevant because those numbers are guesses as much ad Dobie's, and unless we want to go on and make a chart of something that contains Orgon, Wyoming, etc., it's just trivia.  Montanabw (talk)  19:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Should we add any other estimates besides Dobie's 2 million number? Maybe if there is another similarly respected source with an overall estimate (If Amaral estimates for the entire west, or if Ryden has numbers, I'd be interested in seeing these.) but I don't see a need for a laundry list, particularly one that is only for one state.  "All" sources?  No, that's just silly.   Montanabw (talk)  19:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Those are four solid discussions. If you want to add other suggestions, break them down to a single topic so we can assess each in context. Montanabw (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's not get sidetracked on the implementation section. First, let's figure out the History.

"#Should we add any other estimates besides Dobie's 2 million number?" Definitely. If we use Dobie's, we use Amaral's and explain why they are so different. We should use the whole paragraph I wrote above. If you're concerned that it only addresses Nevada, an explanation that that is the only State for which there are known credible statistics can be included. Also, it incorporates the 1971 census numbers, so we don't even have to mess with the implementation Section. Simple, concise, accurate well-sourced... Please provide a VALID reason why we shouldn't do this. The reasons you have given so far are ludicrously self-centered: Texas isn't a relevant subject unless the source I want talks about it...Nevada is probably the most relevant state to talk about because that's the State with the most horses affected by the Act but I don't ant to use the source so I'm declaring what is said is simply trivia...A source can't guess unless the source I want to use does...We can only give an outlier, but not a range of numbers it outlies, because, because, oh, just because I say so!...Even though you didn't actually say we must use all sources, I'm putting it into quotes and pretending you said it so that I can beat you over the head again with another link to a Wikipedia policy page...Even though you are trying to do as Wikipedia says and balance biased material with other material to produce a more neutral perspective, I pay no attention to any policy except those that I am using to try to bully others with...ETC. ETC. ETC. And, stop going back to old issues to try to make me sound like I don't know what I'm saying. The reason we are discussing this is because we BOTH think what each other wrote was inaccurate and inappropriate, not so that you can just keep trying to beat me down by telling me that what I did was. This is supposed to be "Round 2", remember? Keep focused on what we are talking about NOW. Lynn Wysong 19:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SheriWysong (talk • contribs)


 * No, your "whole paragraph" is poorly written (too many parentheticals, too much "expert foo says this or that") and it contains too much irrelevant content. The article is neutral as it sits, I see no need to add gobs of trivia.  Frankly, Steele's numbers are just as much an estimate as Dobie's - the BLM is pretty firm that no one had an accurate census.  Does Amaral have numbers other than for Nevada?  If Nevada only, they are useless.  You have admitted that you have no sources for the rest of the country, yes?  Oh, and I see you signed yourself "Lynn" instead of "Sheri" - seems you can't even keep your username straight, let alone the facts. But do just keep talking, you sound less credible with every new paragraph.   Montanabw (talk)  02:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you just want to dictate, obfuscate, and make snarky comments, instead of engage in a rationale discourse, that's fine. I'll just try to glean what little constructive criticism there is in your comments and carry on. Here's a revised suggestion:

Replace this "No more than two million feral horses may have once roamed the American West, according to what historian J. Frank Dobie called a "guess." However, no scientific census of feral horse numbers had ever been performed in the late 1800s or early 1900s, and any estimate is speculative.[6] However, horse numbers were in decline as domestic cattle and sheep competed with them for resources.[8]..." with this:

 "Some sources (Ryden, Walker) say that millions of feral horses once roamed west of the Mississippi. J. Frank Dobie, noted there is no way to determine their their peak population, writing:  'All guessed numbers are mournful to history.  My own guess is that at no time were there more than a million mustangs in Texas and no more than a million others scattered over the remainder of the West.'  However, all referenced sources agree that the vast majority of these horses would have been found east of Continental Divide.  As stated by Evans: 'The greatest numbers occurred in the Southwest, especially west-central Texas. At the end of the 1800s, most wild horse concentrations were found west of the Rocky Mountains.'   The peak population of feral horses that once roamed in their current range on Federal Lands is equally speculative. The only known early population estimates are for Nevada, where Velma Bronn Johnston campaigned and where almost half the horses subject to the Act are currently found. Anthony Amaral estimated that, at their peak in 1900, there were 100,000 feral horses there, based on Rufus Steele's assertion that there was 70,000 in 1911. Horse numbers were declining because ranchers removed them from the range to free up forage for their sheep and cattle. After the mid-1930s, the decline continued after the United States Forest Service and the U.S. Grazing Service (which was established under the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act [TGA]) also began removing feral horses from Federal Lands due to pressure from the ranchers who, after implementation of the TGA, were paying grazing fees for the lands upon which the horses grazed, and from state wildlife agencies and sportsmen who were concerned that as horses degraded range land, game species would also suffer. It was not clear that the land was incurring damage due to the presence of the horses, nonetheless, both agencies responded to political pressure to act, and they continued the previous efforts to remove the horses from federal lands. From 1934 to 1963, the Grazing Service (and from 1946 onward, the BLM, which was established from the merge of the General Land Office and the U.S. Grazing Service) paid private contractors to remove tens of thousands of feral horses and allowed their slaughter for use as pet food.[9] Ranchers were often allowed to round up any horses they wanted, and the Forest Service shot any remaining animals.[9] By 1971, when the Act became effective, there was (look up number of horses counted in Nevada in 1971) in Nevada and 17,300 overall, that came under the protection and management of the BLM.[6]"  Lynn Wysong 03:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

That does what Wikipedia policy says and balances biased material with other material to produce a more neutral (and in this case more ACCURATE) perspective. It replaces "agencies responded to political pressure to act, and they began to remove hundreds of thousands of feral horses from federal property" with "paid private contractors to remove tens of thousands of feral horses" since the estimates given by Amaral and Steele support that change (Don't try to take me on another merry-go-round of how I "made up" the 200,000 number extrapolated from the 100,000 number. I've explained it upteen times, and from now on I'm ignoring your references to it). Since you have indicated many times that your main concern is for the integrity of the information in Wikipedia, you should have no problems with this. Lynn Wysong 13:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

So, give me specific, well reasoned, and CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. Don't just say "This is a just an estimate" "This is irrelevant"  "This is poorly written" "This is useless" etc. Once again, we can take off the part of the paragraph in bold, since it isn't really relevant to the area and horses that are subject to the Act, but it can be included to clarify the 'millions' figure that many readers are familiar with (that's in bold to give an example of "specific, well reasoned, and constructive"). Don't say that "we can't use Evans because he wrote a book about horse care." What Evans wrote is ACCURATE (again, don't try another round on the merry-go-round of your assertion that I once said that he wasn't; I've clarified what I said several times now, so I'm also going to ignore that assertion from now on), and it provides an excellent source for clarification of the shift in the area of population between the historical time that Dobie wrote about and the historical time Amaral wrote about. Lynn Wysong 12:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I made four simple suggestions, you responded with a tirade. I'm done arguing with you. This is, as I have said 10 times now, not relevant to the legislation this article covers. I do think adding 1971 numbers is.  So my only question is if you agree ONLY on the issue of adding 1971 numbers to the implementation section as I suggested above?  Can we reach consensus on THAT point, all others aside?  05:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Montanabw (talk)

You can say something 10 times, 100 times, 1000 times, etc., but saying something over and over doesn't make it any more valid (specific, well reasoned and constructive) than the first time you say it. If a history is relevant at all, a neutral and balanced history is relevant. What I have written is neutral, balanced and accurate. What is there now is not. On the issue of putting the 1971 numbers in the implementation section, I think they belong in the history section. Since you seem to have the opinion that the BLM is the most reliable source on the matter, and it states that: "When it comes to the historical wild horse population, a substantiated and more relevant figure is the number found roaming in 1971..." I'm sure you would have to agree that having it in the history section, particularly in the discussion of the historical wild horse populations, is the most appropriate place. So, lets stick with the one paragraph of the history section for now (then we can start to deal with the myriad of other problems), because that is the one that I am most concerned about, due to the unsubstantiated assertion that "agencies responded to political pressure to act, and they began to remove hundreds of thousands of feral horses from federal property". No source backs up there were even hundreds of thousands of horses on the range when the agencies began to remove them, much less that the agencies removed that many, which is why I have been so adamant on accurately addressing that issue. So, how do you want to address that? Lynn Wysong 10:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)contribs)

Okay, how about this change, to make it consistent with the Mustang page:

 "Some sources (Ryden, page 129; Walker, page 91) say that millions of feral horses once roamed west of the Mississippi (West). Although all numbers are speculative since no scientific estimate was ever made at the time the horses were at their peak population, according to an educated guess by historian J. Frank Dobie, no more than two million feral horses ever roamed the West (Dobie, pages 108-9). However, all referenced sources agree that the vast majority of these horses would have been found east of Continental Divide.  As stated by Evans: 'The greatest numbers occurred in the Southwest, especially west-central Texas. At the end of the 1800s, most wild horse concentrations were found west of the Rocky Mountains.'   The peak population of feral horses that once roamed in their current range on Federal Lands is equally speculative since no comprehensive census of feral horse numbers had ever been conducted until 1971 (BLM). The only known early population estimates are for Nevada, where Velma Bronn Johnston campaigned and where almost half the horses subject to the Act are currently found. Anthony Amaral estimated that, at their peak in 1900, there were 100,000 feral horses there (Amaral, page 24), based on Rufus Steele's assertion that there was 70,000 in 1911. Horse numbers were declining because ranchers removed them from the range to free up forage for their sheep and cattle. After the mid-1930s, the decline continued after the United States Forest Service and the U.S. Grazing Service (which was established under the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act [TGA]) also began removing feral horses from Federal Lands due to pressure from the ranchers who, after implementation of the TGA, were paying grazing fees for the lands upon which the horses grazed, and from state wildlife agencies and sportsmen who were concerned that as horses degraded range land, game species would also suffer. It was not clear that the land was incurring damage due to the presence of the horses, nonetheless, both agencies responded to political pressure to act, and they continued the previous efforts to remove the horses from federal lands. From 1934 to 1963, the Grazing Service (and from 1946 onward, the BLM, which was established from the merge of the General Land Office and the U.S. Grazing Service) paid private contractors to remove tens of thousands of feral horses and allowed their slaughter for use as pet food.[9] Ranchers were often allowed to round up any horses they wanted, and the Forest Service shot any remaining animals.[9] Although the initial 1971 census indicated there was a total of 17,300 horses that came under the protection and management of the BLM,[6] in 1975, the first year aerial surveys were taken, the BLM determined there was 21,868 horses in Nevada alone and 49,658 overall, almost tripling the 1971 numbers (BLM. 1977)." Lynn Wysong 16:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

As you notice, the 1971 BLM numbers are at the end of the paragraph. So, that sentence can easily be moved, if, when we ever get that point, we decide to do so. Lynn Wysong 20:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * So, am I to understand that you are refusing to take place in any more discussion to come to a consensus in this issue? Or are you conceding to using the neutral and balanced version of the paragraph? I'll go into the next discussion assuming the latter.  Lynn Wysong 07:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SheriWysong (talk • contribs)


 * Neither. I am making ONE suggestion, you can make a counter suggestion.  I don't agree with anything you have submitted so far. Make SHORT, SPECIFIC suggestions, without all the tl;dr walls of text, and I will consider them on a case by case basis.   Montanabw (talk)  21:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Try again
The above is completely tl;dr. Nothing new up there, all arguments beaten to death. Henceforth, specific proposals of specific wording only with specific citation (here inside nowiki tags so it doesn't format funny. Each suggestion stands on its own, irrespective of other changes being accepted or rejected. Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  06:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC) -- Montanabw proposes a sentence to be added to the end of paragraph 1 of the "Implementation" section:  A census of animals in 1971 determined that there were approximately 17,300 horses and 8,045 burros found on lands subject to the Act.


 * Sure, we can take those numbers out of the bottom of this paragraph so that it reads as follows:Lynn Wysong (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 *  "Some sources (Ryden, page 129; Walker, page 91) say that millions of feral horses once roamed west of the Mississippi, particularly in Texas and the surrounding states. According to historian J. Frank Dobie: "No scientific estimates of their (mustang) numbers was made...All guessed numbers are mournful to history. My own guess is that at no time were there more than a million mustangs in Texas and no more than a million others scattered over the remainder of the West."[Dobie, pages 91-92] During the latter part of the 1800's, most of these were trailed north and east or removed for other reasons until by the time of the first (1934) printing of The Mustangs there was just "a few wild horses in Nevada, Wyoming and other Western states."  No known "scientific" estimates of the population of those remaining feral horses was made until 1971 (BLM). The only known earlier population estimates for where the horses are currently found are for Nevada, where Velma Bronn Johnston campaigned and where almost half the horses subject to the Act are currently found. Anthony Amaral estimated that, at their peak in 1900, there were 100,000 feral horses in that State (Amaral, page 24), based on Rufus Steele's assertion that there was 70,000 in 1911. Horse numbers were declining because ranchers removed them from the range to free up forage for their sheep and cattle. (Amaral) After 1934, the United States Forest Service and the U.S. Grazing Service (which was established under the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act [TGA]) also began removing feral horses from Federal Lands due to pressure from the ranchers who, after implementation of the TGA, were paying grazing fees for the lands upon which the horses grazed, and from state wildlife agencies and sportsmen who were concerned that as horses degraded range land, game species would also suffer (I do not know where any citations are for the last part of this sentence, but it was in the original paragraph). It was not clear that the land was incurring damage due to the presence of the horses, nonetheless, both agencies responded to political pressure to act, and they continued the previous efforts to keep down the horse populations on the federal lands.(I'm not sure this sentence is appropriate, but it was in the original paragraph) From 1934 to 1963, the Grazing Service (and from 1946 onward, the BLM, which was established from the merge of the General Land Office and the U.S. Grazing Service) paid private contractors to remove feral horses from federal lands and allowed their slaughter for use as pet food.[9] Ranchers were often given 60 days to round up horses and removed the ones they claimed as strays, and the Forest Service shot any remaining animals.[9] Because mustangs numbers can double every four years, depending on the 1934 population, tens to hundreds of thousands of feral horses may have been removed in that time span.  By 1975, the first year comprehensive census's by aerial surveys were taken, the BLM determined there was 21,868 horses in Nevada and 49,658 overall on BLM administered lands and in 1976, the Forest Service determined there were 1,305 horses on USFS lands in Nevada, and 3025 overall. Lynn Wysong (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I also changed the first part of the paragraph to make it consistent with the Mustang page. By doing so, it eliminates the need for the Evans quote. I also clarified the "hundreds of thousands" number-to ensure that, in the context of the rest of the paragraph, it did not imply that the population dropped by that much. Lynn Wysong (talk) 12:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Since, after a having a rational discourse over on the Mustang page, and making the portion in bold neutral and balanced, either it or the portion in italics could be removed and leave the paragraph neutral and balanced. However, leaving them both in gives a better overview. Lynn Wysong 18:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Lynn Wysong 16:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This article does not need to parrot the other, this is specific to the legislation, as I have told you a dozen times. There is nothing "neutral" or balanced about your insertion of WP:SYNTH here or there. And you are getting pushback over there from other editors so don't try to snow people here.  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  21:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * NO. You continue to put in far too much material that is irrelevant to this article and I have told you repeatedly that we don't need extensive pre-Act statistics.  Now, YES or NO:  Add the one sentence on the BLM stats?  If not where I suggest, then elsewhere?  Any rewording of THAT information only.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  21:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Once we agree on the first suggestion I have made, then MAYBE we can look at your "Horse numbers were declining because ranchers removed them from the range to free up forage for their sheep and cattle. (Amaral)" - I'm up for a good source and that wording my fit into the history section. - IF and only if you can properly format the Amaral source with a full bibliographic citation, including page number.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  21:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "Now, YES or NO: Add the one sentence on the BLM stats?"  I believe I already answered that.  Please let me know when you're ready to actually discuss rather than dictate, and we can go over the rest.  Lynn Wysong (talk) 12:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Wrong method
That's not how you do a good article reassessment, that's the GA nomination form. And it's also the wrong forum for your issues anyway. Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 05:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing Article
Maybe it would just be better if I did a good article reassessment for not being neutral. I tried doing what the reassessment page suggested first: "For problems which are easy to resolve, you might try being bold and fixing them yourself, but, obviously I was mistaken in thinking the problems would be "easy to resolve" because we can't even get past the first paragraph here.Lynn Wysong (talk) 06:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

So, I will try one last time. How about this:


 * "Some sources (Ryden, page 129; Walker, page 91) say that millions of feral horses once roamed west of the Mississippi, particularly in Texas and the surrounding states. According to historian J. Frank Dobie "No scientific estimates of their (mustangs in the western U.S.) numbers was made...My own guess is that at no time were there more than a million mustangs in Texas and no more than a million others scattered over the remainder of the West." During the late 1800s, most of these were moved north and east, or were removed for other reasons until, by 1934, there was just "a few wild horses in Nevada, Wyoming and other Western states".  As motorized vehicles and tractors became commonplace, horse populations were no longer being kept in check by the ranchers removing them for sell and use, and after decades of unregulated cattle, sheep and horse grazing, the range was becoming overgrazed.  Upon passage of the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act federal land management agencies, that were issuing permits for the grazing of cattle and sheep, told ranchers they must remove their horses from the public rangelands because they were competing for the forage.  Ranchers were often given 60 days to round up the horses and remove the ones they claimed, and the United States Forest Service shot any remaining animals.[9] From 1934 to 1963, the Grazing Service (and from 1946 onward, the BLM, which was established from the merge of the General Land Office and the U.S. Grazing Service) paid private contractors to remove feral horses from federal lands and allowed their slaughter for use as pet food.[9]  Because mustangs numbers can double every four years, depending on the 1934 population, tens to hundreds of thousands of feral horses may have been removed in that time span.  By 1975, the first year comprehensive census's by aerial surveys were taken, the BLM determined there was 21,868 horses in Nevada and 49,658 overall on BLM administered lands and in 1976, the Forest Service determined there were 1,305 horses on USFS lands in Nevada, and 3025 overall.(BLM 1977) Lynn Wysong (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * We've already said no to the "some sources" We've said no to Ryden, and we've said no to a long quote from Dobie. Amaral is a maybe, but I have to see the book the "because numbers double... thousands may have been removed" is not sources by materials provided, that's synth. And we need more than "BLM 1977" for a final source .  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  07:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Is this the royal "we"?Lynn Wysong (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

This is where it was when I started editing:


 * By 1900, there were two to five million feral horses in the United States.[8] However, their numbers were in steep decline as domestic cattle and sheep competed with them for resources.[9] After the mid-1930s, their numbers fell even more drastically due to intervention by the U.S. government. The United States Forest Service and the U.S. Grazing Service (the predecessor to the BLM) began to remove feral horses from federal land. The two agencies were concerned that there were too many horses on the land, which led to overgrazing and significant soil erosion. Ranchers wanted the feral horses removed because they were grazing on land ranchers wanted to use for their own livestock. Hunters were worried that as horses degraded range land, hunting species would also suffer. It was not clear that there were too many horses, or that the land was incurring damage due to the presence of the horses. Nonetheless, both agencies responded to political pressure to act, and they began to remove hundreds of thousands of feral horses from federal property. From 1934 to 1963, the Grazing Service (and from 1946 onward, the BLM) paid private contractors to kill Mustangs and permitted their carcasses to be used for pet food.[10] Ranchers were often permitted to round up any horses they wanted, and the Forest Service shot any remaining animals.[10]

I think the paragraph is now more accurate and neutral, and isn't much longer. It doesn't imply that there were "millions" of horses where they are currently, like it did before, and that their numbers had "drastically" declined, which was inaccurate. Lynn Wysong (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC) edit: It takes out the Nevada population numbers, that I thought were helpful but that you didn't like (but keeps in Amaral as a reference), and replaces your paraphrasing of Dobie that I felt did not accurately reflect what he said, with a quote. Replaces the uncited middle portion of the original paragraph, such as the blurb about the hunters, with several cited facts. Compromise, compromise, compromise.Lynn Wysong (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Nothing non-neutral is actually being alleged, just a dispute over source quality and weight, and indeed material was fixed.. and the proposal above has been rejected by other editors at Mustang and is rejected for the same reasons here as synth and more extrapolation that exceeds the source. I have said previously that when time permits I will take a look at the Amaral book, as it is available to me at a local specialist library that has limited hours, but I cannot easily drop my real life work to go over there, I thought I could this week, but it won't happen until maybe next weel.  Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  07:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, if you are so suspicious of others that you can't take my word on the Amaral source and have to put so much effort into verifying what I say. I assure you, I am not a deceptive person; I would never do something so downright duplicitous as to instigate something like was done to me yesterday.Lynn Wysong (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm only suspicious of you - and that because of definite behavior - your obvious penchant for "extrapolation" and synthesis of material that exceeds the source. You are writing for an encyclopedia, you must write in an encyclopedic style; you are not doing that.  And you know that you admitted a while earlier that you were a "very experienced" editor - who made two edits in 2010 and then magically reappears in fall of 2014, so what other accounts have you edited under to become so "experienced", as you obviously have done so?  Nope, I don't trust you.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  10:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If you want to move the discussion of the possibility that I edited under other names to my talk page, by all means go ahead. I am not going to do so here.  edit:  I went ahead and addressed it on my talk page.


 * And, let's also forego the accusations of my "penchants". When you look at the paragraph above "where we started" it was chock full of "synthesis of material that exceeds the source".  So, lets just focus on cleaning it up.Lynn Wysong (talk) 12:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * So, apparently you did acquire the Amaral book.Lynn Wysong (talk) 12:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I have nothing here to say unless you have a very short, specific editing idea for THIS article that will actually improve it, the quality of the edit should stand alone without all your tl;dr. Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  20:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll do the good article review.Lynn Wysong (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to take it to one of the drama boards, please read WP:BOOMERANG first. Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  01:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I take it you have contempt for the process? Lynn Wysong (talk) 08:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You make a lot of assumptions and are a genius at poisoning the well. Make no assumptions about me or my motives, Lassie.   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  02:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

GAR
Okay, so I need to get back to my research article for a few weeks (no, has nothing to do with horses) and get it ready for submittal. So, I'll come back and see if it has improved to relieve the content dispute and other problems that would cause it to no longer qualify as a good article.Lynn Wysong (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Good luck to you. For now, I'll add the reformatted paragraph that was hashed out at the DR/N even though it wasn't agree-upon, it was an improvement over what's there now.  I also will try to dig up hardcopies of those older books (I think I know where to find a copy of Wyman and I have located Amaral, but it's in a reference section and cannot be checked out).   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  17:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)