User talk:Grrace

Welcome...

Hello, Grrace, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Help How to write a great article Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there.

Mustang article
Hi Grrace! Thank you for your edits to the Mustang article. However, mustangs are feral horses, not wild horses. Changing sourced information and inserting unreliable sources (especially when they deadlink) in the place of reliable sources goes against Wikipedia policy. I've reverted your changes to the article again. I have also started a discussion section on the talk page of the article where we can discuss this if you would like to explain your position. Please do not revert again without discussion and consensus first. Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Administrative action
Grrace, I have notified the edit warring board here of your actions on the Mustang article. You have continued to add your point of view, despite being asked multiple times in multiple locations to take the issue to the talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to be prepared to talk, only revert, so I've blocked you for 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * With regard to your email: you are reverting without talking. This is bad. When you have a conflict, you should be prepared to discuss it. This is one reason why articles have talk pages William M. Connolley (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Re your email: Talk:Mustang (horse) William M. Connolley (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You blocked my edit while I was typing in citations that included the DNA facts. Mustangs are not "feral," they are a native American species. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grrace (talk • contribs)


 * You can leave the citations here, if you'd like, for now. That would make it easier for other editors to start verifying them. They're going to have to be fairly powerful, and very reliable, to be able to counter hundreds of scientific publications saying that horses did go extinct in the Americas (and there are therefore no wild horses) and Mustangs are the descendents of colonial/Spanish horses that were let loose (and therefore feral). Dana boomer (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Question
Grrace, please see the discussion on the Mustang talk page, where I have proposed a new paragraph for the article dealing with the feral vs. wild issue, and where another editor has chipped in as well. I have been waiting for your input on the new proposed wording (please place that input on the article talk page), which is why I have not placed it into the article yet.

As for your comments on my talk page. Other WP articles cannot be used as sources, and the information there should be taken with a grain of salt. In particular, the feral article needs a lot of work. The intro sentence should actually probably read something like "an animal that has escaped from domestication, or the descendants of that animal". Today's mustangs are the descendants of horses that escaped from domestication, and are by that definition feral. Just because you consider the mustang to be "wild" doesn't mean that everyone else does, or that the WP article should say they are. From the information I have found, the main definition of the mustang used by government agencies and other governing bodies is "feral" - the main proponents of the "wild" argument seem to be just two scientists (Kirkpatrick and Fazio). If you have other sources giving a larger following for the "wild" argument, then please let me know.

As far as "mestengo" goes - I don't have the dictionary edition that is listed as the source for this statement, but I trust the editors who have been working on this article in the past, and I trust them not to misrepresent sources. It's a policy called assume good faith. My edition of Webster's, however, says that "mestango" means stray livestock. I don't see a huge problem in assuming that another version of Webster's says "stray or feral". Besides, you cannot use the argument that just because "mestango" meant "wild stock", it means that mustangs are wild - the source of a word does not transfer meaning from the old word to the new word, if that makes sense.

Please comment on the proposed wording on the Mustang talk page. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Dana! Mustangs are wild horses, not feral horses. To be feral you have to have been a captive horse domesticated for some time and then escaped to the wild.  Your sources may be reliable, but don't tell the whole story.  E.caballus originated in North America as native species.  Whether or not man domesticated them is irrelevant, as a large number remained wild, including generations of offspring.  Thank you. Grrace (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Grrace, please re-read my arguments above. The ancestors of the mustangs were captive horses brought to America by Europeans that had been domesticated for centuries. Some of these captive horses escaped or were abandoned, and then developed into what we today call the Mustang. They are therefore feral - they come from domesticated stock. A feral horse doesn't have to be the individual horse that escaped or was let loose, it can be the descendent of that horse. I'm not sure what you mean by "a large number of them remained wild". Are you saying that Equus caballus never actually died off in North America? Because I'm fairly sure that would be considered a fringe theory, and I have yet to see a reference that backs that up. True wild horses went extinct in North America several thousand years ago. Then domesticated horses were reintroduced several hundred years ago, and today's mustangs are the descendents of those domesticated horses - therefore feral. I will also reply to your questions on the Mustang page. Dana boomer (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Dana, you stated above "From the information I have found, the main definition of the mustang used by government agencies and other governing bodies is "feral" - the main proponents of the "wild" argument seem to be just two scientists (Kirkpatrick and Fazio)." My first question is why are you relying on government agencies definition of "feral" vs. "wild" over scientific evidence? Government agencies are not scientists and have a conflict of interest, presently. Also, the "just two scientists" comment brings me to my next question...how many scientists do you need? I have a load of them, want more links? Thank you. Grrace (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please take this discussion to the Mustang talk page - having this discussion in two different places makes things difficult. Dana boomer (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Mustang: feral or not...
mustang |ˈməsˌta ng | noun an American feral horse, typically small and lightly built. (Oxford American Dictionary ___ mustang Pronunciation: ‚m„s-ƒtaŠ Function: noun Etymology: Mexican Spanish mestengo, from Spanish, stray, from mesteño strayed, from mesta annual roundup of cattle that disposed of strays, from Medieval Latin (animalia) mixta mixed animals Date: 1808 (Webster's Dictionary)

1 : the small hardy naturalized horse of the western plains directly descended from horses brought in by the Spaniards; also : bronco ___ feral Pronunciation: ‚fir-„l, ‚fer- Function: adjective Etymology: Medieval Latin feralis, from Latin fera wild animal, from feminine of ferus wild— more at fierce Date: 1604

1 : of, relating to, or suggestive of a wild beast 2 a : not domesticated or cultivated : wild b : having escaped from domestication and become wild Webster's Dictionary) __

IHMO, Grrace, Oxford and Websters are superior sources to WP. It may be advisable for Wiki contributors to do  some research  for reliable sources before categorically making prescriptive statements and causing debates that may  be defeating the object of talk pages, and injure  the sensibilities of serious editors. --Kudpung (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)