Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Foundations theory


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Move to History of horse domestication theories and expand. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 08:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Four Foundations theory

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The theory appears to be non-notable, if not entirely non-existent. A google books search for "four foundations theory" gets exactly one hit, to a "book" which is actually a compilation of articles from ... Wikipedia. Worldcat, 0 hits; JSTOR, 0 results; Google scholar, 0 results. Searching the principal source cited in the article, Bennett's Conquerors, for the string "four foundations" in Google books gives no result (which may of course be due to shortcomings in Google). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete The portion of Bennett's book which is cited can be read through Google Books. It does not seek to establish any such theory; indeed, the number of subspecies Bennett talks about varies through the passage. I find it hard to justify keeping the article in the absence of a scholarly source that presents this theory under this name. Mangoe (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on subsequent discussion I'm inclined to go along with the renaming proposals. Mangoe (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - while not named as such, it's covered in such books as The Horse by Julie Whitaker (published 2007, isbn 978-0-312-37108-1 p. 20), Horses and Horsemanship by Ensminger (1990, isbn 0-8134-2883-1 pp. 4-6) (note that this is a agricultural science textbook, so it was taught in schools), A Natural Approach to Horse Management by Susan McBane (1992, 0-415-62370-X, pp. 10-12), The Worlds Finest Horses and Ponies by Richard Glyn (1971, isbn 0-245-59267-9, pp. 13-16). That's just from a quick pull from my bookshelves. I'm not opposed to a rename, if a more suitable name can be found, but the fact that books published in 2007 are still peddling this now-discredited theory, certainly makes it notable. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's a theory without a name, wouldn't a short section in horse do? Mangoe (talk) 13:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep -- the name is not a good one, but this is a topic with historical value considering history of horse research. It's a major theory, if obsolete, and should be covered. Pitke (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge Material looks encyclopedic and sourced. North8000 (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge. If the hypothesis is out there, but the name is bad, merger to domestication of the horse seems appropriate. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose deletion or merge, possible renaming: The Domestication article already covers this in a summary fashion, to add all of it there would put undue weight on this older theory when that article is already long and has extensive discussion of current science.  The term "Four Foundations Theory" is out there, but it is not necessarily an "official" name -- not sure if there IS a name.  The question, of course, would be finding a new name, but that's doable.   Montanabw (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Two responses: first, if the term is "out there", it is reasonable to expect a citation to that effect. Second, I'm opposed to spending a lot of space on a theory which is now found to be incorrect. If it is undue in domestication, it's undue anywhere. Mangoe (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Your theory would mean that we would need to remove wiki articles on, say phrenology or Geocentric model. We need to explain some of these older concepts, particularly when they still have echoes in the modern age.  As stated previously, I'm OK with a rename, but I'm just not sure if there is an "official" name for the four/seven/multiple origins hypothesis that this article discusses.  For amusement value, but also to bring home my point, here is a 1913 article that argues BOTH that the Przewalski is the ancestor of the modern domestic horse (it isn't) AND that there were two body types, the "Forest horse" and the oriental type.   Montanabw (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 *  Keep Rename to more inclusive and neutral title and expand to reflect history of domestication origin debate. The four foundations 'theory' once was a valid hypothesis about the origin of the various horse breeds. It has been found incorrect later when DNA studies became available. The information is far to much for the domestication article, where the current coverage there is already more than what I would give it. Based on that it has been discussed in the scientific literature, and has gained some prominence for a while, it seems right to keep an article about it. The problem seems to be more with the name, specifically because there does not seem to be a name proposed for the idea. And as Montanabw indicated, there are a lot of variants of this idea with two three etc number of founders...-- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Updated with proposal below. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Proposal: I have no idea what an ideal title would be, but would "multiple origins hypothesis" work?  Just throwing it out there.  There were also a couple of single origin hypotheses out there, arguing either the Tarpan of the Przewalski as the predecessor of the domestic horse, and yet another that argued that the subtypes were acutally separate species.  This article, with yet some other title, could also discuss those a bit more.    Montanabw (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete/merge I have never been very convinced of the prominence that has been accorded this concept in the wiki equine pages.  As noted already in the comments above, it doesn't have a standard name, which brings up the problem of WP:synth if an arbitrary name is given it by wikipedia.  It was noted on the Evolution of the horse talk page, it was a very short lived (almost) hypothesis, which was very quickly shot down by molecular research. It never made it to the level of theory, and is only covered in a few non peer-reviewed books.-- Kev  min  § 20:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of the material you have been concerned about in various articles I think has been replaced with more updated material that has become available. For those who care, the primary source for the article is pages 4-7 of this work. The problem that this article originally was designed to explore, and one that is a gap in other articles as well, is the development of breeds and distinct phenotypes. If you go out to various breed registries, many STILL insist that their breed was descended from the "pure" wild horse that was first tamed (therefore their breed is better). We keep revisiting the "wild horse" issue on WP over and over again when folks with romanticized beliefs about their favorite breed make unsustainable claims of great antiquity. So whatever comes out of this discussion, that's the underlying concern from my end. Montanabw (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As already pointed out in several places, including higher up this page by both myself and another editor, that source does not mention the theory at all, and as such can hardly be considered a reliable source for it. The use of it as a reference in the article is in my opinion questionable. Apropos, does the other source cited in the article, Gladys Brown Edwards The Arabian: War Horse to Show Horse, specifically mention the Four Foundations theory? On which page? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You are ignoring several RS's presented. You seem focused on not liking the title, so argue for a rename. Expanding that to an argument for a deletion on that basis is a real stretch. Pumpkin Sky  talk  02:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The idea in the article has been very well established, it was never formally named much. Not naming things explicitly is a normal thing for ideas that are generally accepted (as it was for a long time). -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete/merge Probably best explained somewhere among the up to date theories.RafikiSykes (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Questions: for Ealdgyth: thanks for posting some references, I envy anyone who has a real library; but unless in those references the Four Foundations theory is discussed under that name, how are they relevant here? For Kim van der Linde: if it was once a valid theory, it should be easy to find academic sources that discuss it; since I have signally failed to do so (perhaps because I am not a very good researcher, or don't have access to the right databases) can you point us to some? Thanks to both (and indeed to all who have responded). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I think there are two issues. The current article is far to single-minded focused on a single book with a somewhat more than before worked out scenario of the 'Multiple Origins Hypothesis' (MO). This theory was carried to rest first in this article and all subsequent follow-up articles. As for older articles supportive of MO, I have no idea, never really looked for those articles, but they do go back many many decades, which are less easy to find online. The second is the name, and the more neutral 'Multiple Origins Hypothesis' should do. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * that Science article calls the theory (or theories) "mutliple origins scenario" or "multiple origins hypothesis", which is fine as a name, as far as I'm concerned. Another RS - Equine Genetics & Selection Procedures by Equine Research Publications published in 1978. This is another text-book type work. Discusses "four ancestral types" on pages 17-21. The name may or may not be a perfect fit for the article, but the fact that there was once a widely considered theory of multiple origins for domestic horses is definitely true. The fact that it is now discredited doesn't negate the fact that at one time variations on the multiple origins theory held the field. Another reference - The Horse (second edition) by Evans, Borton, Hintz, and Van Vleck (1990, isbn 0-7167-1811-1) pp. 5-6 where they reference Horses by George Simpson (1951, Oxford University Press) as sharing the idea. As a side note, I don't watchlist AfDs, so if you have a question for me, you need to ping me on my talk page. I also have the Vila paper that Kim van der Linde mentioned above. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Even if people call it different names, this is a historically significant theory that is still being discussed. Deleting this is sheer deletionism run amok. Redirs from each major name option should be made to the parent article (this one or an agreed upon rename). I would also support a section on this in Domestication of the horse with a subarticle link to this article. Pumpkin Sky   talk  23:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Other info,  My point, again, is not to promote the theory as current, but to defend keeping a separate article that explains what was once a widely held view and one that several breeds have a vested interest in continuing to promote in order to make their breed sound more "special."  To illustrate this, I did a search just on "Tarpan" in Hendricks and pulled 20 hits, most of which were claiming various wild horse antiquity theories for various breeds. (Hendricks' weakness is that she pulls from breed propaganda without a lot of critical review) Another source, dubious but completely independent of wiki and with a decent critique of the theory, and at least sourced, though not particularly well, is at a spam-blocked URL  associatedcontent (dot) com, and it comes up if you add /article/7837506/the_four_foundations_theory_of_horse_pg3.html?cat=53  The same author (Rena Sherwood) has a similar article in helium (dot) com at /items/1879457-four-foundations-horse helium.com], which I freely admit is not an RS for wiki, but as far as evidence the concept is "out there" and not a WP:SYNTH or WP:OR figment of the imagination, this will help.   Montanabw (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I fail to see how "what was once a widely held view" could have gone so very thoroughly off the radar that the only source for it is an essay on a collaborative website. If a theory is notable, like, say, Phlogiston, it leaves a documentary record which persists after it is discredited and largely forgotten. And what is the relevance of the Tarpan here? That is not a theory, it is a documented fact; I believe there are photographs of it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is a notable (though now discredited) theory on equine evolution/domestication. Besides the references that Ealdgyth and Montanabw provide above, discussions of this can be found in The Encyclopedia of the Horse (Edwards, 1994, pp. 22-23) and The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Horse Breeds (McBane, 1997, pp. 8-9). These two I found in just a quick look at my bookshelf, without even doing an in-depth search or checking out the local library. The references provided show that this theory has been discussed in everything from popular literature to textbooks. Both of these books call it the "Four basic types", but I doubt this would make a good article name. The information in this article would be undue weight if merged to another article - a discredited theory does not deserve this much discussion in either Horse or Domestication of the horse. However, it is a notable theory that deserves to have its own article, as has been shown by the many sources provided here. This theory did go through several variants (as is shown partly by the difficulty of deciding on a name for it), and the discussion of these variants will make a long (and well-sourced) enough article that it should be split out on its own. Dana boomer (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Some thoughts
After thinking a bit more about this, I think we maybe can find a more constructive solution here. What we know is that the single origin/multiple origin has been a debate for many many years, and the end conclusion was that both ideas were true (stallions single origin, mares multiple origins), albeit without the explicit link between appearance and breed types. This debate has been discussed in length in many many papers, and it was only solved in this century after DNA sequencing became very wide spread. It has been named many things, one alternative example is monophyly versus polyphyly. I think the best solution would be have an article detailing this debate, and have summary statements in the relevant articles. As a name, we can think of something like "Single versus multiple origins debate in horse domestication". That would be a more inclusive article and provide much more information about the topic than the current rather narrow article. Any thoughts? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I like this approach. I think it would make sense to come up with a good article name, move this article to that new name, and then build upon it to make it more comprehensive.  We also could just start plinking away at improvements in the existing article while we work on a name.  (I also have Vila, I think)  Montanabw (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I also like this approach. Because of the various multiples of the multiple origins theory (was it three? four? seven? twenty-eleven?) "four foundations" is too narrow. I personally find "Single versus multiple origins debate in horse domestication" very clunky, but so far haven't been able to think of anything else that describes what we're looking for... I'm willing to help on the new article, although I think my "help" might be more along the lines of copyediting, formatting and cheerleading, since you guys have better libraries than me on this subject. Dana boomer (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What about "History of horse domestication theories"? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In the right direction except that it isn't really quite domestication; it's more like origin of body types or breeds. Maybe "Domesticated horse origins hypotheses"?  Still real clunky, but puts the subject first.  Montanabw (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Another try. History of horse domestication theories. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Withdraw nomination. Kim has given us evidence that a theory something like this one, albeit with another name, was refuted in academic publications. If I understand correctly, that is taken as sufficient evidence of notability for a fringe theory here, so I believe I should withdraw my deletion nomination. I would be happy to defer to the scholarship of Kim and Ealdgyth, and see the article renamed and rewritten instead. History of horse domestication theories seems to me as good a title as any, and definitely better than the previous suggestions. A question: as it stands, the article contains some discussion of hypothetical body types, and some of hypothetical species (Equus agilis) and subspecies (Equus ferus silvaticus); would/ should the latter be included under "domestication theories"? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.