Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 111

Archive 105

←

Archive 109

Archive 110

Archive 111

Archive 112

Archive 113

→

Archive 115

Talk:Istrian exodus

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Silvio1973 on 08:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Istrian exodus (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Silvio1973 (talk · contribs) Director (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Two issues: 1) A sourced edit (section: Period of the exodus) is removed by Director without any reason; 2) Edits unsourced are pushed by Director without sources (section: Slavs under Italian Fascist rule). I tried to politely convince Director to discuss, but he just removes sourced edits and push unsourced ones. I believe this issue can be sorted out easily with the help of a mediator. Have you tried to resolve this previously? None How do you think we can help? Acting as a mediator. Summary of dispute by Director A few days ago Silvio1973 was edit-warring on the Josip Broz Tito article to push non-consensus edits. He was blocked. Now that his block is up, he's edit-warring on the Istrian Exodus article to push non-consensus edits. This approach and general attitude, typical of Silvio1973 (which can further be gleamed from the neutrality of his above "overview"), successfully demolishes discussion. This is an issue for ANI, not DRN. -- Director (talk) 09:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Talk:Istrian exodus discussion Please, No further discussion until a DRN volunteer formerly accepts and begins moderation of this case, and please comment on the conduct, not the contributors. Thank you. Yes, it is true that I was blocked two days ago. I recognise I made a mistake, but this has nothing to do with the discussion now ongoing on Istrian Exodus. I call my fellow editor Director to join the discussion and to explain why he removes sourced edits and push unsourced ones. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Yes that's all very nice and polite, Silvio, but the several coats of slime that cover each of your posts don't do much to disguise your bullying tactics. Tactics which I am not going to validate by discussing with you while you edit war. You were blocked for the exact same thing you are doing now: edit-warring to push opposed edits, and justifying it by claiming they're "sourced". You seem to think actually posting a source for once is such a massive achievement it justifies you edit-warring until you have your way. Whereas in fact 99 times out of 100, you're misrepresenting a source, misquoting it, generally being dishonest about what it says (I count at least six times you were caught doing that), or its a blatantly fringe point of view contradicted by many other sources (as you were told just now at the JBT article), etc.. etc... On the other hand, when others bring up sources you don't like, you see no problem in presenting nothing but your own irrelevant personal opinions as a reason why we must change what they state. Wikipedia functions through productive discussion and consensus, something you appear to be incapable of. You are a user that employs bullying, dishonesty, cherry-picking, and general underhandedness in pushing an extreme right-wing Italian political point of view, wherever you go. Albeit well-coated, as I mentioned. 11:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Dear Director, please comment about the edits not the editors. What are the reasons of your current disagreement on Istrian Exodus? Silvio1973 (talk) 12:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC) The editor's conduct. The topic you are editing on requires research and a constructive discussion, which isn't possible while you're edit-warring, and probably at all if its only with you (which I know from extensive experience). Restore the status quo, post your proposed edit on the talkpage, and lets request input from another editor. -- Director (talk) 12:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Diretor, the status quo includes the edit you removed. Again, the section concerning the exodus from Zadar is in IMHO very neutral. I suggest we agree on this section (please propose the wording you consider the most appropriate) and concerning the other section we wait for a mediator. Please note I have not removed the unsourced sections but just tagged them. Does this approach suits you? Again, I call for constructive discussion. In this precise instance, we do not face very controversial matters, consensus can arise very quickly if we seat and discuss. Silvio1973 (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC) I am not interested in what you claim to be the status quo, for me its the state of affairs prior to your introducing these new edits. Its a matter of principle: you will please denounce edit-warring as a means of pushing new controversial edits - or otherwise discussion loses any point: you might as well introduce any changes you like (until you're presumably blocked again, that is). -- Director (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC) What is your problem? Do you need a demonstration of good faith? I am going to remove the section concerning the exodus from Zadar, but please join the discussion and tell what is wrong with it and possibly propose an alternative formulation. There is nothing of seriously controversial in this edit. Silvio1973 (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Note: While I'm occasionally a coordinator here, I am not taking this case (at least not at this time). Rather, I would advise that both of you keep your cool and wait for someone who is willing to take the case. If you continue your back-and-forth it's likely that nobody will take the case and you'll need to consider other avenues of dispute resolution. Additionally, if you continue focusing on conduct rather than content than this is likely to be closed in any case, as DRN is not intended to address conduct matters. I urge you to take my advice under consideration. DonIago (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC) @Director: does your comment about this not being meant for the DRN mean that you're unwilling to participate? Kharkiv07Talk 22:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC) I'm not the guy to escalate things, but I'm sick to death of Silvio1973's edit-warring (this is a looong-standing issue) and won't discuss on principle until I've reason to believe anything can be achieved through discussion. That is to say, unless Silvio1973 reverts edits added against opposition, and we have the participation of a third party. I'm sure you can see that discussion swiftly loses all point when the editor believes he can add things to the article with or without the agreement of others. -- Director (talk) 05:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC) @Director, you should really focus on the edits and not on the editors. I am not pushing anything, indeeed to show my good faith I have removed my edit and put it in the talk page. I have also posted this request on the DRN in the hope to have a mediator. Again, I would like to know why you oppose my edit and would welcome your alternative modification. Waiting for your comments the contested edit remains in the talk page, but please not that I have already been waiting for 3 days. Please join the discussion, refusing to join and affirm that I push edits (in spite of the objective fact they are sourced) it's not the right method. Silvio1973 (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC) Stop the bickering and wait for a moderator or this case will be closed and sent back to the talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC) @Director: I may be missing something but I remain confused, all I want is for you to say yes or no, will you participate in this discussion? Kharkiv07Talk 22:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC) @Keithbob: I don't appreciate being talked to like this. Simply because Silvio1973 keeps trying to "reply" to everything I write doesn't mean I'm "bickering" with anybody (that kind of disruption is "how he rolls"). I was asked a question. I replied to that question. If I discussed Silvio1973's conduct its because its relevant to my reply. @Kharkiv07: I'd hoped I was clear enough.. If the article is restored to the status quo ante, and we have the participation of a third party, any kind of participation - then yes, I'll engage. If not, then no. I won't engage if Silvio1973 can indeed edit the article without regard to the talkpage, as that renders discussion moot. And I won't engage with him one-on-one, as I know from long experience that just doesn't work. -- Director (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC) @Director:, I have reverted the edit to the status quo ante, except the cn tag on two sentences. Now, can you please join the discussion? And please can we focus on the edits and not on the editors? @Kharkiv07:, the earlier we get a mediator involved, the earlier the matter will be sorted out. I really hope mediation can start on this case. Once discussion started, you will realise we speak of a very basic issue, which can be solved in little time. --Silvio1973 (talk) 08:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Wild and_Free-Roaming_Horses_and_Burros_Act_of_1971#Article_Improvement

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by SheriWysong on 15:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971#Article Improvement (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved SheriWysong (talk · contribs) montanabw (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The page is confusing, inaccurate and poorly sourced. The other editor does not agree on how it should be fixed. Have you tried to resolve this previously? none How do you think we can help? Moderate Discussion to keep it focused on the content. Summary of dispute by montanabw Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This article passed GA a year ago under the leadership of User:Dana boomer. While all articles can always be improved, and the editor above rightly noted some statistical information that was not well-stated - and has since been adjusted, her remaining "suggestions" on "improving" the article largely consist of inserting WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, sourced - poorly - to obsolete materials. She also appears to not understand WP:UNDUE. Any attempts to discuss quickly devolves into a massive waste of bandwidth to the point that it becomes impossible to even track what this editor wants; she contradicts herself, changes her position frequently, and the edit history of the talk page shows her editing pattern of making dozens of edits to produce just a few paragraphs - it's a horribly confusing method. Her behavior has resulted in two articles being fully protected. I am not opposed to compromise and collaboration, but it appears that it is impossible with this editor. Note: This editor has only edited substantially since last fall, and though she created this account in 2010, there were only two edits made at the time. This is a remarkably precocious editor or else we have a yet-undetermined sockpuppet account. Montanabw(talk) 15:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Talk:Wild and_Free-Roaming_Horses_and_Burros_Act_of_1971#Article_Improvement discussion First statement by volunteer moderator Hello! Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard. I'm Kharkiv07, and I'm a volunteer moderator around here and I will be taking this case. Before we begin I'd like to remind you that you must remain and civil and absolutely may not make personal comments or comments on conduct. I'd also like to note that I am an unbiased third party, and I will not be giving opinions on article content, but rather helping the two of you to form an agreement together. Finally, I'd ask you to keep your statements short and concise, it'll be easier for everybody to understand and will help us resolve this conflict as soon as possible. From what I understand there are quite a few content disputes going on here, and I think the best way to go about this is solving a few and then getting you on the path to having a good dialogue. So, at least to begin with, SheriWysong why don't you give me two or three additions/revisions you'd like to make, and then montanabw I'd like to hear, kindly and citing Wikipedia policy, what you think the problems are with these changes. Once again I remind you that you two must remain civil at all times. Kharkiv07Talk 23:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Thank you, Kharkiv07. I will put up my proposed revisions shortly.Lynn Wysong (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC) First statement by SheriWysong "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]" I would like for the statement to either be replaced or more accurately reflect what Dobie said, which was: "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." It is important to put Dobie's words in context as to time (1848-NOT the late 1800s or early 1900s,) and place, because the article deals with horses and numbers that are in a different geographic area, so Dobie's statement really is not relevant. "However, horse numbers were in decline as domestic cattle and sheep competed with them for resources.[8]" This statement is sourced to a reference that is also talking about horses in a different geographic location, not the horses subject to the Act of the article. It has not been established that the numbers of the horses subject to the Act declined at all, much less because they were competing with cattle and sheep for resources. "After the mid-1930s, their numbers fell even more after the United States Forest Service and the U.S. Grazing Service (the predecessor to the BLM) began to remove feral horses from federal land." Since no number is provided for the mid-1930s, and there's not source that said they declined, this is unverified.Lynn Wysong (talk) 00:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC) @Montanabw: Sorry for not pining you when I opened this, please tell us if you disagree with any of the changes here, and if so why. Kharkiv07Talk 02:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC) First statement by montanabw I have an openness to improving the article, but do not agree with many of Wysong's suggestions for improvement (I actually DO agree with a few) but these issues are being discussed exhaustively at Talk:Mustang and again at Talk:Wild_and_Free-Roaming_Horses_and_Burros_Act_of_1971#Article_improvement with little consensus because the debate gets so long that no one can even follow it any longer. It seems to become about who is right, not about consensus. I made a few changes in response to Wysong's criticism, but I didn't agree with all or her suggestions, and I tried to explain why, but ... well, here we are. This is an article about a piece of legislation with a summary of the history leading up to the act; this article is not the Wild horse preservation article, nor is it the Mustang article. We don't need endless detail. I will try to summarize my answers as concisely as possible. Montanabw(talk) 04:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC) The two million figure needs to stay for the following reasons: It is sourced originally to J. Frank Dobie on p. 108 and is explained and analyzed here (See "Myth #13"). The reason we include Dobie at all is explained by the BLM page; that the figure has "...been transformed into an asserted or assumed "fact" that two million mustangs actually roamed America in the late 1800s/early 1900s." In other words, the article "teaches the controversy" by explaining the source of one of the most common numbers that is bandied about. (read the History section of the article for full context). Wysong's insistence on the "mournful to history" direct quote is unencyclopedic writing and unneeded; we are NOT claiming that there were - or were not - two million Mustangs in the Old West; we are addressing a common misunderstood statistic and then moving on. No, I do not agree with her suggested changes or her reasoning; if the two million concept can be phrased better or explained better, WITHOUT close paraphrasing, long quotes without analysis, OR or SYNTH, then I'm open to improvement of the phrasing to get that point across. I have not been open to Wysong's suggestion, nor her reasoning behind it. Montanabw(talk) 04:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC) I'm not precisely sure what Wysong's concerns are here. Actually, the Fran Lynghaug source at page 104 here is contained in an article on the Pryor Mountain Mustangs of Montana, one of the groups of Mustangs that does live in the American west and are now protected by the Act. So while it addressed one specific group, the source verifies the general statement that there was a general decline of Mustang numbers across the western United States and that competition with livestock was a reason for this decline (put bluntly, ranchers rounded up feral horses and generally shipped them off for slaughter as horsemeat). Wysong herself proposed (at the talk page) something like: "Horse numbers were declining because ranchers removed them from the range to free up forage for their sheep and cattle." with a different sourcing original diff (diff shown has been subsequently edited). I'm open to a rephrase of that sentence. Montanabw(talk) 04:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC) Actually, there IS a number; For an estimate, I'd be open to noting the numbers in the 1930s that are mentioned at this source, which states that in 1934, (i.e "the 1930s") there were "an estimated 150,000 wild horses on public land in 11 western states" I would be open to further refinement of that section to clarify matters further if language could be agreed upon. When the 1971 Act was passed in that period of time a reasonably accurate census of mustang numbers was done; using those numbers, it is blatently obvious that by 1971 there was a clear and dramatic drop from what they once were. Montanabw(talk) 04:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC) I hope this makes my position clear. Montanabw(talk) 04:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC) Discussion I don't know if it's against protocol to answer without the moderator (@Kharkiv07:), but to move things along, I though I would go ahead and do it. A lot of the dispute revolves along montanabw's issues with "close paraphrasing" or "quoting". But, I have not seen any wiki policy against either one, as long as the paraphrases or quotes are short and cited. wp:paraphrase None of the quotes I have suggest are more than one sentence, they aren't extensively used, and they are well cited. If it comes down to either quoting the source, or paraphrasing so far from it that it's intent and meaning is totally obscured, it seems to me that quoting is preferable. Does anyone else think that this quote: "No scientific estimates of their 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." is too long?Lynn Wysong (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC) I boldly renamed the above section to avoid confusion so that the Q&A here can be properly threaded; I also am not certain of the protocol. Montanabw(talk) 02:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC) However, to answer the above, this is why we are getting nowhere...asking "is this OK?" without any context of where or how it could be used is not very helpful. (The above quote might be OK in some places, but may not be in others). I think that saying things in one's own words is better encyclopedic style, Wysong does not explain why she thinks "intent and meaning is totally obscured" - and refuses to do anything but offer direct quotes in such a way as to render them rather meaningless. Montanabw(talk) 02:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC) Wysong is misstating the situation, I have actually repeatedly referred Wysong to WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:RS, WP:COPYVIO. I hadn't yet pointed her to WP:PARAPHRASE. And this diff proves that Wysong DOES know about all of the above and is engaged in a certain about of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The reason I have not been comfortable with Wysong's style is because of context - she is prone to say "expert foo said '..." a lengthy quote with little introductory material. Then the next sentence will be "expert foobar said '...'" followed by another lengthy quote. Then, she may add some sort of summary that is at best synth and often OR but definitely not supported by the quotations. Montanabw(talk) 02:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC) Since MontanaBW seems to have conceded here that the Dobie quote is not too lengthy, now we need to address the second concern of mine which is that it really doesn't apply to the horses subject to the Act the article is about. I DO agree with MontanaBW that it is a good idea to have the discussion, as the BLM states (not very well I'm afraid), the "millions" number is frequently misunderstood to apply to the geographical place and historical time of the subject horses. So, I'd like to expand upon his statement in something like the following:Lynn Wysong (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC) Some sources say that millions of feral horses, having been captured from the Spanish, dispersed by the Native Americans, and escaped to the wild, once roamed in western North America. Tom L McKnight stated that the population would have peaked in the late 1700's or early 1800's, and that the "best guesses apparently lie between two and five million". According to J. Frank Dobie, the peak would have been around the end of the Mexican-American War in 1848, but "No scientific estimates of their 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." De Steiguer stated that Dobie's lower guess is still "subject to question" as to being too high, but agreed with Dobie and McKnight that highest populations were found in the southern Great Plains and California, where the environment most closely mimicked the Mediterranean Climate from which the horses originated. During the latter part of the 1800s, most of these horses were were rounded up and trailed north and east with the longhorns, to be sold to farmers and settlers.Lynn Wysong (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC) This discussion strives for a neutral point of view, bringing in some of the more well known but less reliable sources such as Ryden and Lynghauh, as well as some of the lesser known but more scholarly ones to balance out some of the misinformation. It is important to make the distinction of time and place, to avoid misleading the reader into thinking there was once millions of horses where they are found today. Where they are found today, the public rangelands in the desert regions that could not support traditional settlement and homesteading, could not support those kinds of numbers.Lynn Wysong (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC) I am answering the above and the mediator's comments in "second statement below. That said, from article talk, Wysong seems to have the notion that the only wild horses in the west outside of Texas were in Nevada, which simply isn't true. Wysong consistently fails to clarify exactly what her beef is with this article other than IDONTLIKEIT. (The Sherrets source notes "11 western states," and as an aside, this is where tens of millions of bison once roamed, so yes, the American west could easily support over a million wild horses) Not sure what the issue is, no one is arguing that Nevada had a million horses Montanabw(talk) 20:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC) The "eleven western states" Sherrets is talking about are the ones fully or partially west of the Continental Divide, shown by this map depicting public lands. Very few bison roamed there.Lynn Wysong (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC) The Continental divide is shown by the red line [1], the wild horses ran mostly east of the divide and in the Great Basin (also shown on the map). The horse is adapted to dry steppe and semi-arid regions; they definitely weren't running in the mountains. That is a disingenuous statement. Montanabw(talk) 21:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC) I believe we were talking about where "tens of millions of bison once roamed"Lynn Wysong (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Second statement by volunteer moderator I'm so sorry to both of you, I had to attend to a family emergency yesterday, let me take a look over your points and I'll be back here in a bit. Kharkiv07Talk 15:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC) Okay, you both make valid points and I do have a few thoughts on how you could compromise, but I'd like to see what you two have to say before I give any suggestions. Keeping in mind what was said earlier, I'd like you to try to reach neutral ground, because it doesn't seem either of you are completely right. So, I'd like you both to say what you think a reasonable compromise is in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Kharkiv07Talk 15:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC) Second statement by SheriWysong First, I would like to hear a reasoned explanation as to WHY Montanabw does not believe it is necessary to put the "millions" number in proper context. The only reason I have been given is that it isn't relevant. What isn't relevant is the number itself, so if it's going to be put in the article, it should be put into context. I could go either way-just leave the "millions" number out and start perhaps with the 1934 number of 150,000, but if it's going to stay in, there needs to be further discussion of it similar to what I put in the above paragraph.Lynn Wysong (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC) Second statement by Montanabw The above suggestion is the same basic thing we have been arguing about for a month! The article is about the legislation, not an exhaustive history of the Mustang. Wysong is just offering her same material again - poorly phrased, improperly sourced, etc... I already noted above that the main reason the "two million" figure is in there at all is because the BLM (a RS) notes it is the most common number used in the basic argument that "millions" of wild horses were reduced to thousands by the time the legislation was passed -- how many "millions" is not able to be determined, everyone is guessing (And Lynghaug is not an "expert" in this context - that book is a horse breeds encyclopedia that has some credibility, but here her estimated numbers are not relevant other than the general statement already in the article). To go down this rabbit trail is to put WP:UNDUE weight on a whole bunch of speculative figures. There may or may not be some room for this expanded material in the Mustang article (though not phrased, formatted or cited as Wysong has it), but not in this article. I am open to a) A minor rephrase of Dobie, maybe with the quote, it all depends on the wording; and b) adding in the 150K figure on the Taylor Grazing Act, as that is also pretty RS and relevant. Give me a bit and I'll post an alternative suggestion here. Montanabw(talk) 19:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC) OK, because the current article is GA- class, I am reluctant to make large changes. However, here is the drama paragraph in question ( some formatting isn't included, this is just a cut and paste - refer to article for formatting, wikilinks and detail on citations): 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] After the mid-1930s, their numbers fell even more after 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.[9] Ranchers were often permitted to round up any horses they wanted, and the Forest Service shot any remaining animals.[9] I propose the following rewording: I am striking out what will be removed from the article and underlining what will be added, non-formatted text is unchanged. (any numbered footnotes not noted here are the ones in the current article): No more than two million feral horses may have once roamed the American West., according to what historian J. Frank Dobie called a "guess." Historian J. Frank Dobie stated, "No scientific estimates of their 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."<ref>Dobie, p. 108</ref> However, no scientific census of feral horse numbers had ever been performed prior to the 1930s, and any estimate is speculative.[6] However, horse Horse numbers were in decline as domestic cattle and sheep competed with them for resources.[8] At the time the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act was passed, it was estimated that 150,000 horses roamed wild on public land subject to the Act<ref name=Sherrets>{{cite web|last1=Sherrets|first1=Harold "Bud"|title=Impact of Wild Horses on Rangeland Management|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lT7xAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA40|website=The Taylor Grazing Act, 1934-1984: 50 years of progress|publisher=United States. Bureau of Land Management. Idaho State Office U.S. Dept. of the Interior|accessdate=24 March 2015|date=1984}}</ref>After the mid-1930s, After that legislation was enacted, horse numbers fell even more after 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.[9] Ranchers were often permitted to round up any horses they wanted, and the Forest Service shot any remaining animals.[9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) More discussion @SheriWysong: What do we think about this change? Kharkiv07Talk 21:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC) We're headed in the right direction. But, I don't think that because the article passed GA is a good reason to not make the necessary changes. However, if Montanabw is opposed to a history that is comprehensive enough to bring the Dobie quote into context (since Dobie was talking about the population in 1848) maybe we should just leave it out entirely. Just because the BLM makes a statement about it doesn't mean it belongs here.Lynn Wysong (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC) We could start the history here: By the beginning of the 20th century, most feral horses were found in the inhospitable desert regions of the Great Basin and the Red Desert of Wyoming, where, for the most part, they are found today and where, for the most part, they are descended from horses settlers/ranchers once allowed to run free on the public rangelands to be rounded up as they needed them for sale or use. In 1899, the State of Nevada began efforts to reduce the numbers of unbranded horses on the range, but by 1900, when the numbers may have reached a peak of 100,000 feral or semi-feral horses in the state, the demand for horses in the Boer War then World War I reduced the oversupply. However, after World War I, as motorized vehicles and tractors became commonplace, horse populations on the range were no longer being kept in check by the ranchers removing them for use as beasts of burden and they began to be rounded up to be slaughtered for chicken food. A few years later, in 1924, demand for horsemeat increased for use in pet food. By 1934, when the pressure on them intensified because the federal government got into the act of controlling their numbers, there were approximately 150,000 feral horses on public land in the 11 Western States. After decades of unregulated cattle, sheep and horse grazing, the range was becoming overgrazed, which had led to the passage of the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act.Sharp, Lee, (1984) Lynn Wysong (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC) @Montanabw: Hmm... I do have some suggestions but I'm going to give you another chance to respond before I offer anything. Kharkiv07Talk 23:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC) I stand by my suggestions for now, but am open to comment on the specific existing paragraph from the article and if more could be added or changed. I am not interested in any of what is proposed by Wysong above. The material Wysong wants to add MIGHT be a topic for discussion at the Mustang article, and the map is cool, but you can see exactly why we are having problems: Her content is unfocused, not very relevant, too long, inadequately sourced, WRONGLY sourced, quite a bit of it speculative, and too focused on Nevada. The entire World War I bit is just a red herring (and speculative) - plus Sherrets DOES NOT verify that material - he says zip about WWI (read the source!), and her last sentence is both unsourced and WP:SYNTH because there are also historians who claim the TGA was passed not because of overgrazing but because ranchers wanted to push nomadic grazers off public land, a modern-day variant of the Enclosure movement. These historians allege that the ranchers overgrazed the public domain just as bad as the semi-nomadic herders who let their sheep and cattle run loose; I am not arguing that one way or the other, but I am merely making a point - we most certainly cannot adequately discuss the complex Taylor Grazing Act in THIS article and shouldn't overgeneralize about it. THIS article is about the Wild and Free-Ranging Horses and Burros Act of 1971, and needs to stay focused on it! The history is simple: Once upon a time there were a lot more horses roaming free, then the TGA authorized their removal, between 1934 and about 1959 there was a dramatic decrease leading to legislation to protect the horses to some extent, which was insufficient, so the 1971 Act was passed. This is a simple and straightforward history and doesn't need to go off down a bunch of bunny trails. @Kharkiv07:, if you have any questions to ask of either of us before offering your opinion, feel free to ask. Montanabw(talk) 21:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC) @SheriWysong: I'd like to go back to Montanabw's proposed changes, as it as it seems to have some compromise in it. Sheri can you give specific reasons you don't like it and propose changes to that wording not and not a whole new section, you said you believed that was progress, so I think we can work with that to try to make a reasonable compromise, I'd just like you to offer some suggestions. Kharkiv07Talk I have stated several times, that I don't like using Dobie's number without context. When we started, it was even left out that the numbers referred to Texas, so it is progress that now we can at least quote him rather than totally change the context of his statement. BUT it still doesn't say when Dobie said the peak occurred, which was around 1848. In actuality, the horses Dobie was talking about are not the ones subject to the Act. In 1848, there were virtually no horses in the geographic locations where they are found today. That's just a start to what's wrong with the existing paragraph. For one thing, the whole second half of it is practically uncited. Pretty much everything that Montanabw claims is wrong with suggestions is wrong with the existing paragraph. And, mine is just a rough draft. Yes, some of the sources are missing, but that's because I just put it up as a suggestion of content that could be included. So, yes, maybe since the existing paragraph is actually the one on the article page, I should just go through and point out all the problems. I didn't want to do that, I thought maybe we could do this in a calm rational manner without going ballistic over each other's suggestions, but apparently that isn't possible. I'll do it shortly.Lynn Wysong (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC) No more than two million feral horses may have once roamed the American West. According to historian J. Frank Dobie, the peak would have been around the end of the Mexican-American War in 1848, but, "No scientific estimates of their 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." However, no scientific census of feral horse numbers had ever been performed prior to the 1930s, and any estimate is speculative. Horse numbers were in decline as domestic cattle and sheep competed with them for resources. At the time the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act was passed, it was estimated that 150,000 horses roamed wild on public land subject to the Act. After that legislation was enacted, horse numbers fell even more after 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. Ranchers were often permitted to round up any horses they wanted, and the Forest Service shot any remaining animals.Lynn Wysong (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Can we find a source that fills in some of those citation needed tags? Kharkiv07Talk 23:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Well, we'll see what Montanabw can come up with. But, just for full disclosure, I did go back and add in several citations on my paragraph.Lynn Wysong (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC) @Montanabw: Pinging for comment. Kharkiv07Talk 03:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC) All the material tagged other than Dobie is cited to the 1971 Time magazine article; I don't have access to it now, but could dig it up to verify later. The tag-bombing is not needed, the material could be re-sourced to different sources that say similar things, but I'm hatting the above because it is confusing the situation. Montanabw(talk) 19:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC) I have access to the Time article. It most definitely does not provide a source for all that precedes it.Lynn Wysong (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC) Here is a compromise I came up with that might address both side concerns for the first part of the paragraph... In 1990, the General Accounting Office stated that "at the beginning of the 20th century, an estimated 2 million wild horses roamed America’s ranges." The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Myths and Facts webpage characterizes that number as "speculative" (Myth #13). According to historian J. Frank Dobie, the "2 million" number would have occurred around the end of the Mexican-American War in 1848 and was mostly applicable to the southern Great Plains and California where the environment most closely mimicked the Mediterranean Climate from which the Spanish horses originated.. By the beginning of the 20th century, most feral horses were found in the inhospitable desert regions of the Great Basin and the Red Desert of Wyoming, where, for the most part, as this map depicting the BLM Herd Areas & Herd Management Areas indicates, they are found today. Also, for the most part, they are descended from horses settlers/ranchers set free to graze on the open rangelands (open range) to be rounded up as needed for sale or use and those that were not recaptured began to multiply in feral herds that can double in number every four years.Lynn Wysong (talk) And here we go again. Long, boring, terrible writing (and she's been sandboxing this for days, so no excuses here), introducing sentences with expert foo says, and so on. Wysong goes off on these endless tangents and everything she writes has to be double checked because she is really bad about WP:SYNTH, and all attempts to educate her about proper editing are once again mostly for naught; she simply shifts blame to others and will not be responsible for her own work. However, if it will tone done the drama, I am OK with the GAO source for the two million estimate instead of Dobie, but no wording changes other than to RESTORE the "early 20th Century" text - which was in there in the first place before Wysong showed up! (and which, probably they got from Dobie anyway, as the BLM says so. And Wysong is wrong that Dobie's two million was from 1848 - read the excerpt - he simply suggested on one page that that the post-Mexican War period might have been the peak in Texas, and on another page he suggests the two million was the peak number ever, admitted it was a guess, and placed half of the population outside of Texas. All the rest of her verbiage is not needed, is way too much detail for an article about the legislation and so on. (Some of it MIGHT be suitable for the Mustang article) I am offering compromise - again, but I am not going to keep "bidding against myself" when Wysong keeps offering the same nonsense that has been being discussed for the last month. Montanabw(talk) 19:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC) Here is what Dobie says: "Until the end of the Mexican War in 1848, wild horses multiplied, reaching about this time their numerical climax". (page 107). Maybe, you ought to actually have the book in front of you, instead of just making up whatever you feel like.Lynn Wysong (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC) @SheriWysong and Montanabw: Both of you, PLEASE comment on the content, NOT the contributors. Now that I have that out of the way, I'd like to go back to Sheri's version that she proposed earlier with all of the {{citation needed}} if Montanabw can find citations, can we agree on that version? Kharkiv07Talk 21:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC) I apologize @Kharkiv07:. I AM TRYING to keep my cool and keep this focused on content. To answer your question, however, even if Montanabw could find sources, it still would not address my concerns that the Dobie statement is not in context. That is why I made the subsequent suggestion.Lynn Wysong (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC) No more than two million feral horses may have once roamed the American West. According to historian J. Frank Dobie, the peak would have been around the end of the Mexican-American War in 1848, but, "No scientific estimates of their 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." however no scientific census of feral horse numbers had ever been performed prior to the 1930s, and any estimate is speculative. Horse numbers were in decline as domestic cattle and sheep competed with them for resources. At the time the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act was passed, it was estimated that 150,000 horses roamed wild on public land subject to the Act. After that legislation was enacted, horse numbers fell even more after 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. Ranchers were often permitted to round up any horses they wanted, and the Forest Service shot any remaining animals. I'm not in anyway making a suggestion here, I just want to know if you'd be more comfortable with something like this? Kharkiv07Talk 21:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC) Me? Not really, because part of what is important is the fact that at least half of the "2 million" was in Texas, which is not where they are now.Lynn Wysong (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC) Or, I guess I should say, most of the "2 million" were geographically located in areas that are not subject to the Act.Lynn Wysong (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC) @SheriWysong: What can be changed in that paragraph (and by changed I mean add or delete a sentence or two, not fundamentally rewriting it) that would make you happy? I'm sticking with this because when Montanabw first proposed it you said we were making progress and then you proposed it. Kharkiv07Talk 22:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC) @Kharkiv07:I didn't "propose" it. You asked me to go back to it, so I went back and tried to make it plain what I thought was (still) wrong with it, even though we HAD made progress. It still has a LOT of problems.Lynn Wysong (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC) And, I guess I'm a little perplexed. Why can't it be "fundamentally" rewritten if necessary?Lynn Wysong (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC) It can, we were just making progress so I figured that we'd keep moving forward with that. Kharkiv07Talk 23:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC) There are two disputes going on here, one is the article in question, the other is the nature of the Mustang article and it is important to keep these disputes separate. Here I am ONLY dealing with the Wild and Free-Ranging Horses and Burros Act of 1971 article, which is already GA-class, and I think it is NOT in need of a "fundamental rewrite." Some refinement is always useful, and I already tried to do so - until the article was locked down for all the reasons discussed elsewhere. Wysong's only real complaint appears to be in the history section I have placed here, so I'm trying to fix it. I have a new version below, and I would appreciate that yes, we stay focused on THAT topic alone. And no, I am absolutely opposed to Wysong's proposals here because they take the whole article off on a tangent that is not appropriate or structured to the content of that particular article. Montanabw(talk) 23:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC) Arbitrary section break Proposed new paragraph, I have tried to keep as much of the original phrasing of the GA-approved version as possible. I have included all sources, properly formatted, including those currently in the article and those added new. No underlining or strikeout, we can use diffs to compare changes. "Lynhaug" is a minor typo we can fix later - source is: Lynghaug, Fran. The Official Horse Breeds Standards Guide. Minneapolis: Voyageur Press, 2009. It's also in Google books here and I suggest that the URL be linked in the article's bibliography once we agree on the rest. To address the "cn" issues, I needed to remove some material, add new bits, and reword some of the rest of the paragraph to fit sources available. I used the GAO source Wysong found and I am presuming Wyman, et. al. will also be acceptable to Wysong for the purpose I am using it here, as she suggested their use in the first place (they are old, but with minor tweaks to the phrasing, they source the statements we have). The Time source is behind a paywall, but I have found a way to access it, and where I have cited it, it is directly verifiable from the article. Montanabw(talk) 23:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC) At the beginning of the 20th century as many as two million feral horses may have roamed the American West. However, no scientific census of feral horse numbers had been performed in the 19th or early 20th centuries, and thus the two million figure is speculative. However, horse numbers were in decline as domestic cattle and sheep competed with them for resources. Ranchers shot horses to leave more grazing land for other livestock, other horses were captured off the range for human use, and some were rounded up for slaughter. At the time the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act was passed, it was estimated that 150,000 horses roamed wild on public land subject to the Act. When that legislation was enacted, ranchers obtained individual grazing allotments and the fee to graze a horse was twice that for a cow. As a result, ranchers allowed unbranded horses to run loose rather than pay for them, and management of horses running on the range was initially left to Mustangers and local ranchers. While it was not clear if there were too many horses, or that the land was incurring damage due to the presence of the horses, By 1939, the U.S. Grazing Service (the predecessor to the BLM) began to directly hire people to remove horses from public land. The United States Forest Service periodically gave ranchers notice to round up their strays and thereafter shot any remaining horses. After World War II, horses were removed in larger numbers to meet the demands of the pet food market. By the 1950s, the free-roaming horse population was down to an estimated 25,000 animals. Another arbitrary section break Thanks for the section break, I haven't been doing a good job with that and for that I apologize, @SheriWysong: comments on this suggestion? Kharkiv07Talk 23:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC) That looks like a fundamental rewrite to me, which is fine. Here's my suggestion, maybe some merge of the two?Lynn Wysong (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC) In 1990, the General Accounting Office(GAO) stated that "at the beginning of the 20th century, an estimated 2 million wild horses roamed America’s ranges" (in a subsequent 2008 report the GAO backed off that assertion). The BLM Myths and Facts webpage attributes the estimate to historian J. Frank Dobie and characterizes the number as "speculative" (Myth #13). According to Dobie, the "2 million" number would have occurred around the end of the Mexican-American War in 1848 and was mostly applicable to the southern Great Plains and California where the environment most closely mimicked the Mediterranean Climate from which the Spanish horses originated.. By the beginning of the 20th century, most feral horses were found in the inhospitable desert regions of the Great Basin and the Red Desert of Wyoming, where, as this map depicting the BLM Herd Areas & Herd Management Areas indicates, for the most part, they are found today. Also, for the most part, they are descended from horses settlers/ranchers set free in the latter part of the 1800's to graze on the open rangelands (open range) to be rounded up as they needed them for sale or use and those that were not recaptured began to multiply in feral herds that can double in number every four years. As early as the late 1890's, the large number of unbranded horses on the open range was seen as a problem, and states began to encourage their removal under various estray laws. Horses were eliminated by shooting them, capturing them for domestic use, or rounding them up to send to slaughter for horsemeat for us as chicken or pet or, during World War II, even human food. (McKnight) As they reproduced over the next fifty years, over one million horses may have been removed from the open range. By 1934, when the Taylor Grazing Act (TGA) was passed, there were approximately 150,000 feral horses on the public grazing lands in the 11 Western States. As of 1900, there had been an estimated 100,000 feral or semi-feral horses in Nevada alone, indicating that reproduction was not keeping up with their removal.Lynn Wysong (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC) After World War II, the use of airplanes to roundup horses became commonplace.(Ryden Page 211) Although jurisdiction of unbranded horses remained under the state's estray laws, the BLM, which under the authority of the TGA, had jurisdiction over the public grazing lands, would issue permits to mustangers to chase and roundup horses by air(Ryden, page 217). Citizens were concerned that the roundups were abusive and inhumane and the numbers of feral horses were dwindling, being down to an estimated 33,000 by 1958.(Ryden page ?) Led by Velma Bronn Johnston—better known as "Wild Horse Annie," a secretary at an insurance firm in Reno, Nevada—animal welfare and horse advocates lobbied for passage of a federal law to prevent the use of airplanes or other motorized vehicles to chase them. Their efforts were successful. On September 8, 1959, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed into law the Hunting Wild Horses and Burros on Public Lands Act (Public Law 86- 234, also known as the "Wild Horse Annie Act"), which banned the hunting of feral horses on federal land from aircraft or motorized vehicles.Lynn Wysong (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC) (big sigh) OK. Content. NO. No merge, you have taken one tightly written paragraph and replaced it with two boring, badly written ones. The ":two million" figure stays, one way or the other because it is (as I have said TEN MILLION TIMES) it is the most common figure quoted and we need to explain it. We already have stuff on Wild Horse Annie in the next paragraph, so let's settle this one before we go on. Ditto for the airplanes stuff. ONE PARAGRAPH AT A TIME. Montanabw(talk) 23:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC) Sorry, I should have made it clear I included the second paragraph in the article. Since you have found a number for the 1950's we can go with that. Mine comes from my own webpage, which I made 10 years ago, and regrettably did not cite the source, although I believe it is the 1970 Ryden version.Lynn Wysong (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC) So you're okay with the proposal? Or just the number? Kharkiv07Talk 23:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC) Just the number. I still think we the content is debatable.Lynn Wysong (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC) In what way? I'm just trying to gather as much specific information as possible. Kharkiv07Talk 23:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC) Montanabw's version still does not put the "2 million" number into context.Lynn Wysong (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC) And that's your only issue with it? If that was fixed you'd be happy? Kharkiv07Talk 00:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC) No, (chuckle) that's not my "only" issue, but if we could substitute the first portion of Montanabw's paragraph with what I have suggested, I could grit my teeth and bear it.Lynn Wysong (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC) @Montanabw: Thoughts? Kharkiv07Talk 00:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC) No. Her first sentence is the "Expert foo says endless long direct quote." It's poor writing. I've said this over and over and over! I fail to see why Wysong has such a burr under the saddle about the context of the two million figure - the precise when/where is not really relevant here at all because ALL ESTIMATES prior to at least 1930 (and maybe even the 1930 numbers, but at least they are the government's guess) are a wild guess anyway - the point is that Dobie's "two million" is the most common figure cited by various folks for how many wild horses may have once existed, and hence needs merely to be stated as such. If Wysong doesn't agree with the 1900 date, it can go; we can just say something vague like "prior to 1900" or whatever. The 2008 GAO "mid-1800s" comment is in a submittal memo, we can't call it "backtracking" - as it's not even in the main report. The reality is that they are all pulling numbers out their butt. We are spending way too much time on this! Montanabw(talk) 00:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC) "mid 1800's" sounds an awful lot like "1848" to me...Lynn Wysong (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC) Also, as far as "content is debatable," put up or shut up, I'm sick of this hide the ball nonsense. Also "Mine comes from my own webpage, which I made 10 years ago," is WP:SELFPUB. And probably POV-pushing. Care to share a link? Montanabw(talk) If...it's really that important to you...it's right here: http://www.frontiernet.net/~wildhorsefannie/Lynn Wysong (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC) Sheri already agreed to use your number, so that's not of concern. Here's the thing, Montanabw has a source for the two million, if you can present a reliable source that says something different it would really help. Kharkiv07Talk 01:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC) I have to take a break from further comment on this for a little while, I'll be back tomorrow or Monday. Ping me if something substantial is proposed. My position is clear: Let's get that one paragraph settled, I've just busted my ass to try and stay true to the GA-passed structure and format, if there is a problem with my last version, let's look at it, not another version. This is not the place for an entire historical analysis of the wild horse in the west; it's merely an article on one piece of legislation. Montanabw(talk) 01:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC) Comments on Montanabw's Rewritten Section At the beginning of the 20th century as many as two million feral horses may have roamed the American West. "The beginning of the 20th century" is wrong as even the GAO stated in an later statement "Beginning of the 20th century" is clearly debatable. I propose "prior to 1900" - covers it, no need to split hairs before then because it's all a guess anyway. --MONTANABW How about just stating it as the sources say? Either 1848 or the mid 1800s?Lynn Wysong (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC) However, no scientific census of feral horse numbers had been performed in the 19th or early 20th centuries, Wrong. There are two "scientific estimates" for Nevada in 1900 and 1911 and thus the two million figure is speculative. It also applies to a different geographical area than where the horses subject to the Act were located. POV-pushing for Nevada again. (There are plenty of free-roaming horses outside of Nevada) No source has ever been given by Wysong that there was a "scientific" census in Nevada in the early 1900s - sources previously discussed at talk are also non-scientific guesstimates. ANY ESTIMATE PRIOR TO GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED or SCIENCE-BASED SURVEYS IS SPECULATIVE. Even if Nevada did some kind of survey, one state's numbers are rather irrelevant anyway. --MONTANABW Well, if you look at the map, Nevada is the State with the largest number of horses=both in 1900 and today. Not POV pushing, but estimates for Nevada are much relevant to the Act than estimates for Texas. And, what is your basis for stating that only a government based estimate is valid?19:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC) However, horse numbers were in decline as domestic cattle and sheep competed with them for resources. The source is talking about the horses in the geographic location and time as those above. The reason Lynhaug gives for their decline is only in a small way correct. They were mostly displaced as the land was settled in the latter part of the 1800's, but in the meantime they were also rounded up and domesticated Lynghaug is summarized, her statement in the context of her book covers the entire west, not just a limited area. I don't want to closely paraphrase or quote her, I agree that the problem is that ranchers moved in and viewed horses as competing with sheep and cattle for forage and water, the cattle and sheep themselves, not so much. A suggested rephrase that is neither a copyvio paraphrase nor a long direct quote is something I'm open to. But we need a simple overview, not a lot of detail for this article. ONE SENTENCE.--MONTANABW There are other sources out there that explain it better. But, why explain it at all? We're talking about horses that, for the most part, aren't affected by the Act. If you want to keep it concise, leave it for the reader to go back to the sources, like Dobie.Lynn Wysong (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC) The first three sentences here are really irrelevant to the Act. If the 2 million number is to be brought in, it must be brought into context. I've explained this repeatedly, the context is that it's used constantly. I'm not beating my head against the wall to say it again here. --MONTANABW Yes, the number is used constantly. That's why it needs to explained. Believe me, my head is just as sore as your's is. The 2 million does not apply to the geographic place and time of the horses affected by the Act.Lynn Wysong (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC) Ranchers shot horses to leave more grazing land for other livestock, other horses were captured off the range for human use, and some were rounded up for slaughter. the first part of the sentence applies more to the earlier horses on the southern Great Plains. Ranchers did shoot a lot of horses after they had fenced off their holdings. But, in the case of the horses under the jurisdiction of the Act, just leave out who shot them because they were shot mostly by bounty hunters, first under bounty by the States, then the FS This is straight from the GAO report and is an appropriate summary. Horses were shot throughout the west, the history is complex.--MONTANABW Yes it is complex. And the GAO had some errors. One of those was the timing of the two million population, the other is that it was ranchers that shot the horses subject to the Act. There is no sense in perpetuating errors.Lynn Wysong (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC) At the time the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act was passed, it was estimated that 150,000 horses roamed wild on public land subject to the Act.There may have been more on FS lands, but it appears that by the time, the FS had been mostly successful in removing the unbranded horses. Also, the 150,000 number sounds like Sherretts meant for it to included unbranded but claimed, not just feral, horses. So...? What's the problem here? The number is free-roaming animals, always did, so if owned or unowned is irrelevant. (Also as Wysong points out elsewhere, the Forest Service only had jurisdiction over its own lands --MONTANABW When that legislation was enacted, ranchers obtained individual grazing allotments and the fee to graze a horse was twice that for a cow.This comes out of nowhere. should either be explained more fully, or left out. Sourced to Sherrets, explains why the issue became an issue.--MONTANABW It needs more explanation of the TGALynn Wysong (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC) As a result, ranchers allowed unbranded horses to run loose rather than pay for them, and management of horses running on the range was initially left to Mustangers and local ranchers. This sort of comes out of nowhere. By 1934, Ranchers had been allowing unbranded horses to go feral for 50 years, and the States had been trying to control their numbers since the turn of the century. It just got worse after 1934, when the ranchers stopped claiming unbranded horses. Again, sourced to Sherrets, not sure the problem here. Is there a point?--MONTANABW It may seem obvious to you, but not to the reader.19:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC) While it was not clear if there were too many horses, or that the land was incurring damage due to the presence of the horses, there's no lead in to "land was incurring damage due to the presence of the horses" also, there's no page number. And, the reason for the follow up "U.S. Grazing Service began to...remove horses from public land" was more because the horses were "in trespass". They were a non-native species, and there was no concept of managing them as "wild". The job of the Grazing Service was to permit livestock grazing on the public land and horses were livestock. If no one claimed ownership of them and paid a grazing fee for them, it was part of the mission of the agency to remove them, just as the BLM attempted to do last year with Cliven Bundy's cows. Later on, when the removal became controversial, was when the debate started as to whether or not the horses were causing resource damage. I suggest this point be brought up in the next paragraph It is cited - to Page 211- read the footnotes. I looked for a source to verify existing language of the article. It's a summary. Propose a SHORT rephrase. --MONTANABW see belowLynn Wysong (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC) By 1939, the U.S. Grazing Service (the predecessor to the BLM) began to directly hire people to remove horses from public land. This practice was short-lived. After the outbreak of WWII, resources were diverted towards the War. Wyman first published his book in 1945, so what he wrote does not necessarily apply to what happened after WWII. I have found no sources that say that after the War, (right after which the grazing service became the BLM) the BLM did anything but encourage and assist in the removal of horses, which were, until 1971, under the jurisdiction of the States. The Government paid some Mustangers, that's the point. The TIME Article states, "From 1934 to 1963, the Bureau of Land Management and its predecessor agency condoned and even paid for the killing of mustangs." I am open to a proposed rephrase that adds the TIME source, or another source. Whatever. --MONTANABW The agency may have "condoned" the killing of mustangs until 1963, but there's no source that backs up the assertion that it paid to round them up past 1940. So how about this: "Because the horses were seen as "trespass livestock" the U.S. Grazing Service, which was established to administer the TGA, directly hired contractors to remove them from public land, but with the outbreak of WWII, that practice ceased." The United States Forest Service periodically gave ranchers notice to round up their strays and thereafter shot any remaining horses. This happened prior to the TGA, which did not apply to National Forests If the USFS stuff is going to be an issue, it can be moved or chopped. I DGAF, was just trying to show respect for the previous editors of this article who put it in there in the first place. It's relevant to the article overall, it can be placed whereever the chronology fits --MONTANABW Okay, and I think WWII is a good place to end this paragraph and transition. It wasn't until afterwards that the real controversy started.19:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC) After World War II, horses were removed in larger numbers to meet the demands of the pet food market. The pet food market started in 1924. However, with the Depression being over and the increased prosperity after WWII, the pet food market increased significantly, which led to it being profitable for mustangers to round up the horses with no financial outlay by the government. The increase in the rate of decline of horses was due more to the increased availability of aircraft and motorized vehicles after WWII for use in rounding up them up. As the source for the "25,000" number implies, this is when the largest decrease would have happened. My guess is that there was probably still close to 150,000 horses at the end of WWII, and that it was about 20% of that about the time of the Wild Horse Annie Act. The Curnett and Sherrett sources both discuss the significant increase following WWII; I fail to see a problem here. Would "increased demands" improve matters? --MONTANABW By the 1950s, the free-roaming horse population was down to an estimated 25,000 animals. I think this statement, and the previous one, belongs in the next paragraph. The Curnett sentence is a concluding sentence and initiates a transition to the next paragraph, which discusses the Wild Horse Annie Act. It's called good writing style or "sparkling prose" - this is something Wysong is unfamiliar with. --MONTANABW Wow, I was actually starting to think you might actually be able to refrain from making a nasty comment about me.Lynn Wysong (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC) OK, I knew nothing I said would be accepted, but I answered Wysong's points in the thread above with my name signed at each comment, but not with tildes so as to avoid confusing things. @Kharkiv07: I have repeatedly been open to SHORT, CONCISE, and SOURCED material that isn't "extrapolated" isn't SYNTH and isn't OR. I'm still waiting. Montanabw(talk) 18:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC) References Okay guys I'm just going to see if I can combine both of what you want, give me an hour or so. Kharkiv07Talk 22:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC) My suggested compromise @Montanabw and SheriWysong: We've made progress, and I want you both to remember no matter what you can't both get all of what you've want! Just from the last section, I've done by best to combine what you both wanted. If we can't agree on this or something similar this could go on for months, and I think we want to end it here so if on one or two points you can just grit your teeth and bear it would be great. I'm going to give you both one comment on something you absolutely can't bear, and I do not want you commenting on the others comment until I get a chance to respond to each and try to fit them in. Kharkiv07Talk 22:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC) Change date to mid 1800s While no scientifc estimates have been made for the country as a whole, states such as Nevada had rougly (we can add other states too!) Horses were shot by people such as farmers and bounty hunters Keep the Lynhaug reason, but if Sheri can find another source that can be included also Keep the number on public land unless we can get more sources which indisputably change it Keep the line about ranchers letting their horses run free, but Sheri can add a clairfying line Same with the "While it was not clear line...", Sheri can clarify If Sheri can find a source that says that the practice of removing horses was short lived, then that can be added after Line about giving rangers notice can be chopped, or moved if either of you want to there doesn't seem to be dispute there Insert "increased demand" in the pet food section Keep the 1950s quote where it is So, let's try to put see how we want to handle the "2 million" number. This is what the BLM says about it " This figure has no scientific basis. In a book titled The Mustangs (1952) by J. Frank Dobie, the historian noted that no scientific estimate of wild horse numbers was made in the 19th century or early 20th century. He went on to write: '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.' (Emphasis added.) Mr. Dobie's admitted "guess" of no more than two million mustangs has over the years been transformed into an asserted or assumed "fact" that two million mustangs actually roamed America in the late 1800s/early 1900s." http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/whbprogram/history_and_facts/myths_and_facts.html My guess is that it was 25 years ago, in the GAO report, where it was first said Two million wild horses roamed the United States in the late 1800s/early 1900s. So, if, as Montanabw says, and from what I have seen she is right, that "the two million is the most common figure tossed out by wild horse advocates" it seems like the thing to do is to bring out the source of the "myth" the fact that the GAO later backed off statement, and the BLM's explanation. That's why I suggested this:Lynn Wysong (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC) In 1990, the General Accounting Office(GAO) stated that "at the beginning of the 20th century, an estimated 2 million wild horses roamed America’s ranges" (in a subsequent 2008 report the GAO backed off that assertion). The BLM Myths and Facts webpage attributes the estimate to historian J. Frank Dobie and characterizes the number as "speculative" (Myth #13). According to Dobie, the "2 million" number would have occurred around the end of the Mexican-American War in 1848 and was mostly applicable to the southern Great Plains and California where the environment most closely mimicked the Mediterranean Climate from which the Spanish horses originated..Lynn Wysong (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC) It seems to me, that if we have to use the 2 million number, and I don't necessarily think that we shouldn't, this puts it into proper perspective and context. The reality is, by 1900, there were very few "true" (spanish) mustangs left. In the 50 years from their estimated "peak" population, they had been captured, displaced and/or shot by settlers, etc. By 1900, most horses that were running wild were unbranded rancher's horses running on what was left of the public domain lands (mostly in the Great Basin and Red Deserts), and there wasn't nearly 2 million of them. Maybe 250,000. It is the descendants of these horses that are subject to the Act. This is an important distinction, because of the misconception that the desert areas where the horses are now once supported millions of them. It didn't. It was the optimal horse habitat on the southern Great Plains and San Jaquin Valley that MAY have supported two million of them, but it's doubtful there were even that many there.Lynn Wysong (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC) I am NOT going to address the above tl;dr here. I've already said what I have to say about it, and Wysong is just repeating herself - again. I will not comment further, except to say that this focus on Nevada is a red herring (yes, the largest wild horse numbers TODAY are there, but that's not the point) so can we drop that damn stick? (And the 250,000 is a completely made up number, a month ago, Wysong "extrapolated" that is was 200,000 and that was what got the article locked down for edit-warring in the first place) Montanabw(talk) 21:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Bottom line: There is no source for any population estimates between 1848 and 1900 (There is an estimate for the late 1700's, early 1800's). You like the 1848 number, but you don't like the date. You don't like the 1900 number, but you like the date. You can't finesse the date of the number you like to try to make it sound more like the date you like. So, which number and date do you want to use? I'll work with it either way but whatever you chose, we have to disclose the number, date and geographic location.Lynn Wysong (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC) You misstate my position. I don't agree that either the 1848 date or the two million number is "true", only a number that needs to be mentioned (see WP:VNT) - what I have been saying all along is that the two million figure, stated by Dobie and analyzed by the BLM and the GAO, is the most common figure used by people who want to argue how many wild horses may have once existed, all we need to say is that "maybe" there were once two million horses in the American West and then MOVE ON! You have been making this unbelievably complicated. The details and context is grist for Wild horse preservation, and I mean that seriously. And now what "source" is there for 1700? This is brand new... are you moving goalposts again or just making up things? Montanabw(talk) 00:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Montanabw's biggest complaint I can mostly live with the above suggestions. I am pretty strongly opposed to getting too into the nitty-gritty of statistics beyond the basics I proposed because the numbers are all over the place; the two million number is Dobie's "guess" but it is the most common figure tossed out by wild horse advocates and so needs to be mentioned I am vehemently opposed to adding anything specific to Nevada (or any other state) as pretty much because ALL the numbers pre-1934 or so were highly speculative, we don't have statistics to cover all states, and so cherry-picking data can be misleading. I'm uncomfortable with "mid-1800s" though if we want to cite to the second GAO transmittal letter, I think it's iffy, but I could live with it; I'd prefer something more vague such as "prior to 1900" or some similar wording. In short, this is an article about the 1971 Act, it doesn't need an entire history of the feral horse in America here. A cursory overview of the early history is adequate, covering the TGA and Wild Horse Annie Acts are relevant as predecessor legislation, more than that is going to bog things down. Montanabw(talk) 04:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Sheri's biggest complaint I think we're actually collaborating, on some level. I wasn't trying to tear montanabw's suggestion down, but making some clarifications and pointing out some inaccuracies so that it could be improved. My biggest complaint is the insistence that we not make fundamental changes. I came into this because I thought fundamental changes needed to be made. I've spent the last month, here and on the mustang article trying to convince people that what is on the pages are common misconceptions (like there were millions of horses roaming free at the turn of the century. I think that that number endures because people don't take into account the reproductive capacity of horses. Yes, there were probably close to a million horses removed over the ensuing 50 years. But, if you have just 250,000 horses, and they produce 50,000 foals each year, taking into account other ways horses are "eliminated" you could remove 20,000 horses a year for 50 years-which would be one million horses, but the population itself was never close to one million). I kept getting accused of "synth" and "OR" when in actuality, there's nothing new or unpublished about what I was saying, it was just that I was dealing with people that had never really read the academic and scholarly works that are out there. It is, as Montanabw stated, complex. It's not just a matter of the "bad guys" vs the horses. So we have two choices: either go into a fairly detailed history, or try to write something that is brief, but not misleading or inaccurate. If the history needs to be fundamentally changed to do that (and we're headed down that road anyway), let's just bite the bullet and do it.Lynn Wysong (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Is it possible for you to cite any of those scholarly journals in the articles? Kharkiv07Talk 14:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC) I've been trying. The problem is that some of them aren't available online, and when you're dealing with skeptics, they doubt the veracity of what I've been saying. I happen to have a collection of books and other documents I've acquired over the years, but they aren't readily available.Lynn Wysong (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC) @SheriWysong: Through various different means I have access to several online databases, care for me to look for any specific ones for you? Kharkiv07Talk 15:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Hmmm...can you upload to a db, if I can come up with digital copies of public domain documents?Lynn Wysong (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC) I am absolutely opposed to distracting the article with an extensive analysis of historic numbers; my proposal is to say - as do multiple accounts - that two million horses may have inhabited the American west prior to (whenever) and then move on to the actual main topic, which is the legislation and the history of the laws leading up to it. (I have repeatedly urged Wysong to look at Wild horse preservation, which is the article best suited for that particular analysis, but she seems to be uninterested, don't know why) And to argue numbers based the reproductive rate of feral horses today fails to take into account historical means of population reduction: predation, starvation, injury, etc. - today most predators have been dramatically reduced, and people cringe in horror if the horses starve... The Great Plains once supported tens of millions of Bison, and the entire American West in the same period certainly could support a couple million horses, at least in theory. Any argument that there were - or were not - "millions" of free-roaming horses in the west is going to be based on a significant level of speculation, guesstimates and scattered historical accounts; definitely more than we can assess in detail at THIS article. I do have access to a university library database, and though it's kind of a PITA (pain in the a--) for me to access, I probably can find anything that has been digitized if I have a complete citation. Also, Hathi Trust has a lot of things digitized. Montanabw(talk) 21:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC) @SheriWysong and Montanabw: My proposal is to go back to my suggestion, because I think that's as close as we're going to get, and put this matter to rest. If not we're going to be here forever and get nothing done and you'll both be unhappy with it. That being said, if Sheri can find a reliable source in the future for some of the numbers we should switch to that, as long as we're keeping the history section clear and concise. Kharkiv07Talk 22:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC) okayLynn Wysong (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC) @Kharkiv07:, shall I place a rewrite of what I think you want here for final approval? We can make minor tweaks from there! Montanabw(talk) 00:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC) @Montanabw: That would be great, thanks! Kharkiv07Talk 00:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Final draft This is intended as a working final draft. Please edit directly, without commentary, until everyone can agree on the wording. Here is how I addressed each: Montanabw(talk) 01:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Change date to mid 1800s - said "prior to 1900" While no scientifc estimates have been made for the country as a whole, states such as Nevada had rougly (we can add other states too!) -- didn't do per above comment, I dispute that the Nevada figures were all that accurate, either. Horses were shot by people such as farmers and bounty hunters --GAO source says "ranchers" and Sherrets source later in paragraph on management notes "Mustangers" and ranchers - don't think there was much "farming" in these areas. Some people were paid to round up or shoot wild horses, the word used in sources is "Mustangers" which, arguably, is a polite word for "bounty hunter" but it's complex. Keep the Lynhaug reason, but if Sheri can find another source that can be included also --Lynghaug in Keep the number on public land unless we can get more sources which indisputably change it - Kept 150,000 figure from Sherrets Keep the line about ranchers letting their horses run free, but Sheri can add a clairfying line - kept, open to concise edits Same with the "While it was not clear line...", Sheri can clarify --open to rephrase If Sheri can find a source that says that the practice of removing horses was short lived, then that can be added after--changed "by 1939" to "in 1939" if that helps. Line about giving rangers notice can be chopped, or moved if either of you want to there doesn't seem to be dispute there. --Keeping for now, pending further edits Insert "increased demand" in the pet food section - done Keep the 1950s quote where it is--done Here y'all go. Montanabw(talk) 01:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Prior to 1900, as many as two million feral horses may have roamed the American West. However, no scientific census of feral horse numbers had been performed in the 19th or early 20th centuries, and thus the two million figure is speculative. However, horse numbers were in decline as domestic cattle and sheep competed with them for resources. Ranchers shot horses to leave more grazing land for other livestock, other horses were captured off the range for human use, and some were rounded up for slaughter. At the time the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act was passed, it was estimated that 150,000 horses roamed wild on public land subject to the Act. When that legislation was enacted, ranchers obtained individual grazing allotments and the fee to graze a horse was twice that for a cow. As a result, ranchers allowed unbranded horses to run loose rather than pay for them, and management of horses running on the range was initially left to Mustangers and local ranchers. It was not clear if there were too many free-roaming horses and burros, or if the land was incurring damage due to their presence. But because the horses were seen as "trespass livestock", by 1939 the U.S. Grazing Service (the predecessor to the BLM) had begun to directly hire people to remove horses from public land. The United States Forest Service periodically gave ranchers notice to round up their strays and thereafter shot any remaining horses. After World War II, horses were removed in larger numbers to meet the increased demands of the pet food market. By the 1950s, the free-roaming horse population was down to an estimated 25,000 animals. @SheriWysong: If you make any changes please underline/strike through, it'll make it easier for all of us to follow. Kharkiv07Talk 01:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC) I don't believe I agreed to this being a "final draft" that needs only minor tweaks...but I will try to work with it.Lynn Wysong (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC) The material below is tl;dr. Let's not keep rewriting this 10,000 times. Focus! Montanabw(talk) 02:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC) I agree, what we need here is focus. This is the only Wikipedia article I am working on right now. 'I am focused. But, I feel like the Bill Murray character on Groundhog Day. Everyday is a new day-we never continue on with the collaboration that took place the day before. As far as the "2 million" figure, we're worse off. I'd rather go back to the earlier Dobie quote "Historian J. Frank Dobie stated, 'No scientific estimates of their 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.'" that we agreed on earlier in the discussion (adding in, of course, the 1848 date), than what Montanabw wants to put in now.Lynn Wysong (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC) And also, it is nothing more but Wysong again trying to insert her version instead of mine. That is not "compromise." I am taking Kharkiv07's suggestions and implementing them. Wysong, you need to ONLY add to what Kharkiv07 has asked above. Montanabw(talk) 02:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC) @SheriWysong: To be fair Sheri you did you say you were okay with my list... if you can put in footnotes and clarifications are you still not satisfied with the above version? Kharkiv07Talk 02:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC) I stuck with the list. (See the next section) I never agreed that this only needed "minor" tweaks. What we are still stuck on, is what brought us here in the first place. Montanabw's refusal to put the 2 million number in context. We have two sources that CLEARLY put that number in the mid-1800's, but Montanabw is trying to fudge the clear intent (even now knowing that the source retracted the earlier date) of those sources by saying "prior to 1900". Montanbw has never provided a good reason to not put that number into context (yes, I saw what was written last night in the "compromise" section-but it's just more obsfucation), but least now, Montanabw FINALLY gave specific criticism to what I had written, so I unhatted the discusssion that Montanabw tried to dismiss and will try to carry on from there.Lynn Wysong (talk) 10:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC) I added something I think Wysong wanted - the "trespass livestock" phrase. It's underlined. Montanabw(talk) 03:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Edited for better flow, changes also underlined. Montanabw(talk) 03:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Revised Final Draft Prior to 1900, as many as two million feral horses may have roamed the American West. However, no scientific census of feral horse numbers had been performed in the 19th or early 20th centuries, and thus the two million figure is speculative. In 1990, the General Accounting Office(GAO) stated that "at the beginning of the 20th century, an estimated 2 million wild horses roamed America’s ranges" (in a subsequent 2008 report the GAO backed off that assertion). The BLM Myths and Facts webpage attributes the estimate to historian J. Frank Dobie and characterizes the number as "speculative" (Myth #13). According to Dobie, the "2 million" number would have occurred around the end of the Mexican-American War in 1848 and was mostly applicable to the southern Great Plains and California where the environment most closely mimicked the Mediterranean Climate from which the Spanish horses originated.. However, horse numbers were in decline as domestic cattle and sheep competed with them for resources. By the beginning of the 20th century, most feral horses were found in the inhospitable desert regions of the Great Basin and the Red Desert of Wyoming, where, as this map depicting the BLM Herd Areas & Herd Management Areas indicates, for the most part, they are found today. Also, for the most part, they are descended from horses settlers/ranchers set free in the latter part of the 1800's to graze on the open rangelands (open range) to be rounded up as they needed them for sale or use and those that were not recaptured began to multiply in feral herds that can double in number every four years. As early as the late 1890's, the large number of unbranded horses on the open range was seen as a problem, and states, and then the newly formed U.S.Forest Service, began to encourage their removal under various estray laws. Horses were eliminated by shooting them, capturing them for domestic use, or rounding them up to send to slaughter for horsemeat for us as chicken or pet or, during World War II (WWII), even human consumption. As they reproduced over the next fifty years, over one million horses may have been removed from the open range.Ranchers shot horses to leave more grazing land for other livestock, other horses were captured off the range for human use, and some were rounded up for slaughter.The United States Forest Service periodically gave ranchers notice to round up their strays and thereafter shot any remaining horses. At the time the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act(TGA) was passed, it was estimated that 150,000 horses roamed wild on public land subject to the Act. When that legislation was enacted, ranchers obtained individual grazing allotments and the fee to graze a horse was twice that for a cow. As a result, ranchers allowed unbranded horses to run loose rather than pay for them, and management of horses running on the range was initially left to Mustangers and local ranchers. While it was not clear if there were too many horses, or that the land was incurring damage due to the presence of the horses,Because the horses were seen as "trespass livestock"[6] the U.S. Grazing Service, which was established to administer the TGA, directly hired contractors to remove them from public land[6], but with the outbreak of WWII, that practice ceased In 1939, the U.S. Grazing Service (the predecessor to the BLM) began to directly hire people to remove horses from public land. The United States Forest Service periodically gave ranchers notice to round up their strays and thereafter shot any remaining horses. After World War II, horses were removed in larger numbers to meet the increased demands of the pet food market. By the 1950s, the free-roaming horse population was down to an estimated 25,000 animals.Lynn Wysong (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Same version without strikes or underlines: In 1990, the General Accounting Office(GAO) stated that "at the beginning of the 20th century, an estimated 2 million wild horses roamed America’s ranges" (in a subsequent 2008 report the GAO backed off that assertion). The BLM Myths and Facts webpage attributes the estimate to historian J. Frank Dobie and characterizes the number as "speculative" (Myth #13). According to Dobie, the "2 million" number would have occurred around the end of the Mexican-American War in 1848 (Point 1) and was mostly applicable to the southern Great Plains and California where the environment most closely mimicked the Mediterranean Climate from which the Spanish horses originated.. However, horse numbers were in decline as domestic cattle and sheep competed with them for resources.(Point #4) By the beginning of the 20th century, most feral horses were found in the inhospitable desert regions of the Great Basin and the Red Desert of Wyoming, where, as this map depicting the BLM Herd Areas & Herd Management Areas indicates, for the most part, they are found today. Also, for the most part, they are descended from horses settlers/ranchers set free in the latter part of the 1800's to graze on the open rangelands (open range) to be rounded up as they needed them for sale or use (Point #6) and those that were not recaptured began to multiply in feral herds that can double in number every four years. As early as the late 1890's, the large number of unbranded horses on the open range was seen as a problem, and states, and then the newly formed U.S.Forest Service, began to encourage their removal under various estray laws. Horses were eliminated by shooting them, (Point #3) capturing them for domestic use, or rounding them up to send to slaughter for horsemeat for us as chicken or pet or, during World War II (WWII), even human consumption. The United States Forest Service periodically gave ranchers notice to round up their strays and thereafter shot any remaining horses.(Point #'s3 and 9) As they reproduced over the next fifty years, over one million horses may have been removed from the open range. At the time the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act(TGA) was passed, it was estimated that 150,000 horses roamed wild on public land subject to the Act. When that legislation was enacted, ranchers obtained individual grazing allotments and the fee to graze a horse was twice that for a cow. As a result, ranchers allowed unbranded horses to run loose rather than pay for them, and management of horses running on the range was initially left to Mustangers and local ranchers. Because the horses were seen as "trespass livestock" (Point #7) the U.S. Grazing Service, which was established to administer the TGA, directly hired contractors to remove them from public land, but with the outbreak of WWII, that practice ceased (Point #8) After World War II, horses were removed in larger numbers to meet the increased demands (Point 10) of the pet food market. By the 1950s, the free-roaming horse population was down to an estimated 25,000 animals. (Point 11)Lynn Wysong (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Kharkiv07Talk 02:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Kharkiv07, I took out the parts that I meant to be struck in the paragraph above. A lot of what I had appeared to strike, I simply moved.Lynn Wysong (talk) 11:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC) This above is totally confusing. What "same version" are we discussing? Kharkiv, can you please hat this section and go back to my "final draft" in the above subsection - which was intended to be edited in place? And FWIW, there is no way in hell I will ever agree to writing as boring and verbose as "In 1990, the General Accounting Office(GAO) stated that..." That's what those things called footnotes are for. Montanabw(talk) 02:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC) I explained it all above, but will do so again: "This is what the BLM says about it " This figure has no scientific basis. In a book titled The Mustangs (1952) by J. Frank Dobie, the historian noted that no scientific estimate of wild horse numbers was made in the 19th century or early 20th century. He went on to write: '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.' (Emphasis added.) Mr. Dobie's admitted "guess" of no more than two million mustangs has over the years been transformed into an asserted or assumed "fact" that two million mustangs actually roamed America in the late 1800s/early 1900s." http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/whbprogram/history_and_facts/myths_and_facts.html My guess is that it was 25 years ago, in the GAO report, where it was first said Two million wild horses roamed the United States in the late 1800s/early 1900s. So, if, as Montanabw says, and from what I have seen she is right, that "the two million is the most common figure tossed out by wild horse advocates" it seems like the thing to do is to bring out the source of the "myth" the fact that the GAO later backed off statement, and the BLM's explanation." If you don't like the way I did it, please suggest a fix that actually reflects what the sources say. I am going to repeat your comment "there is no way in hell I will ever agree" to putting in the 2 million number that does not put it in context of time and geography.Lynn Wysong (talk) 11:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC) I guess this will never be resolved unless I explain my problems with Wysong: Thank you. This is what I've been asking for all along. Specific and constructive criticism. By the beginning of the 20th century, most feral horses were found in the inhospitable desert regions of the Great Basin and the Red Desert of Wyoming. Irrelevant and unacceptable McKnight is a 1964 work, the content is irrelevant. It also is Feral Livestock Montanabw(talk) 02:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC) How could it possibly be irrelevant? And who cares if it's a 1964 work? We keep going back and forth on this. Wyman's book was published in 1945, yet you brought it in as a source (and I had to point out that you couldn't carry what he said past 1945). Unless you know of a credible source that refutes what an earlier source says (like the 2008 GAO source did with the 1990 one) there is no reason to dismiss a source because of its age.Lynn Wysong (talk) 11:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC) You have inadequate sourcing for a broad statement about where "most" horses were in 1900; the numbers are speculative, and you exclude the Dakotas, you exclude eastern Wyoming, southern Idaho, Oregon, southeast Washington, and south-central Montana. The difference is that Wyman is available online and it is the best available source for material that is not terribly contested. And as I have said before, the GAO 2008 is not the report, it's in the transmittal letter, totally different type of context. Until I see why they made that change, it's fuzzy. "Prior to 1900" encompasses both. And how many times have I said this now?? Montanabw(talk) 23:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC) "The United States Forest Service periodically gave ranchers notice to round up their strays and thereafter shot any remaining horses.[cited to Time] This is Ok. Montanabw(talk) 02:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC) The US Forest Service didn't exist in 1890, it wasn't formed until 1905. Montanabw(talk) 03:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Easily fixedLynn Wysong (talk) 11:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC) So you've been sandboxing all your answers before posting here, why make such egregious mistakes? Montanabw(talk) 23:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC) "where, as this map depicting the BLM Herd Areas & Herd Management Areas indicates, for the most part, they are found today. Not adequately sourced, poor formatting, bad writing. Precise locations prior to the 1971 Act are kind of irrelevant, when precise location begins to matter is the 1971 census that determined where the horses were at the time the legislation was enacted. Montanabw(talk) 03:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC) The locations aren't "precise" and they aren't irrelevant. I can find more sources if you like.Lynn Wysong (talk) 11:30, 31 March Irrelevant. And badly written. You have no interest in listening to my reasonable critiques, all you want to do is argue. You are not assuming good faith. Montanabw(talk) 23:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC) @Montanabw: Can we work with these? Kharkiv07Talk 19:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC) NO. I only began to assess a few Wysong's many, many errors above and stopped before I was finished, when I looked at the above section and realized that you wanted us to focus on your suggestions. So let's cut to the chase. I COMPLETELY REJECT the version Wysong has posted in this section (which is a repeat of what she's posted earlier) because I have repeatedly explained the various errors and problems with tone and style (some at article talk, some at Mustang talk and some here). I have already posted a version in the above paragraph which incorporated some of her concerns, and I think also meets your list of suggestions, I am open to tweaking it, but I see no reason to make any dramatic changes to it beyond what YOU have asked Wysong to add or adjust. In contrast, Wysong doesn't get that all the cruft she wants to include is mostly irrelevant to the article. She also can't write very well, her prose is elementary and childlike, dull, over-relies on source material taken out of context, is formatted improperly, is inadequately sourced, and what isn't flat-out wrong or made-up is POV-pushing. She's been pushing virtually the same language for a month, and in the meantime I have been busting my ass to try and make reasonable changes! Sometimes I will do one thing Wysong claims she'd like to do, but then she changes her mind and asks for precisely the opposite. I am at the point now where I am ready to just say that this is about nothing but drama - You, Kharkiv have made a good faith suggestion to effect a compromise only to have Wysong throw it in your face. I am willing to improve the article; Wysong appears to only want a soapbox for her POV- which is constantly shifting. You want us to focus on content, but how can we when the other party appears to have no interest in listening to my reasonable critiques and just wants to argue. This is becoming toxic. Montanabw(talk) 23:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC) @Montanabw: That's enough. You cannot comment on other contributors, period. @SheriWysong: Sheri if we switch the date to mid-1800s on Montanabw's proposal above would that make you happy? Kharkiv07Talk 00:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Kharkiv, do read WP:BAIT and WP:TENDENTIOUS. I am sorry if you think I'm getting personal, but this other editor is NOT going to bully me any longer! I've been making these exact same points for a month; I have tried to effect a reasonable compromise; only to be repeatedly be told "no, the whole article is crap but I won't tell you how it's crap unless you try to change it and then I'll tell you that's crap too! Kharkiv, you made a group of reasonable suggestions, I took most of them and expressed openness to considering most of the others. I am not going to make any further moves until I see movement from the other side. Montanabw(talk) 00:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC) I would still probably do a GAR on the article. I was asked to do the DR before doing it, but the collaboration here is not much better here than on the talk page. We can't stay on point, none of my suggestions are considered, or if they are Montanabw writes them to give the tone she wants, then if I object because her paraphrasing completely changes the meaning of the original source, the discussion just constantly devolves into one like the one above.Lynn Wysong (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC) @Montanabw and SheriWysong: Well guys I had high hopes for this one but it seems to me this is going nowhere, and I think I'm just going to have to mark it as failed and call it a day unless either of you want to really try. Kharkiv07Talk 00:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Sorry, Kharkiv07. I've spent many hours in conference rooms hammering out compromises in the language of documents that we knew were going to be controversial (from agency headquarters in Washington D.C. on down), but it only works if everyone follows basic rules of conduct. I have found that, in that case, it usually works well. Because usually its a matter of figuring out where the other person is coming from, being frank about where you are coming from, and trying to keep the other person's viewpoint while doing so. I've really tried to do that. But, I too, know when to throw in the towel.Lynn Wysong (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Gee, Wysong and I agreed on something. People should follow rules of conduct and be honest about who they are and where they are coming from. And now Wysong claims to be some kind of expert? I will remember that. Montanabw(talk) 04:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Islam and Antisemitism

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Nishidani on 16:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes. Location of dispute Talk:Islam and antisemitism (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Nishidani (talk · contribs) RebSmith (talk · contribs) Zero0000 (talk · contribs) Nableezy (talk · contribs) Bkalafut (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I’ve had my eye on, and edited, the article Islam and antisemitism, since 2009. It’s deeply problematic and needs a lot of work. A new user User:RebSmith made his first edit on wikipedia, on this page, with a massive 8,000kb of material listing putative ‘Antisemitic Verses in Quran ‘. Since the page he edited has a statement by one of the leading authorities on Islam and the Arab world, Bernard Lewis, specifically arguing that anti-Semitism is a modern issue for Islam, and since many authorities agree with him, and deny that anti-Semitism is evidenced by those verses,(regarding it as a modern development) that edit looked odd. The user has focused, since March 15, exclusively on this page, and appears thoroughly unfamiliar with standard policy guidelines. He is backed by User:Bkalafut, who contributed mainly by reporting me immediately as a putatively abusive editor for making 2 reverts in 48 hours while he was making two in a few hours ([2],[3] ), while WP:Canvassing RebSmith to join in. Examination showed the user was relying on lists from writers who are commonly regarded as Islamophobes (Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer). The issues are multiple (a) WP:RS (b) WP:OR (defining primary sources whose antisemitic nature is contested by scholarship, as though they were intrinsically antisemitic) (c)WP:NPOV. If one compares the relatively well-written Christianity and antisemitism sister article, further, there is no list of specific individuals and the reader comes away with a general impression of a careful unaggressive exposition. In Islam and antisemitism, to the contrary, half of the text(notes 113-205) is devoted to long list of isolated incidents and figures, fingering individuals and institutions as antisemitic, and the page has been built programmatically or note in defiance of WP:NPOV, as an attack page on Islam. Subsequently the page was locked by an admin, User:EdJohnston. Another administrator on the page suggested I see help here to resolve the multiple difficulties of editing that page since March 15. I would like to proceed to help edit the article towards good article level, using only the best academic scholarship (abundant) on this difificult and sensitive topic, as I began to do here. The edit history and talk page divagations give me no confidence that improving it will not encounter edit-warring. Have you tried to resolve this previously? The extensive discussions on the talk page show consistent impasses. How do you think we can help? I would appreciate supervision of a rediscussion of the key issues, by any experienced dispute resolution third party wikipedian. Summary of dispute by User:RebSmith This dispute originated when I added a list of Quranic verses that were considered disparaging to Jews by Muslim and non-Muslim scholars and commentators. While the list reflected secondary sources, it was improperly sourced. User:Bkalafut and I (please use pronoun "she", Reb=Rebecca) have since decided that the list shouldn't be included without each verse being properly sourced. However, a number of disputes still exist. The current points of contention: using Muslim clerics as sources for analysis of the Quran (Muhammad Sayyid Tantawy, Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Hamas leadership, Hamza Yusuf, Imam Malik, etc.) using orientalists who hold contrary views to Bernard Lewis' opinions as sources: more "right-wing" analysis (Robert Spencer, Bat Ye'or, Adam Bostom, Ann Lambton, Shelomo Dov Goitein, etc.) and "left-wing" analysis (Joel Beinin and others). using MEMRI as a source for the translation of the Muslim clerics. Please note that MEMRI is used by major reputable news organizations, from the New York Times [4] to the Washington Post [5], as well as in academic articles [6] [7] [8] My position has always been that we should include both Muslim and non-Muslim views on this particular topic. We should include the analysis of Quranic verses by Muslim clerics who interpret them as showing a negative view of Jews as well as those who refute such analysis. Moreover, we should include the perspective of orientalists that agree with Bernard Lewis, as well as those who don't. A wikipedia article is not a place to highlight or push a particular POV, but to display the range of notable POVs and the criticism of those POVs on a particular topic. We should include the POVs of the "extremists" and "Islamophobes" on this particular issue since their views are very relevant and notable to current geopolitical events that include the Iranian nuclear treaty [9], the Israeli-Palestinian conflict [10], attacks on Jews and synagogues [11] [12] [13], blocking construction of mosques at "ground zero" [14], UK censoring of speakers considered "islamophobic" [15] [16]. "Christianity and anti-Semitism" is a different topic theologically, historically, culturally, politically etc. and thus, mirroring it in "Islam and anti-Semitism" may not be proper encyclopedic behavior. RebSmith (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by User:Bkalafut The dispute has two layers. The first, and let me get it out of the way since it's the shortest, is over editing practice. User:RebSmith was in the process of making good-faith edits improving the content of the page and bringing it closer to NPOV. These edits did not use the best citation practice, so a "legalist" could say they were OR, but somebody here to build an encyclopedia could have been improved immediately by simply moving her citations around. Instead of making these immediate improvements, reverts were made, repeatedly and aggressively, without discussion. There is a kind of gaslighting going on, too, with User:Nishidani and User:Malik Shabazz repeatedly saying on the talk page that I and RebSmith have not read policy while never really arguing their point based on stated policy. And further gaslighting, claiming RebSmith is calling solely for "popular sources written by dilettanti", nevermind what she outlined above. Incivility from the beginning to the end, starting with bad manners and moving onward from there. On top of that there is now this gripe about canvassing. A bully who reverts instead of fixes a newcomer's content complains that I "canvassed" his (one) victim (in implied violation of WP:CAN by telling him her I reported his conduct. In addition to being deeply out of line with basic morality and the spirit of WP:CAN, that's an abuse of the meaning of the word "canvassing" in English! This kind of gaslighting and wikilawyering must stop and we must return to normal editing practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkalafut (talk • contribs) 04:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC) The second and more important is over NPOV and RS, and (from my point of view) WP:UNDUE with a dash of WP:OWN. An article about Islam and antisemitism needs to be about Islam and antisemitism meaning it needs (among other things) to give the reader a sense of how prevalent antisemitic attitudes are among Muslims and why antisemitic Muslims (qua Muslims) are antisemitic. If the Koran is part of the problem (and it is) a section on the Koran would be most useful. Proposing building this up verse by verse to avoid even the appearance of original research (because heaven forbid the sources are in the section and not verse by verse!)--was offered as a kind of olive branch but rejected. At the heart of this is that User:Nishidani and several others are treating nearly all sources for this material--both Muslim and Western--as unreliable, while sources for a certain fringe POV (Bernard Lewis's claim that Muslim antisemitism is an import from Christendom--Lewis has a history of good scholarship but like Peter Duesberg or Linus Pauling that doesn't keep him from occasionally putting something wacky out there) make the cut. The argument has been made that because some of the sources for a certain POV are higher up a kind of totem pole of RS (academic papers, never mind that some of them come out of "studies" journals) what are otherwise RS for the beliefs and reasons for the beliefs of the the Muslim Joe Sixpack (clerics in translation, and secondary sources commenting on this) are not in this context RS. Following this perversion of WP:RS we end up with a POV article. Irrelevancies about some of these secondary sources have been brought up on the talk page--it doesn't matter if one of these secondary sources has enemies who say he is behind a "hate group". Is he reliable? The strategy appears to be not to adhere to WP:RS but to wear everyone else out with irrelevant argument until we just go away. WP:OWN for the win--and then we wonder why editor participation is down sitewide. In short: we an NPOV article and we absolutely need to follow WP:RS. Not some twisted version of RS where my digging out a journal article means portions of an article relying on MEMRI or on journalistic sources or sources written by non-academics must be deleted. Not wikilawyering and aggressive reverts for you but POV for me. Simple adherence to policy, with everybody here to try to build an encyclopedia, will lead to a balanced article. And a balanced article is my only interest here.Bkalafut (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by User: Nableezy I think the above statement, in which Bernard Lewis is dismissed as a fringe POV from a user adamant on including Pamela Geller as a reliable source, demonstrates the problems serious editors are facing on that talk page. A leading scholar is dismissed but the ravings of a blogger on the internet are upheld as reliable. That is what needs to be fixed here, and I kind of sort of doubt this is the place to do it. nableezy - 02:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by User:Zero0000 Islam and Antisemitism Discussion Volunteer's note: I am one of the volunteers at this noticeboard. I am neither taking nor declining the case. However, I will comment that this noticeboard is normally for informal mediation of relatively small content disputes that are typically resolved in a few weeks. Looking over the discussion on this article's talk page, and the comments about its history, it might be appropriate to request formal mediation at Requests for Mediation, a more formal process that may be better suited to handle complex disputes. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Thanks. I will certainly try that if things do not work out here, or if the case is declined. I don't imagine that this will be long here. I'd like some preliminary thrashing out of elementary principles of best editing practice. I.e. if we have a very substantial range of scholarship on a sensitive topic, should we use that, rather than popular works by people without any formal training in the area. Perhaps I am wrong in my conviction that encyclopedic work commends the first, particularly where a huge background noise of media and polemic controversy surrounds the subject.Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC) User:Nishidani I'd like to suggest that you add a paragraph to your opening statement stating what you hope to accomplish here at DRN and try to create some specific, defined and realistic parameters. At present your purpose is too wide ranging for this forum. If you have one or two key issues and other participants volunteer to participate, then hopefully a productive, moderated discussion can take place here and then back at the talk page after the DRN case, thereby avoiding the need for formal mediation. That would be my suggestion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Reb has already summed up the issues, preempting me. We could deal with those three points.Nishidani (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC) (1) Is it advisable to use the following Muslim clerics as sources for analysis of the Quran (Muhammad Sayyid Tantawy, Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Hamas leadership, Hamza Yusuf, Imam Malik, etc.) (2) is it advisable to use (Robert Spencer, Bat Ye'or, Adam Bostom, Ann Lambton for the article on Islam and anti-Semitism, and if so, to what degree. (3) May MEMRI be used for quotations from Muslim clerics on the Qur'an.Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC) Please, No further discussion until a DRN volunteer formerly accepts and begins moderation of this case. Thank you My brief answer to all three is that this is an encyclopedic article on the connection between anti-Semitism and Islam. The problem is therefore determining the issue of anti-Semitism in the Qur'an. There are anti-Semitic statements drawing on the Qur'an, made by Muslim clerics, but it would be an error of double selection bias to cite specific Qur'anic texts and specific modern Muslim clerical comments on them, to argue for that text's 'antisemitism'. Most of this kind of interpretation is done by POV-driven amateurs (Spencer, Geller, Bostom, Bat Ye'or) many of whom have no minimally adequate textual or methodological training in Arabic or Qur'anic interpretation. It is rather like an article on any passage in the Gospel, or Tanakh, in a Wikipedia article expounding a verse or passage by giving due weight to what scholars say, and what Joe-Blow of the evangelical Church of Fundamentalism in Arkansaw says of the same verse because Joe Blow is a cleric, and has a degree in Biblical studies from any of the 1,200 colleges in the North American Continent offering such degrees. That said, there should certainly be a section on the modern polemical literature (typified by these writers) and its assertions about Islam. Therefore, we should deal with the general outline according to what the best scholarship on Islam's relationship to the Jews was (and Raphael Israeli would disagree with Bernard Lewis), and then have a section, summarily covering the modern period controversies at a popular level. MEMRI's translations are not the point. They provide raw text as primary sources, and may be cited if the relevant scholarship cites them, through that scholarship. Finally, there is the question of why, in this particular article, in contradistinction to Christianity and antisemitism, do we have such intense focus on individuals, many obscure. Antisemitism is a Christian plague, which has infected Islamic quarters, yet we tread delicately round individual responsibility in the article on modern Christian anti-Semitism, while going whole hog to name names, associated with the list of enemies of Israel (Hamas, Hezbollah, Arab countries generally) on this page. It's like raging over alien metastases while ignoring the primary cancer. The WP:systemic bias is patent. We are careful not to tread on the toes of our own tradition, but run like a bull in a china shop over the toes of a billion foreigners' beliefs by selectively targeting as their legitimate representatives a few dozen of hundreds of thousands of imams. I think Reb has agreed notes 113-205 are wildly WP:Undue. The compromise I suggest therefore is to make a generic synthesis of all that in an appropriate, comprehensive modern section. I myself am more interested in the historical picture overall.Nishidani (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC) By the way, if I wish clarity on a section of the New Testament, or the Tanakh it is not my practice to ask clerical friends, or yeshiva heads, what those verses mean, since I am a pagan. What I do is look at what scholars, Christian or Jewish, secularists or whatever, qualified in Semitic philology and historical scholarship, tell me about them, which means looking at various conflicting interpretations, many acceptable neither to your local cleric or Yeshiva student. This distinction is elementary to anyone who has a knowledge of what encyclopedic article-writers do: they do not trust a partisan perspective. They follow the best modern scholarship on a topic.Nishidani (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC) Previous Discussions on this issue from 2010 by User:Hyperionsteel Regarding the section on quotes from Muslim leaders and scholars, User:Nableezy and myself had two extensive discussions on this topic - on the article's talk page (now archived) Talk:Islam_and_antisemitism/Archive_7#OR and on the OR Noticeboard Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_14#Islam_and_antisemitism - in August 2010. Although I was not named in this dispute, I believe they are relevant here.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)) Thank you for bringing this to everyone's attention. It appears a lot of this ground has already been covered, albeit without reaching consensus. Am I correct in reading it that way (no consensus, or was it just User:Nableezy remaining unconvinced and unwilling to go along in the end?Bkalafut (talk) 04:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC) We did agree to some revisions, but we both had strong opinions on this issue which were effectively left unresolved. I say "effectively" because although the quotes did remain in the article, I believe this was due to Nableezy deciding that he didn't want to argue about it anymore (no disrespect intended) as opposed to him accepting that my position was correct.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)) What the article becomes if we don't take Muslim sources or advice in WP:RSE seriously It isn't policy, but WP:RSE describes praxis elsewhere on WP (including articles on economics or Christianity) fairly accurately and the discussion makes sense. See the section on sources about religion: [17] "For example, the works of Thomas Aquinas are secondary sources for a Roman Catholic perspective on many topics". Even the most "scholarly" perspective can be partisan, and NPOV means we do not give preference to the scholarly source merely because it is scholarly--especially if the article is about what practitioners of the religion actually believe. Setting aside the (itself POV) distinction between scholar and cleric (was Maimonides not both? what about Joseph Ratzinger?): If a detached scholar from a "studies" department (or even a more legitimate discipline) comes along and offers a novel interpretation of a prayer at Mass or a gospel passage, his novel interpretation does not suddenly become a reliable source--let alone the most reliable source--of information about what Christians actually believe. If our object is writing a balanced article, we cannot wait for a Westerner with a position at a university to come along and sum it all up as a 'tertiary' source. Nor can we hand the trump card to the first ostensibly detached Westerner we can find. What we can't do is say on Wikipedia is to decide the dispute between Muslims if the topic is in dispute--just like we don't turn Wikipedia into a magisterium deciding right and wrong among economists or Christians. ("Well, this economist studied at Arkansaw and the other studied at Hahvahd...") Just as we do for Christians, for Muslim clerics the best policy is to discern who speaks with some kind of stature or recognized authority. He is a primary source for his own views but a secondary source for the peculiar brand of orthodoxy he comes from. He is a primary source even if some other Muslims consider him heterodox. The alternative to letting Muslims speak for Muslims--especially if also have problems with non-University-affiliated tertiary sources like Bat Ye'or or Robert Spencer who take contemporary Muslim clerics seriously--is to have an article which gives undue weight to the positions emphasized by (themselves often biased) Western academics or which doesn't adequately cover actual Muslim belief and praxis, in favor of (since we're going to do something other than what is recommended in WP:RSE for religious topics) the Koran interprerations favored by academics up to User:Nishidani's standards of philological expertise, in short, an article about Nishidani's favored fringe POV (anti-semitism in Islam is an import from Christendom) peppered with Koran exegesis from a few Nishidani-approved university-affiliated scholars Muslims don't actually follow. That is, unless we go digging for Western tertiary sources. Let's just follow WP:RS as is done elsewhere and take Muslims clerics to represent Muslim orthodoxy the way we take Protestant preachers with some authority and reputation to represent their groups.Bkalafut (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC) 'take Muslims clerics to represent Muslim orthodoxy.' There is no 'Muslim' orthodoxy, nor 'Christian' (put a Lutheran, an Evangelical, and a Catholic theologian in the one room) or 'Jewish' orthodoxy. To call a 'fringe POV' (anti-Semitism in Islam is an import from Christendom) a position widespread in scholarship means the editor in question has no grasp on policies at WP:RS or WP:fringe. Every editor here who might have some hobby horse to ride quixotically into a wiki battle should first read Esther Webman, 'The Challenge of Assessing Arab/Islamic Antisemitism', Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 46, No. 5, 677–697, September 2010. Everyone will find some comfort there for any particular bias he or she may entertain. Nishidani (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC) My comments have been exclusively aimed at procedural and administrative issues that needed to be cleared up before a DRN volunteer could adopt this case. Now that those issues have been addressed to some degree, please wait for the case to be officially opened before discussing further. DRN is not a replacement or substitute for the article talk page. Thanks. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.