Talk:History of horse domestication theories

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 September 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Merge discussion

Suggest merging Forest horse here as part of a general move to eliminate excessive reference to this outmoded theory. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be okay (OMG! I just agreed with JLAN! =:-O ) at least, given that the article is only a stub and not apt to have much more to add. A merge would be fine with me. I might suggest that we consider making "Forest horse" a disambig rather than a redirect though, noting the multiple results of my Google search on the term, which gave me New Forest Pony, Black Forest Horse and some references to equine logging. Montanabw^(talk) 22:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tossed the merge tag because the evolution article was definitely the wrong target if this article were to be merged at all. This theory had nothing to do with broad evolution, it was merely a discussion of whether equus ferus had subtypes. (There were also theories that these subtypes were subspecies, but those proposals are even older and were superceded by the 1960s or 70s, though they persisted in some old horse texts a bit longer). The question of IF to merge -- somewhere -- is fine to discuss, but I think proposing an inappropriate target will just start an edit spat over there, and it isn't needed. My own take is that this is best kept as its own article so that it can be explained and the subsequent refutation of it discussed. To put this discussion into a more scientific article as a merge just would clutter the other articles, where this is best just mentioned in passing with a link for those who have an interest. (BTW, there is a web site at one of the UK horsey spots that proposes something like this, only with 7 subtypes). The romantic issue of claiming "wild" ancestors for a number of breeds is, as you may have noticed, still popular with many breed registries. Hence, my reason to keep this as an article that educates and "teaches the issue." All IMHO, of course. Montanabw^(talk) 04:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not merge this with Domestication of the horse? FunkMonk (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's sort of a spinoff, the domestication article is long and complicated enough covering the mainstream of current scientific understanding without adding in all the "they used to believe this, but they were wrong" material. (grin) Creation of this article also happened to settle a nasty little edit war at the time it was created. Montanabw^(talk) 20:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updating article

Hi gang. Good start on the rework and thank you. Now that we are here, I still question if this article is about domestication or about old theories about the wild ancestors of the domesticated horse. This isn't about HOW horses were domesticated, it is about the theories surrounding their genetic root stock. For that reason, I really do NOT like the word "domestication" in this title and think it's a misnomer. We can call it "history of" something, but not domestication, per se. I'm not going to "edit war" and engage in fruitless round of trying to explain myself only to be forced to endure the constant bullying and insults from JLAN over this, (as he plainly thinks I'm too stupid to tie my own shoes) but I'd like us to keep working on a better title. Montanabw^(talk) 19:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of domestic horse origin theories?-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, how many made it from hypothesis to theory? Would "History of domestic horse origin research" be to broadly named?--Kev min § 00:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no objection to a change of title, though I don't share the concerns about the present one. I don't myself believe "research" is a particularly appropriate term for what appears in large measure to be armchair science. Would "Outdated theories of domestic horse origins" make anyone happy? Or "History of theories of domestic horse breed origins"? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Domestic horse origin hypotheses" maybe? A "hypothesis" is a less developed set of ideas than a "theory" (gravity and evolution still technically "theories" after all). Anything to get rid of "domestication," which in that form implies "taming" in the popular mind, when here we are talking ancestry. One thought anyway... Montanabw^(talk) 05:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note here: The title, "History of horse domestication theories", actually suggests it is about the history of the theories, not the history of domestication. Is that what is intended? At best it is ambiguous. Dynasteria (talk) 08:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bennett

I've made an attempt to make some sense of Bennett, though I admit I did not find it easy. Some of the text in the previous article did not seem to be sourced from that part of her book, so I have temporarily hidden that out pending clarification. I have a question, though: has her theory ever been discussed by anyone else? Because (a) I believe that Bennett's book is a primary source for Bennett's theory, and thus not really admissible here; and (b) if not, it probably is not sufficiently notable to merit inclusion at all. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to myself. Several chapters of James Warren Evans, Horse breeding and management, are by Bennett; indeed, in places it is word-for-word the same as in the other book. This was published by Elsevier, so unless others disagree I believe it both establishes notability and can be considered a secondary source. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me if you want to add the secondary cite. I tweaked on Bennett's theory (which isn't a paragon of clarity). I'll go find the stuff on her bio that says she worked for the Smithsonian and her PhD info. Montanabw^(talk) 05:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, should have made clear that publication of what is at a guess her doctoral thesis in a scholarly book from a reputable publisher also establishes her reputation IMO; I had meant to remove that tag. I'm less happy about "scholars" for the Europeans. We don't have articles on any of them, and I don't have time to research it now, but I rather think that Ebhardt and Skorkowski were breeders. I'm going to put back "Seven subspecies" as a subheading for Bennett's theories; as with the others, the subheading I used is a direct cite from the text (page 5, in this case), in order to avoid any possibility of OR here. I agree she is not entirely clear on several points, but she does both mention and then name seven subspecies. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree with questioning "scholars," though "researcher" or "breeder" would be fine with me if that's what they were. (and not all "Scholars" have a PhD and work out of a university, for that matter) if we can at least label them as "European" or by nationality as was done in the preceeding paragraph for the others, to parallel the national origins consistently (either all of them or none of them, I don't really care which). I can live with seven subspecies, though I think she actually settled on four, but then with nine crossbreeding variants, so where she was going is also a mystery to me. Montanabw^(talk) 08:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Equus caballus przewalskii przewalskii"

What is that? a sub-subspecies?! Or an error? FunkMonk (talk) 02:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Later in the article, I added the current taxonomic classification of Przewalski's horse, as that is relevant. As I don't have access to the Edwards book, I am not sure if it's a typo or not; there were multiple taxonomic classifications used over time, and I've discovered the field to be quite controversial at times; a minefield if I may pun a bit. I'll put a heads up in the edit summary for those who watchlist this article, I know a couple people have the book in question. Montanabw^(talk) 20:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]