Talk:Mongoose

message: There has to be a section on this. Mongoose have been used in many places where they are an exotic species, usually not to the benefit of the local fauna.
Please put this in.
2600:1702:3840:E240:47F:4782:C551:56DA (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction as an exotic species 

message: As much as I loved the Chuck Jones cartoon, I think Rikki-Tikki-Tavi lost his claim to the title of the world's most popular fictional mongoose once The Lion King hit theatres in 1994.  From that point on, Timon the meerkat had received a lot more public recognition.palmer --M.Neko 13:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The character Timon isn't a mongoose; he's a meerkat.  No matter how popular Timon is it has nothing to do with the popularity of mongoose characters, a completely different animal.  67.174.98.77 (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, meerkats are a type of mongoose (as mentioned in the article). However, they're not commonly referred to as such, so I agree that it might be confusing to include this example in the "in popular culture" section. Anaxial (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: They are in the same family, but they're of a species not commonly referred to as a mongoose, so I agree it's probably not appropriate to give Timon the title of "most popular fictional mongoose."  It may bear a brief mention in the popular culture section but Riki Tikki Tavi is still much better known in popular culture as a mongoose than Timon, by far.  Tigers are in the same family as domestic cats but we don't say Tony the Tiger is a more popular cat than Garfield.  67.174.98.77 (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popularity Contest 

message: Are the words mongoose and goose really related?? 66.32.252.184 01:41, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Likely not, goose comes from PIE *ghans, whereas mongoose comes from a dravidian word, akin to mangoos, or something.
The word should be derived from an Indic language word, (Marathi) 'mangus'. 
Source: The Chambers Dictionary. Googling reveals several supporting articles.
Why isn't the mongoose in the Mustelidae family?(much discription please)
64.149.37.114 01:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation 

message: Shouldn't there be a dismbiguation page for this? For the bike/skateboard band mongoose.
Yes?
::Make a disambiguation page please.
:::*I thought disambiguation was when there was more than two articles with similar names? Otherwise, I'd say add a link on the top of this article to the other. There's no need for a extra page to tell about a single other article. 
--Vidarlo 20:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Brand

message: I thought the plural was "polygoose", compared to "mongoose".
That's a knee-slapper. (Momus)
:Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary lists both mongooses and mongeese.  The American Heritage Dictionary, 4th ed. and the Compact Oxford English Dictionary both list only mongooses.  None list mongoose.  Given this inconsistency, it's important to recognize these dictionaries present quite different views of the English language.  Merriam-Webster takes a descriptive approach and seeks to record real-world usage.  American Heritage, on the other hand, focuses more on the traditional rules of formal English.  In fact, James Parton created The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language because he felt Webster's Third New International Dictionary was too permissive in regard to non-standard usage.  Compare the following usage notes for they, gender-neutral third person singular: MW AH.
:Merriam-Webster and American Heritage are both useful references for a Wikipedia editor.  Merriam-Webster's descriptivist treatment of the English language mirrors Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.  Similarly, American Heritage's preference for formal, standardized English complements Wikipedia: Manual of Style.  Thus Merriam-Webster is better research tool and American Heritage a better editing aid.  And since this discussion relates to the word mongeese, rather than the actual animal, Merriam-Webster trumps American Heritage.  I've changed the article to lists mongeese as a rare variation of mongooses.  Labeling it incorrect would not be a neutral point of view.  --Ryanrs 11:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The plural form of mongoose is properly written mongooses." Well, duh. Nobody seriously uses "mongeese" as plural. It's not common "usage", but a common joke. Will remove Kar98 18:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Because that's using latin declination. The "us" in "Octopus" comes from Latin. Only words ending in "us" and coming from Latin change to "i" in the plural. "Mongoose" may sound similar to "Mongus," but that's only a coincidence. Korossyl 18:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: None the less, I think we should stick with one form of the plural in the article itself, rather than switching between 'mongooses' and 'mongeese' every other sentence. I've edited to use 'mongooses' exclusively (except, of course, for the statement at the beginning about the alternative being acceptable), since that seems the less controversial of the two. Anaxial 18:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Anaxial that the article should use the formal plural (mongooses) but I suppose Merriam-Webster reflects the fact that 25% of Google hits use the "incorrect" form (mongeese) so I have left this as an option in the heading.Is this dumbing-down?Dbfirs (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Having studied the "Google Books" hits, and eliminated those which discuss the error or "mongeese" and those which are undecided, there remain just a few where the author genuinely thinks that "mongeese" is a valid plural.  I conclude, therefore, that Merriam-Webster includes this alternative as a rare plural which appears to be deprecated by most authors.  I have marked it accordingly, but please study the data in detail for yourself if you disagree.Dbfirs (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plural

message: Seriously? 153.104.16.114 01:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nature's Assassin

message: I removed the following because the first reliable source I saw contradicted it clearly:
:"Each female has a territory, which she defends against other females. Males defend larger territories that overlap with those of several females. Males and females rarely interact outside mating periods. Feeding on prey like mice, snakes and lizards requires stealth and is best done alone."
The source I consulted is , which I also added inline. - Taxman Talk 16:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The point being a reference is needed to be sure. More like a textbook or journal article, not another encyclopedia. And please just respond, don't delete other comments. - Taxman Talk 17:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed information 

message: Do we really need that many references to the word "mongoose" appearing in movies and television?  I have removed each entry in which it is simply a character's name.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 09:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular Culture 

message: Do we need to have repetitions of mongoose' dental formula? I would like to have one of them to be removed. --Lucifer 09:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems a reasonable request! It must have been duplicated by mistake at some point (possibly by me!) Anaxial (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: If you feel so, kindly remove one of the formula. My obvious choice would be to remove the first one as we don't need to have that in the very introduction --Ankithreya! 05:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I already did... Anaxial (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Great :-) --Ankithreya! 05:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dental Formula 

message: Changed one deadly cobra to "two deadly cobras" because that was how the story goes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.157.87.198 (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rikki Tikki Tavvi

message: An alleged problem with mongoose; should be discussed in the article. Viriditas (talk) 11:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Leptospirosis]] 

message: I would like to see a more diverse set of images in this article.  The photos on this page show small-bodied mongoose.  In Hawaii, the mongoose are enormous and make these specimens look like small mice. Viriditas (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: Does anyone know why Mongooses are not considered related to Mustelids? The Family is very diverse, but the Mongoose shares most of their common traits, including body style, fur type, and anal scent glands. Or if they are- in the way skunks are no longer considered 'mustelids' but are noted as being highly related (and included in the Superfamily)- why is this not noted? I'm just curious.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.254.46.161 (talk) 07:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As stated in the article, mongooses are related to viverrids; cat-like animals such as the civet. Mustelids (and skunks), by comparison, are more closely related to dogs. So the two groups are not especially related, despite their similar physical appearance. A more detailed explanation is at the Feliformia article. Anaxial (talk) 09:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation to Mustelids? 

message: There are 3 references to the family having 33 species (ok one was my edit, changing 'more than 30 species'), one of which has an external reference, yet 34 species are listed! Which is the current consensus view?
:As no one has reverted on this point yet, I have now removed the Sokoke Bushy-tailed Mongoose from the list, which means that the number of species listed agrees to the quoted total of 33. However, I have added a comment on this species/subspecies at the end of the taxonomy sectionGlevum (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of Species

message: As Canidae and Mustelidae are both caniformes, I don't see how Herpestides can be more closely related to one than the other! Its like saying I'm more closely related to my cousin Tom than I am to his younger brother Harry!Glevum (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely what was intended here was the word "felines" right? I assume that this paragraph was meant to clarify for readers that, even though mongeese (sorry, couldn't resist) look like Mustelidae, they are in fact in completely different suborders - mongooses are more closely related to cats; Mustelidae are more closely related as dogs. It would be nice if an expert would fix this paragraph. It definitely confused me.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.213.129.198 (talk) 13:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Relationships

message: What is the relation between the mongoose, and snakes? Is it just because they're immune to snake venom? Why are they always paired up or opposing each other in various media? I've known about the pairing from an old VIC20 Game Pirate's Cove, and the more recent 3rd gen. Pokemon Zangoose & Seviper from Ruby/Sapphire.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.240.175 (talk) 07:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mongoose vs Snake? 

message: Etymology DOES NOT create words - it describes plausible changes undergone by a word to arrive at its present form. We can't have a word created by folk etymology! Therefore we can't say "The form of the English name (since 1698) was altered to its "-goose" ending ***by*** folk-etymology. There is not even any folk etymology at play here. 
To say that "mongoose" is derived FROM "goose", that is folk etymology; to say that "mongoose" came about BECAUSE OF folk etymology, that is just wrong - the words would have existed even in the absence of etymology   
Word creation/ evolution of words is one thing, etymology is another. That is if the WP is to remain a reliable source of information without blurring things by allowing folk linguistics into the fray. Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right.  Is there a change you'd like to make to the article? Chrisrus (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The article stated (in the "name" section) that the word "mongoose" was created by folk etymology, and, presumably by extension, that "mongeese" was not incorrect as a plural. I've now reverted, since this seems to be present consensus. However, there is another editor with the opposing opinion, citing a source that apparently states that new words can, indeed, be created by folk etymology (I suspect he's misunderstood it, but I don't have a copy to check). Perhaps he'd care to comment here? Anaxial (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you recognize a distinction between etymology and folk etymology? The latter term has a well established meaning. This is from Garner's Modern American Usage, third edition, 2009: "...folk etymology has left its mark on the language. Take a few common examples. Pea is a false singular of pease, which was mistakenly taken as a plural. Likewise, a newt is a historical error for an ewt, an adder for a nadder, and an apron for a napron ... Primrose and rosemary were earlier primerole and romarin, neither of which has anything to do with roses, but they were respelled precisely on that mistaken assumption." (p. 322) These are word creations resulting from popular (folk) misunderstanding of an unfamiliar word, aka folk etymology. Ewulp (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Forsyth (whose book I cited) says: "The addition of the H to umble is an example of what's known as folk etymology. Somebody who didn't know what an umble was saw the words umble pie and got confused. Then they saw that umble pie was a humble dish, and assumed that somebody had just missed off the H, and decided to put it back. Thus umble pie becomes humble pie. That's folk etymology ... By the same system, the old word crevis is now spelled and pronounced crayfish, even though it's not very fishlike ... and most wonderfully of all, the Indian mangus became a mongoose, although there's not a huge similarity between the furry, snake-devouring mammal and a goose." Ewulp (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Also see "mongoose", Dictionary.com, Online Etymology Dictionary (retrieved June 16, 2013), where the word's origin is given: "1698, perhaps via Port., from an Indic language (cf. Mahrathi mangus "mongoose"), probably ult. from Dravidian (cf. Telugu mangisu, Kanarese mungisi). The form of the Eng. word altered by folk-etymology." Ewulp (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

text: And I do not argue that mongeese is the proper plural, only that the inserted erroneously is not supported by the cited source. Shouldn't we summarize accurately what our sources actually say? Ewulp (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Joseph Shipley explains it well in The origins of English words: A discursive dictionary of Indo-European roots (1984): "Another activity that has helped shape language is what is called folk-etymology, the turning of an unfamiliar word toward one that is more common. Thus, crevisse became crayfish .... When laymen began to write (an activity that for centuries was the almost exclusive function of the clergy ...), they sometimes shifted n from an to the following word, or vice-versa—a becoming an—because they did not know, when they wrote it down, to which word to attach the sound. Thus a napron became an apron; the less common napkin and napery were not confused." (p. xxvi).  The "turning of an unfamiliar word toward one that is more common" would explain the turning of mangus to mongoose, the respelling of which is ascribed to folk etymology by two sources I've cited above. Ewulp (talk) 03:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Folk etymology 

message: Ok, I figured out why things are going pear-shaped - there are two meanings to "folk etymology", one of which is now being referred to as "false etymology". This is a recent change here in the Wikipedia, as I recall quite clearly having contributed to the original folk etymology article. Content was merged/ unmerged/ renamed/ redirected as can be seen [] and []. The apparent lack of agreement over the two is such that the changes had the effect of dis-aligning the article(s) vis-a-vis the articles in other languages, which no longer refletced the same reality, as can be seen []   
So it looks like some of us are working for the established meanining of "folk etymology", while others are working from the technical sense - "The term folk etymology, a loan translation from the 19th Century academic German Volksetymologie, is a technical one in philology and historical linguistics, referring to the change of form in the word itself, not to any actual explicit popular analysis". The question now is, which interpretation should prevail in the Wikipedia? Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The current interpretation of course—it is good that the English language uses different terms to refer to these two things; imagine the confusion if a single term referred to both. The internal link (formerly in Mongoose) to Folk etymology explains to the curious which sense is intended, although this will already be clear from context. Wikipedia's interpretation of folk etymology is consistent with a long-established usage; see Bloomfield and Newmark, A Linguistic Introduction to the History of English, Knopf, 1963, or Abram Smythe Palmer, Folk-etymology: A Dictionary of Verbal Corruptions Or Words Perverted in Form Or Meaning, by False Derivation Or Mistaken Analogy, London: Bell, 1882. Ewulp (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Folk etymology and false etymology 

message: The article should cover this. Rcbutcher (talk) 06:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:     See Mongoose#Lifespan.  Rules of engagement Paine  21:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: How long do they live ?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mongoose. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060625065933/http://news.fws.gov/newsreleases/LACYBANS.html to http://news.fws.gov/newsreleases/LACYBANS.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: The article give no reason that mongooses choose to fight snakes. Is it because they want to make their neighborhood safe? Is it because mongooses eat snakes? 
It is particularly noticeable that this question is not answered in the article. Can someone knowledgeable about this please include the answer in the article?2600:1700:E1C0:F340:6179:1FBF:C33A:895A (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHY do mongooses fight snakes? 

message: Doesn't this article need a map of where they are located? Predated0 (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There already is one; I don't see the need for another in the same article. Anaxial (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are they found? 

message: Can someone write about their social behavior? Thanks. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  social behavior? 

message: Hi  ever since Kichecia was added to the list of Herpestinae, I've been wondering about this genus. You may have seen that the name was wrongly spelled all the time; correct is Kichechia, see the original description by Savage (1965) that I just referenced with url. When then looking for the 2nd species of this genus, Kichechia savagei, I also found this first description by Adrian et al. (2018), see page 4 at http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1193864/FULLTEXT01.pdf. Note the difference : these authors place Kichechia in the Viverridae!! So I would appreciate your opinion: should we follow Savage (1965)'s classification or the updated one by Adrian et al. (2018)? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: For the second species, there is no choice. Kichechia savagei was described as a viverrid and not a herpestid by Adrian et al (2018). We have to follow the source. Savage placed Kichechia zamanae in Herpestinae when it was a subfamily of Viverridae (not the modern circumscription). The remarks say no character precludes Kichechia from Viverravinae (does he mean Viverrinae?) so the placement seems tentative. Given the major changes in the taxonomy since then I think the recent source is far more appropriate and they do discuss the reasons for their placement. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your fast reply, Jts1882!! I'll wait for some others to reply as well, before moving the genus to Viverridae. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I would go with Adrian et al., since that one is the most recent, up-to-date source.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I found a discussion in Werdelin 2019, General Discussion of Viverridae, p. 278 but I'm not sure I understand it.  Kichechia is probably correct anyways.  --Fama Clamosa (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

text:  Adrian et al. are citing Morales & Pickford 2011 as their source for the reclassification of Kichechia as a paradoxurine viverrid, so their opinion is not alone. The source Fama Clamosa cites above says that there may be some doubt about this, due to the inadequacy of the fossils, but demurs from defining them as anything else for the same reason - but certainly doesn't describe them as herpestids. So, in short, I agree with using the more modern sources, since they seem to reflect the current state of play. Anaxial (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for my late response. Looking at the comments above and comparing the sources, I feel using the 2018 source is better since it is more recent and also well-supported. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 13:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kichecia vs. Kichechia 

message: Mongooses are usually pronounced as mangoose mostly because of the users dialect or the language they speak. Alaiyah reid (talk) 16:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This is something more for a dictionary and not for this page. wikt:mongoose for example. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misspelled.. 

message: Change 'semi-domesticated' to 'tamed'
Domestication is an evolutionary process, it is a term used for a whole species. Mongoose can be tamed and kept as pets, but they are not a domestic species, so the word is incorrectly used here. 122.61.44.215 (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made the change for you, and the wording is supported by the reference. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2023 

message: The Asian mongooses are now considered a separate genus. 2600:1009:B06C:2D54:C049:FED1:E153:83FF (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The article already says that. What do you want changed? Anaxial (talk) 04:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genus ''Urva'' 

message: On the mongoose page in the group of pictures at the top it says “top right: slender mongoose” and includes a picture I’ll label “A.” It also says “bottom left: yellow mongoose” and includes picture B. However, picture A is the picture used in the top of the article for yellow mongoose and picture B is used (not at the top) as a picture for the slender mongoose. Clearly both can’t be correct - can someone verify which is which? 2600:1700:3C64:8600:A4C9:2D9E:A5FD:862C (talk) 06:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: From every other image and source I can find both here and offline, the captions look to be reversed in the infobox. Furthemore, although the bright yellow colour in the image is unusual for the slender mongoose it seems to be even rarer for the yellow mongoose (despite the name). Indeed, the taxobox image originally had the captions the other way around, but they were switched by an anonymous user without explanation in February. A cleanup to remove vandalism later the same day didn't spot that particular edit. Good catch; thanks. Anaxial (talk) 12:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yellow Mongoose and Slender mongoose pages seem reversed