Talk:Wolf/Archive 2

message: Any chance of adding a section on keeping wolves as pets?  Stuff like where it is and isn't legal (and how many people get around those laws by having their wolves "re-classified" as something else - I know a wolf who's officially listed as an Alsatian Husky), how they differ from dogs in terms of care needs, etc.  I know at least two people who have pet wolves.  Very friendly animals, gentler than many dogs I've met, and certainly smarter. --Lurlock 23:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dogs are a different sub-species, canis lupus familiaris. And no, laws vary from community to community. Even if there is not a law explicitly outlawing the ownership of wolves, there's usually a law regarding "exotic pets," which wolves qualify for as a wild and Endangered species. -- Kesh 18:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wolves as Pets 

message: The source that was added to support this category doesn't strike me as too convincing. It pretty much only consists of quotes from locals that say "We are sure they were killed by wolves" and "Fellow villager Rab Nawaz said they had probably got lost in the snow and were attacked by wolves" (emphasis mine). To me, this sounds more like heresay than actual facts. As the category itself states that "All of the species listed below are known to have attacked and killed humans on multiple occasions", maybe we should remove the category until we find better sources? --Conti|✉ 14:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I'm also nominating the category for deletion. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had previously added the category to this article and someone had deleted it, so I was careful to locate a source before adding it again.  I realize the source I listed might be unreliable, but as the article already implies, wolves have been feared as man-eaters since time immemorial.  I would guess that this is a case of "where there's smoke, there's fire" and assume occasional predation on humans has occurred (also, see Beast of Gevaudan).  The point is certainly not to malign wolves, but to fill out that category and make it comprehensive (with the possible exception of the crocodilians none of the species listed there *frequently* prey on humans).  Certainly I'm willing to remove the cat if there is consensus that wolves have never preyed on humans.--Caliga10 15:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that anyone disputes that wolves are accused of killing and eating humans for centuries now, but there is quite a big difference between being accused of doing something and actually doing something. And as long as we don't have a really good source on this, I don't think we should include the category (if it survives CfD). --Conti|✉ 19:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal opinion is that the cat should stay if it can be switched to being known as an opinion by the accusers, not cold, hard facts.Solon Olrek 18:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That category has been deleted in due process. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animals that prey on humans category 

message: 95% of the reintroduction section now deals with USA. The spin-off article wolf reintroduction is much more geographically balanced. Fornadan (t) 23:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reintroduction

message: I have removed the following text: 
*and Scandinavia (where an inexplicable, isolated population has established itself over the past few decades). 
In Sweden, attitudes are hostile towards wolves and the 130 or so wolves are persecuted with poaching and  poisoned meat. One of the interesting allegations against wolves that you can find is that they are "reintroduced by a government agency", whereas Swedish biologists maintain that they have found their way into Sweden on their own from Finland. I don't think such rumours belong to Wikipedia.--Berig 13:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reintroduction allegations

message: There are too many instances of "will", as if the article were describing the future. Please use present tense, unless you want to describe something after a specified time. Brainmuncher 03:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wolves will do so...

message: Is there any authoritative information on the size of wolves introduced in the US relative to the size of wolves that historically existed in those areas?--Counsel 23:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduced Wolves 

message: Is it just me or do the recently added illustrations add nothing to the article? Nashville Monkey 01:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the image blurbs They are by Adolph Murie, and there is a little bit of information about the artist in Attitudes toward wolves#Changing attitudes. Whatever aspects the illustrations are intended to convey about the animals' behavior, they are very small, and I don't think serve the artist's intent or the article very well. My humble opinion. Gosgood 01:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: Discussion closed; illustrations from Flavio.brandani retired by UtherSRG — thanks. Gosgood 12:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustrations 

message: From "Features and Adaptations": "Wolves can measure anywhere from 1.3–2 meters (4.5–6.5 feet) from nose to the tip of the tail, which itself accounts for approximately one." One what? Foot, meter? I assume foot, as meter obviously doesn't make sense, but that should be made clear, especially since the feet measurement is the alternate one in parantheses. --Herald Alberich 18:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed 

message: can different wolf species reproduce among themselve s? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.24.240.72 (talk) 09:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wolf species 

message: There are more scientifically identified wolf sub-species then listed on this website. One of which was the Newfoundland wolf, a wolf which inhabited the island of Newfoundland on the east coast of Canada up until 1930.
Why is this species of wolf ignored on this wikipedia page? There are two surviving skeletons of this species and it clearly has enough differences to be classified as a sub- species. The scientific name for the Newfoundland Wolf was Canis lupus beothucus.
http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/heywood/Geog358/extinctm/NewfWolf.htm
http://www.therooms.ca/museum/mnotes8.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.137.147 (talk • contribs) 
:Check the 2005 Mammal Species of the World. It's got the most up to date info. I have it, but haven't worked up to canids yet. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wolf Sub-Species 

message: Should there be an item related to children that were raised by wolves, either mythological (Romulus em Remus), fictional (Mowgli) or documented? Albmont 15:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wolflings 

message: If dogs are to be considered part of the gray wolf species, shouldn’t the habitat map reflect this? Dogs are endemic to the entirety of the United States for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.170.12 (talk • contribs) April 2, 2007 05:03
: Whether dogs and gray wolves belong to the same species or not is actually very signficant:  if they are the same species, then the gray wolf is not anywhere near endangered in the United States.  If they are different species, the gray wolf may be of concern. 38.100.34.2 22:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See discussion under coyotes regarding species definition. A species is not defined by the potential for interbreeding per se, but more by the likelihood of interbreeding. Wolves and dogs (and coyotes) are interfertile for example, but rarely (as far as I know) mate in the wild. Therefore dogs and wolves are not the same species. Jawshoeaw 07:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dogs Wolves