Talk:Leadbeater's possum

message: The article is ambiguous. Which is it?? Suicup (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the IUCN, it's endangered. Frickeg (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They're wrong, of course, but it does take time to catch up.  Other bodies have described LP's status as "Critically Endangered" but the IUCN rating is generally accepted, even when inaccurate.Ian T (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All we can really do is report and source.  Include both, with references, if two contradict each other, and both are reputable sources.  --KP Botany (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critically Endangered vs Endangered 

message: Please keep dates and seasons as correct for Australia.Ian T (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 

message: No-one is denying the conservation efforts made by Healesville Sanctuary or Melbourne Zoo.  However, there have been no captive Leadbeater's possums for some years, so statements to this effect are accurate.Ian T (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Healesville Sanctuary 

message: There was an attempt to remove all record of logging activities impacting on the status of Leadbeater's possum - properly cited and accumulated over time - by a user with an IP of 203.12.195.131 (Victorian Government Electronic Messaging System for mobile.vicforests.com.au).  VicForests have the most vested interest in attempting to delete accurate logging information in this entry.  It is important this remains, as this species continues its decline.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.186.72.101 (talk) 04:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  VicForests and Dept of Sustainability Wikipedia Vandalism 

message: I've attempted to clear up referencing on this once before, appears to have been removed and mostly ignored.
Recent efforts have been good, but continue to use secondary sources like newspapers and opinion pieces.
This isn't acceptable for an encyclopaedic page.
I suggest a new category be created called "Controversy" or "Logging Controversy".
There is visible bias and a heavy focus on logging and politics in the "Status" category, which creates confusion around the exact status of the LBP.
I would like to see more reputable sources. Opinion pieces, newspaper articles and links to activist websites are **NOT** reputable.
Especially on the logging, politics and fire issues, peer reviewed papers should be the only acceptable sources.
If it can't be reference with a peer reviewed source, don't say it. Just the facts.
I believe these changes are urgently needed as I suspect there are pro-logging and anti-logging groups using this page to promote their various causes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.163.198 (talk) 11:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Category "Controversy" 

message: To Wikipedia 
Can you put on some more information on leadbeater's possum please can you?
From Alexis Yates  52 Hackman street McDowell  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.103.50 (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leadbeater's possum  

message: The citations are still correctly numbered relative to their references, but the numbering sequence has fallen out of order - unsure how to fix...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.147.23.145 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you mean, but note that citations to ref 1 and 2 are in the infobox rather than the article lead. In any case I reverted the recent edits that caused some havoc. While well intended, probably inadvertently and in part because of the limitations of the VisualEditor the previous editor removed references, introduced random wikicode ("nowiki"), introduced content contradicted by reliable sources, and made changes that were not compliant with the Manual of Style in particular in regards to the use of external links and format of section headings. --ELEKHHT 03:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I missed those first two citations.  I think some of the new additions/arrangements were sound, so I might try to have a look at rearranging/citing some of this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.147.23.145 (talk) 07:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: This animal is described in the Lead as "primitive" and "relict". As I've never seen any type of possum driving a car, reading a newspaper or shopping in Next, I'm not sure what "primitive" is supposed to mean and I shouldn't need to guess. As for relict, I speak English as a first language and haven't a clue what this term means. If it's some piece of scientific jargon, as I suspect, it needs a wikilink. --Dweller (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Primitive" and "relict" in the Lead 

message: This article could inform an update to the Logging section: 
* "Leadbeater’s possum may change the future of logging in Australia", The New Daily.  Julia Dehm, 2020-03-06. https://thenewdaily.com.au/life/science/environment/2020/06/03/possum-logging-australia/ [Republished from The Conversation, links at bottom of article.] 
**"The Federal Court last week ruled that VicForests – a timber company owned by the Victorian government – breached environmental laws when they razed the habitat of the critically endangered Leadbeater’s possum and the vulnerable greater glider." 
**"The legal proceedings against VicForests were initiated in 2017 by Friends of the Leadbeater’s Possum, a small community group that relied on crowd funding to cover legal costs." 
**"In her ruling last week, the judge found VicForests unlawfully logged 26 coupes home to the Leadbeater’s possum and greater glider, and that logging a scheduled 41 other sections would put them at risk."
Pelagic ( messages ) Z – (09:32 Wed 03, AEST) 23:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  News about court case