Talk:Wolf/Archive 1

message: I've removed a plethora of wiki links from the first part of this page. There does NOT need to be a link for every noun in a sentence. for example, I removed the link "a wolf's teeth are its main weapons [...]" Why? Because it's not relevant in any way to a wolf. For the article writers: If a word could appear in a children's book (i.e. 'weapon', 'prey', 'tooth') or links to an article that is either far too general in scope to be relevant (see weapon) or is unnecessary to further understand the subject at hand (poison), then don't put double brackets around it. If we wanted to read a page of links, then we could just have Wikipedia automatically link every word. It's not necessary and it causes clutter.
If anyone wishes to carry on my task, I ended around the social behavior section.
--71.56.32.77 02:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive linking 

message: Taxonomy is a dark science; a valid name is one that is published according to the rules. The consequence is that even when the name is not regarded to be representive of the "thruth", it is still a valid name. When it comes to the taxonomy, it can be even funnier, the dingo is named here as C. l. dingo, it is to be a descendant of the dog C. l. familiaris. Now dogs, as a domesticated animal, has breeds. So a dingo is a breed gone wild. Actually this whole concept of breeds, races, species, subspecies, varieties is not only frought with taxonominal danger but also with ethical danger. As far as I am aware there is not a good definition for a subspecies and when a subspecies has to be a "natural" occurence how can a dingo and a dog be a subspecies? 
Then again, there is one species that we do not apply all the logic on that we use on other species..  GerardM 18:50, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: I think the Timeline of wolfs in the United States should be moved to its own article.  Bogdan | Talk 20:43, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: # Schnee 15:48, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes 

message: # UtherSRG 16:41, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  No 

message: I see the addition of the USA timeline. It needs serious condensing and it fails to discuss wolf populations outside of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan...in such areas as Montana and Idaho...not to mention Alaska, etc.--MONGO 10:32, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i just deleted the whole section Plugwash 15:13, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  USA timeline 

message: So it goes to the discussion page for us to hash out? Well, I would like to point out what I did on the requests for page protection page, and that is that while many of us would agree with Gabrielsimon's intent in inserting his comments on wolf hunting by helicopter, the simple fact that Wikipedia is not to be used for propaganda, and Gabrielsimon escalated the situation by adding emotional appeal on top of POV violations, and did not back down when called on it. Gabe, we're not trying to start a fight here, but you've been shot down by almost a half a dozen people in the space of four days. What does that tell you about what you're trying to do? Haikupoet 7 July 2005 00:09 (UTC)
i was trying to re add the base of what would be modified, and before i can even begin to modify it, bang, its gone again, tell me, how  am i supposed to work when people keep erasing the text that is the basis for what im trying to put?
Gabrielsimon 7 July 2005 00:13 (UTC)
I suggest the group of editors for this page propose a solution to the edits below - for the next 24 hours while the page is protected, Gabrielsimon, if you'd like to write below what you think is a good solution to the suggested edits and then allow the other editors to use the talk page to edit your work and so forth until a compromise is reached. Gentlemen, good luck. -Visorstuff 7 July 2005 00:25 (UTC)
I have held out hoping that either other editors or Gabrielsimon would step up and have their say, but no one's really offered a solution. I don't have a particularly good one either -- I think Gabrielsimon is really the only person pushing his viewpoint, and he hasn't made his case here. I propose that the main article be deprotected under the watchful eye of a mod, and if GS resumes his POV-pushing that this be taken to arbitration (or further as necessary). I don't think it's quite appropriate to talk about bannings at this point, but GS should realize that there is a consensus that his additions to the article are not welcome. Wikipedia is not a place for activism. Haikupoet 03:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Gabriel, perhaps this will help.  Find a source, and report what they said.  People can still argue all day long whether it's appropriate to the article, but at least it's verifiable.  Keep in mind that if the source is considered dubious, people won't like it as much.  You can't be neutral with an edit about what's fair.  You CAN be neutral with an edit about a particular group SAYING something is unfair. Friday 16:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding hunting by helicopter

message: Wolves are hunted for the pelt and for the alleged control of their numbers despite their possibly near extinction. Previously anything was used to kill wolves, including large amount of poisons. Some of the more diabolic creations of mankind have been used to kill wolves during the extermination campaigns in Europe and America. Today most of the hunting is done on the ground or from helicopters, either with shotguns or rifles. This practise has been condemned by many wilderness protection organisations as barbaric, cowardly and bloodthirsty, and hunting from airplanes or helicopters in most countries is usually only legal for state officials. Wolves are considered very tough as they can still survive for a few hours after being shot repeatedly.
"How Wolves may be caught with a Snare."--Fac-simile of a Miniature in the Manuscript of Phoebus (Fifteenth Century).
Enlarge
"How Wolves may be caught with a Snare."--Fac-simile of a Miniature in the Manuscript of Phoebus (Fifteenth Century).
: The hunting section was pretty bad from a NPOV perspective.  Trying to fix without removing much information.  Are there any sources for the extermination campaigns in the past or the helicopter hunting?  Also, the "Conservation status" says "lower risk", yet this section had some very POV language suggesting they were near extinction.  I removed it for consistancy, however if anyone has accurate facts regarding their conservation status, it would certainly belong in the article.   Friday 23:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Made some more tweaks.  I thought it was pointless to say "from the ground or aircraft", and the controversy seems to surround aircraft hunting, so I reworded.  Also continued trying to move toward NPOV.  Friday 23:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I have really, really tried to assume good faith on your part.  Really.  However, you've now restored very POV language that I pointed out on the talk page.  If that wasn't good enough, you've re-inserted your typos as well.  All this after you've been blocked many times for inappropriate reverting, and this very article had to be protected because of you.  Please, please, please, do not continue your present editing habits.  Friday 23:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I assumed you mean the changes shown in this diff?  I should have been more clear.  With "from the ground or aircraft", I was objecting to wording, not facts.  So I'm not sure how research would help.  The sentence was "Today most of the hunting is done on the ground or from helicopters." This was the very first mention in the paragraph of aerial hunting.  Looking back, that still doesn't look like a good sentence to me, because it seems obvious than from the ground or air are the two main options.  I suppose they could be hunted from the sea too, but nothing in the article suggests that that's common. Friday 13:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wolf hunting 

message: adding here so they can be put into the page when its no longer protected. Plugwash 01:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: updated set of interwikis

message: *Hunters routinely chase entire packs of wolves until, the wolves themselves are too exhausted to move, and thereafore defenceless, then they ( the "hunters") land, and walk up and shoot the wolves, at point blank range, either with shotguns or rifles. This practise has been condemned by many wilderness protection organisations as barbaric, cowardly and bloodthirsty, and hunting from airplanes or helicopters in most countries is usually only legal for state officials. Wolves are considered very tough as they can still survive for a few hours after being shot repeatedly. 
Gabriel, there is no point in repeatedly reverting. Let's try to work this out. Uncle Ed 23:30, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
that passage is as close to NPOV that i can make it,   as close as can be, without eliminating importamnt inforamtion... it took me a long time to get it  right....  of course its gonna seem a little NPOV to those who havnt  put it in perspective, but ive done mny best to remove emotion and opinion from it.
Gabrielsimon 23:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see sources, but I left in the bits about people calling it barbaric, etc.  It's pretty easy to find references to aircraft-based wolf hunting.  Let's have some real information on where aerial hunting is legal, for starters.  Here's an anti-hunting site  that discusses the issue.  They imply that chasing the wolves is not legal.  I'm also curious why shooting from short range would be considered less humane than from further away.  You'd think a nice, quick, clean kill would be considered more humane than a slow death.  I'm no expert on wolves, and I'm not exceptionally interested in them, but I am interested in NPOV and verifiability.  Friday 23:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: huh?  If you shoot them from far away (as is the common practice here with wolf-like animals), they don't see you coming.  They have no chance to get away, they're dead or mortally wounded before they hear the gunshot.  If you try to walk up close to them, they certainly have a better chance.  If you're still on your "they've been chased until they can't run anymore" kick, help us out with some sources.  I'm not saying this is impossible, but it sounds to me like it's not legal even in some places where aircraft have been allowed.  You're suggesting this is a common practice, so give us some evidence. Friday 23:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Don't know what to tell you, other than this: next time you work for four weeks on an article, you should consider using sources.  Also, please understand, the amount of work that you or anyone elses claims to have put in is irrelevant.  What IS relevant is making factual, neutral, verifiable edits.  Friday 00:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed hunting passage

message: I move down the section on predation, to the 2nd wolf hunting section. Now we have a section on "how wolves hunt" and another on "how people hunt wolves". My cut and paste was kind of sloppy, so please help me install it. It may need some transitional phrases, and so on.
I also created an entirely separate article, initially called "wolf hunting". I know, I know, it's not immediately clear from the title whether this is about how wolves hunt or how people hunt wolves. Well, it's the latter. Please go read it and tell me what you think. I tried to make it as neutral as possible. Perhaps it could be fleshed out a bit. Uncle Ed 13:32, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
:I moved it to Wolf hunting controversy. Uncle Ed 13:41, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
:And I am afraid I recreated another article of the same name.  I am happy for the controversy to go to Uncle Ed's page, but for historical and anthropological reasons wolf hunting is worth an article of its own.  I think it is clear it refers to the hunting of wolves and it has a link to Uncle Ed's page.  I too would be interested in comments. Lao Wai 14:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Shifts and splits

message: I've just placed a request for comment on Gabrielsimon's behavior. This user has been blocked for 3RR violations several times, and seems undeterred by it. Please read it and contribute with your comments. --Pablo D. Flores 13:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment 

message: There is another extinct species which is considered as valid.
The Florida Black Wolf Canis rufus floridanus was a distinct subspecies of the Red Wolf and became extinct around 1910.
The Spanish Wolf (an endemic subspecies of the Gray Wolf) became extinct around 1930 but was rarely recognized by taxonomists. Melly42 16:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extinct wolves 

message: Hello,
After much research and painstaking days spent on MS Paint (I cannot afford anything better unfortunately) I have created what are hopefully the most accurate wolf subspecies 'original distribution' and 'current dstribution' maps on the net, with different colour shading to represent different subspecies. Of course they are open to debate and if anyone sees anything questionable, please let me know and I'll look into it. There are many areas I'm unsure about- for example the presence of wolves in Korea, and exact range of the Arabian wolf (though I suppose this varies from day to day). However, for the most part I hope they represent what many maps I have seen certainly do not.
Now for the question- how should I go about getting these on the site? They are both 800x588px GIF images. I was thinking of putting them in the 'subspecies' section. Any problems with this? I would make them smaller but then all the detail I went into would be lost.
:The Eastern Timber wolf distrobution is messed up. It definitly exists in Minnesota. Also the info I am finding is bringing up the 'great plains wolf' as extinct. -Ravedave 07:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is because what you are finding is from the old classification system, which is still widely distributed on the net. The newer system (which identifies 5 subspecies within the United States as opposed to 20 odd) lumps many groups (including the original Great Plains wolf population which was thought to have become extinct) into a single Canis lupus nubilis otherwise called the Plains wolf, Great plains wolf, or Buffalo wolf. This, like is illustrated on the map, ranges throughout Eastern Canada and North East USA. The reason many sources will say it is the Eastern timber wolf I believe is mainly to help conservation. Not only does the name seem more attractive to residents (therefore they are more likely to want to preserve it) but this wolf is comparitively vulnerable in it's smaller range. Another confusion may be because Eastern timber wolves may have lived in this area, but were killed off due to the bounties. It was then the other subspecies, the Plains wolf, which eventually reinhabited the North Eastern states.--Tommyknocker 10:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wolf subspecies distribution 

message: Would be good if someone knowledgeable could include a section on wolf attacks on human beings, myth vs. reality. I'm not an expert but I believe documented attacks are, in fact, vanishingly rare. Barnabypage 18:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI a Wolf (non-rabid) just killed a human in Saskatchewan this month. It was the first such death in Canada in over 100 years. It is being blamed on the overhunting of moose int he area and wolves being forced to resort to hunt other prey animals. --Waterspyder 01:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wolf attacks on human beings 

message: I'd like it if there was a paragraph here (maybe in the human-wolf interaction area) about wolves in captivity (there was somebody in my old neighborhood who kept a couple of them in a large yard behind a high electric fence - man, there was something eerie about those eyes staring at you in the middle of the night when we went to look at them), as well as wolf-dog hybrids - or at least links to relevant pages.  I know nothing about this stuff, but I figure someone hanging around here does.ZacharyS 02:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for additional information 

message: I think for article development (for both this and the dog article), it should be written with the viewpoint that these are merely two sides of the same coin, that the dog is a domesticated wolf whose differences arose out of breeding...ie. the wolf is not really different from the dog, or vice versa in the most technical sense, theoretically you could have a dog that looks roughly like a wolf except it behaves like a juvenile throughout its entire lifetime. Oh by the way, there is a term for the juvenilization of wolves that become dogs, it starts with "P" but I can't remember what it was... -- Natalinasmpf 15:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people are usng the term paedomorphosis, which I don't necessarily agree with from a  biological perspective. Paedomorphosis refers to physiological characteristics, not behavioural characteristics (the word roughly means "child shape"). I don't see how dogs retain juvenile wolf physical characteristics and it is something that needs to be corrected in the dog article. Behaviourally, I don't believe that dogs retain juvenile behaviour, I think humans breed and train for it. Wolves in the wild are documented (photographed, videotaped) playing as adults. --Waterspyder 01:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: For something like this to happen, you'd have to get the scientists to agree on whether the domesticated dog is canis familiaris or canis lupus familiaris. The whole wolf taxonomy classification is a little screwy, as can be seen on the International Wolf Center's Scientific Classification of Wolves page. Last time I checked, the best you could get everyone to agree on was that both common dogs and various wolf species were, in fact, canines. --Kyle Davis 16:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Dogs and wolves are a right mess right now. I'm currently trying to handle the Canis lupus lycaon and canis lycaon confusion. No more finding new species, it gets everyone confused (kidding). Basically, in accordance with rules for defining species, dogs are not even necessarily one species since Chihuahuas and Irish wolfhounds cannot breed in the wild and produce fertile offspring (physical barrier due to size). This would disqualify them from being the same species. Since Wolves and many dogs can interbreed and produce fertile offspring then in theory they should be the same species. Basically, the jury is still out. --Waterspyder 01:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  in relation to the dog 

message: A sentence beginning with "As long as there are enough prey animals, wolves..." was recently edited to "As long as there are enough prey wolves...". While as an English speaker I don't have any trouble understanding "prey" as a plural noun, none of the dictionaries I checked had it listed as such. Anyone know for sure? --Kyle Davis 00:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I almost positive prey is a singular noun. it should read "prey animals" to indicate the plural. I also want to not that a comma is required to denote the clause in the sentence. --Waterspyder 00:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "prey" -- singular/plural noun? 

message: Llamas as guard animals from WOLVES?  Something seems logically wrong here to me. --68.229.73.233 02:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Aside from logically wrong, let's chalk it up to vandalism.--Waterspyder 00:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Livestock Predation: Protection from LLamas...? 

message: May I enquire as to why the link was removed? Fightindaman 16:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The general wolfdog link is still there. I don't think it's a good idea to list all the wolfdog breed links, though - UtherSRG (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't see that before.  Makes sense. Fightindaman 03:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wolfdog

message: I've removed a plethora of wiki links from the first part of this page. There does NOT need to be a link for every noun in a sentence. for example, I removed the link "a wolf's teeth are its main weapons [...]" Why? Because it's not relevant in any way to a wolf. For the article writers: If a word could appear in a children's book (i.e. 'weapon', 'prey', 'tooth') or links to an article that is either far too general in scope to be relevant (see weapon) or is unnecessary to further understand the subject at hand (poison), then don't put double brackets around it. If we wanted to read a page of links, then we could just have Wikipedia automatically link every word. It's not necessary and it causes clutter.
If anyone wishes to carry on my task, I ended around the social behavior section.
--71.56.32.77 02:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive linking 

message: I was looking through this article when I got to the section on "Perceptions".  I have to say it strikes me as pretty NPOV, for one of many examples:  It is somewhat unbelievable that wolves managed to garner such an incredible amount of hatred for having done little else than what any species would do if both its habitat and main food source were destroyed.
First, what exactly does that mean?  But second and more importantly, this whole section is quite POV.  One comes away with the feeling that the writer(s) are arguing that wolves are these gentle creatures which have not had any significant impact on human herds, economy or safety for the last 50,000 years, and then one day humans just started hating wolves and massacring them for no real good reason.
I do realize by skimming the Talk page that debates of this sort did go on a year or so ago, so I didn't want to just wade in there and change things in this case.  But IMHO this section should be rewritten.  (Unsigned by Deville)
Done.  But don't be afraid to wade in.  Wiki guidelines encourage you to be bold when you think something needs fixing.  If you're mistaken, someone will fix your fix.  --Coyoty 02:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Past human perceptions of wolves, et al. 

message: I have a few comments/questions concerning the concept of the term “subspecies”, regarding the wolf. I never really understood this concept. Who are what determines which geographic wolf is the standard wolf? I would tend to think that a real subspecies of wolf would be the coyote, since they are able to interbreed. I see coyotes as being lesser wolves.  And dogs being domesticated wolves. Dogs would probably constitute as a real subspecies. I was watching a program where a bunch of researchers were trying to halt the natural assimilation of “red wolfs” and “coyotes”, which I believe is a huge error. This behavior suggests that coyotes and wolves don’t harbor such a direct hatred. I believe wolves that kill coyotes are really doing them a service from an evolutionary standpoint. They same way carnivores prey on the weak and ill.
:Scientists make these determinations, using a variety of techniques and data. Interbreeding in and of itself is not suffificent to warrant granting subspecies status. Lions and tigers are different species but, under synthetic conditions, can interbreed. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I've said before, classification of even species is a very whooly subject. Technically grey wolves and coyotes are the same species, because they can interbreed and easily produce fertile offspring. Culturally they are not... the same goes for the red wolf. A subspecies is determined by unique differences in the genetic code beyond the normal variety, which might someday lead to a new species. So you are right in a way. UtherSRG your example is slightly irrelevant, as while a lion and tiger can interbreed they will not produce a fertile offspring, so are indeed separate species whatever way you look at it.--Tommyknocker 01:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, it is not for us to decide what is or isn't a species, or how one species becomes another. It is not our job to create the information or to theorize. It is our job to show what information exists about these phenomena. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Subspecies" Concept 

message: Wolves and wolfdogs are NOT the same species. And yes, wolves ARE near extinction.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.36 (talk • contribs) 
:At the first statement: Where does the article say that? At the second, depends on the subspecies. Kim van der Linde at venus 01:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get it right or just remove the damn thing 

message: I added some text to the Reintroduction section, mainly retaining to initiatives to reintroduce the gray wolf to various countries in central and western Europe. I cannot currently find information retaining specifically to reintroduction initiatives in those countries however I have read from several sources in the past that they exist. If someone can locate reliable sources I would appreciate it.
I'm not really sure though how re-introduction initiatives which are still in the planning/impact assessment phase should be treated though. I think they do deserve mentioning as reintroduction is generally quite a recent idea in many parts of the world and given the long time-frame reintroduction planning takes (e.g. two decades even in Yellowstone), I don't think these reintroduction schemes could really be expected to be any farther progressed at this stage. Canderra 02:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reintroduction to areas in Europe 

message: This article (great as it is), at 72 KB is waaaay too long.  I suggest that it be trimmed a bit by moving some of the material to separate articles.  For starters, I propose to move most of the material under "Historical perceptions" to a new article entitled Attitudes toward wolves leaving just the summary in this article.  I will proceed with that (Be bold!), but if there are objections, by all means, let's discuss them here.  Sunray 01:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Length of article

message: This article is a very well written article with a tremendous amount of information. This article should be distinguished for its complexity and mine of information. This article provides a lot of information.
:I've also created a new article for Reintroduction of wolves. The two new articles have reduced the size of the article by just over 20 KB.  Sunray 05:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Praise

message: More recent studies by Nowak did not reveal this as a genetically distinct subspecies, merely having slightly different size and colour variations to other Eurasian wolves (though no more than other local populations). Bit like the difference between people of Spanish origin or German origin- may have slightly different appearence in general, but would of course not be considered subspecies. I was wondering if someone could therefore remove it from the table, I can't seem to manage without it screwing up. --Tommyknocker 13:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Iberian wolf