Talk:Falkland Islands wolf

message: The article states that the most closely related animal to the Falkland Island Fox is the Patagonian Fox. This appears to be from an old article. Has there been any more recent research to back up this claim? --Dumbo1 19:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Most Closely Related Species

message: I found a conflicting source (at http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/d/derr-dog.html); it's hearsay, but theoretically verifiable.   Metanoid 00:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Most Closely Related Species

message: The article states that the animal "would defend itself from humans occasionally if it needed to".  The quote given in support describes a fight between a Falklands wolf and "Pilot" – but Pilot was quite clearly a domestic dog, not a human.  It does not describe the wurrah attacking Admiral Grey himself (and it does seem a bit unsporting to "settle the business with a rifle ball" – in my mind's eye I see Pilot as one of those irritating fox terriers who don't know when they're outclassed...).  Is there any other evidence for attacks on humans?--Richard New Forest 14:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defence against humans 

message: In this article, one of the reasons given for the tameness is the location and lack of predators.  In Gavin Menzies book, 1421 The Year China Discovered the World, he proposes the possibility that the warrah was once domesticated but was possibly a cross between a South American fox and a ferral dog.  The dog being being left on the island by the Chinese fleet under the command of Admiral Hong Bao, on his task to chart the world in his voyage 1421-24.  
Do you think that this should be made part of the article?  Pavillion32 (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "1421" is basically a great load of turd that Menzies pulled out of his rear end, and the stuff about the warrah is as nonsensical as everything else in that book. By that reasoning, why not mention that the warrah was living already in Pangaea before being isolated by continental drift, or that it was put there by visiting aliens (both of these "theories" being equally "proposed" by people with nothing to back them).--Menah the Great (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution of species: remarks on extraordinary tameness 

message: My geology isnt too good, but arnt the waters between South America and the Falklands far too deep to have ever formed a landbridge? In that case humans remian the only possibe vector for the species reaching the Falkland islands, but no way to know precisley who or when. 91.128.113.27 (talk) 11:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  landbridge 

message: Case solved (sort of...). See http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.09.018 Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My money is on humans taking the dog there. They did it in the Pacific, so why not there?220.244.75.200 (talk) 10:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Because no humans got there before the European sailors, who found the wolf already there. Pacific islands are a completely different case; settled by people who brought livestock with them.Dean1954 (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed

message: Interesting that you have a source that says this information is out of date.  In any case, i have tagged the info, told the newbie to provide a source, and will follow up to delete if he doesn't.  Until then, try AGF. μηδείς (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am AGF, the the DNA evidence definitively identifies the origins and it isn't South American.  This information is already in the article, so please don't revert again.  Wee Curry Monster talk 21:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read the edit, it describes the origin as undoubtedly one of the South American canids in the relatives section.  It isn't, the origins were revealed by DNA analysis.  And I see you've reverted again.  Wee Curry Monster talk 21:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure if I should comment or wait for the results of your AN3 complaint.  In any case, "South American canid" is apparently a geographic term, not a genetic one--even though the Maned Wolf of S. America is noted as the closest relative by DNA analysis.  Also, the sections created by the OP seem helpful. μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No its not, it says they're related to South American canids - they're not, they're from different genetic lines.  My AN3 report is ready if you self-revert I will abandon it.  Your choice.  This is a stupid thing to edit war about, you didn't even allow me time to speak to the newbie.  I saw you'd posted there whilst I was posting a comment.  Wee Curry Monster talk 21:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

text: You've intervened in a manner that created an unnecessary conflict, your claim is incorrect - it is not related to South American canids.  You're now adding dated and incorrect information based on sources that are no longer valid as ongoing scientific research has show they are wrong.  I won't indulge you in an edit war but this was completely unnecessary.  Wee Curry Monster talk 22:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Be aware your continued assertion the animal is not related to s am canids is unclear. firts, the added material makes no genetic claim, 2nd, the refs say the maned wolf which is s am is the closest relative.  Please walk me through your objection explicitly and at length because it is truly unclear to me. μηδείς (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Warrah's ancestors did not originate in South America.  The information is in the article:
  Wee Curry Monster talk 22:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I have read that quote.  The hypothesis that they split in N Am is interesting, but the clade is currently restricted to S Am, the source calls the maned wolf the S Am Maned Wolf, and the added material says nothing about origins or clades, using the phrase geographically in the same way as the source you quoted.  Please quote exactly what bothers you in the added text, and suggest how you would improve it.  μηδείς (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent good faith edits 

message: Some newly added material was copied wholesale from www.petermaas.nl/extinct/speciesinfo/falklandwolf.htm, which is against copyright policy.  I have deleted some of the material and rewritten the rest. μηδείς (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyright violation 

message: I have reverted to the last version before User:Dannymex's contributions. His entire entry is a copyvio from .  Text from that website is still in the article - simply adding cites doesn't fix that problem.  It needs to be completely rewritten.  Please note reverting copyright violations is exempt from 3RR and edit waring to restore copyright material could lead to an immediate block.  Added template to note removal of content.  Wee Curry Monster talk 13:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki>{{copyvio}}</nowiki> 

message: It's looking good, thanks. What do you think we still need to do to get it up to Good Article standard? Assuming that we now have a fairly stable version in the next couple of weeks, I think we need to get the references a little better-presented, and perhaps to have a little more description of the animal itself in the lede. But the rest looks fairly good. GA standards:
    Well-written:
        (a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
        (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
    Factually accurate and verifiable:
        (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
        (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and
        (c) it contains no original research.
    Broad in its coverage:
        (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
        (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
    Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
    Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    Illustrated, if possible, by images:
        (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
        (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, no worries, I'd planned to tidy up the references. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok they're tidied up.  I think we should look to get rid of Messybeast as an SPS. Although there is some indication its reliable, I've nothing to back it up. What do you think?  Wee Curry Monster talk 20:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No insult intended to Messybeast, but I agree. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA? 

message: is a copyvio from messybeast.com.  IP editor has received information on wikipedias policy on copyright.  Wee Curry Monster talk 20:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert of IP edits 

message: Can the warrah be cloned? Can its DNA be extracted? Can this species be resurrected, given that its closest living relative is the maned wolf, and that there are stuffed specimens? --Scottishwildcat12 (talk) 11:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cloning Possible? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Falkland Islands wolf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130604174006/http://download.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/PIIS0960982209016959.pdf to http://download.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/PIIS0960982209016959.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Falkland Islands wolf. 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/20111004131813/http://www.falklands-museum.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=181&Itemid=262 to http://www.falklands-museum.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=181&Itemid=262
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402084902/http://www.falklands-museum.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=192:the-first-sighting&catid=63:stories-of-the-warrah&Itemid=267 to http://www.falklands-museum.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=192:the-first-sighting&catid=63:stories-of-the-warrah&Itemid=267
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402084940/http://www.falklands-museum.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=188:a-falklands-wolf-in-london&catid=63:stories-of-the-warrah&Itemid=267 to http://www.falklands-museum.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=188:a-falklands-wolf-in-london&catid=63:stories-of-the-warrah&Itemid=267
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) 11:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Falkland Islands wolf. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.falklands-museum.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=192%3Athe-first-sighting&catid=63%3Astories-of-the-warrah&Itemid=267
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.falklands-museum.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=188%3Aa-falklands-wolf-in-london&catid=63%3Astories-of-the-warrah&Itemid=267
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706084815/http://www.ege.fcen.uba.ar/materias/general/Broken_ZigZagMACN_5_1_19_.pdf to http://www.ege.fcen.uba.ar/materias/general/Broken_ZigZagMACN_5_1_19_.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.falklandsconservation.com/publications/warrah-index.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) 22:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:
* 
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion 

message: "Foolish dog of the south" is not a translation of Dusicyon australis. A google search of references that say it is all seem to be low quality that repeat this 2009 addition to this wiki site. The best reference I could find is  but even that seems to be a copy of what appears to be a hoax. Aris Makridis highlighted the dubious, if not simply wrong, translation back in May 2020. If Streona is reading this, could you please comment. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like my son has been on my account again.Streona (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Hoax translation?

message: In section , these assertions follow the named reference Hamley_2021:
There is, however, no definite evidence that humans ever visited the Falklands before the Age of Discovery nor is there any evidence that the ancestors of the wolf were ever domesticated.
Both assertions seem to me to be unsupported by the reference; perhaps the opposite is true.  Thoughts?
yoyo (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There's absolutely no evidence for the latter, just unsupported speculation on the authors part. We do not take extraordinary claims of individual papers at face value per WP:PRIMARY. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any evidence for the domestication of the Warrah or it's ancestor on the mainland?  I understood that recent papers on the Warrah indicated the most likely explanation was the ancestor of the Warrah crossed on an ice bridge during the last ice age before becoming isolated.  It seems that we are falling victim to recentism, giving over emphasis to a recent paper that makes a lot of assumptions and leaps to conclusions where the evidence is shaky at best.  This is leading us to ignore other work, which is built on a more solid foundation.  WCMemail 07:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple of news reports on the controversial nature of this work ,. WCMemail 10:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

text: Are you dismissing commentary based on the fact it's from Argentina?  If so, I would propose to take this to WP:RSN right now, because that's outrageous.  There is similar commentary from my friends in the Falklands who point out that the presumption of the anthropometric source of soot in layers based on the presumption that lightning induced fires are rare is plain wrong.  The Falklands are extensively covered in peat, much of it dry and there are usually 2-3 fires per year in February; at least one other study ,] chose the Falklands because of this and other scientific literature being available that shows fires are relatively common . WCMemail 14:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Those critical sources with Argentinian aren't even used in the article at present so no need for referral, by all means include them if you think they are fit and proper, at present the closing sentence that we are discussing as 'dubious' is completely unsourced and would have probably been removed if not for this discussion on it. Do you 'friends in the Falklands' have a citable source dissecting the problems with Hamley's paper by any chance? What did they think about the piles of animal remains that were dated before 1000 BCE? Mountaincirquetalk 15:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well as in the article I noted above, without tool marks the conclusion that the pile of bones is of anthropometric origin is doubtful and could have a natural explanation.  I only referred to friends in the Falklands to demonstrate that the criticism of this paper is not political.  If anything I would expect the opposite response, that the nationalists in Argentina would see this as reinforcing their position.  I do think that in the interests of balance the sentence under discussion should be replaced by some of the commentary on this paper.  WCMemail 17:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are some interesting relevant details in the paper that aren't controversial, like the fact that the oldest radiocarbon dates for the warrah are over 3000 years old, that are worthy of inclusion in this article, but I agree that the main conclusions of the paper are speculative and mostly irrelevant to this page, and if included should include criticism from other workers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree but again there is an explanation for the lack of fossil records.  The soil in the Falklands being peat based is not conducive to preservation of bones, a fact that was in their earlier paper but not this one. WCMemail 17:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is pretty clearly mentioned in the Hamley et al. paper . Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes you're right, I got that wrong. WCMemail 18:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious