Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:20, 7 August 2005

Is there any good data on the size of wolves? Rovdjuren, a swedish translation of "The carnivores" (Equinox Ltd, Oxford 1984) lists it as "Body length 100-150 cm, tail 33-51 cm, 66-81 cm tall at the shoulder, weight 12-80 kg". The weight differs quite a lot from that in the article. Comments? --Pehrs

Now I know nothing about biology, but is this a little Northamericacentric? I understand that the picture is free, but are the other wolves of the world represented in the article? I explained on thursday to a class that the image of the Capitoline Wolf (you know, the bronze statue of the she wolf nursing the babies Romulus and Remus) is NOT unnaturalistic because of her tight mane, that Italian wolves (I think they're called Appenine wolves) DO have a tighter, curlier mane than American timber wolves. --MichaelTinkler

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)

Timeline

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)

Vague 'Recent Studies' Reference

In the reintroduction section, there is the statement, "Recent studies have shown that the wolf would have enjoyed greater protection had they been allowed to repopulate areas on their own..." Could someone please de-obfuscate that or provide references? I find such vague language... irksome in reference material. Thanks. JRice 14:51, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

Taxobox

UtherSRG, why don't you want those extra taxobox lines? -- Schnee 00:08, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing: they're legitimate taxonomic designations. How are they extraneous? ClockworkTroll 00:15, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

They don't add any meaningful information. The majority of mammals, and all Carnivora, are Eutheria. Likewise, all mammals are vertebrates. It *might* be interesting to put Canini into the box since not all canids are in Canini, but that can bee seen by visiting Canidae. (Likewise, it's meaningless to include Fissipedia, Craniata and a host of other intermediary taxa in the box.) - UtherSRG 02:02, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But they *do* add information - and who are we to decide whether it's "meaningful" or not? -- Schnee 12:47, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, they don't. When you say Carnivora, you are already saying Eutheria. When you say Mammalia you are already saying Vertebrata. It's redundant. All creatures classified as Carnivora birth their young live. All creatures classified as mammals have a backbone (and a skull). It's not new information when talking about the *species* Canis lupus. It *is* relevent information on higher level articles, but not on the species page. Similarly, we don't need to say that a Wolf is a multi-cellular animal with a nerve chord and brain encased in a skull and backbone, etc, etc. All these small, picayune details are covered when we say it is a member of the Canidae, the dog family. - UtherSRG 13:04, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's rubbish. You could just as well say that the whole taxobox info should be removed since everything follows from "Canis". -- Schnee 13:08, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, the taxobox provides a useful purpose of showing the highlights of the taxonomy. The taxobox is not meant to be used to show every nuance of every intermediary ranking. If there's something important to show, it shows it. I suggest you take your query to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Tree of Life and ask what they think of my edit. - UtherSRG 13:51, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

*shrugs* I still think that you don't have a point. Why don't you remove the "Kingdom: Animalia" line, too? Isn't that an obvious and unnecessary nuance, too? Anyhow, I think the best idea is probably to vote on whether the extra info should be there or not. Everybody who wants to vote can then just add themselves to the list below (and please, everybody, don't use multiple accounts, IPs and so on!) -- Schnee 15:48, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please read Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Taxobox_Usage, particularly the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Taxobox_Usage#Complete_classification section. "Kingdom", "Phylum", etc are the major rankings. These should be used on every taxobox. Others ("Subphylum", etc.) are intermediary and are to be used only when needed to better show why the given creature is classified as it is. Otherwise, every species level taxobox would have about 15-20 lines in the taxonomy. This just isn't acceptable andit buries the major data in the noise of theminor data. - UtherSRG 18:23, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with UtherSRG's last argument that inclusion of "intermediary" rankings would tend to clutter a taxobox. The problem arises that in some taxa, pretty significant "intermediary" rankings exist. Indeed, I do not believe it is a rule of taxonomy that "major" subdivisions match public perceptions of important subdivisions. In the case of the chordates, the very important subtaxa "Vertebrata" is not a "major" subdivision, but an "important" one. This fact needs to be handled somehow. The present thinking seems to be that the taxobox is a "pretty" fixture, and consistency of approach over-rides basic taxonomic considerations. While I have no problem with this approach, per se, I would suggest that either Vertebrata be added in to all taxoboxes where appropriate, or be handled in the text something like this:

"The Wolf or Grey Wolf (Canis lupus) is a vertebrate and a mammal of the Family Canidae and the ancestor of the domestic dog."

- Marshman 17:12, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Uther; we need a standard to discourage the extension of every taxobox to every imaginable subclassification; I don't believe this is a straw man: there are people (good people) out there on wikipedia who will tend to do this if it's not clearly discouraged. In the case of vertebrata, as long as mammal has a clear link to vertebrate in its head matter, I don't think we need it in every article. But I'm not strongly opposed to this particular expansion either. It would be nice if we had a way to link the standard "pretty" taxobox to a fully expanded, nuanced taxonomy. In general, I'd say if that's what you want go to NCBI, ITIS, (Wikispecies? bwahahahaha!) etc. Perhaps we should finally consider expanding the templates to allow these kinds of external reference links? Or link to a secondary article with just the full taxonomy? Ideal would be a taxobox table that could be javascript dynamically expanded or whatever, but in the current state of WikiMarkup I'm pretty sure we'll never be able to accomplish this. --User:Chinasaur

Taxobox vote

Should the extra taxobox information that UtherSRG deleted (namely, Subphylum and Subclass) be included in the article again? Cast your vote below and sign it with ~~~~. Voting will be open until 0:00 UTC, October 16th 2004.

Voting has ended. Results: Yes 3, No 7.

Yes

1. Schnee 15:48, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
2. Subphylum Vertebrata only - Marshman 17:18, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
3. Yes : sub- and super- phylogenies are just as important as the more "classical" definitions - the only difference is that they were described later, after the original K-P-C-O-F-G-S system was already established. ClockworkTroll 17:20, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No

1. UtherSRG 16:41, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
2. After reviewing Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Tree of Life/Taxobox Usage, I have to change my vote to "no". See comments below. – Quadell ] 18:49, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
3. Following the standard format seems like the best solution P.S. 20:38, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
4. Taxobox is for context-setting, seven is more than enough. Stan 21:11, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
5. Since the standard format seems to be sparser than the additions proposed. Maastrictian 22:10, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
6. --Yath 06:04, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
7. In this case : certainly no. On the other hand there are cases were intermediary taxa are necessary, e.g. the orchid family Orchidaceae with about 1,000 genera to be divided in subfamilies, tribes, subtribes, alliances... In other words, if intermediary taxa can be avoided, then avoid them. Otherwise, use your own judgment. JoJan 09:03, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Abstain

• Either way is just dandy with me. – Quadell ] 16:01, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Comments

• ClockworkTroll, would you then also want any other the other intermediary taxa? Metazoa? Bilateria - it's important to note that wolves have bilateral symmetry? Coelomata? Deuterostomia? Craniata - it's important to note that wolves have a braincase? Gnathostomata - it's important to note that wolves have a jawbone? Teleostomi? Euteleostomi - because it's important to note that wolves have bones? Sarcopterygii? Tetrapoda - because it's important to note that wolves have 4 legs? Amniota? Theria - even though there is only a species of mammals that lay eggs? Eutheria - placental birth vs. metatheria which are marsupials? Fissipedia? At what level do you draw the line? the standard we have is the KPCOFGS system, and the noting intermediary ranks in accordance with policy outlined in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Tree of Life#Taxoboxes and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Tree of Life/Taxobox Usage. And do please read the policy. - UtherSRG 17:59, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I would draw the line exactly where I drew it. Bilateria, Tetrapoda, Craniata, etc. are mere types, they are not phylogenic classifications in the strict sense, and to bring them up merely clouds and confuses the issue. I have no desire to step on any toes, so if you feel as though I've intruded on your territory, do what you will. I don't have the time of patience to quibble over minutae. Anybody who wants such information can just go elsewhere, anyway. ClockworkTroll 20:36, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • You show your lack of understanding of phylogeny and taxonomy. With the exception of Coelomata, all the links I provided above show that they are intermediary taxa in the taxonomy of Wolf. Why would you leave any of them out? - UtherSRG 21:13, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • First, having just had similar stuff pulled on me at another article I gotta comment that telling people they are putting their ignorance on display is about the best way to discourage participation in Misplaced Pages in general. Uther, I agree with the substance of your reasoning above, but I also agree with the sentiment (frustration, injury) of ClockworkTroll's response. Second, it's true that (as you have Socratically pointed out) drawing a line at including vertebrata is arbitrary, but honestly isn't the standard you (we) are advocating also pretty arbitrary? The only advantage to the standard is that it is the standard. I'm still for the standard, but I don't see any reason why it's fundamentally better than what ClockworkTroll or Marshman suggested. --Chinasaur 07:02, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Yup. My bad. I was operating under the misunderstnading that ClockworkTroll was, well, a troll. As such, I didn't cut him the slack and patience that I would have given an eager and honest Wikipedian. I have since apologized to him on his talk and I believe we've settled our differences. As to the arbitrariness, I'd have to say both yes and no. For species taxoboxes, noting that a mammal is in subphylum Vertebrata (which all mammals are) is generally less noteworthy than noting an intermediary taxa that distinguishes several closely related species. A reasonable exception to this might be if there is something particularly interesting about that particular species' spinal column, but even then I'd be hard pressed to to see why it should be noted in the taxobox (a tool for navigation and information highlights) versus in the article's text where an explanation can be given. However, when you are looking at higher level taxoboxes, different intermediary taxa will have more importance. - UtherSRG 12:26, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I never claimed to be an expert; I am only a soon-to-be geneticist and not a zoologist. However, my knowlege of the subject is greater than average and I was hoping to be able to help. It is my opinion that the best information is given at the sub- and super- levels. Infra, branch, and anything beyond shows, to me, diminishing returns. If others disagree, fine: it's just my opinion and I'm not especially attached to it. Since you clearly consider yourself the expert and guardian of all things taxa, and my help is very plainly less than welcome, then I will leave you with your wolves. ClockworkTroll 23:37, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Can be frustrating, I know. You are right about the information, and ALL factual information is welcomed. The debate you stepped into is about the taxobox and whether to display such information in a taxobox (and thereby give up a simplified but consistent "pattern" displayed on taxonomic articles) - Marshman 03:15, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• In Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Tree of Life/Taxobox Usage, it gives a list of all possible taxa, and then instructs:

Do not use this complete list: instead cut out all ranks except for the seven major ranks (regnum, phylum, classis, ordo, familia, genus, species) and the particular other ranks that are important to the taxon being described. The fine details of classification between (say) regnum and phylum are obscure, not directly relevant to an article on a species, and moreover are subject to dispute and change as conventions evolve and more discoveries are made.

I'm not sure this should be voted on. It seems to me, any changes to the way we do taxoboxes should be applied to all articles equally, and should be discussed on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Taxobox Usage. – Quadell ] 18:49, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me since my vote was to go along with Uther's simple format, but to take another look at the special case of the Vertebrata - Marshman 03:15, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

world distribution

There is at least one wolf specie in South America. I dont know its scientific name. The popular name is lobo guara. It is found in the center of Brazil.

USA timeline

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)

i just deleted the whole section Plugwash 15:13, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Subspecies

Hello,

I have changed the outdated subspecies information (again), and rest assured I do know what I'm talking about and am fully aware there are longer lists out there. Like I explained to UtherSRG, the older and longer lists are still very common on the net due to the size- most people assume just because there are more names, it is more complete. However, fairly recent research has shown that many of these so called 'subspecies' are far too similar, and regularly interbreed. I have not included the domestic dog or dingo, in my opinion their position within the species is far too debatable for anything to be considered fact.

http://www.kerwoodwolf.com/BIOLOGY.htm

"In North America, 24 subspecies were originally recognized. The more modern view however, is that there are only five valid subspecies here: the Eastern Timber Wolf, the Northern Plains Wolf, the Mexican Wolf, the Mackenzie Valley Wolf, and, the Arctic Wolf. Classification is difficult because wolves, so similar to their subspecies in the first place, travel, cutting into the territories of other wolf subspecies, sometimes even interbreeding with the other race and creating pups that are even more difficult to classify. Although the situation is equally confusing in parts of Europe and Asia, scientists have recognized another eight wolf subspecies or races there."

So are Dingo and Domestic Dog then considered full species? - UtherSRG 21:09, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Well like I said, that is debatable. 'Species' is a far more whooly term than some scientists like to make out. The proper definition is organisms which can reproduce and have fertile offspring. But then, it is possible for all members of the 'Canis' genus to mate and have fertile offspring... wolves, coyotes, jackals and domestic dogs. Yet the grey wolf, coyote and the jackals are considered separate species. Which makes us not as clever as we thought.

Therefore, whatever you decide to call them is purely a human means of separation, though personally I would go with a single subspecies of 'Canis lupus familiaris', including both the domestic dog and dingo.

Regarding hunting by helicopter

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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages is not a place for activism. Haikupoet 03:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

im going to, giveme time to find wording thats not terribly POV. Gabrielsimon 03:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

"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." Gabrielsimon 09:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

Wolf hunting

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)

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)

your "continuing moves" are very deletionist, please stop. Gabrielsimon 23:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

you dont get it, i worked hard to find wording that is both close to NPOV and factual, without omission, then you remove it, i even checked with an admiin before i put it in, and was given the green light. then you remove what it took mer four weeks of tweaks to come up with. gee, why do you thinki i put it back?? Gabrielsimon 23:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Friday wrote: "I thought it was pointless to say 'from the ground or aircraft', and the controversy seems to surround aircraft hunting, so I reworded." It would have been infinitely better if you'd bothered to do some research rather than operating based on sheer assumption. There are two distinct methods in use (notably in Alaska), both of which involve aircraft. The first is "aerial hunting/shooting," in which the gunner shoots the animal(s) from the aircraft while in flight. The second is "Same Day Airborne Hunting/Shooting"; in this, the wolf (or wolf pack) is chased to exhaustion, the pilot lands the aircraft, the gunner dismounts from the aircraft and then shoots the animal(s) from the ground. So the original phrasing was not, in point of fact, pointless. Euromutt 11:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

Trapping

Wolves are frequently trapped, in the areas where it is legal, using snares or leg hold traps. The economic value of wolf pelts is limited, so it is mainly a considered as a recreational activity. Wolf trapping has come under heavy fire from animal rights groups and is used to attack other forms of trapping and hunting. It is alleged that trapping, using the right tools and equipment, can be considered as humane as hunting; however, unskilled trappers can create a lot of pointless suffering.

Breeding For Fur

Wolves are bred for their fur in very few locations, as they are considered as a rather problematic animal to breed, and combined with the low value of the pelt it has driven most of the fur farms to change to slaughtering other animals, such as the fox.

Added what exists now. - JRice July 8, 2005 14:19 (UTC)

updated set of interwikis

adding here so they can be put into the page when its no longer protected. Plugwash 01:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC) ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]

Updated the list. - UtherSRG 13:10, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected page

A bunch of us are talking with Gabriel. I think he understands now about avoiding an edit war. As long as people are willing to coach him, I see no resaon why the page should be locked. I'll put it on my watchlist. Uncle Ed 15:59, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Disputed hunting passage

• 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)

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)

its less humane becasue the animals have no chance to escape, in that situation. Gabrielsimon 23:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

it is common practise. i dobnt currently have the time to seek the sources becasue of work i have to do, but check Alaska. Gabrielsimon 23:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

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)

Edit War

Sorry... I for one am sick of this. I would like arbitration on the part of a moderator. Looking for seconds... anyone? - JRice 23:55, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

If things calm down, I think we're OK. If edit warring continues, I regrettably have to agree with you. Friday 00:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Friday, Gabriel has made a lot of effort to learn the wiki way. Now if you two can come up with a way to express both POVs - neutrally - we got it in the bag. Uncle Ed, co-chair, Mediation Committee

Shifts and splits

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)

Request for comment

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)

• Regrettably, from looking at Wolf hunting controversy, it seems someone had to do it, especially considering that Gabrielsimon was given a chance to address the POV issue during the page protection and didn't. Unprotect, page fork, back in business. How obtuse do you have to be? Haikupoet 04:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

what page fork? Gabrielsimon 05:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• The creation of Wolf hunting controversy, which you are editing as tenaciously as you were the main page, to the same response. Haikupoet 02:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

i didnt make that page. Gabrielsimon 02:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Extinct wolves

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)

Wolf subspecies distribution

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.

Wolf attacks on human beings

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)