Talk:Wolf

Active discussions

Wolf is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 31, 2005, and on June 7, 2020.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 22, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
August 29, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
September 19, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
November 10, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
April 1, 2012Good article nomineeListed
January 12, 2020Peer reviewReviewed
March 30, 2020Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors  
A version of this article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on December 17, 2019. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
Sections of this talk page older than 365 days are automatically archived by MiszaBot.

Range map needs updatingEdit

The map of the range of the wolf in this article needs to be updated. It's currently showing that there are no wolves in California and none in Oregon except for a tiny dot on the border with Idaho. However, there are at apparently least 10 wolves in California, at least most of which are in the northwestern part of the state [1]. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Services says that there is a minimum of 137 wolves in that state, "likely more," and has a map showing that they are known to be in more places than our map shows [2]. I respectfully request that the map here be updated. Display name 99 (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The first 3 wolf pups born in northern California for the first time in over a century is confirmed by CDFW. (I assume that wolves are following the Cascade Range from British Columbia down south as far as northern California, but we need a reference for that.) The article depicts Korean wolves mating (although in a zoo), the map shows no wolves in Korea, yet the article List of mammals of Korea#Order Carnivora: carnivores shows the wolf in Korea to be endangered, with references. Boitani 2018 - IUCN - shows the Korean Peninsula as part of the wolf's range. Mario, are you able to update, please? William Harris talk  09:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Further, there are now wolves in Washington State living west of the Cascade crest. They are also expanding across Oregon to the south, and have reached the southern Cascades in that state. From there it is an easy trot to Lassen, California and the current Lassen pack. William Harris talk  10:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I think there should be a "definitive" range map based solely on the IUCN google earth one, and updated only if IUCN does so. Mariomassone (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
There are two arguments. One is that the IUCN map is at least 2 years old, we know that wolves can disperse 600-1,000 km in one year, and the Parks & Wildlife authorities in each of the affected states are WP:RELIABLE sources. The other is that we need a standard, and the best available is the IUCN with their wolf distribution map. Do other editors have an opinion they would like to share? William Harris talk  21:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
If a reliable source says that wolves are known to be somewhere, I don't see a reason for why we shouldn't note it on the map. There is no supreme source which trumps all other reliable sources and forces us to go by whatever it says even when a multitude of sources agree that there is information being left out. Display name 99 (talk) 03:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
With respect, what does trump it is the WP:CONSENSUS of editors who have an interest in this article. I believe we are still at the views-seeking stage. Especially when one of those views is that of the man who does the actual update of the map. Certainly the "Korea, Democratic People's Republic of; Korea, Republic of" needs to be included as per the UICN article and map. If I am reading the enlarged version of that map correctly, the wolf has followed the Rocky Mountains all the way down to Salt Lake in Utah - perhaps some of our US-based cousins could advise on that? The IUCN map can be found here. William Harris talk  04:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
The IUCN map seems somewhat overblown. No way are wolves found everywhere on the Arabian Peninsula. I think the current map is more accurate. LittleJerry (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we are not beholden to any one source, but should use all reliable sources. So if the IUCN map is outdated because it's a few years old and there's reliable sources saying other places now have wolves, there's no reason not to update our map. This is an encyclopedia that summarizes multiple sources, not one that simply repeats one source. oknazevad (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Certainly the IUCN map is in error regarding the Arabian Peninsula, and based on expert sources neither the Arabian wolf nor the Indian wolf have a range that includes that whole area. (Interestingly the map appears to be correct regarding wolf activity down the Rocky Mountains - wolves visit Utah from neighbouring Idaho and Wyoming occasionally, and the Utah government has a Wolf Management Plan!) We have the state wildlife authorities documenting wolf distribution in Washington State, Oregon State, and northern California down to Lassen Peak, and current for this year. As they reach a point where the area they are in can no longer support more wolves, they disperse southwards down the range, as they have done with the Rockies. Given these points, I recommend that the wolf distribution map now include the area of the Cascade Range from the border with British Columbia down to approximately Lassen Peak in California. Your position now, please Mario? William Harris talk  22:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree with this, but I'm quite sure the range in southeast Asia is wrong. The shape just doesn't look natural at all. Mariomassone (talk) 22:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Just to clarify, were you referring to the IUCN map or the article's current map? William Harris talk  22:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Current article's map. Mariomassone (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
The map includes India then ends abruptly on the border with the nation of Myanmar (Burma). Regarding Myanmar, I don't think anyone really knows and I would be inclined to leave it as is. The real issue is China. As the Wolf distribution article states: "In 2017, a comprehensive study found that the gray wolf was present across all of mainland China, both in the past and today. It exists in southern China, which refutes claims made by some researchers in the Western world that the wolf had never existed in southern China." Not only do we have A Guide to the Mammals of China, published by Princeton University Press with 7 editors including Wilson and Wozencraft stating that the wolf can be found all across China, we have the 2016 secondary review by Wang supported by the 2017 work by Greger Larson himself stating that Wang is correct. Based on these, all of mainland China should be shown as part of the wolf's range. That includes the most populous southeastern section. This will be important shortly, because some work has been done on the taxonomically unclassified wolf from that region that will be released shortly, and which will raise some interest. William Harris talk  22:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Mariomassone, William Harris, Oknazevad, and LittleJerry, I have never edited this article and don't know about all of the different sources. It just seems like a very basic application of Wikipedia policy and good common sense that when reliable sources show information to be inaccurate, as parts of this map has been show to be, it should be changed. Display name 99 (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
For my part, I cannot assist here. I do a number of things on Wikipedia but maps is not one of them. I tried it once, and found it to be very time consuming and frustrating. William Harris talk  12:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Me too. I'd like to be able to update maps but that is something for the future. In the absence of a suitable map, perhaps a temporary solution would be note added to the caption along the lines of "recent evidence suggests the wolf range extends into southern China[ref]".   Jts1882 | talk  12:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Jts, I have initiated something - let us see what other editors think of it. This range map and commentary will probably be an issue at Peer Review or FAC, however we have some other things to attend to before then. William Harris talk  11:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
I am willing to do a revised map. Just post the sources (preferably with ready-made maps of their own) and I'll include them in the image description box. Mariomassone (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Mario, will do - you remain a vital contributor to Wikipedia's collection of "things that bite"! William Harris talk  12:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Mariomassone; to help speed things up more. Would you be able to do a source checking/review for "Relationships with humans" section? You can skip the "In mythology and folklore" subsection since I wrote that. LittleJerry (talk) 05:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid I wouldn't be very helpful in that regard, as I wrote most of those sections. The only exception is the dog part. Mariomassone (talk) 07:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Well that's good then since William Harris has less to review. LittleJerry (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
We can tick that section off our "To-Do" list - I am responsible for the Conflicts with dogs section. William Harris talk  21:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Range map - furtherEdit

Further on this one, Mario. The range map remains the article's weakness; the FAC review team will want to know its source. I have searched the internet for the most recent AND authoritative map - we come back to Boitani et al 2018 which provided the IUCN map. This map is endorsed by the UICN Canid Specialist Group. Both Little Jerry and I had some doubts about that map because it showed wolves being found across all of the Arabian Peninsula, but since then I have become aware of Bray 2014 Genetic variation and subspecific status of the grey wolf (Canis lupus) in Saudi Arabia, with 3 of their specimens taken from the heart of the Arabian Peninsula i.e. where we had thought that they could not exist. Therefore, I am leaning towards your earlier position of using the UICN map as the basis of the range map. We would then place a note below the map to cover those areas that were not included but for which we have reliable sources.

The UICN map does not illustrate the historic range but we can live without that, and there is no reference supporting it anyway. Nor does it include national boundaries, something wolves ignore and for which we have the article List of gray wolf populations by country to cover this topic.

On the UICN map webpage there is an icon in the top right hand corner, which shows that the map is currently in "Topographic view". One of the other options is the "Dark gray canvas view", which might provide the basis for our map. Placing it in Full-Screen mode, then press the zoom in button once to magnify it, then a print-screen to capture the image, then a paste into MS Paint or other software, and we have it captured for cropping, then some very-dark-greying to colour over the legend. Your view, please? William Harris talk  09:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm down with that. I'll get to it. Should it be an entirely new upload or an overwrite of the current one?Mariomassone (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks. I recommend a new upload. The current file also appears on "List of gray wolf populations by country" and it is fine for that purpose, but it would not pass FAC and therefore must be removed from Wolf. William Harris talk  09:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Taking a while, particularly reconstructing the fragmented range in Europe. Mariomassone (talk) 10:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

diet in cold vs warm monthsEdit

I feel like the section on Diet could spend more time differentiating between warm and cold parts of the year. For many wolves, these are essentially different diets. Their poops are totally different. What do people think? Pauldemello (talk) 04:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Citation consistency needed for FACEdit

This is moved from Wikipedia:Peer review/Wolf/archive1, where I had posted it as part of the Peer Review process:

reference info for Wolf
unnamed refs 3
named refs 120
self closed 165
cs1 refs 120
cs1 templates 128
cs1-like refs 1
cs1-like templates 1
cs2 refs 2
cs2 templates 2
sfn templates 165
uses ldr yes
use xxx dates mdy
cs1|2 dmy dates 4
cs1|2 mdy dates 4
cs1|2 ymd dates 5
cs1|2 last/first 116
cs1|2 author 4
List of cs1 templates

  • Cite book (11)
  • cite book (38)
  • cite journal (45)
  • Cite journal (9)
  • cite news (3)
  • cite web (22)
List of cs2 templates

  • citation (2)
List of cs1-like templates

  • cite iucn (1)
List of sfn templates

  • sfn (164)
  • snf (1)
explanations

FACs should have consistent, error-free citation formatting. The table at right shows the citation formats used in the article. See Template:Ref info for an explanation of the terms.

As of this time stamp, I see:

  • Untemplated citations.
Can you list them? LittleJerry (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I think these are all fixed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Citations that use |authors= (not recommended) and |vauthors=, citations that use |author=, and citations that use |last=/|first=. Choose one. Last/First is probably the best, since it works best with short references (e.g. sfn).
I have fixed all of these, as far as I can tell. See table to the right. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Same as above, but for |editors=/|editor=/|editor-last=/|editor-first=.
I have fixed all of these, as far as I can tell. See table to the right. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Citations with typos in them, like this set of names: "Stronen, Astrid V.; Jä™Drzejewska, Bogumiå'a; Pertoldi, Cino; Demontis, Ditte; Randi, Ettore; Niedziaå'Kowska, Magdalena; Pilot, MaÅ'Gorzata;"
Could you list them all? LittleJerry (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I found that one by looking carefully through the citations for errors and inconsistencies. If I see more, I will post them here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Citations consisting of bare URLs.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Author initials without spaces between the letters. See MOS:INITIALS.
Same. LittleJerry (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I have fixed these. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Journal citation without a journal name (author Goldthorpe).
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Someone bolder than I might consider creating short citations for all sources and grouping sources into books, journal articles, and other/news/web/reports, or similar categories. That might require some discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

It looks like you found and fixed the untemplated citation(s). The author initials have not yet been fixed, e.g. (Miquelle, D.G. or Fox, M.W.); copying the page into a text editor and doing a regex search for "[a-z]\.[a-z]\." should help.Jonesey95 (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
As of this time stamp, I believe that all of the problems are fixed except for the author names with typos. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I can't find any. LittleJerry (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Dead section linkEdit

Under "Taxonomy"=>"Subspecies", it reads: "...a number of these canines as subspecies or even separate species has recently *been challenged* by zoologists...", but "been challenged" links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf#Disputed_subspecies_and_species (a section that doesn't exist). Skimming through the history, it was added in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wolf&oldid=922017867 but that section didn't even exist then. None of the other revisions I checked had that section either. 2001:56A:F1C6:9300:79F3:CD08:37C0:E36E (talk) 13:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The section was moved to a spin-off article: Subspecies_of_Canis_lupus#Disputed_subspecies. I've made the change but this type of linking is not the style encouraged by Wikipedia guidelines. The link to the Dingo article is also questionable.   Jts1882 | talk  16:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Canadian spellingEdit

Once again, I had to explain that this article is written in Canadian English. Can an administrator please post a Canadian English tag above the editing template (like in lion) so no one changes the spelling again. LittleJerry (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

  Done Seems template editor rights can do this, too.   Jts1882 | talk  16:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

LittleJerry asked me to review the sources. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

  • The first two sentences of the "Etymology" section are sourced to Boitani. However I can't seem to find support for the statements in the source. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The Online Etymology Dictionary seems to use an anglicized version of the Proto-Indo-European root. I wonder if Lehrman's paper "Anatolian Cognates of the PIE Word for 'Wolf'" (Die Sprache 33 (1987), 13–18) might be a better source for the original form? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't have access to Garry Marvin's book. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Largest canidaeEdit

In the wild? Aren't giant dog breed like St. Bernard (dog) larger canidae? Note: I'm no dog expert but have an interest in biology and this claim seemed strange... Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 05:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Wolves and dogs are the same species. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020Edit

in "wolf communication" at the bottom of the page, it should be "wolves" instead of "wolfs" 23.190.128.37 (talk) 22:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  Note: Nowhere on the page does it contain anything related to the intention of the request. Deactivating SPER. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 23:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

What is the subject matter of this article?Edit

Is this article about Canis lupus including all of its subspecies, as the introduction states, or is it about all subspecies except C.l. familiaris? If the former, then almost every assertion in the lead (and therefore on the Main Page of Wikipedia yesterday) is blatantly wrong; if the latter, then the introduction needs to be qualified. Kevin McE (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

No response, so I have edited the intro to acknowledge the clear exclusion that the article makes. Kevin McE (talk) 10:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
The scope of the article is Canis lupus in its natural form. We don't need to split hairs over domesticated and captive wolves. LittleJerry (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Whatever the scope is needs to be presented and clarified at the outset. If we are not distinguishing (you want to call it splitting hairs) over domesticated and undomesticated wolves, then almost every statement about population, size, appearance, diet, relationship with humans, distribution and conservation status is clearly wrong. There is nothing on the definition of the subject in the introduction that refers to 'natural form'. Is the offspring of two members of the same species not natural? Kevin McE (talk) 07:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
The average reader doesn't think of a dog when the subject is the wolf. LittleJerry (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
And yet the article invites them to do that, by suggesting an unqualified correlation of Canis lupus and 'wolf'. The article must be internally coherent and consistent, and at present it is not. There are more than 300,000 members of C.l. on the planet. Kevin McE (talk) 07:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Because it is. The dog and the dingo ARE wolves but we focus on the wildtype become that's what the average reader expects, just as the dinosaur article focuses on non-avian dinosaurs. Anyhow, we already have a header stating that the article does not focus on the domesticated forms and that dog and dingo are not thought of as wolves colloquially. Let it go now. LittleJerry (talk) 11:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
The header is not an integral part of the article. You are already in breach of 3RR. I have compromised, and you have made useful proposals that I am happy to include, but the idea that we can say that there are world population of Canis lupus is 300,000 is indefensible. I can only assume that you have not read the article [dinosaur]], which does an excellent job of integrating information about avian dinosaurs and extinct groups. Kevin McE (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
No you are the one proposing a change to the article and so YOU are the one who has to get a consensus before making the change. Therefore it is you who are being disruptive. As for the population of 300,000, that's for wild wolves. Dogs are in the same status as wolves in zoos, which are also not counted. LittleJerry (talk) 12:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Also, authorities label the wolf Canis lupus not "most subspecies of Canis lupus". They go on to discuss the wild populations. There's no reason we shouldn't. LittleJerry (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I request the third opinion of William Harris since he wrote most of the article. LittleJerry (talk) 12:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Surely everybody's opinions should be invited, not just those who have a vested interest in the status quo. Kevin McE (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

It is quite simple: we can either have an article that makes sense, or one that pretends that 2 susbspecies do not exist. There is no way I, or anyone who believes that an article should have simple conherence and consistency, can prefer the latter. Kevin McE (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  • This is rather hair-splitting, but that is Kevin's speciality. One might add to (line 2) "which are not considered to be wolves as the term is normally used" something like "and to which most of this article does not apply". Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • It doesn't pretend two subspecies don't exist. It explicitly states that the article doesn't deal those two subspecies, because in common usage wolf usually excludes the dog and dingo. But wolf is used in different senses. It is also perfectly acceptable to refer to dogs and dingos as wolves. Even if they do make the species split mentioned below, wolf might still be used in a broad sense to include all wolves descended from Pleistocene wolves, including the grey wolf, domestic dog and dingo, or even more broadly to include Himalayan wolves. The common term wolf is not very precise, which is why the article needs to start in such a convoluted way under the current title. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't "explicitly state[s] that the article doesn't deal those two subspecies" at all - only implicitly, and in a way that readers who aren't already clear that "in common usage wolf usually excludes the dog and dingo" are very likely to miss. I'm suggesting it be made explicit; it isn't at present. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. It explicitly says that the common name usually excludes dog and dingo, but not explicitly that the article is largely restricted to this usage of the common name. Argh, how do we say this accurately and concisely without confusing the reader with qualifications? A further complication is that the next sentence says it is the largest canid, which is true for wolf in the broader sense, but gives numbers for wild wolves and not the larger domestic dog breeds. —  Jts1882 | talk  17:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Jts's initial comment 'It doesn't pretend two subspecies don't exist' is on the article as it is after I changed it (against Little Jerry's apparent wishes, but I believe we have now reached a compromise on which he and I are agreed): my talk post about ignoring the subspecies precedes those changes. As to clarifying that the article is about 'wolf' as [Canis lupus - dog - dingo], I initially had an edit stating that explicitly, but Oknazevad reverted it as "going meta" (I share his/her dislike of it, but it seemed necessary/justified): I then had it as a REM note, which Little Jerry reverted. I have now added it to the footnote. Kevin McE (talk) 10:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is not titled Canis lupus. It's titled "wolf" (and used to be titled "grey wolf" until an ill-advised move a while back). Therefore it's about the subject understood by that term. Which does not include domestic dogs. The article is correctly scoped.

Plus there's the fact that the latest science, covered at domestication of the dog, casts doubt on the idea that dogs are the same species, instead of a sister species that no longer exists in the wild, except maybe as dingoes. oknazevad (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

But unless and until dogs and dingos are categorically removed from Canis lupus by the recognised authorities (rather than this merely having been placed in doubt), it cannot be accurate to identify the wolf with Canis lupus without qualification. Kevin McE (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
We already have a header which states the scope of the article and the lede mentions the informal exclusion of dogs and dingos, why do we need a note?
Johnbod and Kevin McE, the article itself shouldn't be meta in regards to its scope. That's what the header is for. LittleJerry (talk) 12:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
The header, as stated above, is not an integral part of the article. There should be a note (if the exclusion of 2 ssp is not to be included in the brackets giving the binomial) because the fact that the two terms are not equivalent should be clear at first mention. It is not encyclopaedic to deliberately mis-state the facts and later correct them. Kevin McE (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
"The header is not an integral part of the article". So? We have headers for a reason. Why have one at all? LittleJerry (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
To alert people who have alighted on the page by error (Norman Conquest is an Aussie goalkeeper, not an 11th century invasion of the south coast of England, being my favourite until it was moved), not as a disclaimer to those who did want that page. Kevin McE (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Kevin McE, why do you keep insisting that we repeat this twice. Either we have a note on the focus of the article or we mention it in the lede, this hair splitting have to stop. LittleJerry (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Nothing is repeated twice. I am very surprised that you believe that there should be no mention of the subspecies given that the variety within wolves is very significant. And if the subspecies are mentioned, then it seems wholly suitable that the fact that not all subspecies are considered to be wolves is mentioned. I cannot think of any encyclopaedic reason for not doing so, so let's find a suitable stylistic way of doing it. Kevin McE (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I'll explain again, it is NOT true that only 36 subspecies are considered wolves, they ALL ARE in science. I have not seen any scientific authority classify wolves as (Canis lupus minus some subspecies). However, colloquially wolves are only the widtype. Colloquial ≠ phylogenetic classification, get it? Also variety in wolves does not mean subspecies are significant. There's diversity within so called subspecies. LittleJerry (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
So colloquially 36 of the 38 are wolves: let's state that then. Kevin McE (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
We already do, in the note. LittleJerry (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Kevin McE, why do we need a note and a sentence in the lede stating the same thing. LittleJerry (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
We are not saying the same thing twice: the note is stating that Canis lupus and wolves (as understood in this article: please stop muddying the water by contradicting the entire thrust of the article by stating that they are all wolves scientifically) are not coterminous; the other is that we cannot mention 38 subspecies within the restricted scope of this article without acknowledging that two of them are outside this description, but it is grossly incomplete to not mention the subspecies. The situation arises because the need has been felt to create an article about an animal type that is not the entirety of a species, but is not one identifed subspecies: if the scope if taxonomically irregular, the taxonomic irregularity needs to be clearly described. Now, if you had been willing to tolerate an explicit, unhidden exclusion of those two outliers at the very beginning of the article, then the slight element of repetition that is present might not arise (although given that some of it is in a footnote, I suspect that most readers won't find it remotely repetitive). Kevin McE (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you LittleJerry: your most recent edits are a very positive step forward. I would far prefer to see a more precise phrasing than "several" subspecies: you were apparently happy with the article having explicitly stated 38, per MSW3 until now, so I don't know why you are rejecting that authority at this stage. Regardless, the reader is not well informed by 'several': would 'more than 30' be acceptable, which gives an idea of the breadth of the species? The clarity of the sentence is not helped by the unfortunate linguistic fact that species & subspecies are defective nouns from the fifth declension: it looks almost as though the sentence is saying that there is one subspecies that is not domesticated/feral, and that one subspecies is what is being described as a wolf. How would you feel about 'Over 30 subspecies of Canis lupus have been recognized, and wolves, as colloquially understood, comprise all except the non-domestic/feral subspecies.'? Also, how would you feel about moving this nearer the front of the article, so that the definition of terms is clear before we make assertions about the characteristics of the animal that complies to that definition.
Of course, Canis anthus, Canis simensis, Canis latrans and others, including non-canids and extinct species, are also colloquially referred to as wolves. It would of course be better to say that what we have arrived at is what is known colloquially as the grey wolf (is the Canadian form 'grey' or 'gray'?), but maybe that imprecision is what we have inherited from an earlier page move. Kevin McE (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I feel that we now have an article that acknowledges that "Colloquial ≠ phylogenetic classification", which was not the case a few days ago. Thank you. Kevin McE (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no mention of the wolf being eaten by early hunter gatherers. Archeologists studying hunter gatherers in Africa have found kill/butchering sites with the bones of hundreds of wolves. This is before early humans realised the wolf could both show them how to hunt and assist them on the hunt, and is likely how wolves became companions and, with selective breeding, dogs. PetePassword (talk) 10:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:CarnivoraEdit

A question for my learned friends of the wild canid editing community, is there any reason why the {{Carnivora}} navbox is no longer on this page? I am certain it used to be. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 04:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC).

It, and two other very relevant navbox Ed, were removed by an IP on February 17. Seems like it was just plain I caught vandalism. I'm restoring them now. oknazevad (talk) 05:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks, I thought it must have been an omission. Kind regards, Cavalryman (talk) 05:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Use of the word "harvesting" for the hunting of wolves.Edit

From the article:

"As many as 4,000 wolves may be harvested in Canada each year." "around 1,200 wolves are harvested annually."

Wikipedia's own definition of "harvesting" [1] primarily applies to the gathering of grain that one has grown. Farmers "harvest" what they plant. You "harvest" food in the fall.

The word is being used more and more as a weasel word to try to justify controversial destruction of wildlife. Pro logging groups refer to the "harvesting the forests". And most egregiously to me, for the sport hunting of wild animals for trophies, definitely not for food. To make the activity seem more acceptable? "Harvesting" implies values that certainly do not belong to the killing for sport of wild wolves. Many people legitimately hunt deer for food. I have never heard this referred to as "harvesting deer". In this article, can we replace "harvesting" with the correct word - "hunting"? 50.98.167.166 (talk) 01:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the definition should be restricted to grain or even to plants, but I agree it does too often get used as a synonym for wholesale slaughter (e.g. seal harvests). It's definitely a weasel world, which should be avoided, and I can't see how it is appropriate for hunting wild wolves, although the Alaska government uses it in the cited source. I would used "hunted" and "killed", respectively, instead of the two uses of harvested.
One other issue. In the first instance it's written as if there is a quota ("may be harvested"). It says there are no restrictions for Inuit people and others can get licences (which could have a quota). I can't check the source so can't tell if the 4000 is the total number of wolves hunted each year or just those under licence. —  Jts1882 | talk  06:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

mapEdit

I will make a map with english lettering soon. Sciencia58 (talk) 07:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Can you translate the key in the caption until you make the new map? It's counter-inutitive that the green and green-yellow areas are those without wolves (in or out of EU) while the areas with wolves are in grey. I would do it but I'm unsure what the EU label says. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Background information on protection status in Europe:

The EU member states must comply with the specifications of the EU Commission, in this case the Flora-Fauna-Habitat Directive (Natura 2000). The Habitats Directive implements the requirements of the Bern Convention. The EU member states have the option of modifying the wolf's conservation status by listing in Annex 4 or Annex 5 of the Habitats Directive depending on its conservation status. Any change will require the approval of the European Commission, which depends on the opinion of members of the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe, who have the crucial consultative role there. The EU member states can apply the derogations in the Habitats Direktive article 16 [1].

Countries which are not in the EU but are nevertheless signatories to the Bern Convention (e.g. Switzerland and Norway) must comply directly with the requirements of the Bern Convention. They directly implement the requirements of the Bern Convention for general protection an can apply the exeptions in article 9.[2].

Sciencia58 (talk) 07:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I think this should be Updated more regularly. like every time somebody finds something new about the wolf that should be updated in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomandbonbon (talkcontribs) 16:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Return to "Wolf" page.