Eisspeedway

Talk:African wolf

Common Name

Ha! In taxonomy, apparently nothing is ever settled. I was also rather sceptical after just coming across references to this, but the studies referenced seem valid (although Gaubert's interpretation of the genetic data as reflected in his taxonomic proposal is frankly just as valid here). What does bug me immensely however is the seemingly top-down approach of adoption and insistence of a completely new common name in English; i.e. calling the jackal a 'wolf', apparently instituted by a handful of British scientists in technical biological publications, in what is supposed to be an encyclopaedia of concepts in the English language. If a few zoologists suddenly insist on calling this animal a wolf informally among themselves, whereas millions of people who commonly interact with the animal; be it farmers, tour operators, exterminators, or people trying to stop them going through the trash at night; are calling this animal a 'golden jackal', that is their prerogative, however that does not warrant having the title to this article solely reflect the naming convention these guys have recently decided to adopt. Unlike as in other tongues there is no official institute mandating common names for species in the English language, thus the convention for encyclopaedic entries should be the most commonly used common name, i.e. used by laypeople in the region. I get why these scientists would suddenly prefer to call it a 'wolf', as then English might better reflect the new taxonomic interpretation, however in the same vein then the 'African wild dog' should be renamed, 'Argentine wolf' idem ditto, the other jackals should no longer be called jackals either, the word 'dingo' should be struck from existence, Americans must stop calling their thrushes 'robins', their cowbirds 'blackbirds', ad nauseam. The animal has not changed, the common name has not changed, only the taxonomic interpretation of the African populations.

On a side note, I wonder in which clade the golden jackals of the Levant, Arabia and India should now be classified?

Extra very tangential side note related to naming conventions, there is an article in the Haaretz today where the animals are called 'coyotes', interesting example perhaps of Americanisation of English in Israel?

86.83.56.115 (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC) Leo[reply]

The issue is settled as far as Wikipedia is concerned. The Catalogue of Life is the accepted authority of WikiProject Tree of Life - the overarching project for all living things on Wikipedia. William Harris • (talk) • 09:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya William Harris, I'm back here, thus apparently still interested in this. I've seen your writing elsewhere on canid pages and understand you are more invested than myself regarding the genus, nonetheless I believe the issue I'm raising is not settled and you are probably not understanding my point.

The English language is not taxonomically accurate, the common name of a particular organism in English is simply the name or names most commonly used by people to refer to the organism in question. In this case we have an animal which has been known as a "common jackal" or "golden jackal" for the last few hundred years, until in 2012 a few people in Europe decided that they would personally prefer to call the same organism a "wolf", and a wikipedia editor or two felt they should jump on the bandwagon. Not withstanding the apparent taxonomic correctness of this neologism, it is linguistically incorrect to say that the most commonly used name for this organism is "golden wolf". This is not the case of a new species being discovered but a case of previously known populations being taxonomically redefined. Do you really think the English-speaking people in Africa will or should change their speech because of some relatively obscure science boffins elsewhere decide so? Calling this animal a "jackal" is no more wrong than calling those red-breasted thrushes in the USA "robins". Also, only 8 (recent) of the 50 odd references used in this article unambiguously use "African wolf" as their preferred common name.

In conclusion, taxonomic concepts may change, but that doesn't mean the English language does.

To illustrate using another language: the word "bweha" in Swahili traditionally means "jackal" or "fox", but not "dog" ("mbwa"), should people in Kenya now change their speech regarding this species to more accurately reflect the latest in current taxonomic concepts by calling these animals "mbwa wa mbuga"? Of course not.

I will add a referenced phrase to the intro to reflect my view. I hope you and others understand what I'm trying to say.

Cheers, Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Leo, I do not have a watch on this article. It does not matter what some Africans refer to it as, this is the English-speaking world's online encyclopedia. The common name is the African Golden Wolf, unless you have references enough to support a change of name under WP:COMMONAME. I personally do not care what its common name is; it is C. anthus. William Harris • (talk) • 13:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removing sources.

BhagyaMani has removed my sources (IUCN range maps) on sympatric felids that the African golden wolf shares its territory with. While it is not mentioned explicitly, the maps themselves should be an indication of habitat and ecosystem overlap. Ddum5347 (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve come here via the ANI thread so it’s not my area of interest. Something for you to consider: does how you used those references infringe WP:SYNTH? DeCausa (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I presonally do not believe so, but my opinion alone clearly isn't enough for edits like these. Ddum5347 (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have come here because I am a WPDOGS Recent Changes Patroller - there are no edits that happen on the dogs-related articles which I cannot see centrally - who focusses on the wild canids. As I have stated before, you will need to find reliable sources which specifically state what it is you are attempting to add to the Wikipedia, otherwise it becomes less factual and moves towards not being an encyclopedia but a collection of personal opinions. William Harris (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting to note that at Caspian tiger#Sympatric carnivores, the same source I am using here was used there. Yet there was no deletion/controversy on there. Ddum5347 (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ddum5347: I don’t know about the other article, and it may well be wrong there too, but it looks very much like you don’t understand WP:SYNTH. If you want to say that Animal X and Animal Y are sympatric then you need a source explicitly saying that. That means it has to positively state that fact about the two animals, and this means specifically referring to the two animals. BagyaMani says this wolf is not mentioned in these sources. if that is the case, those sources can’t be used to support this statement. You say it’s not explicit but that “ the maps themselves should be an indication of habitat and ecosystem overlap”. That’s exactly what you are not allowed to do on Wikipedia because it’s WP:SYNTH. You can’t use a source explicitly stating fact A and combine it with other knowledge or source to support fact B. You probably think this is counter intuitive, and may be it is, but that is how Wikipedia works. Can you please carefully read WP:SYNTH and review your use of these references. WP:SYNTH is fundamental to how sources work on Wikipedia and you will continue to have problems unless you understand it. DeCausa (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ddum5347, I don't follow your argument. On what basis do you believe that a source used at Caspian tiger#Sympatric carnivores - against which animal? - should be considered for deletion? William Harris (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the article subsection that I mentioned, all sources referenced for the sympatric carnivores of the Caspian tiger only mention their range - they do not mention explicitly that it shared its range with the tiger. Same thing I'm saying in this article. Ddum5347 (talk) 05:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On that basis then in my view better sources need to be found and the offending ones replaced. (FYI: I don't get involved in matters relating to WikiProject Cats; got my hands full with WPDOGS.) William Harris (talk) 07:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Your reaction to having WP:SYNTH explained to you should be to want to improve that other article rather than trying to use it as an excuse for the incorrect use of sources on this one. Do you understand what you tried to do breaches WP:SYNTH? DeCausa (talk) 09:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I now do. Thanks for informing me. Ddum5347 (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

African wolf - move proposal

I propose that this article be WP:MOVEed to the name African wolf. The name "African golden wolf" was used by Koepfli 2015 to distinguish this taxon from the "(Eurasian) golden jackal". We now have Alvares 2019 (IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group) referring to the taxon as "African wolf", and the article uses the Alvares suggested taxonomic classification of Canis lupaster. Koepfli was a participant in Alvares 2019. We need a complete break away from any confusion with the golden jackal. Editors are invited to leave their comments over the coming week. Courtesy @BhagyaMani: and @Mariomassone: William Harris (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now actioned. William Harris (talk) 09:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image advice

Hello @Nikkimaria:, I seek your opinion on a number of images used in this article. These images have been taken from a PLOS ONE publication: Reviving the African Wolf.

The authors provide a Copyright notice on its first page which states: "Copyright: © Gaubert et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited."

Nonetheless, the images contained in that article each bear "Copyright Cecile Bloch (c)", who was a contributor to the article. An example of one of these images on WP is here: File:Lupaster.png

Could you advise me if this image meets the copyright requirements of Wikipedia, please? William Harris (talk) 11:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes. Creative Commons licensing isn't an absence of copyright, it's a set of licensing terms - in the absence of specific exclusions, which I'm not seeing on a quick look, I would anticipate that all of the article's content (including its images) is copyrighted but available under the terms indicated, which are compatible with hosting here. That being said, take a look at WP:WATERMARK. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your time; I know you are busy with WP:FAC.
Based on WP:WATERMARK, it would be appreciated if editors here could replace those pix which are non-complying with those that do comply, over time. This includes the removal of the watermark with a note, for example at: File:Senegalesegoldenjackal.png William Harris (talk) 08:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

clade

@BhagyaMani: We should include other people here so ping some. YOU can see that the cladogram in the wolf article was too much combined with the taxobox and the section was messed up for the small and big screens. We can also include those links that you loveeee in the image caption and i can also make another image like that but with much bolder and bigger words and images. Some1 {talk} 04:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@William Harris, Mariomassone, and Shyamal: : you are welcome to join the discussion at User_talk:Punetor_i_Rregullt5#Phylogenetic_trees. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:African_wolf