Talk:Wolf/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Cougar attacks

..and the other showed no signs of canine puncture marks or other cougar related injury.

Wha....? How is this evidence of a cougar attack if there were no cougar related injuries? It's like saying "A man was shot today, though there were no signs of a bullet hole."Dark hyena 11:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how this got put together, but nothing about canine puncture marks is mentioned in the reference. I think an editor who doesn't like the idea of cougars taking wolves just made it up out of thin air, but who knows? I changed the entire statement to match the reference. Thanks for pointing it out. Sperril 17:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The proper name of short legged wolf

I remembered that my dad said that in Hong Kong, there was a special wolf race nicknamed "Short legged wolf" that used to roam in the New Territories area during the early 20th century. The wolf legs are of course shorter than the "normal" wolf that appear in China he said, anyways I wonder if this type of wolf still exist and also what is their proper scientific name? hanchi 24 May 2007

I've never heard of it, but then again, China is a little behind in wolf studies, so an undocumented subspecies is possible. Are you sure he wasnt referring to foxes or dholes?129.12.230.169 12:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I doubt that, since Hong Kong doesnt have much foxes, even before the "urbanisation" in the 50's... I dont even think the wolf he was refering was Eurasian wolf. I think this wolf could be from specific breeding that made their legs gone short or has died out before anyone could record this species in time. However my dad says that when he was little, he did heard stories about this type of wolves roaming around in his village and eating live stocks. hanchi 25 May 2007

Archives?

What happened to all the old discussions? This is an old article, but there's only one archive with a single entry in it. -- Kesh 02:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see the permanant link now. Gonna fix that, and clean up the Archive box. -- Kesh 02:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

There. Hopefully that looks better. I've managed to clean up the archives, using the copy & paste method. Everything should be in its proper place now. Let me know if anything looks wrong, and I'll gladly fix it. -- Kesh 03:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization issues

Why is "Gray Wolf" capitalized in the article and title? It is clearly not a proper noun. This article needs to be moved to gray wolf where it belongs. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 04:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)#Capitalization of common names of species, followed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals#Capitalization. The short version? There's no real agreement on how it should be done, just that the articles should be consistant. All Wolf-related articles use capitalization for the entire name, so it should be kept there unless the standard changes as a whole. -- Kesh 04:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty lame. Where do you see "Gray Wolf" capitalized in scientific texts and journals? Nowhere, that's where. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 04:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This is what happens when you get thousands of people working on articles. There's bound to be some conflict, and capitalization is kinda down the list of priorities for policy-making. For something like this, the way it's done now is "close enough." -- Kesh 04:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency

"The main differences between wolves and domestic dogs are that wolves have, on average, 30% larger brains..."

then in the chart:

"Domestic Dog Canis lupus familiaris Typically, a smaller subspecies, with 20% smaller brains..."

68.101.137.239 14:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not as inconsistent as you would think. If dogs have the "baseline brain", then the wolf brain is about 1.3 times the size of a dog brain. Let's say the dog brain is 80cc in size, then the wolf brain would be 104cc. If you then look at things in reverse, taking the wolf brain as baseline, the dog brain is 20% smaller, or 80% the size of a wolf's brain. 80% of 104 is 83.2, or close to the previous size used. Probably the wolf brain is a little less than 30% larger than the dog brain. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Canadian timber wolf

Is the canadian timber wolf the same as the alaskan timber wolf? If so, is the canadian/alaskan timber wolf simply another name for the Mackenzie valley wolf? It was me who suggested it in the main Mackenzie wolf article, but I only did so because Alaskan/Canadian timber wolf doesnt seem to be a subspecies, but simply a generic term for large, snow dwelling North American wolves.87.102.75.202 19:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

New article needed

Apparently, the Indian wolf is no longer considered a subspecies of grey wolf, however, the wolves of Turkey and other Middle Eastern countries (which were originally thought to be Indian wolves) should get their own article under Southern-east Asian Wolf (Canis lupus pallipes), which is still classed as a subspecies of grey wolf.83.187.226.147 10:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Indian Wolf

Before we keep reverting, how about someone explain why the Indian wolf keeps getting removed an added on the actual article Talk page, hm? -- Kesh 11:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Retron cites the Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research as the basis of his edit. The authors of Mitochondrial DNA coding region sequences support the phylogenetic distinction of two Indian wolf species, believe their results supports the reclassification of C. lupus chanco (Himalayan wolf) and C. lupus pallipes (Indian wolf) as C. himalayensis and C. indica respectively. As this article from the National Zoological Park suggests, genetic analysis is raising many questions about how taxonomic trees should be drawn. I suspect a few entries in the subspecies table may need to be revised as genetic analysis proceeds.

The one discomfort I have of Retron's citation is that it is a primary academic source documenting research within a very specific scope. I find myself in agreement with the primary and secondary sources guideline, which prefers secondary sources that may not reflect current debate, but which draws from many primary sources and often cut directly to the results of scientific debate, without lingering on intermediary detail that might be lost on the general reader. I would prefer grounding changes to this table on references such as those rather than highly specific research articles.

What concerns me, though, is that it is not really clear upon what references — secondary or primary — that this table is grounded. What is the basis of the claim that the table is a "new and widely accepted list", and that such a list "has been condensed to 13 living subspecies, 15 including the common dog and dingo, and 2 recently extinct subspecies." The breezy certainty this sentence exhibits appears to come from a different planet than the one from the previous paragraph, which soberly notes that subspecies classification remains controversal among scientists.

Indeed, the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species database maps only one subspecies to the Canis lupis search string: canis lupus dingo. It's not the business of the Red List to document unthreatened species or subspecies, so there is no criteria for completeness here. Nonetheless, it's not clear to me where we found the endangerment data that the subspecies table states in every row.

NatureServe Explorer is a more general purpose database that the Red List often references; it identifies six canis lupus sub-species, but makes no claim that this list is complete or comprehensive; it's what they have in their database at present. The NatureServe Explorer identifies Canis lupus ligoni (Alexander Archipelago Wolf) as a subspecies; this is not in the subspecies list. Wikispecies currently has eighteen subspecies articles for canis lupus but has cites for twenty-three more subspecies; perhaps many of the latter are extinct prehistoric varients. This not-very-comprehensive sampling, in hand with Retron's reference, suggests to me that if we do the reference due-diligence currently expected from feature and good article candidates, we may end up with a different count of subspecies, some qualified with hedging references as the scientific debate on what constitutes various subspecies, which Retron's article is part of, advances on its merry way. — Gosgood 21:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

To satisfy my own curiosity as to the basis of the table, I took a walk though dusty page histories and archives:

• First subspecies list: Revision 2158420 by GerardM at 04:00, 15 January 2004
• First appearance of '13 living subspecies', reflecting very nearly the list in the current table Revision 13957403by Tommyknocker at at 15:25, 13 May 2005
  • Archive discussion of 13 May 2005 revision Subspecies
  • Wayback Machine preservation of supporting reference. http://www.kerwoodwolf.com/BIOLOGY.htm
• Conversion to table, introduction of endangerment data Revision 49387122 by GrittyLobo441 at 22:56, 20 April 2006.
• Introduction of canis lupus familiaris Revision 73706866 by User:Evmore at 01:53, 4 September 2006.
• Introduction of canis lupus dingo Revision 94838428 by 84.231.191.173 at 01:30, 17 December 2006

Reference supporting many table entries: Sillero-Zubiri, Claudio Canids: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan, 2004, The World Conservation Union (IUCN) page 124 - 127 — Gosgood 01:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I made those changes (changing the number of living subspecies to 12) based on the studies of Nowak, which are also referenced in the IUCN action plan. It certainly seems the most conclusive and realistic list. Whether or not these Indian and Himalayan groups are separate species I think needs more research and publicity before it can be included in wikipedia, with confidence. --Tommyknocker 21:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Dewclaw

the line "Wolves also do not possess dewclaws, unlike dogs" should be ammended to read "Wolves also do not possess dewclaws on their hind legs, unlike dogs". Wolves do have front dewclaws, same as dogs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.70.136.240 (talk • contribs) 07:24, August 1, 2007 (UTC).

I removed the statement entirely since the dewclaw on the forefeet is already mentioned in the physical characteristics section.Coaster1983 22:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Dogs don't usually have back dewclaws, though.I guess thats a dog issue, not a wolf one. Whatever. --S'luki 23:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

newb edit

How about a verb in the third sentence of the leading paragraph?

Hopefully that's now a bit better. SparrowsWing _(talk) 03:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Two refs

Someone might wanna fix the two broken references at the "Notes and references" section, ref numbers #62 & #63. One has a date that's hyper linked wrong, the other is blank. Lord Sesshomaru

Biased / emotional writing

For example in body language:

The wolf rolls on its back and exposes its vulnerable throat and underside.

Does the writer come to assume that he knows what the wolf has in mind when acting submissive. Even if not, the explicit addition of this obviously irrelevant piece of information seems forcing the reader to understand the wolf as an explicitly savage animal which would rip it's own family members to shreads if only given the chance... which it is not. (Objectivelly it's a bit like saying "A mother holds a baby in her arms, the baby's thoat and vulnerable underside exposed"). And there are a few other examples of this kind of thinking spread troughout the article. I don't think this is appropriate for an encyclopedia article and would like to see it removed.

Does anyone else agree with me here? Should I go ahead with the slight cleanup or is there something about that form of expression that points out an important fact about wolves that I fail to see? --89.212.75.6 21:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I think you bring up a valid point. I looked at your user contributions and not e that you have been editing since November of last year. Perhaps it is time to now become a regular member (it is free, after all), to unlock all that wonderful editing capabilities that are pretty much kept on a higher shelf (with the cookie jar and the hard liquor), away from the anonymous and casual users. I recommend this, as you seem to know what needs doing. So sign up, and go do that voodoo you want to do. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with your interpretation. The fact is, that the submissive posture does expose the more vulnerable parts of the body. Perhaps citations should be added for the scientific interpretation of this act, but it's rather obvious that the act itself exposes those areas. -- Kesh 01:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The basic flaw in your argument is that without citation, anything that you consider obvious is just that: what you consider obvious. More neutral writing is called for, in the absence of citation.

As an aside, if User89 has trouble getting up to speed if and when they start ther account, drop me a line on my talk page. I will help you hit the ground running. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I do have an account... this is it, just often neglect to log in (I find it pointless since my static IP can only be me anyway). My argument regarding Kesh's observation is well: The exact same thing could be said about a human mother holding a baby, it's both true and clearly observable, still it's not something you'd put into an encyclopedia about human behaviour for the simple reason of it being completely irrelevant and decieving. I could provide more humanly debatable examples of the same problem, as we have no wolves here to argument their defense on their own. --DustWolf 22:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If the only real objection is a lack of citation, I'll look through some of my books this week. It's such a common observance, finding a citation should be trivial. As for "decieving," I'm not sure what your point is. If you're disputing the purpose of the behavior, do you have alternate citations showing it has nothing to do with pack dominance behavior? -- Kesh 23:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Newfoundland Wolf

C. l. beothucus, along with two dozen other former North American gray wolf subspecies, were consolidated into five subspecies in the early nineties. This information is summarized here. C. l. beothucus, though considered extinct when it was believed to be a unique subspecies, no longer qualifies as "extinct" given this new taxonomic structure. Basically, though the Newfoundland Wolf was considered extinct in 1911, since it has since been determined that they were not genetically dissimilar from all the other subspecies that were consolidated into C. l. nubilus (Great Plains Wolf), they never truly were a unique subspecies and therefore cannot be "extinct".

My suggestion is to list them under the "former subspecies" subsection, explaining briefly how they were once considered extinct but have since been lumped with the Great Plains Wolf which are, of course, not extinct. TBH, it would be a wonderful idea to do this for all the former subspecies listed on the above-linked page. However, instead of giving each its own Wikipedia page, perhaps simply create a subsection under whatever subspecies they were lumped with. Each former subspecies wouldn’t warrant thorough details. They could just be listed.

In the meantime, I’m removing them from the “Extinct subspecies” subsection.
—GrittyLobo441 04:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Poor word usage, or bias

"The first layer is made up of tough guard hairs designed to repel water and dirt" - 'designed' is used in the wrong context, hair has not undergone the design process. Should read "The first layer is made of tough guard hairs which repel water and dirt". —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattWilcox (talk • contribs) 14:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Vancouver Island Wolf

Could this be mentioned here? Thyalcinus cynocephalus (talk)03:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

68.114.29.24 21:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this the same wolf as the "Rainforest Wolf" in the Great Bear Forest, which is thought to be genetically unique? I think it should be mentioned. 66.222.172.107 (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding some issues with capitalization

Please see the WP guideline and then please refrain from reverting blindly. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with that. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

this capitalization issue really is becoming ridiculous! There are more important issues that need attention, such as if new information needs to de added, or if the current artice is correct and up to date.Does it really matter if it says "Wolf" or "wolf" as long as the sentence it is in is correct? I don't mean to be rude, but it really seems childish.68.114.29.24 21:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Silver_Kitsune

Reoccuring Symbol in Metal subculture

Should a section be made denoting how modern bands have used the wolf as a symbol? Bands such as Sonata Arctica, Wintersun, and Marduk have all used it. Maybe on the modern perceptions article? --Notmyhandle 07:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Bump. I'm just going to add one. --Notmyhandle 06:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Title capitalization

As far as I can tell, the title of this article should be "Gray wolf", with "wolf" in lower case. WP:TITLE#Lowercase second and subsequent words in titles states "Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun". However, as I'm not a native speaker I decided to ask first. -- intgr [talk] 18:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

An argument can and has been made that the official common name of a species is a proper noun, and that the capitalization also makes it easier to distinguish between a species common name (Gray Wolf) and a descriptive of a some individual that may or may not be in that species (gray wolf). See WP:BIRD for a good write up of this. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, makes sense, but why is "gray wolf" lower case in the lead section? -- intgr [talk] 22:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That's thanks to this very nice guideline page. As a sort of awkward, unspoken compromise with UtherSRG, I haven't put in a request for a page move so long as he's following the guideline and the consensus already established in the actual article, which he has been doing a fantastic job of lately even though he strongly disagrees with that consensus. (I don't have the capacity to move it myself, because Gray wolf has a history to it.) Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate assesment of wolf social structure

The section in this article on social behavior is highly inaccurate. The terms 'alpha' and 'beta' are no longer recognized by leading wolf researchers. In fact, almost nothing is accurately known about wolf social behavior because it differs so dramatically based on if the wolf is in the wild or in captivity. It is true that the basic hierarchy with the 'alpha' and 'beta' wolves holds true in artificially created or unusually large packs, but naturally occurring wolf packs are smaller units that are simply nuclear families, the 'alphas' being the mother and father and the 'betas' being yearlings, or pups that were born the previous season and have yet to reach full maturity and start their own packs. A good book that explains this with more citations to more specific studies is Wolves: Behavior, Ecology and Conservation by L.D. Mech and L. Boitani. (http://www.amazon.com/Wolves-Behavior-Conservation-David-Mech/dp/0226516962)

Interesting. I'm going to recieve that book as a Birthday present in three weeks. I'll check that bit out.79.72.192.210 16:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to an abstract that already says enough about the failures in the main text. Unfortunately, the full paper isn't for free, maybe I can get that through the university and add some information. http://rparticle.web-p.cisti.nrc.ca/rparticle/AbstractTemplateServlet?journal=cjz&volume=77&year=&issue=&msno=z99-099&calyLang=fra The german version of wikipedia has the correct information about the social structure known so far. Maybe someone with better english knowledge than mine could translate it and add it to the article. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.166.205.26 (talk) 11:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wolfs in Germany

Can someone put in the wolf is back in Germany again? (No, i'm not German) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mweites (talk • contribs) 16:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a citation that says that Germany now has wolves? - UtherSRG (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Here you go: http://www.nabu.de/m01/m01_03/06673.html http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/ema/species/canis_lupus.htm http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/details.php/3746/allMweites 19:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

IUCN Status Change?

Gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes region of the United States (Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan) have once again been added to the Endangered Species Act. Should this necessitate a change from Least Concern of the IUCN status?

Updating taxonomy

I will be updating the Canidae taxonomy and common names to match Mammal Species of the World (3rd ed, 2005) as follows:

• • • Family Canidae
      • Genus Vulpes
        • Vulpes lagopus - Arctic Fox (4 subspecies)
        • Vulpes macrotis - Kit Fox
        • Vulpes pallida - Pale Fox (5 subspecies)
        • Vulpes bengalensis - Bengal Fox
        • Vulpes cana - Blanford's Fox
        • Vulpes chama - Cape Fox
        • Vulpes corsac Corsac Fox (2 subspecies)
        • Vulpes ferrilata - move Tibetan Fox to Tibetan Sand Fox (includes ekloni)
        • Vulpes rueppellii - Rüppell's Fox (5 subspecies)
        • Vulpes velox - Swift Fox (includes hebes)
        • Vulpes vulpes - Red Fox (45 subspecies)
        • Vulpes zerda - move Fennec to Fennec Fox
      • Genus Atelocynus
        • Atelocynus microtis - Short-eared Dog
      • Genus Canis
        • Canis adustus - Side-striped Jackal (6 subspecies)
        • Canis aureus - Golden Jackal (13 subspecies)
        • Canis latrans - Coyote (19 subspecies)
        • Canis lupus - Grey Wolf - (37 subspecies, including dingo, familiaris and lycaon)
        • Canis mesomelas - Black-backed Jackal (2 subspecies)
        • Canis simensis - Ethiopian Wolf (2 subspecies)
      • Genus Cerdocyon
        • Cerdocyon thous - Crab-eating Fox (6 subspecies)
      • Genus Chrysocyon
        • Chrysocyon brachyurus - Maned Wolf
      • Genus Cuon
        • Cuon alpinus - Dhole (3 subspecies)
      • Genus Dusicyon
        • Dusicyon australis - Falkland Islands Wolf
      • Genus Lycalopex
        • Lycalopex culpaeus - Culpeo (6 subspecies) was in Pseudalopex genus
        • Lycalopex fulvipes - Darwin's Fox was in Pseudalopex genus
        • Lycalopex griseus - South American Gray Fox new article
        • Lycalopex gymnocercus - Pampas Fox (5 subspecies) was in Pseudalopex genus
        • Lycalopex sechurae - Sechuran Fox new article
        • Lycalopex vetulus - Hoary Fox was in Pseudalopex genus
      • Genus Lycaon
        • Lycaon pictus - African Wild Dog (5 subspecies)
      • Genus Nyctereutes
        • Nyctereutes procyonoides - Raccoon Dog (5 subspecies)
      • Genus Otocyon
        • Otocyon megalotis - Bat-eared Fox (2 subspecies)
      • Genus Speothos
        • Speothos venaticus - Bush Dog (3 subspecies)
      • Genus Urocyon
        • Urocyon cinereoargenteus - Gray Fox (16 subspecies)
        • Urocyon littoralis - Island Fox (6 subspecies)

I will hold off for a few days for comments. Since I'm posting this in multiple places, please contact me on my talk page if you have any concerns. I'll wait a week to give folks time to comment. -

Wolf Awareness Week

October 12th-18th is National Wolf Awareness Week. If you want more information check out this link: [[1]National Wolf Awareness Week]

Taxonomy

The article should describe the traditional division of dogs and wolves into different species, and why DNA testing has changed this, and whether the DNA testing (probably just mtDNA) is actually conclusive (compare Red Wolf).

Problem statement on interspecific breeding

This statement in the Interspecific Hybridization section is not supportable:

"Wolves and coyotes can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, a fact which calls into question their status as two separate species.[100]"

The notion that different species can't interbreed and produce fertile offspring is a popular misconception due to the mule. All sorts of different species like lions and tigers can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Even the camel and llama can interbreed. The primary issue is number of chromosomes, not degree of SNP divergence.

Wolf Howl

It would be awesome if someone could add a sound byte of the timber wolf howl. --24.119.32.80 (talk) 04:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh, its on the infobox below the picture..Mariomassone (talk) 09:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You can also find some howls on the wolfscience web page. http://www.wolfscience.at/english/support/donate.html, different ages of timber wolves. --Slartibertfass (talk) 00:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Wolf v. timber wolf

• The lede starts: "The grey wolf or gray wolf (Canis lupus), also known as the timber wolf or simply wolf,". Not all wolves are grey and not all are timber wolves. There is also the barren grounds wolf which lives on the Arctic tundra and tends to be white. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this a joke??

Under Dietary habits... "With prey of equal or lesser weight to the wolf, such as lambs or small children..." I had to read this sentence three or four times to be sure I wasn't imagining it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T3hgecko (talk • contribs) 08:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It is referenced. The one on children is accessible online and gives description on hunting patterns wolves display in India against small children.Mariomassone (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not a joke, it is political propaganda. One could easily list the same thing as the diet for humans, just because isolated cases exist of cannibalism. It should be removed and the user who added it disable from editing this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.47.107 (talk) 05:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see extensive discussion above under #Predation on humans, which showed conclusively that predation does occur or has occurred regularly in some areas. Not political, merely dispassionate, and in fact excluding this material would itself violate WP:NPOV. Richard New Forest (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Unproven facts

{{editsemiprotected}}

I've taken notice of a few times the word evolution is used. I don't mean to be a broken record, but there is absolutely no proof of evolution anywhere. I do not think I am wrong, but if you can show me one single proof of evolution being real then I will take back my complaint. Until then, this is wrong and should be edited. Say soemthing else like adaption or something, not evolution. I do not like being told facts that I'm pretty sure are not real.

There's also no proof of the the earth being 300,000 years old either, so that's another issue. If ya'll believe in evolution then that's fine, but make accurate accounts to go with it or wikipedia's is just a way of forcing another's opinion down one's throat.

Thank-you.

The proof that evolution is real is overwhelming. Also a majority of Catholics (who are Christians) believe in evolution.

In fact, most Catholics are Christians who believe that God designed the universe to evolve.

A majority of Catholics also believe that Genesis is metaphorical and not literal.

It is only in insecure and easily-threatened back-country Christian Churches that the concept of evolution is feared--

(Due actually to a weak faith, ignorance and lack of intellectual confidence.)

Some of these back-country Churches have spread to larger cities, but they retain their backwoods ignorance and superstitious fears of the modern world.

In fact-- There is no conflict between Christianity and believing in evolution. Whatsoever.

69.171.160.182 (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia does not attempt to determine truth, but to accurately reflect the positions of relevant reliable sources. So if reliable sources describing the Gray Wolf take evolution as a given, then so does the article. Wikipedia's three content policies (WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV and WP:OR) explain this concept in more detail. You might also be interested in The TalkOrigins Archive, which describes how the overwhelming majority of people knowledgable in natural history came to accept evolution by natural selection as the origin of biological diversity. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand the above reasoning, but could the wording be changed? Such as, "according to the theory of evolution" or something of that sort. Stating essentially the same thing without stating the truth of evolution as a fact. There are plenty of sources that could be found for several of the other origin theories. It is a choice of sources if you argue it that way. Thanks! PrincessofLlyr (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely no proof? What? If you don't want to debate, don't make such ridiculous claims.

Do you have a problem with any specific claims in this article, or just evolution in general? If the former, please list them; if the latter, why did you pick this article specifically?

See also Age of the Earth. There is proof, it's not an issue. Jlaire (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

So basically, you'd like to add creationist argument that states that wolves were once vegetarians?Mariomassone (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That is not what I said and I think you know that. While that is a part of the creationist belief, it has absolutely nothing to do with my request. I will not argue creation/evolution with you. My reasoning stands that evolution is only a theory as is creation, so it could be worded a little less strongly. Now, are you looking for a fight, or are you going to do something productive about it? PrincessofLlyr (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Evolution is a fact, not "only a theory". And creation is obviously not a theory. Again, if there are some specific strong statements with no sufficient evidence in the article, just list them. Jlaire (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you implying that there are other peer reviewed explanations to the wolf's origins? Please enlighten me. I am a carnivora fanatic myself, and as far as I've seen, no book on the subject ever talks about wolves being designed or anything other than having evolved.Mariomassone (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I apologise if I seemed confrontational. However, I think it would be beneficial if you read the article on Italian Wall Lizard. This is a species which has been well documented to evolve rapidly in recent years.Mariomassone (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that they test how much the carbon has degraded in the soil to see how old something is. IceBlade710 (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was Moved.
— V = I * R (talk) 06:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

---

• Gray Wolf → Gray wolf — As per MoS. — SlamDiego_←T 10:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Done, per MoS.  Skomorokh  13:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This should not have been moved. Every other Wolf article I'm aware of has Wolf capitalized (eg, Iberian Wolf, Italian Wolf). Article on plants and animals often have both words capitalized. See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mammals#Capitalization. In short, Grey Wolf is how it was, so that's how it should have stayed. Gimmetrow 02:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Eh? Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna): "In general, common (vernacular) names of flora and fauna should be written in lower case" --Cybercobra (talk) 05:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That's "in general". It also says "each WikiProject can decide on its own rules for capitalisation". Gimmetrow 14:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Mammal WikiProject section you cite doesn't support your proposal either. Could you please cite something that does? --Cybercobra (talk) 03:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

What part doesn't? Until a month ago, all Wolf articles had all words capitalized - which is a pretty good indication that's how the project wanted it. This is now the exception to the established pattern. It should not have been changed. See also Talk:Gray_Wolf/Archive_3#Capitalization_issues. Gimmetrow 05:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"The issue of the capitalization of the common names of mammal species is unresolved on Wikipedia and our pages are inconsistent. A large majority of reliable sources do not capitalize and thus there is a strong descriptive argument against doing so. Additionally, species names are common nouns, so capitalizing them goes against the normative use of upper case in formal English prose." --Cybercobra (talk) 05:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Respect the original or primary authors (from WP:MAMMAL) and All Wolf-related articles use capitalization for the entire name, so it should be kept there unless the standard changes as a whole (from this article archives). Gimmetrow 05:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(dedent) Well, you can of course propose to move it right back then. I will however just note that the first quote was prefixed with "In the absence of consensus:" (not that the recent move had sufficient input to solidly determine it); and also that consensus can change; so it's not entirely automatic. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wolf articles consistently capitalize Wolf in the title. That's enough of an argument. Do you agree to stand aside? Gimmetrow 13:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This move was incorrect and the article should be moved back. Please see Wikipedia:FA#Biology, with such entries as Giant Otter, Killer Whale, Fin Whale, and all of the birds. This capitalization has long been standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Despite the traditional monthly reignition of the argument, the only consensus regarding whether to capitalise mammal articles or not has been that they should not move from the title given by the original or main author. Somebody move it back and then anybody interested can adjourn to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mammals#Capitalization, be handed a link to the reams of previous discussion, and spiral around in ever-decreasing circles accompanied by the faint background noise of the articles slowly crumbling. Yomangani^talk 15:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

(headdesk x 8). My preceding person right above me summed it up..Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

My main problem is that this seems pretty ad-hoc; this convention doesn't seem to be clearly documented anywhere. At best, we're indirectly interpolating/inferring that there's a rule; and even then, there seem to be a few exceptions looking at the FA list. Meanwhile the general MoS guidance is fairly clear. I won't oppose, I'm just saying the "move it back" argument isn't slam-dunk. The naming conventions should be modified to codify this. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I also think this should be reverted back as non-consensus. I'd do it myself but the whole thing needs to be gone through as the body was lower case while the title was upper case.

I edited the WP:MAM wording to better frame the common/proper noun debate. The whole point is not everyone agrees. As one writer put it: "To me a Lincoln's Sparrow is just as much a particular thing [proper noun] as a Lincoln Continental."[2] Hence the debate. Marskell (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Since Cyber doesn't seem to be objecting to a re-move, I've moved it. Gimmetrow 14:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is the conservation status "least concern"?

I have read some websites speaking about the grey wolf, and I highly am doubting about the conservation status.

First off, it seems impossible, because there aren't alot of wolf populations in Europe or in North America (Only in certain parts of Canada and mainly alaska or montana). In addition, many claim that the wolf should be of great concern because their population continues to drop from excessive hunting.

And what websites would those be? The Least Concern status is given by the IUCN.

"..there aren't alot of wolf populations in Europe.."

Whoah, you can stop right there. See the article List of grey wolf populations by country.

Portugal has a stable wolf population of 200-300 which is afforded full protection

Spain's wolf population is estimated at 2000 and growing

In Italy, wolves are a protected species, with current estimates indicating that there are 500-800 wolves living in the wild

Wolves migrated from Italy to France as recently as 1992, and the current French wolf population is said to be composed of 40-50 individuals and growing

Currently, there are around 35 wolves in 4 packs now roaming the heaths of the eastern German region of Lusatia, and they are now still expanding their range to the west and north

The number of wolves in Switzerland is uncertain, having been guessed at 1-2 individuals. Wolves are afforded protection

Scandinavia has a population of over 200 wolves

Finland has a stable population of 116-123 wolves

Poland has an increasing population of 700-800 wolves which are afforded legal protection except in the Bieszczady Mountains

Estonia has a quite stable wolf population of around 200

Lithuania has over 600 wolves which are increasing in number. The species is not protected

Latvia has an unprotected, yet stable population of 900 wolves

Belarus is home to an increasing population of 2,000-2,500 wolves

Ukraine has an unprotected, yet stable population of 2,000 wolves

The Czech Republic has a stable and protected population of 20 wolves

Slovakia has a stable population of 350-400 wolves which is protected, though with some exceptions

Slovenia has a population of 70-100 wolves and increasing. As of 1991, they are a protected species

Croatia has a population of 100-150 wolves and increasing

Bosnia and Herzegovina is thought to have a population of 400 wolves, though they are decreasing in number and are afforded no legal protection

The former State Union of Serbia and Montenegro has a stable population of 500 wolves, though it is unknown if they are afforded any protection

Hungary has a stable population of 50 wolves which are protected

Romania has an increasing population of 2,500 wolves which are granted legal protection

Bulgaria has a stable population of 800-1,000 unprotected wolves

Greece has a stable population of 200-300 wolves which are legally protected

The Republic of Macedonia has an increasing, yet unprotected population of 1,000 wolves

Albania has a protected population of 250 wolves which are increasing in number

Turkey has an unknown number of wolves thought to be as high as 1,000

Russia: 25,000-30,000, and are increasing

So basically, if you are pessimistic about the presented numbers and pick the minimum figures, the number still adds up to 41,732 wolves. It has been proven that 300 wolves are needed to maintain a good genepool (remember that wolves have no concept of political boundraries, and regularly cross nations to breed with other populations). The current population (if the minimum figure is accepted) is nearly 140 times greater than that. Mariomassone (talk) 13:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if you remove Russia, the number (16,732) is still ideal.Mariomassone (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Gray Wolves

I am a student at High Tech High, and I was wondering why this page was locked. I am doing a project about the Gray Wolf Page. I have some information that I would like to share with this article. I would like to add information about how Canines are related and in most places of America, they are endangered. While in others, they are threatened. This is information I gathered from the U.S Fish & Wildlife Service Environmental Conservation Online System. The website is http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A00D I hope that I will be able to make changes to this page. Please consider the changes I wish to make. I will not copyright this information, I will simply put it into my own words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icekingman (talk • contribs) 16:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Icekingman, and thanks for your interest. The article is locked (technically, semi-protected) because it has a history of being vandalised. Template:Editsemiprotected describes one way you can suggest changes to this article. Though if your information is about canines in general, you might consider whether Canidae would be a better article to edit, if the information is not there already.

Good luck with your project, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Science

There is a brand news article published by the wolfscience center: "Explaining Dog Wolf Differences in Utilizing Human Pointing Gestures: Selection for Synergistic Shifts in the Development of Some Social Skills" see also http://www.wolfscience.at/english/research/blog/05September2009/ -- Slartibertfass (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Slartibertfass! Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Adrian J. Hunter. Shall we add Explaining Dog Wolf Differences in Utilizing Human Pointing Gestures: Selection for Synergistic Shifts in the Development of Some Social Skills -- Slartibertfass (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Gray Wolf and Timber wolf

Gray Wolf article related question at Talk:Timber Wolf. --EarthFurst (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)