User talk:BhagyaMani/Archive 7

Merger discussion for Tigers of Chowgarh[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Tigers of Chowgarh —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. WikiWisePowder (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting my edits[edit]

Hello BhagyaMani. I saw that you removed the Taxonomy sections from two cat articles that I had expanded. Please understand that this section is not duplication. It is a well and proper recommended part of the articles dealing with birds and animals. See any mammal GA or FA. Please use Twinkle carefully. Thanks, Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 03:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caspian tiger[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you removed some of my references in the article Caspian tiger as being 'superfluous', and I now think that some of them were unnecessary, but otherwise, I would like some of those containing measurements, like of Barbary lions reportedly weighing up to 272 kg (600 pounds) or more, and of a lion weighing 313 kg (690 lb) and another measuring nearly 3.6 m (12 ft) to have been there. Regards, Leo1pard (talk) 03:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colocolo[edit]

Please beware that your recent series of edits in colocolo has left the article with some serious problems. There were warnings about the conflicting taxonomies in the taxobox, but you removed them without solving the issues. We now have:

Colocolo: Articles English name relies on taxonomy of MSW3 and related sources = Leopardus colocolo sensu stricto (the English name "colocolo" is generally only used to cover this narrow species definition; the articles lead already mentions this).
- Lead: Uses taxonomy of MSW3 and related sources.
- Taxobox: Uses both taxonomy of MSW3 and related sources (name, map and synonyms), and IUCN taxonomy (IUCN rating). IUCN taxonomy = Leopardus colocolo sensu lato (i.e., colocolo+braccatus+pajeros).
- "Characteristics" (called "Description and habitat" prior to your edits): Uses MSW3 and related sources.
- "Distribution and habitat": Uses IUCN taxonomy (unsurprisingly, the Sechura population is pajeros using taxonomies of MSW3 and related sources).
- "Ecology and behavior": Uses taxonomy of MSW3 and related sources.
- "Status": Primarily using taxonomy of MSW3 and related sources.
Pampas cat (all sections): Uses taxonomy of MSW3 and related sources.
Pantanal cat (all sections): Uses taxonomy of MSW3 and related sources.

So, we now have a colocolo article that manages to contradict both itself, and two other articles. I don't have a preference for either taxonomy, but the only real possibilities without getting the contradictions are: 1) Revert colocolo back to taxonomy of MSW3 and related sources, or 2) Change all sections (as well as related articles) to IUCN taxonomy. It is perhaps worth noting that IUCN have used the "default" taxonomy for a long time pending a larger review that hopefully will be finished at some point (as described in the "Taxonomic Notes" section of IUCN's colocolo page). I say "hopefully" because they first announced this review several years ago and we still haven't seen anything. 62.107.214.132 (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. Yes, I'm aware of the unresolved taxonomic status of the pampas cat group, and also that usually MSW3 is referenced re taxonomy. I have an article by Garcia-Olaechea et al. (2011), in which they use colocolo for pampas cats recorded in the Sechura area; and another one dating to 2013, in which he and co-authors use pajero for pampas cats recorded in northern Peru. In the recent article, Garcia-Olaechea uses colocolo again in consistency with the IUCN reassessment of 2014. Therefore, i decided to add these recent records under colocolo.
You certainly noticed that the range map shown in Colocolo is almost the same as in Pampas cat, i.e. overlapping, and that in latter article IUCN assessment for colocolo is referenced. So these conflicts are older than my recent edits. I suggest to go for your option 2), also because apart from IUCN assessors most authors of post-2000 articles use colocolo for pampas cat. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Btw see Cossíos et al. (2009), who subordinate pajeros, thomasi and others as subspecies to L. colocolo based on analysis of mitochondrial and nuclear genomes. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I am aware of the various recent scientific articles, but this does not change anything in regards of the current wiki article contradictions. Perhaps I did not explain myself clearly enough. The maps in the articles are not contradictory, as the map in the colocolo article clearly mentions that it is combined for all three. The range of the colocolo sensu stricto is completely different from pajero. The current map in colocolo clearly highlights that its map is a combination of all three taxa in the complex (colocolo sensu lato = colocolo+pajeros+braccatus; hereafter sL). Not colocolo alone (colocolo sensu stricto; hereafter sS). Basically:

Using taxonomy of MSW3 and related sources where there are three separate species:
- Colocolo (L. colocolo)(sS) = Only on the West Andean slopes in central and northern Chile. Nowhere else.
- Pampas cat (L. pajeros) = Widespread along the Andes going into the lowlands of Patagonia (the map in its article is approximately right). This includes the Sechura Desert, which essentially is an expansion of the North Peruvian arid Andean highlands. As also mentioned in García-Olaechea et al 2013, the exact taxon in Peru, including Sechura, is garleppi (→Pampas cat#Subspecies).
- Pantanal cat (L. braccatus) = Cerrado, Pantanal and adjacent lowland systems.
Using taxonomy of IUCN where there only is a single species:
- Pampas cat (L. colocolo)(sL) = combined range of the three above (the map in colocolo article shows this approximately).

Just to highlight the main problems and contradictions after the recent edits to colocolo:

The name English name colocolo is not used to cover the sL. It is incorrect to refer to those outside Chile using the English name colocolo, but it is correct to use the scientific name P. colocolo for all if using IUCN taxonomy. Unsurprisingly the discrepancy between the English name colocolo and the scientific name colocolo often causes confusion (already mentioned in lead).
The IUCN rating is for sL; it covers a much broader species that is far more widespread than sS. The distinct differences between the two is already explained in the articles "Status" section (a similar problem can be seen in these edits to Pampas cat).
The synonyms listed in the taxobox are only those for sS.
The range and habitat in the lead and "Characteristics" section are sS. The range and habitat you added in "Distribution and habitat" are sL.

As I said in my previous comment, I have no preference for either taxonomic treatment, but the current contradictory mixing in the article(s) is not viable. If using IUCN, the following changes are necessary:

Articles for colocolo, Pampas cat and Pantanal cat merged.

The English name in use, incl. article name, should be Pampas cat with remaining names redirected. Pampas cat is the English name used for sL (as also noted by IUCN itself and in the Sechura Desert report you added).
The synonyms list should be expanded to cover the specific pajeros and braccatus entities.
The range in the lead should be changed to sL. A similar change is necessary in "Characteristics", which also should be expanded to cover the various additional taxa of the complex (these and these).
The various other sections should be merged with relevant sections from the (current) three separate articles.

Since you initiated this by making changes to a few sections, I'll leave it to you to resolve this.
The problem with Cossíos et al. 2009 is that they did not sequence any L. colocolo sensu stricto or Chilean specimens (their own sequences in the so-called "Northern Chile" clade are from Tacna/Puno [Peru], Potosi [Bolivia], Jujuy [Argentina] and Catamarca/Salta [Argentina]). Their study was also the basis for taxonomic claims in Macdonald & Loveridge, eds, 2010. To say that subspecies-X belongs under L. colocolo we obviously have to include the type species! The only published sequences of colocolo/wolffsohni and Chilean specimens are Napolitano et al 2008 (wolffsohni) and Johnson et al 1998 (colocolo and wolffsohni), and these are copied by Cossíos et al. 2009. However, the problem with Napolitano et al 2008 and Johnson et al 1998 is that their sequences were relatively short (few base pairs) and only consisted of mtDNA. This make them very vulnerable to introgression; asymmetric gene flow is likely when having a small population colocolo meeting a large population pajeros. It's one of the main reasons these results have been questioned by later authors. Additionally, even the basic division into species by Cossíos et al. 2009 can be questioned. They did not include standard nDNA, but relied on microsatellites, which have many of the same problems as mtDNA in species delimitation. It was already known that colour/pattern of wolffsohni is near-identical to some pajeros (→Colocolo#Characteristics) and genetics appear to associate it with pajeros (→Colocolo#Species and subspecies). This can be interpreted in two ways: 1) There are several species but wolffsohni belongs under pajeros instead of colocolo; or 2) All should be merged into a single species. It is impossible to say which of these is correct without good samples of L. c. colocolo and even this basic assumption is only valid if the short mtDNA wolffsohni sequences are representative. 62.107.214.132 (talk) 02:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of initiating to resolve this by 1st placing our discussion on the talk pages of the 3 relevant articles?? That way other editors have a chance to join in. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IUCN template[edit]

Hi there, just a note - I saw you replaced my journal cite of the IUCN data at Angolan genet with the IUCN template. I wonder if you have had a look at Template:IUCN recently? There seems to be an issue with IUCN happily swapping around ID numbers between assessment versions, which is why the current recommendation is to not use the template, but rather cite as a journal article with URL link and/or doi. It's probably a good idea to follow that currently (I know I still stumble over 2011 or earlier templates that now redirect to some random species, or are dead). Cheers!-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I always check at the resp. IUCN website that ID nos. are correct. However thanks for the note. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that there appears to be no guarantee that the ID will remain correct in the next update; so to avoid ID links breaking, a link to URL and/or doi is suggested instead. Just future-proofing, I guess.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry : the next reassessment will not happen in the next couple of 4-5 years. For most species, at least the small carns, the last dated 2008 and have been updated in 2015 or spring this year. --BhagyaMani (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

btw: the ID is changed only in case it referred to a subspecies that is re-assessed under the species, e.g. ID for Sri Lankan leopard is obsolete now. hence such changes happen very rarely. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's incorrect. Have a look at Template_talk:IUCN; lots of IDs went broke in 2011, with no connection to whether the species was reassessed or not. This has to do with IUCN website database development, not case reassessment. And even if it only happens again in 5 years, I don't see a reason in creating extra work coming due at that point. - I'm sure you are free to ignore the request at the template page (although I don't see why you would), but then I would ask you not to counteract those editors who try to edit with that request in mind. Cheers -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice that the urls in the cite journal template refer to the same IDs than in the IUCN template? E.g. url=http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/41696 refers to same address than id=41696. Both are 41696. So if an ID goes broke on the iucnredlist website then you would anyway have to also replace the url, obviously! Did something like this happen ever since 2011? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The url provided in the "citation" paragraph at the bottom of the IUCN pages is DOI-based and does not use the ID. Admittedly, as noted on the template page, DOI's have their own set of problems. And no, things don't seem to have broken on a large scale since 2011. I still think it's a good idea to safeguard against it as far as possible.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tried the DOI link for one species, and it referred to the same ID url. So I assume this is not any different for others. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it refers to the same page - there is only one for each species. The point of the DOI is that it does not do so via the ID reference, but via a fixed link to a unique instantiation of the page (check the syntax of the DOI link) - thus if the ID is reassigned, this reference will still point to the correct content. - Look, I can see you are unwilling to give up your nice quick template. But there is no mileage in replacing existing journal ref versions with it, and some benefit in having the latter. So please just refrain from that kind of substitution, and we can each go on curating these articles :) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not MY template. I've only been using it for some 6 years now. It must have been available for much longer than this. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asiatic lion article[edit]

I see you edited the Asiatic lion article, here are some cool things about the asiatic lion, maybe some could be featured on the topic: https://www.quora.com/What-do-the-top-contributors-of-Quora-think-about-the-asiatic-lions-history-in-India/answer/Sudip-Mitra-8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vetato (talk • contribs) 22:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, i have worked on this article since 2012, and have always preferred to rely on peer-reviewed articles!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool, that source does have peer review content, maybe you should review them and add some content to the asiatic lion article, since the entire page seems lacking in indian history, if the asiatic lion was in india for 2,000 years, surely more information should be confounded. Perhaps you should broaden the community to expert, historians, biologist ect to help gain more references to improve the page. Interestingly lions of india have managed to kill several tigers in indias historic records, which is funny because popular belief has alot of people saying the tiger is the superior, I also think peer review is good, but it doesn't stand above empirical evidence nor tangible proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vetato (talk • contribs) 22:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that you did not yet read the section titled Former range? See in particular the 4th paragraph. I think that this info summarizes very well what is known about historic records : whoever wants to know more, can easily follow the referenced sources to all the lions having been killed by Indian and expat hunters. Whether a lion ever killed a tiger or vice versa is not relevant in the context of this article. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I've shown have mentioned some of the former ranges and even some that is not on here: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=3918317 And relevance? Its about the Asiatic lion, regardless, it has everything to do with its ecological back ground, via its competition, if the african lions page has mentioning of hyena in a lot of cites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion I don't see why the tiger can't be mentioned for the Asiatic lions competition. What you can find on any Asiatic lion blog, you can find here, Wikipedia should be extending better sources.. (comment added by Vetato)

As already mentioned above, I will not add any info from 2nd or 3rd hand web sources to this article. Name me a peer-reviewed source, and I'll read it. Please SIGN your POSTS!!!! -- BhagyaMani 08:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

lol Wikipedia is a second and 3rd hand website itself, wikipedia is just a platform, its what it cites for its references that matters, its hilarious you would call them a second hand source when majority of the people cited in that link, has already made in bios of them, like sankhala: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kailash_Sankhala It was he who mentioned a asiatic lion killing a tiger. Don't pretend you are the admin here, you do not own this web site and can demand only a pro-vision of it, if you dont wanna read it, fine, dont wanna grow the page, fine, but don't disallow others if they wanna do so. and at this point with your lack of cooperation and you own this page attitude, I don't wanna help aid this page, so don't add it in, it doesn't matter to me, keep the world ignorant, and with views of your bias agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vetato (talk • contribs) 05:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It matters indeed which sources are cited by the many people who contributed to this article. For discussing its content also with other contributors, see Talk:Asiatic lion. Also, have a look at this helpful page about how to sign posts. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Comprise"[edit]

Yes, I have also noticed (and waged war against) the rampant misuse of the verb "comprise." However, in your edit of my corrective edit to Viverridae, you substituted "consists of" for "comprise." Just a fyi that it is, in fact, possible to use the word correctly. No need to extirpate it from Wikipedia.--Quisqualis (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oriental small-clawed otter[edit]

User:Yoxon has been trying to promote their own book for years, using multiple IP's and even a few accounts. For example, Here's the latest IP just from today. To give you an idea how bad this is, take a glance at the history of Neotropical otter. Nearly every edit to that article since 2014 has been Yoxon attempting to self-promote. I'm surprised a long-term abuse case hasn't been created yet. Please be careful not to restore their spam again. Sro23 (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ok. tell me : what's so bad about promoting a book? have a look at a random article about cats, and you see Sunquist and Sunquist (2002) all over. what's the difference between promoting a book about cats and one about otters? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The book is respectable, but that editor very aggressively promotes http://www.otter.org, an international charity, but with too many adverts on their front page (e.g. Visit the Otter Shop on top). They did that very persistently from the start - switching IPs/accounts within minutes to use different IP/accounts for different otter pages (sometimes this happens due to the internet provider, but this is also a common strategy of experienced spammers, and there were clear technical signs that the former is not the case here). I've tried to communicate with the editor at the early stages, but had no response. So unfortunately I've ended up reverting/blocking on sight - after all, even adding a loose external link to a book is not really helpful. Materialscientist (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the fact that this kind of shameless self-promotion Yoxon has been constantly engaging in is exactly what wikipedia is not (e.g. WP:NOTPROMO, WP:COI). If you write a book and it's truly a solid, reliable source suitable for Wiki, then you shouldn't feel the need to spam it yourself. Other people, independent from you, who have read it and seen it is good will use it as a reference or add it as an external link (kind of like how you shouldn't have create an article about yourself if you truly are a notable individual, others will do it for you). Sro23 (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. well, if the sale of this book contributes to financing otter conservation projects through this charity, isn't that sth. worthwhile supporting? Finding money for in situ conservation is quite difficult. Please don't get me wrong: i neither care for this book nor whether it is listed as further reading or not. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I have no idea how legitimate the IOSF is. Regardless, I would think WP:PLUG applies even for charities. Increasing knowledge should be the main goal, not promotion...even when it's promoting a noble cause. There are other places on the internet where this is appropriate, but this person will not stop pushing their refspam on Wikipedia where it really doesn't belong. Sro23 (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

that's a point! thanks for the discussion. BhagyaMani (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How come those other guys are reliable, but not that guy?[edit]

Hi, how come guys like Pocock, Haas, Heptner and Sludskii are reliable, but not Doctor Norman ‘Ali Bassam ‘Ali Taher Khalaf-von Jaffa? Leo1pard (talk) 05:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or is it particular sections in that article that were incorrect, at least partially? In that case, I would mention it as a particular guy, like Abi ‘Othman ‘Amr ibn Bahar Al-Basri Al-Jahez saying a particular thing, not that this is necessarily correct, that is what I would do with information here, like I would not merely write that Siberian tigers are the largest tigers, or that Barbary lions are the biggest lions, but quote who said that, or mention that it was considered to be so, besides putting in a reference. On average, in the wild, Bengal tigers are reportedly heavier than Siberian tigers, so that would be a weakness of the the view that the Siberian tiger is the biggest tiger and cat, and measurements suggest that Barbary lions were not the largest lions, so that would be a weakness of the concept that the Barbary lion is the biggest lion, do you see that I mean? Leo1pard (talk) 05:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marbled Cat[edit]

I notice that you have reverted the edit I recently made to Marbled Cat. I do not understand this action. As it originally stood, and now stands, the sentence in the opening paragraph is wrong. The assessment of NT is not due to low densities - that is how the assessment of Vu was arrived at. Further studies have indicated that this claim is unsupportable. Further, if an explanation is required for how the assessment is reached it should be representative of the actuality, and as such cannot be done briefly, and thus not in the opening paragraph. Finally, your explanation of the removal of my text of the conservation area namely "IUCN Red Listing is not related to conservation efforts" is bizarre - to assist in conservation efforts is exactly what the purpose of the red listing is for, why do you think that there is a red listing? Kindly undo your reversion or amend the text appropriately.Jameel the Saluki (talk) 16:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look again at the sentence: I did not revert to the former argument "NT because of" but only to "NT..., and is suspected ..." . Red listing is not supposed to "assist in conservation", but is a status assessment. No species has been saved through such kind of assessments. --BhagyaMani (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence is constructed in such a manner as to imply that the low densities have in some way contributed to the NT assessment. In any case the text in the IUCN assessment does not claim that it is low densities it states "There are no published estimates of population density for the Marbled Cat, however, across its range, density probably varies considerably, but given the large range (currently estimated at roughly 1,500,000 km²) the population density needs to be below one individual per 100 km² to qualify for Vulnerable under criterion C (fewer than 10,000 mature individuals), this seems implausible in several areas.", and so the sentence is wrong. I also repeat that if there is going to be any apparent clarification about how the assessment was arrived at it should be representative, which that sentence is not, and thus it cannot be done in this case in the opening paragraph. In terms of your claim that "No species has been saved through such kind of assessments." you are wrong, it is how every species has been saved in the past 50 years. Conservation requires focused financing, usually through government resources. It is only through such assessments that government funding is forthcoming. First sentence in IUCN red list is "The IUCN Global Species Programme working with the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) has been assessing the conservation status of species, subspecies, varieties, and even selected subpopulations on a global scale for the past 50 years in order to highlight taxa threatened with extinction, and thereby promote their conservation. ". CITES, which is included in the paragraph, is an organisation set up by the IUCN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameel the Saluki (talk • contribs) 16:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have also now changed felids to cat species (marking it as minor when it isn't), when the original wording is more appropriate. 'Cat' is to vague for the context (what is the definition of cat here?), and wikilinking species seems excessive. Also 'big cats' is a term only applied unscientifically to modern species, it is not appropriate to use it to describe the pantherinae family - note also that the clouded leopards are not described as big cats, but are in the pantherinae family, and would have been thought to be closer relatives of the marbled cat, so if you are claiming that it was thought that they were thought more closely related to lions I think that you will find that you are wrong, and it is unlikely to be supported by the reference supplied. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 16:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jameel the Saluki (talk) 16:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you've made another change to the sentence. You've just swapped bits around, it still reads exactly the same way, and is still wrong. Please, it needs a complete rewrite, not just a little fiddle. Also ignore my comments about 'big cats' - you had correctly removed those words.Jameel the Saluki (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

re your Cheyne and MacDonald reference. I'm not touching it, but I am at a loss as to why, out of all of the references supplied in the red list article, you chose to add that one. It doesn't appear to be a particularly helpful contribution, and whilst it may be the precursor to a more thorough editing of the section, currently it stands out disjointly. So what was the reason for this reference addition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameel the Saluki (talk • contribs) 11:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prior refs mention a different habitat association than this one. Therefore I consider it worthwhile to add the peat swamp forest. --BhagyaMani (talk) 13:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Predatory journals[edit]

The source I removed is a predatory open access journal. It is not a reliable source. If you want to include the text based on it, then you can either reintroduce the text with {{cn}} or you can find another source. I remove hundreds of these citations, while it would be lovely if I did have time to find replacement sources, it is not practical,and many of the statements are tendentious anyway, so the consensus is that I should remove any statements sourced solely to predatory journals, along with the source itself. Guy (Help!) 14:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @JzG: I very well understood your reason for removing this ref. Since there is no other reliable peer-reviewed source for the statement, I remove it altogether; this has anyway been ref'ed with so many newspaper articles, which btw may not be any more reliable. --BhagyaMani (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your latest edit and I agree. I really don't know if that section belongs at all. Guy (Help!) 16:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that this section doesn't belong there, but if deleted, someone may come up and repost these claims. I'd rather shorten it. --BhagyaMani (talk) 16:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of Indian Gray/Grey Mongoose[edit]

I think it is important that the spelling of gray/grey is consistent throughout the Indian Gray Mongoose article. Prior to your most recent edit, excepting the title, all of the spelling was grey. You have now changed that so that it is gray in the first part of the article and grey and in second. I had been putting off fixing this issue, but put it off no longer can I do. The sources aren't particularly helpful, each being parochial. The two most commonly authorative references used in Wikipedia also contradict. IUCN uses grey [1], Mammal Species of the World uses gray [2]. Further complicating matters is that the species exists in many countries, each with there own preference for spelling. The template for the article to be spelt using Indian English was put in on 22 June 2016, by Filpro, who is Indian, so naturally there is some bias. The title was gray from the point of creation in 2006 and doesn't seem to have been changed. That all of the spellings other than the title have become grey may be an indication of general editor preference, but I haven't been through all of the edits to check this hypothesis. If it is assumed that Indian English is the appropriate spelling format then the next question is which spelling is correct. From my own knowledge grey (being English) was the original preferred spelling, but that there has been an increase in the use of gray, with no official preference for either. I could not find any official Indian English spelling guide on line, so I chose The Times of India as a guide to what might be the spelling considered most appropriate. Searching the online articles both gray and grey are used, but grey is used in the more articles and gray in the more popular, mass appeal formats. Searching on mongoose, there is a definite preference for grey over gray - compare 'grey mongoose site:timesofindia.indiatimes.com/' with 'gray mongoose site:timesofindia.indiatimes.com/'. Added to this the original spelling in India and elsewhere in Asia and as spelled by the English was grey. On the balance of evidence my recommendation is that the entire article have the spelling changed to 'grey', and that should be enforced until evidence is forthcoming at some future stage that the alternate spelling is more appropriate.Jameel the Saluki (talk) 12:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree that spelling should be consistent. Since the spelling in title is gray, this should either be used throughout, or change the spelling in title. --BhagyaMani (talk) 13:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checked a few historical sources : Sterndale used 'grey', so did Ellerman and Morrison-Scott; Pocock used neither (smart). Since also Red List assessors use 'grey', and several other contemporary sources, I opt for changing the title. Which one journalists use, does not matter here at all. --BhagyaMani (talk) 13:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your conclusion, but not your line of reasoning. As I mentioned, the sources (and I did go through quite a number) are, from what I could find, are entirely parochial. For example Sterndale is 19th C English, thus it would be unimaginable if the spelling were anything other than 'grey'. I don't know your other sources, but the species is also known as the common indian mongoose, and this is not so that the spelling conflict is avoided, so that may be why Pocock did not use grey or gray. Scientific sources only require that the binomial nomenclature have official spelling for international use, whereas the common names are intended for local usage, thus common names should, in Wikipedia, reflect the local usage of the name, more so than how the common name is spelled in scientific literature. The scientific literature can be used as an indication of local spelling. Spelling by journalists is in my opinion, a much more valid method of determining the local spelling of a creature, and thus does matter. In any case I will change all spellings to grey. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IUCN version number[edit]

I noticed that in the recent IUCN reference updates you have been putting 2106.2 as your version number. My understanding was that the version number was the one mentioned in the citation at the bottom of the IUCN webpage. For example the Sambar Deer should be version 2015 not 2016.2, where the citation on the IUCN webpage is Timmins, R., Kawanishi, K., Giman, B, Lynam, A., Chan, B., Steinmetz, R., Sagar Baral, H. & Samba Kumar, N. 2015. Rusa unicolor. (errata version published in 2015) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T41790A85628124. It is the last 2015 which is the version number - which I have put in bold. This interpretation matches the Wikipedia IUCN template documentation. How are you getting 2016.2? Jameel the Saluki (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just have a look yourself at the resp. web addresses of assessments ? The actual version no. is displayed on top of pages. Version no. is NOT equal to the year of publication. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking at the web addresses of assessments, the citation I'm talking about is at the bottom. The number on top of the pages is not the version number of the assessment, it is the version of the latest release, and currently its 2016.3 now not 2016.2. And clearly Version no. is NOT equal to the year of publication, that's why it's listed in a different spot in the citation. If you are using the one at the top of the page it's going to change multiple times a year with no change whatsoever in the text, or even review of the text by IUCN in the intervening period. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 13:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, you got it: Sambar deer red list published in 2015, current version no. 2016-3. --BhagyaMani (talk) 13:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

that is the current version of the entire IUCN database, it is not the current version of the Sambar deer red list. Otherwise if what you said is true, every time the IUCN updates its database Wikipedia would have to update every single IUCN reference. Further, there would be no use for any of the templates that have been generated. For example Template:IUCN2015.4 is a template for articles published for version 2015.1. According to your reading their are no such articles as every page in IUCN currently is headed with 2016-3. Can you not see that must be the incorrect interpretation. Added to this the version number is incorporated permanently into the IUCN webpage until such time that it is updated. For example the indian civet page [[3]] includes the version number 2015-4 in the citation (sorry it's in the DOI part) Choudhury, A., Duckworth, J.W., Timmins, R., Chutipong, W., Willcox, D.H.A., Rahman, H., Ghimirey, Y. & Mudappa, D. 2015. Viverricula indica. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T41710A45220632. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T41710A45220632.en. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Red List[edit]

Tell me: which species has been saved after having been assessed for the Red List since 1994? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At random I picked the Sumatran rhinoceros. It is hard to know which species exactly would have gone extinct in that time period if not for the work of various agencies including the IUCN, the the Sumatran rhino is probably a reasonable guess. How does the red list fit into this? It provides the malaysian and indonesian governments with feedback on how the conservation efforts are going. It is part of the overall scientific investigation that allows governments to understand where efforts are succeeding and failing. You may argue that much of what happened would have happened without the red list, bu that is irrelevant. No single act is responsible for the saving of a species, it is the combined efforts of many people and organisations that allows this to happen, and the political lobbying carried out by the IUCN and similar organisations is a vital cog in getting governments to spend money and enact legislation, particularly in countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia which do not have a ground swell of local political environmental support. In any case all of this is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not any expansion of the reasoning behind an IUCN rating belongs in a conservation section. The stated aim of the IUCN red list, and the only point of it, is to assist in the political lobbying of government and international organisations for the funding of conservation efforts. Whether or not you or I think that that is effective or not is irrelevant to the heading under which a discussion of that lies within an article. Of interest, if your argument for not including the IUCN red list in the conservation section of an article is its ineffectiveness, then why do you think it appropriate to put it in the opening paragraph? Further, you still haven't answered my question - what do you think the red list is for? In other words, if it were put in a lower section, where would it be put?

With regards the specific matter of the sentence in question. You have still got the offending line in of first paragraph - namely "but at low densities". This is unsupported by the IUCN reference, and no other reference is given. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 11:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re your question: "what do you think the red list is for?" : as written above, its purpose is to assess status, and I'd like to add globally, since national status differs for many species. Your choice of Sumatran rhino is a good example for the relation between status and conservation : it has been listed as Critically Endangered already for 20 years, and prior to this assessment was considered Endangered! Given that the assessment criteria were amended in the 90s, this may have been a reason for the change of status. But nevertheless : the continuous listing as CR until 2008 did NOT have any effect on its conservation, i.e. principal threats have not been mitigated in all these years, neither by I/NGOs such as IUCN nor by governmental orgs. --BhagyaMani (talk) 13:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I realise we are starting to move away from the topic in question, but I will continue nonetheless. Firstly, how can you possibly say that the listing has had no effect on its conservation? Are you saying that there has been no conservation changes or efforts at all in the last 50 years? (I am using the time frame of 50 years, because it is in that time that status assessments first started in earnest, of which the IUCN red list is now also one) Not setting up of national parks or patrolling of them, or the prohibition on trade, or the limitation and control of burning of fires, or stopping local deforestation, or the eg:[[4]]? Or are you saying that these efforts would have happened anyway not dependent on any research done into what threats exist and how endangered the species is? If so on what basis do you make this claim? It certainly is not what the IUCN is claiming, and the WWF webpage is using the fact the the species is critically endangered as a motivation for action - surely that web page alone is an indication that the assessments are be used for conservation efforts? Next, as I said before, even if such efforts are completely ineffective, they are being done with the sole purpose of assisting in the conservation of species, and as such most definitely fall under the banner of conservation. Which leads to a further repeat of the question of "what do you think the red list is for?". Let me reword it - what do you think the purpose of the assessment is? (assessment is not what the red list is for, assessment is what the red list is). Next, perhaps you are differentiating the government assessments from the IUCN assessment, claiming that the government ones are effective whilst the IUCN are not. But the members of the panels of the IUCN are advisors to government panels also, they all talk to each other. So no such differentiation is possible. Next, the IUCN red list assessment involves collating information into one area, including threats, etc. Thus the final Vu category is merely a quick grab on all of the underlying review work done. It is the underlying work that is more important, not just the number at the end, but the two are indivisible. Finally, let me refute the argument style with which you are using to claim ineffectuality of conservation efforts. I repeat that on a species by species basis it is difficult or impossible to say which would have gone extinct during some point in time (although the WWF site claims that have "pulled three species of rhino back from the brink", so maybe I should have used one of those, whichever they are). Instead we know that conservation efforts are effective because of the summative predictions of global extinctions that have previously been made, which have not been matched. In essence it is these meta-assessments that are the true indication, whereas there is too much variability when assessing any single species. It is the IUCN's opinion and many involved in the conservation movement that focused highlighting of the most endangered and charismatic species is what motivates governments and popular support into actions that protect, not only the most endangered specie, but entire ecosystems. And again, whether or not you agree that this belief is a valid one it is irrelevant in deciding whether or not the actions of the people working on the assessments is part of the conservation movement, because the people involved do believe so.Jameel the Saluki (talk) 12:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of interest, to add to above, whilst perusing the latest scientific articles on the Sambar Deer to see if anything of interest was worth adding I came across this article [[5]]. The first sentence is "The concept of wildlife species conservation starts with the identification of their suitable habitat as it provides essential information for wildlife refuge design and management. " - habitat assessment is part of the IUCN redlist assessment.

I've been looking at many of the other articles for which you have contributed, and whilst you should be commended for your work, it does inform me as to your viewpoints on the structure of the article. It appears that you are taking the format of the IUCN redlist pages for the structure of the Wikipedia articles. As such you are then putting the redlist category in the opening paragraph, and not including it in the conservation paragraph. Can I suggest that although the IUCN redlist pages provide a trove of information that they might not be the most format to copy, as they are focused on conservation, whereas the Wikipedia pages should take a broader point of view. Another quote from IUCN to back my argument "Experts across the globe have assessed over 79,800 species on the IUCN Red List - but more needs to be done. Our goal is to assess 160,000 species by 2020 to guide vital conservation." The reason that the assessment category is not put in the IUCN conservation heading, is because of the focus of their articles, whereas the focus of the Wikipedia articles should be different and hence have a different context. It also explains how on one hand you can be so dismissive of IUCN's contribution to conservation, and on the other put the assessment information in the opening paragraph (which I thought contradictory).Jameel the Saluki (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You asked :

"Are you saying that there has been no conservation changes or efforts at all in the last 50 years?" No, I'm not saying this.
"Or are you saying that these efforts would have happened anyway"? I'm not. And consider it useless to contemplate on what possibly would have happened, if. Note that for some species, conservation efforts were initiated way before they were assessed for the Red List for the 1st time.
"If so on what basis do you make this claim?" I don't claim this.
"what do you think the purpose of the assessment is?" To focus attention on taxa that are at risk of global extinction. But whether this attention (of I/NGOs and governmental orgs) results in *effective* conservation, is a different pair of shoes.
"habitat assessment is part of the IUCN redlist assessment". correct. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for clarifying your position, let me clarify mine (again). Your objection to including much/some/any of the work gone into the redlist database going under the heading of conservation appears to rest on the effectiveness of such work on conservation. The argument against this is simple, so let me restate it. You are either claiming that it might not be effective, or that it isn't. If you are claiming that it might not be, then it can equally be claimed that it might, and given that this is the purpose of the work, then it must surely qualify as conservation work. If you are claiming it not to be effective, then this is a personal opinion, contrary to the stated aims of the qualified scientists working on the list, and (as far as I am aware) contrary to the majority opinion of people who work in conservation. Such personal opinions are not valid in Wikipedia. You need to give substantial evidence to claim that such an opinion is worthy of affecting how Wikipedia is written. Lastly, all of that is irrelevant. These actions by these people is done under the belief that the work they are doing contributes to the conservation cause. As such, whether the work is effective or not, it must be put under the label of conservation."To focus attention on taxa that are at risk of global extinction." is action that the people working in the field and most people, and certainly government administrators would consider lies squarely under the heading of conservation. Any other heading that I could think of would either be much more esoteric or unjustly cynical. In short whether an action made towards conservation is effective or not, it is still an action that is categorised under conservation.Jameel the Saluki (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow you want to misunderstand me. For once, I agree with the definition of conservation in this and in this article: conservation means protecting species and mitigating threats to species and their habitat, i.e. is action-oriented. I make a clear distinction between conservation and assessing status for the Red List. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there has been a misunderstanding[edit]

The Sydney Mail was actually a magazine belonging to The Sydney Morning Herald, and in details, it mentioned that the lions came to that spot, after being driven out from other places, and that that was why the hunter came to that area, not that Bangalore was in the regular range of the Asiatic lion. Remember that Caspian tigers, they had their own range, and they would migrate to other places. Also, there was an article about a jaguar appearing in a region of Mexico where they had not been seen for a long time. In addition, other newspapers from that period, such as Gettysburg Complier would not always mention the names of authors:

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=A-MyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1QAGAAAAIBAJ&pg=3641,6045584&dq=tiger+lion+fight+1899&hl=en Leo1pard (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This does not clarify the reliability of this source. Jerdon, Sterndale and Blanford were well acquainted with Indian fauna in the 19th century and recognised for their works on natural history. All agree that lion was distributed in north-western and central India, but not in the south. For details see Jerdon (1874) Sterndale (1884) and Blanford (1889) -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, they do no not say that the lion has never been in South India, and I noticed a difference in opinion about whether or not they were in the area of Cutch. It's a bit like you're using a sentence like this "In Africa, lions are found in Senegal, Kenya, South Africa, Namibia ..." to deny that they have been outside Africa, when that sentence is strictly talking about the distribution of lions in Africa, not about whether or not lions were found only in Africa throughout time. There are also some other things noteworthy about the reference I used. For example, The Sydney Morning Herald is an old, established newspaper, and BTW, if this newspaper is unreliable, then what about that article by Gettysburg Compiler, which was used to talk about a Bengal tiger beating a Barbary lion, and has been on Wikipedia for some time now, or other similar references? Leo1pard (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That article by the Sydney Morning Herald, about lions occurring in a place outside their regular range, does not mean that those guys were wrong. Strictly speaking, they mentioned that the lion occurred in the north, and they did not say that the lion did not occur in the South at all, so that article about lions occurring outside their range, at least once upon a time, does not really contradict those guys. Leo1pard (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This narrative does not have an author who is regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject. See also Identifying reliable sources and reliable sources checklist -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, BhagyaMani. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]