Talk:Northern Rocky Mountain wolf

Untitled
I've never heard this called a subspecies, and it looks like the Endangered Species Program doesn't consider this to be anything more than a distinct population segment, which it doesn't call by the name of this article anywhere. &mdash;innotata 17:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you give me a link to that? And a distinct population segment still fits under the name "subspecies", as it is given a taxonomic name and fitted under the banner of the main species, the gray wolf. Silver  seren C 18:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That was at the Endangered Species Program's website. "Distinct population segment" and "subspecies" are decidedly not the same; read the articles. &mdash;innotata
 * So it does. However, I think you need to read the article on distinct population segments, as it clearly states in the lede, "Species, as defined in the Act for listing purposes, is a taxonomic species or subspecies of plant or animal, or in the case of vertebrate species, a distinct population segment (DPS)." This seems to relate to the fact that you can call it a subspecies. Silver  seren C 20:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Bozeman Chronicle and Tampa Tribune sources
This source was a piece that ran in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle. Thus, it is a "published opinion" by a columnist for the paper. Furthermore, what's wrong with this source? Silver seren C 17:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Please examine the sources more carefully. The google docs essay by Kelly Wood was not published in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle. It was published on www.propertyrightsresearch.org in response to an opinion piece that was published by Bozeman Daily Chronicle.


 * It is not a 'fact' that The plan was greatly disliked by the local population, who believed that it was a "secret government program, whose purpose was to breed and train wolves to eat cattle so that ranchers went out of business and the government could grab their land.", rather it is the opinion of Mike Chisler, whose piece in the Tampa Tribune is clearly labeled "Commentary". Opinion pieces are not generally citable for facts, but rather need to be labeled as opinion. Anyway, why a writer in Tampa would be considered an expert on local opinion in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming is a mystery to me. In reality, local opinion is quite mixed, as demonstrated daily by the lively debates in our local papers here in Montana, for example.


 * Also why did you restore the poorly-written and factually wrong material about the Farm Bureau lawsuit? Did you bother to look at the sources or did you just reflexively revert? Dlabtot (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You are going to discuss here, right? Please respond before editing the article again. It's also not clear to me that this is actually a subspecies. What is the source for that claim? Dlabtot (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed the "opinion pieces" from the article. Also, what exactly is factually wrong about the lawsuit material? Yes, I have read it (though admittedly not word for word) and it was where I got the info in the article from. I do not believe you needed to remove all of the information from the section. If the court's conclusion that I put is wrong, then change that last section to say that, don't remove all of the information about the plaintiffs and defendants. Silver  seren C 18:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't you review the sources as I suggested? You clearly have not. As I stated in my edit summary, Downes did not rule as this section states.  He ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Dlabtot (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Plus the writing is just plain bad. It is overlong, redundant, excessively detailed, clumsily worded and off-topic to the purported topic of this article. Please review WP:OWN. Dlabtot (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then fix the wording and the final ruling, but don't truncate the entire section. I am trying to get the article to GA status, not send it back to start class. The information on the plaintiffs and defendants is useful for a reader to understand the parties involved in the case and their arguments, as there is no Wikipedia article on the case itself. Silver  seren C 19:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A failed lawsuit is not actually very relevant to this article, which is purportedly about a subspecies of Canis lupus, not the politics of wolf reintroduction. Dlabtot (talk) 23:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, it's all covered much better and more in-depth at History of wolves in Yellowstone. I would suggest more aggressive trimming of duplicated information and an appropriate link. Dlabtot (talk) 01:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As discussed clearly above this section, it is a "distinct population segment", which is to be considered a subspecies for our purposes. Please see Subspecies of Canis lupus. Might I ask why you are so adamant to remove information from this article? Silver  seren C 18:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, not for 'our' purposes, for the purposes of listing under the ESA. Do you really not understand that distinction?  It appears to me that this article is not actually about a subspecies,  rather it is about the Northern Wolf Recovery Plan. Dlabtot (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is rather clear that the article is on the subspecies, not the Plan. The Plan, however, had a large impact on the subspecies, which is why it is featured so prominently in the history. The distinction is that a distinct population segment is the smallest possible classification for a subspecies, yes, but is still a subspecies nonetheless. Silver  seren C 19:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But where is the source that confirms the idea that, taxonomically speaking, this is a distinct subspecies? Your assertions don't matter, sources are required.  Can you provide any? Dlabtot (talk) 23:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A source of it being a distinct population segment, you mean? Silver  seren C 23:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If I had meant that, I would have said that. What I said, and what I meant, was 'a distinct subspecies'. The parent article, Subspecies of Canis lupus, lists "Goldman 1937" as the 'Authority', but no Goldman appears in the references.  That is no doubt an oversight. Do you know anything about that source? What is the authoritative reliable source that says that there exists a distinct subspecies called 'Canis lupus irremotus'?  There is a large university library near me. In that library, what book should I seek out to verify this information? Dlabtot (talk) 01:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, um, you can find it here, listed on the Integrated Taxonomic Information System website. You can also find the listing here, in a book published by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. As for the "Goldman 1937" listing, that refers to Edward Alphonso Goldman. I would assume that means that he listed it in his taxonomic discoveries in 1937 and the papers he published then. Silver  seren C 01:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I would suggest that you add the itis source to the respective articles, but the 'Goldman 1937' reference is too vague as are all the 'Authority' listings in that article. But I will discuss that over at that article after I do some research. Dlabtot (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, Goldman 1937 is what is taken from the ITIS reference, which i'll go add to the Subspecies of Canis Lupus list in a moment. Though, if you mean using the terminology "Goldman 1937", i'm afraid you're not going to have much luck in changing that for any species on Wikipedia, as that is how the wording for taxonomy has been done for a hundred years and still is to this day in scientific literature. It's always the last name of the person who made up the taxonomic name and the year that they did it. Silver  seren C 01:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your informative and respectful reply. We are an encyclopedia; I don't see any reason it shouldn't be sourced to whatever Goldman published in 1937 in which he named the subspecies. There is no 'taxonomic exception' to our core principle that encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Dlabtot (talk) 01:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be referenced to the ITIS reference. I agree that it shouldn't be stated without a reference, that's not what I meant. Though there are plenty of sources to be had that list taxonomic authorities for various species. You're just unlikely to find the original sources. I'm not sure if those are even available. Silver  seren C 01:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would the original sources be unavailable? 1937 is not that long ago. My local University Library was established in 1895. But, again, there is no "trust us, besides, the source is unavailable" exception to our verifiability policy. All content must be verifiable. Dlabtot (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can find them, that would be awesome. But i've just never seen a taxonomic name attributed directly to the original source on Wikipedia. Doesn't mean it's not out there though. You would probably have more luck talking to those that are actually experts in terms of taxonomy, like User:Stemonitis. He's actually a taxonomist, I believe, he might be able to help out. Silver  seren C 02:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A quick search on Google Scholar or JSTOR gives:
 * "The Wolves of North America", E. A. Goldman, Journal of Mammalogy, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Feb., 1937), pp. 37-45 http://www.jstor.org/pss/1374306
 * Kaldari (talk) 03:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's already in use in the article. Source #9. Silver  seren C 03:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then why isn't the name authority cited to it? The name authority should always be cited to the actual source that establishes the name. Kaldari (talk) 03:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I just blanked over that. I saw "Wolves of North America" and "JSTOR", but not the rest. I guess that IS the original publication...well then, we should be good. I've used that in a number of the wolf subspecies articles, including the Subspecies of canis lupus list. Silver  seren C 03:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Though not as a link to the authority...huh, i'll do that. Could someone help me with the other articles as well? Silver  seren C 03:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There, I think i'm done. I fixed it for this article and for all of the other subspecies that were for Goldman 1937, and I also fixed it on the list. Do you think it's possible to get the original sources for the other taxonomists (and for Goldman 1941 and Goldman 1929)? Silver  seren C 03:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid have come into this discussion rather late. Citing an authority of a scientific name is not quite the same as a normal reference, which is why "no Goldman appears in the references" (indeed, I wouldn't expect it to). I must disagree with Kaldari here: the authority in the taxobox should not always cite the original taxon decription. When we place a taxon name with an authority in the taxobox, we are not simply saying that person X described taxon Y in year Z; it also carries an implicit assertion that such a taxon is generally considered to exist, and that the name we give is the current, valid name of the taxon, as used by the majority of reliable sources. In many cases, a species or subspecies will be moved between genera. A taxon originally desribed as a species may be reduced to a subspecies, or vice versa. The original description will convey none of that information. What we should be citing is a recent, relevant, authoritative work that gives the name and authority in the same way we do. For mammals, I would have thought that Mammal Species of the World is probably best. One might even argue that there shouldn't be any citations in a taxobox at all. It is supposed to be a summary of information already in the article text, and so the authority should be cited there instead. If there's a separate taxonomy section in the article, then that's a good place to include a reference to the original description, although even then it can't be used to support the assertion that "Taxon X was first described by so-and-so in 1938", because it might have been a synonym, homonym or mistake. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So, in that manner, the Integrated Taxonomic Information System is more useful than the original publication, since it is (for the most part, since it actually works with the government) up to date? Silver  seren C 05:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ITIS is not perfect, but it does at least contain an implicit assertion that there is a taxon, and this is what it's called, and this is the authority. I think that better accords with Wikipedia's policy on referencing than citing the Goldman paper (which I will read when I get to work later). --Stemonitis (talk) 05:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Does that mean I should undo all of the extensions I made on adding the Goldman source to reference the authority? :/ Silver  seren C 05:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I must admit, I haven't really been following the changes to the article. Don't undo anything just yet. I might write a taxonomic history section later today, in which case the Goldman reference would still be useful. That addition might also make it clearer that the article is about a taxon, rather than a recovery plan. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't mean for just this article. I meant for Gregory's Wolf, Labrador Wolf, Alexander Archipelago Wolf, Mogollon Mountain Wolf, Texas Wolf, and the Southern Rocky Mountains Wolf. Though all I really did was usde the reference that was already there to also be used for the authority name. Silver  seren C 14:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Normally, I don't put any citations on the name authority in the infobox (since the name authority itself is a type of citation). Regardless, I don't think it makes sense to cite the authority to a work other than the authority. It's just confusing. So maybe the real answer is that we shouldn't be adding citations to citations, so in other words, the authority listing in the infobox should not have a citation at all. Adding a citation for the taxonomy, however, is a good idea, although I'm not sure it should be done in the infobox. Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes more sense...but now I have to go and remove it from everything. D: (And the taxonomy ref can just be done in the first sentence of the lede, where the taxonomy is generally listed after the name) Silver  seren C 22:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the back and forth. I guess if we figure this out we should add it to a guideline somewhere :) Kaldari (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In an ideal article, you are right, of course, that the citations should all be in the text, and not in the taxobox. Similarly, there shouldn't really be any in the lead, except for direct quotations, since the lead is a summary of what follows. However, there are a lot of (very) short articles where that amount of detail is simply lacking from the prose, leaving only the taxobox or lead as a site for a cite. Where we disagree is on who should be cited. The authority of a scientific name is not the same as a normal citation. Scientific papers, for instance, never give the details of pubilcations just because they mention the full scientific name, with authority, of a species. They are simply an indication of when and by whom a species was validly described, and as such are perfectly eligible for a citation in a Wikipedia article. In fact, when we say that the valid scientific name for a species is "Aus bus Smith, 2010", that is saying much more than that Smith gave a description in 2010 of "Aus bus sp. nov." We are also saying that that name was validly published, that it is the earliest available name, that it is not a junior homonym of anything else, and so on. The original description cannot be used to assert that, because all species descriptions look like they satisfy those criteria, even if they turn out to be synonyms. I don't think I've always been consistent about this, but I often include a link to the original description, if it's available online, in a further reading, or external links section. Sometimes, there was some additional fact that could be cited from the original publication, legitimising that citation inline, such as how it differs from related taxa, or the etymology of the name. Generally, however, we should be citing the secondary literature for the authority, if a citation is needed, and I don't think that's confusing. In many cases, it may be that there is no doubt about the scientific name of a taxon, and so a specific citation may not be necessary. If every source cited (for other statements throughout the article) call it "Aus bus Smith, 2010", then I don't think a citation is necessary. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You make some good points. In the case of a disputed taxon name or authority I suppose it would make sense to have a citation to a secondary source for it. If that's not the case, however, I think it's confusing to have a citation there (in the infobox) and should be avoided. Personally, I try to always have a sentence in the body that explicitly says "X was first described by John Doe in 1999" or "X was renamed Y by Jane Doe in 1988" and citing the name authority source there. Kaldari (talk) 00:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism
Undid vandalism by 205.124.88.227, 205.124.88.154, 205.124.88.226, and 75.109.160.246. Two have been warned before but I suspect all IPs are from the same person, should all be banned in my opinion. ItsWolfeh (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Mountain or Mountians? Northern or northern?
I took out the lede's aside based on a newspaper article that said maybe Mountain was as good as Mountains. Then I did a search:. I looks to me like "northern Rocky Mountain wolf" is the way to go. The "northern" would of course still be capitalized in the title, but not in the text. Are there other opinions about either the northern caps or the Mountain singular/plural? Dicklyon (talk) 06:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and fixed it; southern, too. Dicklyon (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Some of those also call it "northern Rocky Mountain wolf subspecies", "northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf", "northern Rocky Mountain timber wolf".  If we don't already note those in the text some place, should we?  Probably doesn't need to be in the lede.  Dicklyon (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Timber wolf
I found the name Northern Rocky Mountain wolf used in  Apparently uncommon, but both this and the source I cited in the lead seem generally reliable. If nothing else, it shows that the name has been in use. If it's found to be bogus, then this page should be removed from the Timber wolf disambiguation page. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)