Talk:Wolverine/Archive 1

A Spelling Mistake -
There was a spelling mistake(Ferocius) That I would like to correct: The Word is Ferocious. Also, Despite the common idea that they(wolverines) are reticent and avoid humans, the one I encountered, proved otherwise, and enforced a speedy retreat back down the trail I was walking down, away from my cabin...  And No,  it is a valid POV word, not an invalid one. NPOV, could and should only be used when valid. After all, Whether POV or Not, this whole wikipedia thing is about POV. Any other encyclopedia is about pov, also, because that is what defines works of literature be they factual or fiction...

Michael 00:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

wolverine vs. black bear
hehe, thanks to Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg for correcting my error - don't know how i got that wrong, i've prob read that (cited) article a dozen times! - Metanoid 19:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

range in kilometers?
i added the home range sizes from an already cited article, but it's in square miles. i really prefer to use metric as a standard, esp in science entries. can anyone calculate that for me? thx! - Metanoid 19:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know the conversion but I did change the text from "240 miles square" (a box 240 miles on each side) to "240 square miles", which is much smaller, much more likely, and consistent with the cited article. JohnInDC 21:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

jeez, where's my brain.... much appreciated! - Metanoid 06:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wolverines in Michigan
The news article about the Wolverine sighting in the Thumb (I think that's where it was) didn't strike me as contradicting or even really calling into question the essential (and rather amusing) fact that the animal isn't indigenous to Michigan. In fact the contrary - one sighting in 200 years seems rather to suggest that, in fact, they just don't live there. Particularly when you consider that their current known range isn't even anywhere close. JohnInDC 12:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In what way is there any contradiction? The detail does not make any assertion that Michigan is a part of the Wolverine's normal range. It is however an interesting and unusual observation. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be mentioned. older ≠ wiser 22:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the more interesting and unusual (not to mention amusing) item is that the state animal isn't indigenous to the state at all, an observation that is now missing from the text. This sighting - plainly an aberration - is described in a way to suggest that the animal is simply elusive, rather than altogether absent. Perhaps there is a way to tweak it to say both, eh? I took a shot at it. JohnInDC 01:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Your edits are helpful clarification. I only noticed that the reference had been deleted some time ago by an anon IP and I restored the content. older ≠ wiser 02:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's better with the article too - JohnInDC 02:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Article placement
Surely the Marvel Comics Wolverine is more widely-known than the animal. I think this should be at Wolverine (animal) and the comics character at Wolverine. At the very least, the primary Wolverine article should be a dab page. 76.178.95.219 22:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the actual living animal from which the fictional comic character takes its name should be located at the primary article, current comparative public awareness or popularity in certain demographics notwithstanding. In other words I think it's good as it is.  JohnInDC 11:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Assessment
I have assessed this as Start Class, as it contains more detail and information than would be expected of a Stub, and of low importance, as I do not feel that this topic is essential to understanding Canada. Cheers, CP 17:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

YouTube
The rule can't be simply "YouTube is not a reliable source". While it is certainly true that something being portrayed on YouTube does not necessarily make it true, the same can be said from time to time for Fox News. Or CBS. Or - well, pick your source. Here we have a video that illustrates a characteristic of wolverines. It is helpful, the point is fairly uncontroversial, and there is no apparent reason to think that the video was doctored or the situation contrived. It's not a *great* video, and I don't understand Norwegian (if it is Norwegian), but it's still at least incrementally informative, and taking it out just because it happens to be delivered on YouTube diminishes the article by that increment. JohnInDC 13:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The video is a slow-mo of a wolverine growling and two wolves dancing about. It establishes nothing; certainly not that wolverines can "usually" over power everything smaller than an adult brown bear. And YouTube is not a reliable source—it does not meet WP:V in the slightest. Marskell 08:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh and "the point is fairly uncontroversial"? That wolverines can match wolf packs, cougars, and black bears? Hmm. Marskell 08:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"Not in the slightest" is incorrect. Reliable sources/Examples. The exceptions pretty well swallow the rule. In short, YouTube is reliable if the thing being portrayed can be established as reliable, which was more or less my point. This video is a useful and illuminating example of wolverine behavior - something that, given the animal's reclusivity, is not easy to come by, and rather than remove this example, the better solution would be simply to amend the text to match the video. I do agree, however, that the provenance of the video is uncertain - as I said I don't speak Norwegian - and I can't vouch for the copyright status either, so for those reasons re-linking it is not appropriate.

I think, however, that the lesson is not to remove YouTube videos willy-nilly but to pause to consider what the actual objection to the link is.

Finally it would seem that if the point is controversial and - without the video, wholly unsourced - then it should not be in the article at all, and I've edited the text to that effect. JohnInDC 12:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Your link is to an essay, not a policy. But do note: "YouTube and other video-sharing sites are not reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. In some cases, video clips published on YouTube may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be traced to a reliable publisher, but even then should be used with caution." I am going to continue to remove it, willy-nilly. Marskell 13:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly I can't stop you but I don't see how Wikipedia is improved through the black-and-white application of a rule that is plainly drawn in shades of gray. Use common sense. JohnInDC 13:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I really don't see YouTube as a shade of grey. Clearly, there is no editorial oversight and that is the basic determinant of reliability. Our policies have evolved a necessary rigidity over time but there are allowances made. Do give V a read, if you haven't. Marskell 13:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Though I agree we're pretty well beating a dead wolverine now, WP:V directs the reader right back to Reliable sources/Examples for further insight into the reliability of self-published sources like YouTube. There we have the statement - essay - that says, in essence, "YouTube is unreliable except for when it is". I understand the general principle of editorial oversight and reliability but YouTube is just a medium, and when it serves as a window to another source that *does* reflect editorial oversight, then the link is, or can be, reliable. The video that you originally deleted fails that test, no argument there any more, but I really am perplexed by the assertion that YouTube links are simply verboten and must be stricken when encountered. That doesn't match up with either Reliable sources/Examples or Use common sense. JohnInDC 13:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It does not say "except for when it is." It says that it may occasionally used as a primary source, and even then with caution. The material here required a secondary source. A vast majority of YouTube videos amount, in a sense, to anecdotes. You can't extrapolate from a single video to make a claim about behaviour, unless a reliable secondary source has done so. YouTube might, sometimes, be useful in the External links section. Incidentally, where V and any guideline appear to be in contradiction, V trumps. I wouldn't even depend on RS, it's such a moving target. Marskell 13:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I was paraphrasing, and I think fairly. It certainly does say that, "YouTube videos are unreliable", yet also that YouTube videos may sometimes be acceptable as primary or secondary sources. So they are unreliable, except when they can be shown to be reliable. The greatest problem, I imagine, is that most YouTube videos that meet the reliability test are also likely to pose copyright problems. But that is not the same as inherent unreliability.

I am hardly a Wikipedia maven so I cannot intelligently discuss the hierarchy of various forms of guidance found on Wikipedia, but it seems to me that if the principles of V trump the specific examples to which V expressly directs the inquiring editor, then V should not link to the examples; that, or the reference in V should at least be qualified in a way that informs the uninformed that the linked discussion cannot be relied upon. JohnInDC 14:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If a YouTube video has, say, an ABC News description I could imagine using it—but then you're citing ABC, not YouTube. YouTube per se cannot be used as a secondary source.


 * There is human error built into the P&Gs, obviously. In theory, nothing that V links to should contradict it. In practice, that might happen. Marskell 14:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

wolverine nourishment
where does a wolverine gets it nourishment for water? Does it each plants for water or does it drink from a stream

Jack Michels —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.153.221 (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Disamiguation
Does this page need a disamiguation page? These two types of "Wolverines" are unrelated. Frecklefoot 17:31 Oct 14, 2002 (UTC)


 * Maybe, though I'm not sure it's worth it as long as both entries are so small. Wesley

I removed the Marvel character part since it has its own (lengthy) entry. See disambiguation page.


 * I was wondering why there is a reference to the movie Red Dawn, but not even a little mention of the comic book character with a link to Wolverine (comics) at all on this page.

Kire1975 (talk) 03:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC) Hey this is Haylee ummm why are we talking about comic books???


 * I would say because this is an article about the mammal, not every use of the term; because the comic book character has its own article; and because anyone interested in the latter can easily find it via the disambiguation page. The Red Dawn reference by contrast receives no mention if it is not mentioned here (though to be honest I would prefer that trivial popular culture references such as that be removed anyhow).  JohnInDC (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

X-men reference?
You mention schools, sport teams, and various other things that have wolverines as a mascot/symbol. However, there is no mention of Wolverine from X-men. When I read the description of a real wolverine it pretty much goes hand and hand with the Wolverine from X-men. Maybe someone should add that in there on the symbol section even though it is more of a character than a symbol. Although, I suppose most people already know of Wolverine from X-men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.92.162 (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Importance rating
This article has a high hit count, so the importance was raised from low rating in SK to mid, they are rated as high importance for the arctic SriMesh |  talk  03:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder howm uch of this new growth has been the result of x-men.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Additions, revisions, to-do list
I revised and reorganized the lead, the taxonomy, the physical characterstics. Here's a brief list of other "to-do" items: These come to mind immediately. I doubt I will be able to attack too many of these in the immediate future, but may they hang out here to dry in the barren winds of Wikipedia!
 * Rewrite "Range", including more detailed discussion of current ranges and history of extirpation/recovery (currently, for example, wolverines live "in Siberia ... and are also native to Russia").
 * Expand "Behavior" to including rearing, social behavior, movements and dispersal, seasonal variation, more information on diet.
 * Surely there is more information on cultural significance of the wolverine, including use by people throughout the range and history of commercial fur harvest
 * Reference formatting clean-up!

I also went ahead and made Wolverine move directly to this page and recreated the Wolverine (disambiguation) page. This is consistent with any other significant animal, all of the other meanings are derivative from the organism. Thus: Lion, Wolf, Tiger are lead directly to animal articles and not disambigs. Seal isn't only because the accessory definitions are unrelated to the animal itself.

Best, Eliezg (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Names and their importance
There are some almost contradictory statements about the names and their derivation. I'm highly skeptical about any name for the animal having being derived from old finnish, as they used to be common all around the northern hemisphere, not only the part of old finno-ugric occupation (I expect Canada and Siberia to have the highest population). Ahma is the name for the animal, and must be related to the word ahmatti, i.e. "glutton", though. However, I've never heard of the other name given, or how it could be related to the slavic names. Wolverines are rarer in southern latitudes though, and they were seen as "little wolves" because they were lesser killers of cattle and sheep. I've never seen a live wolverine, and hope never to come by one in the forest. They are reputed to be vicious, like the Tasmanian devil, with which they hold the same niche. I'd be more afraid of a wolverine than a wolf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.231.13 (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Range in Sweden
According to Swedish sources, wolverines are living not only in the region of Norbotten, but also in Dalarna, Jämtland and Västerbotten. Someone good at finding English sources, might want to check this. I personally live in Sweden, and put much trust into my Swedish sources, so I definately think they are telling the truth. Vigfus (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Need citation!
"Some authors recognize two subspecies: the Old World form Gulo gulo gulo and the New World form G. g. luscus. A third subspecies limited to Vancouver Island (G. g. vancouverensis) is also occasionally described. However craniomorphic evidence suggests that the Vancouver Island wolverines are properly included within G. g. luscus."

Who are "some authors"? What craniomorphic evidence? Why? Please don't add things to articles without citations or explanations.

"Wolverines, as other mustelids, possess a special upper molar in the back of the mouth that is rotated 90 degrees, or sideways. This special characteristic allows wolverines to tear off meat from prey or carrion that has been frozen solid and also to crush bones, which enables the wolverine to extract marrow."

Crushing bones to extract marrow is not an ability specific to mustelids and their specialized teeth, though I'm sure they help. Most, if not all carnivores can do this, including domestic cats and dogs. I can't look up a source right now, as I am at work, but this is being posted from a veterinary hospital, hopefully that is sufficient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.73.10 (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wolverines almost look like a cross of a dog and a small bear! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.230.133 (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Heading Changes


According to the edit summary, there was no meritable reason given to the revision.

The reason that these headings are better is because WP:HEAD states: "Titles should be nouns or noun phrases (nominal groups)", e.g: "Effects of the wild, not About the effects of the wild.".


 * The prior heading, "in culture", made more sense than the new one, "cultural impact". The section is not about the effect that wolverines have had on culture but instead the reflection, in various cultural forms and traditions, of the traits and characteristics of the wolverine.  The new caption suggests that somehow the wolverine was a motive force in these effects, which makes little sense - and is unsupported to boot.  JohnInDC (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope. Because of the wolverine, and all an individuals "traits and characteristics" is what has impacted societies, cultures and religions, unless you want to rename it ==Social impact==.174.3.123.220 (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Impact" is still the wrong word. Polar bears may have a social "impact" in Churchill, Manitoba, where they are omnipresent and unavoidable.  In the case of the wolverine, societies choose - or don't - to describe themselves in ways that echo a wolverine's characteristics.  Society isn't the recipient of these metaphors, they're not imposed or caused by the wolverine.  Even social "expressions" or "manifestations" would be better, if they didn't sound like a crummy college thesis.  JohnInDC (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Changed it to "manifestations". Even a clumsy word is better than the wrong one.  JohnInDC (talk) 10:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Wolverines in captivity
I'm not sure what the point is of the list - it just keeps slowly growing, and sooner or later it'll just expand to include every captive wolverine in the world. If there were only three or four then maybe it'd be encyclopedic but there seem to be enough now that the list borders on the trivial. I intend to remove the thing unless someone objects. JohnInDC (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've removed the whole section. Folks can go to http://isis.org to find out which zoos have wolverines or any species. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the section was listy and full of excessive detail, but I think it's still worth saying something about the general topic. I've added a very brief summary as a subsection of the "Range" section, although I'm not sure if that's the best place for it. -- Avenue (talk) 12:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks good to me - thanks for the refinement. JohnInDC (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Not so fast. I don't believe less than four hours on 9 May 2010 is enough time to achieve consensus. In the USA, the Bush administration refused to give Wolverines endangered species protection, however, that decision could be reversed by the Obama administration. According to the isis website there are approximately only 104 wolverines in captivity worldwide! Wolverines are a very rare and special animal. (It is not like listing all the goats or sheep in the world.) I believe the captivity information is very helpful. Especially with links to the specific zoos that have wolverines. If some people feel this information is "listy and full of excessive detail" or "trivial" the perhaps there is another way. If all else fails a separate wiki article on wolverines in captivity could be started. Please respond with some creative suggestions other than deletion. Thanks Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, three editors who don't otherwise interact with one another achieved very quick agreement (including at least one revision to the original complete deletion) within the space of a few hours on a Talk page that doesn't really get much attention. I don't know that we were really obliged to hold off on the changes until July to see if anyone else had comments, so I'm quite comfortable with how the edits were handled.  As for the edit itself, I personally think that  the current summary treatment about captive animals, with a link to a comprehensive listing of each animal in captivity, is a nice compromise that provides easy and obvious access to all the information without simply repeating it, and keeps listy clutter down as well.  Certainly the decision can be revisited, but I do think it's incumbent upon the one person who appears to object to the status quo to suggest alternatives to it, rather than upon the ones who are responsible for (and content with) it.  JohnInDC (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input, JohnInDC. I agree that waiting till July is too long. But, in my opinion, less than 4 four hours is not enough time to reach a consensus on deleting content that has been present in an article for a long time. Regarding my 2 July 2010 comment, I have only heard from one editor (JohnInDC) so I waiting to see if more editors express an opinion at this time. The Alternatives To Deletion policy WP:ATD states "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." I am hoping we can come up with a consensus that is an alternative to deletion.Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 03:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't you just make a "List of Wolverines in Captivity" article that can be linked to from here? You completely avoid the issue of clutter and disproportionate coverage in the main article (as well as the need to discuss it) and you can reformat the information from the source article in any way you find useful.  (WP:ATD, incidentially, refers to deletion of entire pages, not to deletion of content within them, and so the phrase you quoted doesn't apply here.)  JohnInDC (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. A new article with a name like "List of Wolverines in Captivity" might work. I am hoping to hear from other editors before proceeding with this new article. Also, you are correct that the main thrust of WP:ATD is deletion of entire pages. However, in my opinion, the guidance in WP:ATD applies to deletion of any major content that has the potential to become a separate page in the future.Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In the meantime you could create the article on a user subpage so that when the time comes you can just move it into place in the new article. I do think that this information - which is not much more than a list mirroring the external source - is better lodged in a separate article than tacked on here.  JohnInDC (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * When I get a chance I will start pulling together the draft article in my user space.Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I have no objection to a separate List of wolverines in captivity, especially if it becomes more comprehensive than the previous list included in this article, and isn't based solely on the one source we now cite. I still think that including a detailed list in this article would probably be overkill. --Avenue (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Versus Talk
I don't understand why when it comes to animal predators that it always seems necessary to have the "versus" discussion. Can we please edit all the info regarding a wolverine being able to win or lose particular battles against other animals. The Badger article is well written in comparison, "Badgers are capable of fighting off much larger animals such as wolves, coyotes and bears", enough said.


 * Makes sense to me - JohnInDC 10:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not? A LOT of people find it intrinsically fascinating and to the vast majority of readers, accounts of animal combat have no less practical relevance than any other piece of information155.205.201.11 (talk) 05:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Language template removed
I simply wanted to justify my decision for removing a Latin language template in the first paragraph. I found it a little unclear to read "genus Latin: Gulo" and also unnecessary, since immediately after that we can read, in parentheses, "Latin for "glutton". I checked how to use language templates, and I think that is not exactly the purpose. I also checked several other entries for animals in the Wikipedia, and didn't find that practice for the genus (which must be in Latin). What I did to replace the remotion of the template was to create a link on the word "Latin", in that note in parentheses, which will take us to the article about the language. I hope I did the right thing. If not, just undo it, but please explain. I'd like to learn more about editing and using language templates. Thanks.Theodopulus (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Range
What about the range outside of Northern America? Punkmorten 11:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Rearranged paragraphs to put range information at the beginning of this section.Abee60 (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thing to add in cultural references.
Wolverines play a major plot point in James Ellroy's novel The Big Knowhere. Know i know they are featured in many books and films but in the way they were used in the novel i was just wondering if it is actually worth mentioning. The 3rd and final part of the novel is titled Wolverine being one of them and the killer possibly using dentures made from wolverines teeth and how the animal itself plays into the mystery. This may not be enough to be added in the cultural references section but i was just wondering if this is a suitable contribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.157.59 (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The 1984 movie "Red Dawn" has a group of teenaged partisans calling themselves "Wolverines", mentioning that they attack larger predators. I don't remember the details anymore, but someone might want to add this one too. -- DevSolar (talk) 11:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see the "Red Dawn" movie reference and link to the movie entry. It took me several minutes to remember the movie name but the wolverine entry immediately made me think of the movie.--Comccoy (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't be inclined to add any of these, if for no other reason than once you start you wind up listing every film, book or TV show in which a wolverine plays a role. JohnInDC (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Isn't that what "Cultural References" is about? Listing the significant mentions? Now, "Red Dawn" might not have won an Oscar, but looking at the cast (Swayze, Grey, Sheen) and the prominence of the wolverine reference throughout the film... ah well. -- DevSolar (talk) 11:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I think "Red Dawn" has enough of a cult following to earn a mention in the Cultural References. Their use of the name Wolverines was a significant plot element, and even today people will do the "Wolverines!" battle cry as a direct reference to this film. If "Red Dawn" doesn't warrant inclusion, then why have a Cultural References section at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.82.216.104 (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Killing a Moose?
Man, this would be awesome if it's true, but I'm a bit skeptical. Can someone provide a reference for this happening? I've seen moose up close and personal, and they are HUGE, and have no problem being violent. I have a hard time believing a 66-pound animal could kill one, unless the moose was sick, injured, or juvenile. Can somebody fact-check?


 * Taking prey from a polar bear? This would only really work if it was "snatched" and run away with.  A polar bear would gut a wolverine with a single swipe.


 * Source: Alaska Fish and Games: In the right situations, wolverines can kill moose or caribou, but these occurrences are rare. http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/furbear/wolverin.php Egberts 09:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Source: Some individual wolverines can become good hunters and can kill young and adult ungulates, or animals with hooves, such as caribou and even moose, if the prey is in poor physical condition or if the wolverine has manoeuvred it into a disadvantaged position, such as in heavy snow. http://www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?id=108 Egberts 09:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, heavy snow is the key - I've seen images of a wolverine killing a wapiti caught in heavy snow. Anyways, a reference here and a request for it on the main page? Fixed.  WilyD 13:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Correction... Wolverine has a unique combo of quickness, evasiveness, agility and lethality (powerful crushing jaws). I've only got my grandfather (the Michigan State Game Warden for Oscoda, Mason County, Michigan) who relayed that ¨you only need to witness just once a wolverine take down a black bear with relative ease, and I DO mean relative killing ease.  If matched with a grizzly, I'd put money on the wolverine any day.¨  Most bears avoid the wolverines after the first experience and I suspect that bears now avoided wolverine mostly by instinct.  A couple of Yogi (dumb) bears would venture and experiment with a wolverine (much to their dissatisfaction) Egberts 09:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yup. They kill moose by climbing trees, then they jump on moose that walk underneath and kill them. They do the same for deer. 61.230.72.211 03:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sources can be rong and I doubt this. A pack of wovles has trouble killing a moose. But one wolverine can. This is ridiculous. I guess if the moose was in a trap and couldn't fight back. A wolverine vs a grizzly one, if not the largest carnavoire in the world. Yeah righ.t. While wolverines are fierce, they simply cannot take on animals 10 or 20 times their size. Just because a bear or a moose avoids a wolverine means the wolverine can kill it.

But it is true wolverines hunt deer. Dora Nichov 14:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a whole lot of nonsense in this section. The average wolverine weighs fifty pounds. The average black bear, 300; grizzly, 400-500; polar bear, 700-800; moose, 1200; elk, 450. Black bear are timid by nature; they don't want to fight anything, so it's no surprise that they would shy away from a tussle with a wolverine. Grizzlies are a whole different matter; they could knock a wolverine twenty or thirty feet with one swat or crush its skull or break ribs or any number of things; being able to run as fast as a horse, they could make sure that the wolverine wouldn't get away. A wolverine might be able to dispatch a sick, exhausted elk stuck in a snowdrift but otherwise the elk would literally kick the crap out of it. A wolverine might be able to jump out of a tree onto the back of a moose calf but a full-grown adult? Give me a break! If you have been close to a moose in the wild, you would know how silly this is. They're huge, and they're not scared. They don't care what you are. Moreover, the habitat of the moose and the habitat of the wolverine rarely intersect. Even if a wolverine could jump on a moose's back and stay there, it's jaws are too small to kill it. If anyone claims to have seen a wolverine take a moose down, he needs to get back on his meds. Likewise with the polar bear: it's silly to think that a wolverine could seriously make the challenge, and besides, it would be extremely rare for the two to meet.

As to the claim that wolverine take down deer, maybe so. They probably can, but I doubt that they do. They're too slow by far to outrun one, and deer are far too wary, their hearing and sense of smell far too acute for them to wander under a tree with a waiting wolverine in the branches. It's way too far-fetched.

Furthermore, recent research has shown that a wolverine's main diet is carrion. It's probably one of the reasons they are known to stink so bad.

To end, all these claims to have seen wolverine in these bizarre confrontations are statistically suspect. Wolverines themselves are so wary that they are rarely spotted in the wild, even at their most concentrated, which is not very. I know many outdoorsmen. I have only heard one say he spotted a wolverine, and that was unconfirmed.Uniquerman (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I've also read that in heavy snow they can take very large ungulates, but they need the animal to be bogged down.

I can't remember the source (it's been several years).

Telemachus.forward (talk) 04:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Black bear are very timid (often, although not always). Finding a source on that would not be hard.

Telemachus.forward (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "They [black bear] are timid animals in general...": naturepreserve.binghamton.edu/FloraFauna/Mammals.html.

"...their more timid behavior {than grizzlies]...": www.nps.gov/archive/yose/nature/wlf_bears.htm. "...bear are timid by nature and have been known to flee from small hunting dogs...": www.camping-field-guide.com/black-bear.html.Uniquerman (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

"North American wolverines are mainly scavengers, eating mostly carrion...": kswild.org/programs/biodiversity/species-profiles/guloUniquerman (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Revision of range map needed
I think we need a new range map. Compare the wiki map with this one Hinterland Who's Who Range map. The current wiki range map shows Wolverines down into Oregon and California. In Oregon they are reported only in Linn county, Crook county, Harney, and Deschutes county, according to the USDA Forest Service website. The current wiki map shows them all over Oregon, in places like Washington, Columbia and Tillamook county where they don't seem to live. I think the new range map should have two colors, one for the known current range, and the other for sightings. The known current range for the USA, if made accurately, will look more like a bunch of spots than wide swaths of color. - Tsarevna 01:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a range map. Wolverines are wide-ranging.  There is a great deal of interest in wolverine in the far West and a comparable amount of ongoing research and data collation.  "The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife [currently] feels that wolverine occur or are suspected to occur in the following [Oregon] counties:  Baker, Clackamas, Crook, Deschutes, Douglas, Grant, Harney, Hood River, Jackson, Jefferson, Klamath, Lake, Linn, Malheur, Umatilla, Union, Wallowa, Wasco, and Wheeler."  (passim)  "Wolverine tracks were photographed...near Silverton...October 15, 2009...a zoologist, Charles Clapsaddle...identified them as wolverine...":  robertlindsay.worldpress.com/2009/09/19/wolverines-in-oregon

See also www.oregonphotos.com and www.wolverinefoundation.org

Since confirmed sightings usually mean a photograph or a dead animal, these are hard to come by. Not everyone wanders the woods with a camera in hand looking for wolverine, and dead ones are rare. The carrion would probably have been eaten before they were found. This does not mean that sightings are not valuable, especially when taken seriously by official government agencies like Fish and Wildlife.Uniquerman (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Range in California
I just saw what I believe to have been a wolverine in Arnold, a small community well south of Tahoe in California. It was, unfortunately, road kill. This I believe would extend its range well south of previous sightings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TLB512 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * When such a sighting is confirmed by a reliable source then it can be added to the article! JohnInDC (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

On Range Section
I grew up in the northwest region of Iowa and I have seen wolverines occasionally wandering on the land we lived on in the country. My mom told me she has seen wolverines crawling into their dens at sunset in the ditches beside the road. I thought this unusual, considering wolverines are usually reclusive toward humans or anything to do with humans. But, I am sure I have seen them in parts of north and central Iowa.Wolfranger 14:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I bet you were seeing badgers. Googlemeister (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Wolverines Reproduce....
Can you people tell me how wolverines reproduce? This is for a life project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.50.84.172 (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If the answer's not here you'll need to go look it up on line somewhere - good luck! JohnInDC (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure they reproduce through mating, pretty much as any other animal (humans included.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.189.82 (talk) 07:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Wolverine Fur
Wolverine fur is prized, along with wolf fur, by the natives of northern Canada for the fact that ice does not form on it when breathed on. If someone could find a reference and add this, it would be great. (The article on the gray wolf makes mention of this fact which is why I'm here) 98.142.251.253 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC).

Population Russia
"To the east, the Eastern Russian wolverine population is believed to comprise more than 18,000 individuals" (Novikov, 2005). Cf. IUCN (http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/search) 29/12/11; 11:25 p.m. (Konw) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Konwal (talk • contribs) 22:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

FA
Do you think this would be a FA? May I nominate it? Pteronura brasiliensis 19:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Link problems
Cite number 19 doesn't even mention anything about wolves or cougars. Also, reference number 18 is a dead link and the isbn doesnt have any results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.79.52 (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I had no trouble with the ISBN. I removed the other reference, and the material, inasmuch as the source appeared to be some undergrad's geography paper and hence not a reliable source.  JohnInDC (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Plural of wolverine
I have always heard that the pluraL of wolverine is simply wolverine. After checking several dictionaries, just to make sure, it appears I am correct. See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wolverine fo at least one dictionary. If no one has any objections, I will go ahead and go through the article and correct this grammatical error. Zaereth (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Wolverines" turns up an awful lot of routine uses, e.g., this [Defenders of Wildlife] page, in contrast to what you might find trying the same thing with "mouses" or "gooses". I would leave it as it is.  JohnInDC (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As you wish. I simply find dictionaries to be a more reliable source of information on the grammatical usage of words. Zaereth (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Heraldry
Where did this stuff come from? I've split it out into a separate section but it looks wild. --Phil | Talk 17:07, 26 October 2004 (UTC)

Napoleon gone
To the person who removed the Napoleon Dynamite reference on 24 Jan 2005... i came to this entry earlier to learn about gulo gulo and that sentence really put a smile on my face. a little whit is what we all need to brighten our days. are you a stodgy librarian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mal11 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 6 April 2005‎ (UTC)


 * I don't know who removed it, but come on . . . it didn't belong there. What might be funny to you might be irritating to someone else.  Funnyhat 04:48, 21 April 2005 (UTC)

Conservation status
I thought the wolverine was fairly common, at least in Canada. Does this refer to its status throughout its range? Fishhead64 08:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The Wolverine was just listed to be designated as an Endangered Species by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Wolverine Designated as Endangered Species --98.247.182.211 (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually that is designated as a *candidate* for Endangered Species status, which appears to be a preliminary step, with no immediate formal impact. JohnInDC (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This was published today: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/02/science/earth/us-proposes-protecting-the-wolverine.html?_r=0  It looks like they are near extinction in some parts of their range within the U.S.  Or something like that.  It's hard to know what's fact and what's bleeding-heart liberalism when it comes to reading NY Times articles (not as bad as MSNBC yet, but they seemed to headed in that direction). Sigh. 72.34.80.28 (talk) 05:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Since climate change is well known as a hoax, I would put this into the "bleeding heart" category for sure. As credulous as the newspaper seems to be nowadays, however, the NYT is still a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes and I'll see about adding something to the text to reflect this development.  JohnInDC (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Why was this deleted?

 * Original text deleted by NewsAndEventsGuy. External link spam from sock of user under 1-year block, see User:Arthur Rubin/IP list

99.112.212.228 (talk) 06:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Off the top of my head, I can think of a couple. The first is that it is a direct copy/paste of the sentence from the website, which amounts to plagiarism or copyright infringement. The information should be written in your own words to avoid this problem. The second is that the source is unreliable, because its info seems to be cherry-picked, leaving out contrary information. The info can be found in books like this one, which lists other scientists that shared Hall's taxonomic appraisal. They even divided the "species" luscus into four different subspecies. However, it also says that most scientists agree with the modern taxonomy of only one species with two subspecies. Zaereth (talk) 07:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Much cleanup needed
This article is full of mistakes and errors. Starting from scientific name (Gulo luscus and then /correct/ Gulo gulo). Please, corrent it googling some decent zoological entry. I agree with the above statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.24.66 (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

quickhatch?
I googled it, they are not referred to as quickhatches by anybody. They were historically, a loooong time ago (and therefore quickhatch is in the dictionary) but on the internet all the quickhatch references to wolverines are from this wikipedia entry. 68.174.97.122 (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Wolverine in Oregon
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has confirmed the presence of wolverine in Wallowa County by automatic camera photos shot on April 2 and April 13, 2012. As a result, the State of Oregon applied in December of that year to the federal government to list them as an endangered species.Euonyman (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

More Closely Resembling a Bear?
The article says that a wolverine more closely resembles a bear than other mustilids. I think that's open to dispute. Sure, a wolverine doesn't look much like a least weasel or a mink or an otter. However, it looks more like a badger, to me, than it looks like a bear, and a badger is one of those "other mustilids." And there are several other mustelids that share the stocky look. Also, a wolverine looks a lot like a skunk. While skunks are not mustelids they are closely related. 65.79.173.135 (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Will in New Haven65.79.173.135 (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Will. Yes, any metaphor is going to be subjective, because where one person may see similarities another will see differences. However, the sentence does appear to be a statement from a reliable source, (although the link is broken and i cannot verify that the source actually makes the comparison).


 * If it helps, this is what I like to call a sentence with dual meanings. I think you may be reading it to say that a wolverine resembles a bear more than it has a resemblence to any other mustelid. However, what I think the author intended to say is that, of all the mustelids, the wolverine more resembles a bear than a badger does, or a weasel or skunk, which look nothing close to a bear. Would you agree with that assessment? Zaereth (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Not to be contentious, but the question remains what is attempting to be said by comparing a wolverine to a bear. There are no bears in its native habitat for which it could remotely be mistaken, either in size, habits, gait, or markings.  None of the Ursidae, with the possible exception of the sun bear, is nearly as small.  True, it is the most heavy-bodied of the mustelids, and this may be enough to say.Euonyman (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Not at all. That's an entirely different question than the one previously asked. I've never read the source, so I'm not sure why the need for a comparison. (I can only venture a guess that it may have more to do with the way they carry themselves, which is not very weasel or otter-like, but more of a lumbering-gait that somewhat resembles how a bear walks.) This article has plenty of photos, so such a metaphor does not really seem necessary. Your suggestion seems fine to me. Zaereth (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, you are more than welcome to make the change yourself. The worst that may happen is that someone might revert it, and then, perhaps, they might discuss it here. Zaereth (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Subspecies
I changed back the number of subspecies to two. Since 1982 it has been recognized that the Vancouver Island wolverines were identical with the mailand ones. Here are some references:    I've also noticed that for conservation purposes, the Canadian government considers only two populations of Gulo gulo, the eastern and the western. However it mentions the possibility that the Vancouver island population might be a subspecies (however most likely extirpated), and that more studies are required: "A single subspecies of wolverine ranges across most of Canada. Further studies are required to determine if the Vancouver Island population is a separate subspecies" from. 194.94.96.194 15:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "However, the most currently accepted taxonomy recognizes either the two continental subspecies or recognize G. gulo as a single Holarctic taxon.[5]" - the sentence makes no sense. Given its relation to the posting immediately above, I was hopeful that the poster would be the one who made it, notice this, and fix it. However, I see that the post is 7 yrs old, so that's unlikely. Perhaps someone else? I think I know what was trying to be said, but not certain enough to rewrite it and be sure that I'm correct. Irish Melkite (talk) 04:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Add effects of global warming endangerment
February 2013, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service proposed giving Endangered Species Act protections to the wolverine largely because climate change is whittling away its wintry habitat in the northern Rockies. 108.195.136.253 (talk) 09:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It's there in the first paragraph. JohnInDC (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There is an IP editor now changing this statement to reflect that the "climate change" is attributed to global warming which is actually stated in the article. I'm not for or against either wording, but I do feel it would better to NOT use a controversial term like global warming when climate change is perfectly adequate. Furthermore, the cited source states that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service recommendation was brought about by a lawsuit brought by the Center for Biological Diversity and Defenders of Wildlife versus the efforts and analysis of the agency. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The IP is a chronic sockpuppet, repeat offender - give it an hour and all of his edits will have been bulk-reverted - and I don't bother to evaluate his arguments and claims any more. Whatever edits you make as a disinterested editor, I'll be fine with - JohnInDC (talk) 23:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Whether the article describes "global warming" or "climate change" (as used in the source), it seems a marked omission simply to note the reduction in its winter habitat without mentioning the cause. I added it back in.  JohnInDC (talk) 00:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Eh, never mind. I now see it's mentioned in the prior paragraph, and the implication in the following paragraph is clear.  I reverted myself.  JohnInDC (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * LOL, I have days like that too... Happy editing! :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Carnivore vs. Omnivore
"It is a stocky and muscular carnivore,"

Further down, the Wiki states that a wolverine will supplement its diet with, among other things, roots and berries. Wouldn't that make the wolverine an omnivore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.183.112.93 (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. Dogs and wolves will supplement their diet by eating grass, providing them with some necessary fiber, but their primary diet consists of meat, making them carnivores. A bear, on the other hand, will eat just as much berries as it does meat, if not more, so the bear is a true omnivore. I believe the wolverine diet is more meat than anything else. Zaereth (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Wolverine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130730084340/http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/838651.html to http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/838651.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140227013803/http://www.ajc.com/news/content/shared-gen/ap/National/US_Wolverine_In_Colorado.html?cxntlid=thbz_hm to http://www.ajc.com/news/content/shared-gen/ap/National/US_Wolverine_In_Colorado.html?cxntlid=thbz_hm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hall
In the first paragraph after the introduction a researcher named Hall from a citation at the end of this very sentence is mentioned. Apparently someone put a citation request "who" next to the name which I removed since the name is derived from that very citation. An user named JohnInDC chose to revert my edit without checking the facts. I set it right again and I hope it remains that way. After all it isn't too difficult to read the text of the citation - that's what it is there for. --Maxl (talk) 12:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The name "Hall" is presented entirely without context; the reader is at a loss to know who this "Hall" is, and is not assisted by the title of the citation, which doesn't list "Hall" as an author. It is in fact asking too much of the reader that they delve into the text to ascertain who Hall is - particularly considering that even if they do, they still do not know, inasmuch the citation only in turn cites to "Hall 1981".  I am restoring the "who" pending a more useful identification of "Hall" whether by me when I find a minute, by the editor who is removing the template without fixing the problem, or by a another editor still.  Thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 13:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I also bothered to read the preceding paragraph and realized that the reference to Hall and his views was entirely subsumed within it, and removed the sentence entirely. I guess this just illustrates how reading before editing does indeed help!  JohnInDC (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You should read the citation, he's referenced to in there!!! Reading before editing does help so why didn't you do it? --Maxl (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Who is Hall", asks the template. "He's the fellow named in the citation."  "Yes, I see that - 'Hall 1981'.  But who is Hall?"  "He's the guy named in the citation, don't be so thick."
 * Do you see the problem here? Who is Hall - who is he?  "The fellow named in the citation" is not illuminating.  So, for the record - and it took me a good 10 minutes to figure this out, since this is not my area of expertise - "Hall" appears to be E.R. (Eugene Raymond) Hall, and the 1981 work is "The Mammals of North America".  At least I think so - I don't know.  Can't tell from the reference, which doesn't name the work or further identify "Hall".
 * As for reading before editing - I guess I was being too subtle in pointing out that a truly careful reading of the section at issue would have revealed that the sentence about Hall was, in fact, redundant, and the better edit from the start would have been to simply remove the sentence, as I finally did, rather than remove the (quite sensible) template along with a snarky comment about other editors' lackadaisical reading practices. JohnInDC (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Polar bear
An anonymous editor has repeatedly removed this material, arguing in edit summaries that the sources are "unreliable" and "outdated", and that the story is implausible. I'm not sure what's unreliable about the sources; and, the language is sufficiently qualified to suggest that the assertion may not, in fact, be true. Another editor and I have restored this material, and given the IP's persistence, I'm raising the issue here for discussion. Comments? JohnInDC (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have been following this for the last couple of days. I find it highly unlikely that a wolverine could kill a polar bear, however, it appears to be verified by what appear to be reliable sources.  "Outdated" should not be considered as a factor here.  If a wolverine just once killed a polar bear, it does not matter whether it happened last week or last century. DrChrissy (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't doubt it. There are plenty of reports of wolverine killing brown bears, which can be just as big or bigger than a polar bear. Wolverine are fast and ornery, and maybe just a touch crazy. Polar bears are feared mostly because they're the only bears known to actively stalk and hunt humans for food. Zaereth (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please, can you provide RS reports of wolverine killing brown bears. The articles does not contain any such statement and it would be an interesting addition. DrChrissy (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

1. The alleged case of a wolverine killing a polar bear is from a book from 1944 titled "Wolverine - a look into the devil's eyes" where it is stated that a wild wolverine managed to kill polar bear in an Alaskan Zoo. However, there is nothing more to it. No photographic evidence, additional reports, no video evidence, etc. The description itself is rather short as well and lacks elaboration. Not to mention, no description of the polar bear.

2.There is a case of a black bear killing a wolverine that tried to steal it's kill in 2003.

3. Yet again, your "plenty" reports of Wolverines killing brown bears have no actual evidence to support their authenticity. I've never heard of those "plenty reports" of Wolverines killing Brown Bears (your side bringing that up will definitely make this debate a lot difficult.) that blatant statement puts a dent in your credentials. I'll assume bias until proven wrong. Now, since we lack essential evidence, let's have a basic animal debate.

Wolverine's weight: 20 - 50lbs. In addition: sharp claws, sharp teeth and durability.

Brown Bear weight (including all species): 180 - 1,300 lbs (Kodiak bears can grow 1,500=680kg and Russian Kamchatka bears can be 650kg as well, Polar bears are said to be even larger.) with the weaponry of: immense strength, paws, sharp claws, sharp teeth with a great bite force, huge additional fat that is very durable. Now, weather or not the size can serve as an advantage against a smaller, agile creature can be debatable, everything else seals the deal.

Now, either prove me wrong, provide evidence or get back to the reality, because in the one we're living, wolverines don't kill mooses and bears.

P.S. there has never been a case of a wolverine killing a brown bear. (if there was, why does it say nothing about it on your 110% reliable wikipedia or anywhere else aside from forums composed by 12 year olds??? where are your sources now??) now, either step up, or point and keep shouting "vandalism!!!!" prove me wrong or give up your seemingly massive egos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.134.227.183 (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a nice start but the account is sourced (the age of the source doesn't matter); the language in the article makes it clear that the episode is merely "an account", not gospel; and your own synthesis and opinion are not sufficient to support the removal of sourced material presented equivocally. Also - please avoid insulting other editors.  It's poor form.  Thanks.  JohnInDC (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As an animal behaviour scientist in real life, I really struggle to believe this event ever happened, but stranger things HAVE happened. Given their fearsome reputation, I am surprised that any zoo would let a wolverine get access to any other animal! I think the problem we have here is that the incident is verifiable but some editors are not convinced it is the truth.  This is sometimes the frustration of Wikipedia - Verifiability is what is required, not the truth.  How about we take a middle line and tag the sentence with  so the content is not deleted, but alerts editors to search for other RS? DrChrissy (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. JohnInDC (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm no biologist myself, but, like most other things I do on Wikipedia, I am very familiar with most articles I work on from personal experience. I've had many run-ins with wolverines. In most circumstances a bear of any kind would be the winner, but there's always that lucky shot and a wolverine is just brazen enough to try.


 * I use sources for anything I add, but can also rely on my own knowledge to help find good sources and check them for veracity. Aside from stories from the trappers and Alaska Natives I know, I remember reading somewhere in one of the local newspapers about a wolverine killing a brown bear, but would have to do some digging to look that up. That was long before the internet. I still have no reason to doubt the polar bear story. I seem to recall the book Mammals of North America by Vic Cahalane mentions wolverines taking down bears, but would have to go look that up to be sure.


 * I don't have access to both sources in the article, but did find the book Wolverine--A Look into the Devil's Eyes (18) on google. On Page 20 it definitely makes that statement, and cite three people, at least one of which is reputable scientists, Peter Krott (Demon of the North 1959). There is also Charles Sheldon (The Wilderness of Denali), and Leslie White (Marvel and Mysteries of our Animal World). If we're looking to check the veracity of this source those would probably be a good place to start. I find it difficult to believe that the famous biologist would make up that information at the risk of his reputation, but don't have time to dig up their writings right now. Zaereth (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Is there something wrong with tagging the content as I suggested above? DrChrissy (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it would be. Did I give you that impression? I just thought I'd point to the sources used by one of our sources as a place to look. Zaereth (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You did give me that impression but that is because I tend to be rather black-and-white and I was looking for a straight "yes" or "no". Not a problem.  Ok, I will tag the content. DrChrissy (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I started writing that before you posted your idea for the tag, mainly because google limits the number of page you can view, so I had a heck of a time getting the bibliography info. (Fortunately I learned a long time ago to copy my posts before saving, to avoid the edit conflict.


 * To the IP, the proper way to handle this is to find sources which contradict this statement, and then phrase it as "Source A says this while source B says that..." or something of that nature. If there are two sides to a story we present them both. Zaereth (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your efforts and sensible suggestions. JohnInDC (talk) 02:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Alright I did additional research. The report of a Polar Bear killed by a Wolverine took place at a zoo in 1944, the Polar Bear was raised in a Zoo and never fought in it's life from what I read. The event was staged in an enclosure so having the case written in Wolverine's Diet is not right. Also, we don't know the size of the bear nor it's gender or the conditions. The bear could have been sedated. (It's an alleged case of a 50lb animal killing a POLAR BEAR I will have plenty of doubts before I even start believing) It says that the wolverine latched on to the throat of the bear and started biting it, the bear was unable to get it off which is still extremely unconvincing. In the end, the wolverine was also killed by being shot. The case still sounds very farcical in my opinion and it's age make it sound more like one of those myths that people would believe in 1800's or early 1900's.

Other interactions:

Black Bear killed a wolverine trying to steal it's food in 2003.

There were two cases when a brown bear killed a wolverine, when the wolverine was trying to share/steal it's kill. There was another case in Russia, an emaciated, probably ill brown bear was killed by two wolverine in the winter (an emaciated bear during that time is probably more vulnerable than a deer) but it's still hard to believe since wolverines never go after other predators especially ones that are larger than them. But maybe the bear being emaciated allowed wolverine's to come in to finish it off. I still doubt it though. Could have been wolverines scavenging. http://animalsversesanimals.yuku.com/reply/31458/Two-Wolverines-kill-an-adult-Bear#reply-31458 (the cases of bears killing wolverines and a case of two wolverines finishing off an emaciated bear)

Now, I'll try to go and remove that Polar Bear case from the Wolverine's page, for the last time. If I'll be denied, I at least ask to remove that case from Wolverine's "Diet and Hunting" because the wolverine fought the bear at a Zoo, in a staged event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.134.227.183 (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure once in a million a wolverine might get a lucky shot or an opportunity. But that's like me winning a fight against a drunk Brock Lesnar or due to Brock slipping and falling.
 * I have again reverted the complete removal of the polar bear episode, as 1) edit warring and 2) contrary to the consensus achieved here. I caution the IP that continuing to make that identical edit in the face of consensus reached at the Talk page here will subject you to being blocked.  Separately, I do not disagree with the suggestion to remove the episode from "Diet and Hunting" but we need to figure out a way to do that, inasmuch as that section is the only place that this (along with the less-fortunate encounter with the black bear) even remotely fits.  I'll look at it some more but in the meantime if someone has a good idea, please implement it.  JohnInDC (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It would also be helpful if the IP were to point us to the sources for this additional background info on these various events, rather than just asserting them. JohnInDC (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What about having a section "Reputed ferocity" or "Aggression" - I am sure there is content and several citations we could put under such a heading. DrChrissy (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To the IP, there is just too much guess work in your assertions. We deal with sources, not "probably" or "maybe". So far I haven't been able to find a source that gives any detail of the zoo event, such as dates or anything else like that. It most certainly didn't happen at the Alaska Zoo, as asserted above. (There was no Alaska Zoo back then.) If it happened in 1944, why is there a ref from the 1930s in the bibliography of one of our sources? This is why we rely on sources and not our own ideology. For example, I found this in no time flat. (Wolverines: Behind the Myth by the Alaska Dept of Fish and Game) Here is an excellent source which gives some indirect contradiction to the assertion, in that the scientist doing the study only says he's never seen it happen. If you can find sources that directly contradict the statement, then we have something to work off, but we don't simply disregard sources because someone feels it is incorrect. Even in the face of direct contradiction, it usually needs to be overwhelming before we disregard a source. Like I said, the usual method is to give the reader all the facts we can and let them make up their own minds. If you have source that detail the incident it would be very helpful, because we can add those details to the article as well.


 * To DrChrissy, that's fine with me, although I wouldn't create an entire section to detail just one incident, but try to put in context. Zaereth (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Diet & hunting, reproduction and "_______" would all fit nicely under the larger heading of "Behavior", but maybe there is a way to extract and combine the "ferocity" examples together at the end of "Diet & hunting" with some kind of transition sentence to indicate that we're now on a related, but slightly different subject. I'll be happy to take a crack at it myself later today -  JohnInDC (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I moved things around in a way that made sense to me. Not entirely happy with the subheading but it is better than "diet & hunting".  Comments, edits welcome.  JohnInDC (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I like it. One article I really like the layout and structure of is the moose article. This looks similar. "Diet and hunting" are somewhat redundant, so I'd just call it "Diet". In a predator hunting is just a part of that. Zaereth (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me too. I am in favour of keeping the heading as "Diet and hunting" as the wolverine is also a carrion eater.  Our article states that a majority of their diet is carrion.  If this is the case, perhaps these details should go before the hunting aspects. DrChrissy (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point. I will not object if either of you edit the document along the lines you're discussing!  JohnInDC (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe it was rather rude of me to immediately jump in and dismiss the case for having doubts about it, but we agree that the authenticity of the case IS indeed debatable since it's a miracle of an occurrence. Yes, I might have made some factual mistakes about the location and date, because there are split versions of the case. Some say the the author saw the event at a Zoo, some reports say it happened in the wild which makes it more susceptible to criticism (maybe the tracker saw a wolverine feeding on a carcass and decided to color the story, that's what I would have done.) Overall, plenty of newspapers and reports from 19th and early 20th centuries turned out to be false, myths or exaggerations. I'm pleased with the changes you've made. Thanks for considering my sentiment and being tolerant. A lot of people out there seem rather uneducated about bears, some even say that a single dog can kill a polar bear with a simple neck bite, etc. A lot of myths floating around, but I guess that's how the internet works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.134.227.183 (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Age: How old do they get?

 * I feel like I'm talking to thin air, since there is no signed comment here. Anyhow, according to the book Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, Management, and Conservation, on page 676, it says the typical longevity for wolverine in captivity is ~ 15 to 17 years. In the wild, more likely ~ 8 to 10 years. Zaereth (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well done for sourcing that. It seems like an RS, so why not edit it into the article? DrChrissy (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Several reasons. The biggest is that I'm not in a hurry, so I like to give others time to respond if they have a mind to do so. That's a familiar source to me so it took no time to look it up while I was on hold, but finding proper placement, keeping flow, and adding in the full ref is going to take a little more time. That leads me to the other, which is that I'm extremely busy at the moment. (Got 20 different things broke down all at once, a dynamometer that is not showing proper engine torque, a turbine pump not pumping, and on top of everything else, a malfunctioning air-compressor that decided to blow a couple gallons of oil out of the inlet valve, covering me, all the high-voltage circuitry, and half the room.) I'll get back to this when I can. Zaereth (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Polar bear slaying
Is the story about killing an adult polar bear really suitable for wikipedia? It's quite an extraordinary claim. Surely it should be removed and like any extraordinary claim it should be backed up pretty robustly before being accepted ad then can be re-inserted into the text at that time. I mean If I claimed I had seen a wolverine flying a space ship taking Elvis to the planet of rock'n'roll loving aliens I would expect to have to offer pretty hard proof before adding it to any wikipedia page, and the polar bear slaying claim is possible but really unusual.

NickPriceNZ (talk) 13:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The polar bear slaying has been widely reported by several books, National Wildlife, National Geographic, news and magazines, and many other sources. It apparently happened back in the 1940s, so finding records much closer to the actual incident may need to take place in a library or news archive.


 * The wolverine kills its prey (or adversary) in much the same way a pitbull does. They latch on with powerful jaws, usually at the throat to suffocate them, but sometimes elsewhere too. There have been reports of wolverine killing full-grown moose and caribou; one moose by biting through its backbone after a long struggle. (Keep in mind a moose is flexible enough to kick you off its back with its hind leg.) Like a pitbull, they have a single-minded determination, do not back down or give up, and have absolutely no apparent fear of death (NAFOD). In addition, they have mongoose-like speed. As someone who has seen them in action in the wild, I personally do not doubt the claims.


 * While the modern repeats of this story are vague on the details, it apparently did happen and is better documented out there somewhere. However, it is not the only case documented. Here is one from the University of Alaska's Department of Biological Sciences:


 * Amoa Lane (Point Hope, Alaska), a native Eskimo hunter who is one of the most experienced, widely-ranged, and reliable of guides in Alaska, reports details of an encounter between a wolverine and a polar bear about 5 km west of the Lisburne Cliffs north of Point hope in the early spring of 1944, which was observed by his father. Tracks showed that the wolverine had been hunting and scavenging well off shore and was proceeding south when it met the polar bear. Evidently the bear initiated the attack, but as it charged the wolverine leapt to and seized the bear's throat and clung so closely to its chest that the bear was unable to brush it off and only attempted to deliver a hug, which it quickly abandoned. The wolverine appears to have clung to the bear's windpipe without attempting any other kind of damage, until the bear had choked to death. Mr. Lane dispatched [killed] the victor before any further behavior could be observed.


 * While the killing of such large predators and prey apparently can and do happen, they are most certainly the exception not the norm. Zaereth (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

That's so awesome. Like I said a wolverine killing a polar bear is implausable but not impossible, and the disclaimers are pretty clear so I agree it should stay in there. Always a shame those reports never clarify age/gender/size. Killing a younger polar bear is especially believable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickPriceNZ (talk • contribs) 09:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, awesome. It's one comic-book character that seems to have gotten the behavior right, if nothing else. The word psychopath comes to mind, but I hear it'll keep the thugs in prison away from you. Honestly, I think the opposite is more plausible. People think "bear" and they think "size, strength, teeth, claws", but forget that size comes at a cost in speed (reflexes and agility) and in flexibility. A bear, like a moose, has roughly the same range of motion as a dog. The wolverine about the same range as a weasel. So (even though without its skin a bear looks almost exactly like a human) a bear can't really grab at something close to its chest or throat, especially if that something is much smaller than it. It's like a weak spot nobody else ever has the balls to try for. Zaereth (talk) 02:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Natural Enemies Section Confusing?
Anyone else finding the natural enemies section confusing? Wolves are cited repeatedly as predators with the speculation that their arrival will cause the wolverine to leave, yet elsewhere in the article the wolverine is suggested to be a kleptoparasite and scavenger upon wolves and occasionally to eat their young - which implies a shared range and mutual antagonism. Much the same applies to the bears - it seems that the same applies but that the bears have more chance in a stand up fight. Maybe. Not sure what the bit about "wolverines seemed to try to actively avoid encounters with grizzly bears as they have been reported in areas where wolves start hunting them" - does this mean that wolverines have been observed to avoid bear territories at the cost of suffering wolf predation? Speaking of which, do these other carnivores actually eat the wolverines or just kill them and dump the bodies? Presumably we want something like "primary natural enemies of the wolverine appear to include bears, wolves and cougars. Conflict with bears appears to result mainly from disputes over prey, with varied outcomes from a successful kill-theft by the wolverine to the bear killing and eating its opponent. Cougars and wolves, by contrast appear to actively hunt the wolverine with the grey wolf being a significant source of wolverine fatalities.  As noted above, some of these may also result from wolverines attempting to seize wolf kills and/or predate wolf cubs" (with cites transplanted)? 82.1.7.156 (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * You raise some interesting points, but then again I don't have access to many of these sources. A lot of this looks like library work, rather than something you can just pull off the internet to verify. Don't get me wrong, because they all look like good sources, but this looks like it is a bit strung together from little bits and pieces. Someone should look at the sources and see how they all fit together, and then give a proper interpretation.


 * That's the thing about Wikipedia. These articles are often built from little tidbits that various people thought were interesting, so things just kinda get lumped together without much regard for coherence. We always need someone to come along and go through the sources, and then try to assemble everything into a coherent section that flows (hint hint).


 * Form my personal experience, I've never heard of much of anything that would actively stalk and hunt a wolverine, except a polar bear. (A polar bear will eat damn near anything, including humans. On the ice, you don't have the luxury of being picky.) I doubt black bears and brown bears/grizzlies actively hunt them, nor wolves for that matter. The most likely encounters are when one is defending its prey from the other. Of course, animals don't always kill each other for food. They may simply not like you. (For example, lions kill cheetahs for no other reason than lions hate cheetahs. The polar bear at the zoo took one look at my brother and tried tearing down the cage to get at him, snarling and biting at the fence.)


 * The wolverine, like many in its family, they're smelly, musky animals. They're also very mobile animals; always on the go/sleep in a different place every night. I suppose a bear might eat one, if it killed one and was really hungry, or it might not. Bears are extremely unpredictable. (My old teacher and guide told me once, "A bear is a lot like a human. It may have no reason to kill you, but go out of its way to maul you up really good and leave you for dead, for no other reason than it woke up in a bad mood this morning. Or, you could do everything wrong and it just decides you're not worth the bother. You never know.") A bear may run away, or it may stand its ground and fight. Same with wolves, although wolves tend to be a little more cautious in their approach, and while bears tend to be a larger and more formidable opponent, one on one, the wolves' strength come in their numbers and ability to work as a team. Both are often apt to avoid a conflict whenever they see a potential for harm to itself, but you never know just what's going through its mind on any particular day.


 * So, I think you have some good ideas and observations, and perhaps you can help check the sources and try to do a little editing to make this section cohere and flow better. (I'd do it myself but right now just don't have the time..) Zaereth (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)