This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
African wolf article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 360 days
![]() |
![]() | A fact from African wolf appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 12 August 2015 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Ha! In taxonomy, apparently nothing is ever settled. I was also rather sceptical after just coming across references to this, but the studies referenced seem valid (although Gaubert's interpretation of the genetic data as reflected in his taxonomic proposal is frankly just as valid here). What does bug me immensely however is the seemingly top-down approach of adoption and insistence of a completely new common name in English; i.e. calling the jackal a 'wolf', apparently instituted by a handful of British scientists in technical biological publications, in what is supposed to be an encyclopaedia of concepts in the English language. If a few zoologists suddenly insist on calling this animal a wolf informally among themselves, whereas millions of people who commonly interact with the animal; be it farmers, tour operators, exterminators, or people trying to stop them going through the trash at night; are calling this animal a 'golden jackal', that is their prerogative, however that does not warrant having the title to this article solely reflect the naming convention these guys have recently decided to adopt. Unlike as in other tongues there is no official institute mandating common names for species in the English language, thus the convention for encyclopaedic entries should be the most commonly used common name, i.e. used by laypeople in the region. I get why these scientists would suddenly prefer to call it a 'wolf', as then English might better reflect the new taxonomic interpretation, however in the same vein then the 'African wild dog' should be renamed, 'Argentine wolf' idem ditto, the other jackals should no longer be called jackals either, the word 'dingo' should be struck from existence, Americans must stop calling their thrushes 'robins', their cowbirds 'blackbirds', ad nauseam. The animal has not changed, the common name has not changed, only the taxonomic interpretation of the African populations.
On a side note, I wonder in which clade the golden jackals of the Levant, Arabia and India should now be classified?
Extra very tangential side note related to naming conventions, there is an article in the Haaretz today where the animals are called 'coyotes', interesting example perhaps of Americanisation of English in Israel?
86.83.56.115 ( talk) 10:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC) Leo
Hiya William Harris, I'm back here, thus apparently still interested in this. I've seen your writing elsewhere on canid pages and understand you are more invested than myself regarding the genus, nonetheless I believe the issue I'm raising is not settled and you are probably not understanding my point.
The English language is not taxonomically accurate, the common name of a particular organism in English is simply the name or names most commonly used by people to refer to the organism in question. In this case we have an animal which has been known as a "common jackal" or "golden jackal" for the last few hundred years, until in 2012 a few people in Europe decided that they would personally prefer to call the same organism a "wolf", and a wikipedia editor or two felt they should jump on the bandwagon. Not withstanding the apparent taxonomic correctness of this neologism, it is linguistically incorrect to say that the most commonly used name for this organism is "golden wolf". This is not the case of a new species being discovered but a case of previously known populations being taxonomically redefined. Do you really think the English-speaking people in Africa will or should change their speech because of some relatively obscure science boffins elsewhere decide so? Calling this animal a "jackal" is no more wrong than calling those red-breasted thrushes in the USA "robins". Also, only 8 (recent) of the 50 odd references used in this article unambiguously use "African wolf" as their preferred common name.
In conclusion, taxonomic concepts may change, but that doesn't mean the English language does.
To illustrate using another language: the word "bweha" in Swahili traditionally means "jackal" or "fox", but not "dog" ("mbwa"), should people in Kenya now change their speech regarding this species to more accurately reflect the latest in current taxonomic concepts by calling these animals "mbwa wa mbuga"? Of course not.
I will add a referenced phrase to the intro to reflect my view. I hope you and others understand what I'm trying to say.
Cheers, Leo 86.83.56.115 ( talk) 00:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
BhagyaMani has removed my sources (IUCN range maps) on sympatric felids that the African golden wolf shares its territory with. While it is not mentioned explicitly, the maps themselves should be an indication of habitat and ecosystem overlap. Ddum5347 ( talk) 18:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I propose that this article be WP:MOVEed to the name African wolf. The name "African golden wolf" was used by Koepfli 2015 to distinguish this taxon from the "(Eurasian) golden jackal". We now have Alvares 2019 (IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group) referring to the taxon as "African wolf", and the article uses the Alvares suggested taxonomic classification of Canis lupaster. Koepfli was a participant in Alvares 2019. We need a complete break away from any confusion with the golden jackal. Editors are invited to leave their comments over the coming week. Courtesy @ BhagyaMani: and @ Mariomassone: William Harris (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello @ Nikkimaria:, I seek your opinion on a number of images used in this article. These images have been taken from a PLOS ONE publication: Reviving the African Wolf.
The authors provide a Copyright notice on its first page which states: "Copyright: © Gaubert et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited."
Nonetheless, the images contained in that article each bear "Copyright Cecile Bloch (c)", who was a contributor to the article. An example of one of these images on WP is here: File:Lupaster.png
Could you advise me if this image meets the copyright requirements of Wikipedia, please? William Harris (talk) 11:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
@ BhagyaMani: We should include other people here so ping some. YOU can see that the cladogram in the wolf article was too much combined with the taxobox and the section was messed up for the small and big screens. We can also include those links that you loveeee in the image caption and i can also make another image like that but with much bolder and bigger words and images. Some1 { talk} 04:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
@ William Harris, Mariomassone, and Shyamal: : you are welcome to join the discussion at User_talk:Punetor_i_Rregullt5#Phylogenetic_trees. – BhagyaMani ( talk) 08:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
African wolf article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 360 days
![]() |
![]() | A fact from African wolf appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 12 August 2015 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Ha! In taxonomy, apparently nothing is ever settled. I was also rather sceptical after just coming across references to this, but the studies referenced seem valid (although Gaubert's interpretation of the genetic data as reflected in his taxonomic proposal is frankly just as valid here). What does bug me immensely however is the seemingly top-down approach of adoption and insistence of a completely new common name in English; i.e. calling the jackal a 'wolf', apparently instituted by a handful of British scientists in technical biological publications, in what is supposed to be an encyclopaedia of concepts in the English language. If a few zoologists suddenly insist on calling this animal a wolf informally among themselves, whereas millions of people who commonly interact with the animal; be it farmers, tour operators, exterminators, or people trying to stop them going through the trash at night; are calling this animal a 'golden jackal', that is their prerogative, however that does not warrant having the title to this article solely reflect the naming convention these guys have recently decided to adopt. Unlike as in other tongues there is no official institute mandating common names for species in the English language, thus the convention for encyclopaedic entries should be the most commonly used common name, i.e. used by laypeople in the region. I get why these scientists would suddenly prefer to call it a 'wolf', as then English might better reflect the new taxonomic interpretation, however in the same vein then the 'African wild dog' should be renamed, 'Argentine wolf' idem ditto, the other jackals should no longer be called jackals either, the word 'dingo' should be struck from existence, Americans must stop calling their thrushes 'robins', their cowbirds 'blackbirds', ad nauseam. The animal has not changed, the common name has not changed, only the taxonomic interpretation of the African populations.
On a side note, I wonder in which clade the golden jackals of the Levant, Arabia and India should now be classified?
Extra very tangential side note related to naming conventions, there is an article in the Haaretz today where the animals are called 'coyotes', interesting example perhaps of Americanisation of English in Israel?
86.83.56.115 ( talk) 10:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC) Leo
Hiya William Harris, I'm back here, thus apparently still interested in this. I've seen your writing elsewhere on canid pages and understand you are more invested than myself regarding the genus, nonetheless I believe the issue I'm raising is not settled and you are probably not understanding my point.
The English language is not taxonomically accurate, the common name of a particular organism in English is simply the name or names most commonly used by people to refer to the organism in question. In this case we have an animal which has been known as a "common jackal" or "golden jackal" for the last few hundred years, until in 2012 a few people in Europe decided that they would personally prefer to call the same organism a "wolf", and a wikipedia editor or two felt they should jump on the bandwagon. Not withstanding the apparent taxonomic correctness of this neologism, it is linguistically incorrect to say that the most commonly used name for this organism is "golden wolf". This is not the case of a new species being discovered but a case of previously known populations being taxonomically redefined. Do you really think the English-speaking people in Africa will or should change their speech because of some relatively obscure science boffins elsewhere decide so? Calling this animal a "jackal" is no more wrong than calling those red-breasted thrushes in the USA "robins". Also, only 8 (recent) of the 50 odd references used in this article unambiguously use "African wolf" as their preferred common name.
In conclusion, taxonomic concepts may change, but that doesn't mean the English language does.
To illustrate using another language: the word "bweha" in Swahili traditionally means "jackal" or "fox", but not "dog" ("mbwa"), should people in Kenya now change their speech regarding this species to more accurately reflect the latest in current taxonomic concepts by calling these animals "mbwa wa mbuga"? Of course not.
I will add a referenced phrase to the intro to reflect my view. I hope you and others understand what I'm trying to say.
Cheers, Leo 86.83.56.115 ( talk) 00:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
BhagyaMani has removed my sources (IUCN range maps) on sympatric felids that the African golden wolf shares its territory with. While it is not mentioned explicitly, the maps themselves should be an indication of habitat and ecosystem overlap. Ddum5347 ( talk) 18:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I propose that this article be WP:MOVEed to the name African wolf. The name "African golden wolf" was used by Koepfli 2015 to distinguish this taxon from the "(Eurasian) golden jackal". We now have Alvares 2019 (IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group) referring to the taxon as "African wolf", and the article uses the Alvares suggested taxonomic classification of Canis lupaster. Koepfli was a participant in Alvares 2019. We need a complete break away from any confusion with the golden jackal. Editors are invited to leave their comments over the coming week. Courtesy @ BhagyaMani: and @ Mariomassone: William Harris (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello @ Nikkimaria:, I seek your opinion on a number of images used in this article. These images have been taken from a PLOS ONE publication: Reviving the African Wolf.
The authors provide a Copyright notice on its first page which states: "Copyright: © Gaubert et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited."
Nonetheless, the images contained in that article each bear "Copyright Cecile Bloch (c)", who was a contributor to the article. An example of one of these images on WP is here: File:Lupaster.png
Could you advise me if this image meets the copyright requirements of Wikipedia, please? William Harris (talk) 11:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
@ BhagyaMani: We should include other people here so ping some. YOU can see that the cladogram in the wolf article was too much combined with the taxobox and the section was messed up for the small and big screens. We can also include those links that you loveeee in the image caption and i can also make another image like that but with much bolder and bigger words and images. Some1 { talk} 04:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
@ William Harris, Mariomassone, and Shyamal: : you are welcome to join the discussion at User_talk:Punetor_i_Rregullt5#Phylogenetic_trees. – BhagyaMani ( talk) 08:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)