Talk:Badger

Vandalism?

There's been a section posted in this article with the lyrics for the Badgers song. Reverting EDIT: Someone beat me to it...goodgoodgood!

hehehe that was me you fools Reedfrost (talk) 04:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC) 70.162.133.122 (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Badger vs Longhorn Cattle

Would a badger beat a longhorn cattle in a fight?

I think the cattle would trample the badger. But badgers ARE very fierce and they can defeat dogs much bigger than them. Dora Nichov 11:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what the purpose of this speculation is. this isn't some forum, is there reports of badgers killing cattle? Rds865 (talk) 05:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Flash Movie

Do we need the link to the flash movie on this page? We already have Badger Badger Badger which explains about it. Kirk 11:26, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

BADGERS ARE COOL LOVE YALL JENNIFER ANN ( JIFNERER)I suggest compromise: a link to the disambiguation page at the top of the article. --Damian Yerrick 04:38, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

It should be listed in a badgers in culture section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rds865 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Taxidea taxus

Why is there only a section on the american badger? Fair enough it is a subfamily but what about all the others? It should either be an article by itself or all the other badgers/families should have a section.

Good idea.61.230.79.242 04:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced this section. GameCreator 21:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

badgers and TB

Suggest needs a paragraph on possible (and controversial) involvement of badgers in the spread of bovine tuberculosis. There are current UK government trials of culling in certain areas. Some info on the pages linked at end of article. --RupertB 19:38, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

badger - the verb

Is there not an expression like 'To badger somebody about something" in the meaning of "to repeatedly and insistently ask or query somebody"?

Yes, but nothing to do with this if you please, 'cept it's like a big fierce badger.61.230.79.242 04:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Badger, or Tanuki?

Do "shapeshifting badgers" really feature in Japanese folklore, or is this confusion with the raccoon dog? The Japanese word for it, "tanuki", is often mis-translated as badger.

seconded: this should be omitted, IMO. -- JRice 16:15, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

In the Japanese cartoon Doraemon, raccoon dog is often mistranslated as fox or civet. Dora Nichov 11:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

There aren't any Badgers IN Japan, are there? ~ SotiCoto (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The name "Brock"

Wouldn't the name "Brock" for a badger come from Beatrix Potter's story The Tale of Mr. Tod, which concerned a badger named Brock who kidnapped a bunch of baby rabbits with the intent of eating them? Potter's story was written in 1912; well before the 1948 date cited in the article.

It comes from the Irish and Scottish (ie Gaelic) word "broc" (pronounced "bruck") a point which I have now added to the article. --Qwayfe 16:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Badgerphone

Does this place have the Badgerphone? I only saw the Badger Badger Badger link.

Redwall

There is a den or place at sorts located within the forest refered to Mossflower Woods called Brock Hall and it is located beneath where a Badger watches over its neighbors in the abbey nearby.

So?61.230.79.242 04:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Behaviour, Mating, Etc.

The article goes into great detail on what a badger is, but totally ignores the idea of what a badger does -- what kinds of prey animals it targets, when its mating seasons and what its gestation periods are, why it is described as gentle despite being a carnivore, etc.. Is there anyone knowledgeable who can update that? I'll peruse Google for the time being... ;-) --Jtgibson 13:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You might want to look at the related articles Eurasian badger, American badger and Ratel. I don't think that they are terribly clearly signposted from this article, or from the Badger (disambiguation) page. I'll try to do something about that shortly. Once those three articles are up to scratch, perhaps it would be worth doing something with this page, but I'm not sure what is best to do to improve it. Telsa 14:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've started a small section on Lifestyle and Diet. Hopefully someone else can better word it and flesh it out. GameCreator 21:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The badger aphorisms section

I was about to remove this because there are no sources quoted for any of it, but as I wrote this justification, That Guy From That Show beat me to it. Before anyone reinserts it, here's why I think you shouldn't.

1. Bishops. Can't find any mention of this on google other than on Wiki mirrors or obviously quoted direct from Wikipedia, and certainly no derivation. Can't find it in Brewer's, Shorter OED and a couple of other reference books.
2. The verb (one sense of it, at least). In Wiktionary anyway and not needed here (and hardly an aphorism)
3. Fifties bluegrass. Can't find mention of band, can't find mention of colloquial usage claimed, can't find any non-Wikipedia mirror result on Google. Other contributions of user seem to be exclusively involved with inserting this reference in Wikipedia elsewhere and messing about with alumni of a university.

Nothing personal about badgers: I just like references :) --Telsa (talk) 10:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

For the little available proofs on Google (searching "badger a bishop" with quotes), I've removed the paragraph concerning the phrase "Don't call the badger a bishop" again, despite it appearing on the list of idioms in the English Language here on Wikipedia - that one used the same wording as the old Aphorisms section back in February. —Laogeodritt ^{[ Talk | Contribs ]} 04:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ubuntu

I was wondering if it would be completely out of place to add that the very popular Ubuntu Linux distribution has a version called Breezy Badger. Somnoliento 02:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

My personal feeling is that it would be a little unnecessary. There are dozens of distros who have had dozens of odd release names. We used to have Breezy Badger mentioned on the Badger (disambiguation) page, but it was removed -- by me :) -- because there wasn't anything much to link to: we don't have articles about each separate version. This article tends to acquire stuff about "in popular culture" and lists of books and Mr Badgers and so on much faster than it acquires any information about badgers themselves. Telsa (talk) 07:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

We should add Badger badger badger on again.

It is a significant pop cultural things featuring badgers. Maybe put it in the pop cultural sections.

We should IMHO. -201.52.40.246 (talk) 05:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Teastas Mor?

Is this really relevant? While related to badgers in some way, it seems rather out-of-place to me. There's also the issue of the second paragraph: A few Google searches shows nothing much that mentions this event save Wikipedia itself (and any mirrors thereof). If it is accurate, wouldn't it be better off in Badger-Baiting one section above? Laogeodritt 13:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Badger Name

Believe the etymology section should be cleaned up, and would suggest that the idea the name badger comes from the fce having a badge on it, is a little spurious.

I have seen other web pages which state the name badger is believed to come from the French word ‘becheur’, meaning digger.

129.35.81.16 13:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)DT

Range?

I know nothing about badgers, and so wouldn't touch the article, but what I came looking for was the range of the different species of badgers. (Badgers are prominent figures in a book series I'm reading, and I was just curious as to which sort would be around.) Any chance of modifying the list of different types of badgers to give their geographical ranges? Miss w 15:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

North America and Eurasia. Honey badgers, which aren't true badgers, live in Africa. Dora Nichov 11:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Bold text

Vandalism - Horse picture

It's showing a picture of a horse. I have no idea how to change it, so someone might want to do that. 67.23.84.125 15:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it.

Trivia section

I added this section and included a reference to Wisconsin. Maybe the literary and folklore references could go here also to separate it from the biology. WU03 02:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

What is this trivia about badgers killing people? This seems to me like vandalism.

It's obviously vandalism. I personally dislike trivia sections. They become repositories for collections of facts which should be incorporated into the article proper. (And vandalism, seemingly.) Also, we don't really need to give every paragraph its own subheading. I have removed the claims about sharks and the "folklore" section: no-one ever produces a cite for any of it. I will look for the "symbol of fidelity" one because it's one I know myself, although I thought it was more about tenacity than milk and kindness. (Presumably CS Lewis had in mind when he made Trufflehunter the badger the character who never doubted that Caspian would return.) Telsa (talk) 08:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Fiction

We are amassing a long list of "books with a badger in them". Is this a good thing? Half of them are childrens' books, and talking animals are a fairly standard ingredient in children's books. And the badgers are far from the main characters in several of them. The other thing is that these are all English-language books: apparently there is no M. Blaireau or Herr Dachs worth including? So does this reflect a specific genre in Britain (most of them are UK books) that doesn't exist in Europe, Russia, the rest of the badger's range; or does it simply reflect who edits the article most? Telsa (talk) 08:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

size

2m in length sounds a bit of a 'stretch', this site says 750mm average: [1]

Of course, it would depend on the species, but I agree badgers of any kind don't grow to 2 meters. Dora Nichov 09:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

What badgers eat

I think the facts about the american badger's diet are from The Simpsons, and aren't real. Or mabye somebody didn't understand that the site www.whatbadgerseat.com is a joke website. Either way, it should be cited.

Badgers

I love Badgers! They are very cute! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.143.47.76 (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Badger fur is used for shaving brushes

I'd like to know if the badgers are hunted and slaughtered for their fur. Or just shaved like sheep? Where are these badger fur facilities? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.237.101.62 (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Badgers are slaughtered for the hair, rather than being shorn like sheep. Now-a-days, the commercial supply of badger hair comes from China. People are assured that badgers are in abundant supply in China, that they would become vermin if their population were not checked by such slaughter, and that harvesting badger hair is intrinsically too expensive for demand to cause excessive hunting. But, for my part, these assurances are insufficient. Badger populations could be controlled without slaughter, and I've seen distressing video of how fur from other animals (such as raccoon dogs) is harvested in China. —SlamDiego_←T 11:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Second largest or largest carnivore in UK?

We seem to be going back and forth between the largest indigenous carnivore in the UK and the second largest. Can both sides please cite their sources here so that we can come to a consensus? --Lonotter 14:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• The Badger Trust (formerly the National Federation of Badger Groups) includes the line: 'Did you know that the badger is the largest land carnivore left in the British Isles following the extinction of the bear and the wolf!' on the 'What is a badger?' page. There have been proposals to reintroduce wolves in scotland although I do not know whether this has been done yet. If that is the case it would be correct (and more enlightening) to say "...are now the second largest native carnivores in the British Isles since wolves were reintroduced in Scotland in (date)" Petecarney 19:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The Carnivore page defines such an animal as having a diet consisting mainly of meat and distinguishes them from obligate carnivores which cannot digest vegetable matter. Eating the occasional plant doesn't make them omnivores. Petecarney 09:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I found it odd that the article says nothing about how large the various badgers grow. Huw Powell (talk) 20:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Changing United Kingdom to Great Britain

The term "United Kingdom" refers to all territories of the crown, including islands far removed from Great Britain, which is the correct term for the island containing England, Scotland and Wales. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.164.122.5 (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

New Wikiproject

I wanted to make a wikiproject about ferrets and weasels but it became to small a range so i have made a bigger wikiprojects including all animals in the Musteloidea super family which include both ferrets and weasels and much similar animals. Support would be appreceated.

This new wikiproject includes Badgers

you can find it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Weasels

i also made a little template for the project,

This article is within the scope of the Weasel WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to Ferrets, Weasels, and other Weasel like friends. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

I hope you like it.

This wikiproject is for the superfamily of Musteloidea which currently and surprisingly does not have an article yet. This superfamily includes ferrets and weasels and all of our other furry little weasel like friends. Please put your name on it so this article could have it's very own wikiproject outside of wikiproject animals.

Teh Ferret 19:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Best

This may be the best article ever... though I am somewhat biased... ;) Wilybadger 02:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Badger's in Iraq

Should Newsbiscuit.com even be considered a credible source? I browsed there and it appears that they're as credible as fake News Website The Onion. 68.9.223.94

It appears the BBC and USA Today have reported about this. I'm still not sure it belongs in the article. 13:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)WP:RECENT. --OnoremDil 13:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahh...I hadn't seen the part referenced to newsbiscuit. It's already been removed. --OnoremDil 13:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to see if you noticed that. It should be on the list of places that are NOT to be used. Although refering to it on a page about fake news websites might be warranted. 68.9.223.94 13:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop vandalising this section by removing references. The point is not whether the badgers were or were not deployed by the British, but whether the British can credibly answer the allegation. The 20 June 2007 article may be true, it may not. It is cited as a source of information that could have been seen inside Iraq that was a possible basis for the allegation. Why weren't, for example, the Americans or Australians blamed for deploying the badgers? Why the British? Jumping to the conclusion that the British did not deploy the badgers violates Wikipedia:No_original_research and WP:NPOV. Please remember, we are not exactly talking about UFOs or aliens here. There are videos and photos of the badgers all over the Internet. And it is not as if people are saying the heard the badgers speaking with a midlands accent or something ridiculous like that!

When you have objective proof that the badgers are not part of the British military presence in Iraq, please feel free to add references the relevant sources. Mere denials by the Military of any nation do not constitute an acceptable standard of proof, especially in relation to Iraq. Do you even remember the premise upon which the war was started!! --121.209.162.193 21:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The British were blamed because they had the nearest base. The scientists from the area have provided a reasonable explanation. And you can definitely stop adding your "source" which includes a photoshopped badger in a tank. It's nonsense and doesn't belong in the article.

When you have objective proof that the badgers are not part of the British military presence in Iraq

Negatives are kind of tough to prove. Your request is unreasonable. Feel free to add the information when you have proof that they were responsible though. --OnoremDil 21:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Can't agree, I'm afraid. The allegation is a noteworthy event, I'll stick with the text and references as originally included in the article. Feel free to add further references. Thanks. --121.209.162.193 23:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Badger Deployment in Iraq Section

This section was finally stabilised after a fairly 'robust' debate by various sceptics who no doubt divide their time between here and the 'Global Warming is a Swindle' pages and who are probably still waiting for those WMDs to turn up in Iraq. So why was it deleted? I prefer the earlier version in which the British are not let off so lightly. If this section gets deleted again without explanation, I will regard this article as up for wholesale revision and revert to that version and add the Badger photoshopped into the tank as a pic, if I can get a royalty free version of it. --121.209.163.118 23:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If you revert to the version including the nonsense reference and/or insert the badger in a tank pic, you will be reverted as a vandal. --OnoremDil 23:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure - but I'll do it anyway if the section gets deleteted without explanation here. Vandalism is a two way street - if you want to make it one. --121.209.163.118 23:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

While I had nothing to do with the removal of that section, I agreed with it and I think that whether or not that removal should be considered vandalism would be debatable. It's a nonsense story, (even the true parts), that nobody is likely to care about in a few months, and it really has nothing to do with an encyclopedic article about badgers. Using obviously false sources to make obviously nonsense additions to the article is without question vandalism, and that's completely a one way street. --OnoremDil 01:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What is a male badger called

Badger: WHAT IS A MALE BADGER CALLED?

I don't what a male badger is called so please may someone give me a response! Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleverkitten121 (talk • contribs)

I dunno too, but i do know a female one is a sow. Ribbedebie 16:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: I know, a male badger is a boar. Ribbedebie 11:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture section

I just removed the popular culture section. Per WP:TRIVIA, such sections are not good methods of organizing information, and there was nothing in the section which seemed relevant enough to include in the rest of the article. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker 04:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

as of right now there is information in the article that should be in such a section. perhaps along with popular views of badgers and if they ever symbolized anything. Rds865 (talk) 06:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Factual omission

Hunting badgers is common in many countries, either as a perceived pest, or for sport. Roaming badgers may not be killed, nor their setts interfered with, except on licence from the government.

What country is referred to in the second line? My guess would be England, since that's the British spelling of "licence," but it's not clarified.

wrong fact

article states that badgers don't yawn.

---

this link shows a pic of a badger yawning.Indianrocks73 (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC) http://www.badgers.org.uk/badgerpages/american-badger-photo-02.html

I've removed the statement about badgers being unable to yawn as the above link shows it occurring and in a recent documentary (http://naturewatchuk.blogspot.com/2008/02/dont-miss-tonights-natural-world.html) badgers are filmed yawning many times. Geeman (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Badgers as pests, badger milk etc

Recent edits (eg: [2]) have made various claims about badgers as food and as pests in China, and the consumption of badger milk, all with references given. I've attempted to query these sources, and delete some of what appear to me to be obvious myths, such as the uses of "badger milk". To avoid further edit warring, let's now discuss these issues here.

My difficulty is that the "references" given are clearly not reliable. They are not authoritative research papers, but advertising material repeating "facts" which support the use of their product. These facts may or may not be true, but those sources are not sufficient evidence of their truth.

For example, one source claims that badgers are an agricultural pest in China, and that "villagers" are licensed to catch them. So, are they an agricultural pest? Have we a source from, say, an agricultural research journal on mammal pests in China? Or perhaps it suits the people or the Chinese government to say they are a pest? We can't tell which it is from the ref given. Then, are the people licensed? Do we have a ref about Chinese licensing law, or anything "official" saying that this is done? All we have is a couple of self-interested web-pages which could have made up the whole thing, or (perhaps more likely) be repeating something told them by their equally self-interested suppliers. We need independent refs for this material. For example, what do international conservation organisations have to say about trade in badger products and its legality in China?

Similarly, I am sceptical about badger milk. Again we only have a web-page from a supplier, which gives no details about how you actually milk a badger, is unclear about which species is involved, and does not explain how it is legal (it would not be so in the UK). I suspect a spoof or joke. For something so unlikely we certainly need an independent source.

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not just a collection of whatever other web-pages happen to say. That's why we need proper reliable refs.

Personally, I find badger meat very tasty – much like very rich beef. But that's original research, so I shan't put it in... Richard New Forest (talk) 09:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Let´s start with the obvious, shall we? If you consider something, like consumption of badger milk, to be non-sense, it is your POV. And as far as i know, wikipedia adopts a NPOV. There is a source backing up the claim that Badger Milk can be ordered in Germany and that pretty much rules out your POV. There wouldn´t be sellers if there wasn´t buyers.

Now about China. I have nothing to do with that reference and i cannot back it up. However considering your other editions, it might be just you trying to remove a valid reference due to a previously determined POV. Also there is another reference . in the same article about the consumption of Badger Meat that also backs up the claims that Badgers are considered a pest in rural mainland China. This source comes from a well known commercial establishment that works with badger products also stating that Badgers are considered pests and that farmers are licensed to kill them in China. So we do have 2 different references from different sources to back up that statement you so eagerly wants to remove.

You also forgot to mention that you removed a very large ammount of information about the consumption of Badger Meat in Europe, specially in Russia and in Croatia. In Russia, you remove about 90% of the information about consumption of badgers, leaving only the fact that there was an outbreak of trichinellosis related to Badger meat consumption, removing the quotes about the local popularity of badger meat consumption. Although the reference is mainly about the outbreak, it does state that Badger Meat is a popular food source in Russia and that it´s consumption is widespread. Those statements removed were quotes from a scientific article and their removal only serves to proove that your edition was biased by your POV that consuming badger meat or milk is disgusting or wrong.

About consumption of badger meat in Croatia, you removed every single word about it, even though we had a source from a croatian government sponsored organization (Portal of scientific journals of Croatia) claiming that Badger Meat is used in a traditional croatian dish (a croatian version of Goulash). This source not only specifies the type of badger consumed ("Meles Meles" L.), but it also contains a brief history of badger consumption in Croatia, Slovenia and other eastern european countries.

Back to Badger Milk, if you have any information about Badger Milk beeing forbidden in the UK i would be very glad if you posted it since you so far presented no valid proof for this claim and since that reference would also aid to expand the section in the article about badger milk. From me, i´ll be searching for more sources on the consumption of Badger Milk in Germany and other countries.

About your finishing sentence, i ask you to be respectfull and not ironic. As much as you may consider the consumption of badger meat or milk disgusting or wrong due to whatever reasons you have, it is just your POV and wikipedia adopts a strict NPOV policy. The sources and references backing up the statements you constantly removed in the past week are not original research. They are sources from medical, scientifical and government institutions and registered commercial enterprises , and the removal of them is not a valid edition to Wikipedia, but rather an attempt to impose your personal POV over an article.

-201.52.40.246 (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, and i found these extra references about Badgers beeing considered pests in rural China:

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Melogale_moschata.html

http://www.mnhn.lu/fauneflore/thesis_frantz.pdf

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Melogale_personata.html

http://www.tonesbarbershop.co.uk/shaveTips.htm

http://shaveblog.com/?p=46

http://www.emsplace.com/bristle_types_and_bloom.htm

http://www.thelondonlounge.net/gl/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8006&view=previous&sid=d3fafa6fef3fba27c13795619a38f4c0

I guess 7 different sources which half are scientific works and half are comercial stablishments is a wide and valid variety of sources, eh? -201.52.40.246 (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you're labouring under something of an illusion. I do not have the POV you imagine about these subjects – in fact it seems likely to me that at least some of the claimed facts may be true. My point is that they need to be backed by proper refs, not just sales pages, which are likely to be biased or inaccurate. Plausible does not mean true.

Actually it was not just me that removed those edits – but perhaps when I did so I removed more than necessary (though didn't you do a bit of wholesale reversion yourself...?). So I'm happy to keep any information that has proper refs.

The badger milk site does not actually show that it is either sold or bought in Germany (though perhaps it is). It only shows that there is a web page claiming to sell it. There is a web-page selling the USB Wine, but (sadly) that does not mean that you can actually buy one. We need an independent ref for this implausible fact.

A quick check of the European Badger article will show that species to be protected by law in the UK. The Protection of Badgers Act generally makes it illegal to possess or sell any badger parts or products without a licence. However, re-reading the Act, badger milk might possibly get through on a technicality. It is illegal to possess anything from a dead badger (S. 1 3), or to sell a whole live badger (S. 4) – but milk is from a live badger, and is not a whole one. It is illegal to "take" (catch) a badger (S. 1 1), or to disturb a badger in its sett (S. 3 e) so milking legally might be tricky. However, you can catch and keep an injured one for the sole purpose of tending it (S. 6 a). You could presumably milk such an animal, as long as you had not had that as a purpose for catching her – oh, and did not harm her cubs by starving them of milk. Milking badgers (if illegal) could not be licensed, as sale of products is not one of the possible reasons for licences (S. 10). I've half a mind to phone Natural England and ask them for their policy on badger milk...

To be honest I'm puzzled by your seven "refs". The first three do appear authoritative – but one (the thesis) has no bearing I can find on the subject, and the other two state that that ferret-badgers are not pests, so they are actually counter-refs. None of the last four pages is at all authoritative, and indeed those mostly seem to be derived from the same (unidentified) source. This puts us back where we were before – I'm afraid these refs are neither valid nor particularly wide.

Finally, I intended neither irony nor disrespect in my last sentence – I was making the point that however much I believe something, I can't include it without good independent refs. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the law in UK is irrelevant, as there was no mention whatsoever about badger products in the UK and UK law does NOT applies to Russia or Croatia or Germany, which all have different legislation.

Also, i suggest you re-read the thesis an re-read this referece .

Now back to the main issue here: You avoided answering about why have you removed the content about badger consumption in Russia and Croatia, even though it is backed by strong evidences such as 2 scientifical government sponsored websites, its relevant and it´s valid information.

Why have you removed those informations?

About Russia, you removed about 90% of the information about consumption of badgers, leaving only the fact that there was an outbreak of trichinellosis related to Badger meat consumption, removing the quotes about the local popularity of badger meat consumption. Although the reference is mainly about the outbreak, it does state that Badger Meat is a popular food source in Russia and that it´s consumption is widespread. Those statements removed were quotes from a scientific article and their removal only serves to proove that your edition was biased by your POV that consuming badger meat or milk is disgusting or wrong.

About consumption of badger meat in Croatia, you removed every single word about it, even though we had a source from a croatian government sponsored organization (Portal of scientific journals of Croatia) claiming that Badger Meat is used in a traditional croatian dish (a croatian version of Goulash). This source not only specifies the type of badger consumed ("Meles Meles" L.), but it also contains a brief history of badger consumption in Croatia, Slovenia and other eastern european countries.

Care to explain?

-201.52.40.246 (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

References cited above

No, I didn't avoid answering why I removed some of the information – I said I may have removed too much, and that I'm happy to keep anything with good refs.

If it helps, I'll explain my thinking about my reverts. You (I presume) had inserted a lot of material, and changed a lot more. A series of other editors then reverted that edit as vandalism, and you repeatedly reinstated it with summaries such as "reverting censorship". I had a brief look at the material, and found it to include material which was not supported by good refs, and to be poorly written. Your edits thus had the following features: an IP identity, poor English, poor material, claims of censorship, multiple established editors reverting it, one editor reverting repeatedly without discussion – all these are normal characteristics of vandalism, and I think it was reasonable of me (and others) to think it was vandalism.

It is not easy to tell which material in a changed paragraph is new and which merely rearranged; I did not waste time trying to decipher which was which, and reverted the changes wholesale. If I thus removed material which did have good refs, then I apologise. I've now had a quick look at the other refs from that para (which I guess must be the relevant ones), and so far most do look OK, including those in your previous post (by the way, refs don't work on talk pages, because there is no refs section).

On the language point, having now seen your posts here I suspect that your writing standard is not because you're a vandal, but because English is not your first language – for example I notice you say "those informations" above, where "that information" would be correct. If it is a second language for you, your English is actually very good indeed.

I can still find nothing relevant in the thesis. It is a long document – which bit do you say is the one I need to read? (Incidentally, this illustrates very well why refs need to give page numbers.)

The Shaving Shop ref is one of those which is not of value. It's interesting material, but the page is not authoritative and the information is clearly indirect. It is certainly not a reliable reference – we need to see that page's own source before we can judge the truth of the material. We must also remember the two Animal Diversity refs you gave, which contradict this one.

I explained the UK law because you asked... It would indeed be very useful to know what the law is in those other countries.

I'd like to make two suggestions which may help you. Firstly, why not log in using a named identity? That would show other people that you are an established editor. Secondly, if you find people reverting your material, please discuss it rather than just reverting it yourself. See WP:3RR – I don't think you quite broke the letter of that, but you certainly went against its spirit. You did pretty clearly contravene WP:EDITWAR. Richard New Forest (talk) 09:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I´m going to reply this quote by quote (quotes in itallic):

No, I didn't avoid answering why I removed some of the information – I said I may have removed too much, and that I'm happy to keep anything with good refs.}}

Does that means you agree that the information about consumption of badger meat is valid and that you will not remove the information about consumption of Badger meat in european countries?

If it helps, I'll explain my thinking about my reverts. You (I presume) had inserted a lot of material, and changed a lot more. A series of other editors then reverted that edit as vandalism, and you repeatedly reinstated it with summaries such as "reverting censorship".

I havent changed anything. What i did was to add a section called Badger in the human diet. I initially forgot to reference the claims, so i fixed it by adding a reference to every single claim it made. I asked for the issue to be discussed before removed. I tried to dialogue in the summary warning about the references and i got ignored and in more than one ocasion the content was removed under false summaries such as "No references" or even under no summary.

I had a brief look at the material, and found it to include material which was not supported by good refs, and to be poorly written.

I always thought it was standard procedure to first discuss before removing content with references.

Your edits thus had the following features: an IP identity, poor English, poor material, claims of censorship, multiple established editors reverting it, one editor reverting repeatedly without discussion – all these are normal characteristics of vandalism, and I think it was reasonable of me (and others) to think it was vandalism.

Actually, only 2 editors kept reverting it repeatedly (besides myself as an IP). What i understood of all this is that, as an IP, i´m and eternal suspect. And on wikipedia all suspects are guilty and should have their edits reverted without an adequate discussion.

It is not easy to tell which material in a changed paragraph is new and which merely rearranged; I did not waste time trying to decipher which was which, and reverted the changes wholesale.

Mediawiki does have a function to show what has changed from one edition to another one. It is quite simple to use it. I dont see why would someone just revert a change without even seeing what has changed.

If I thus removed material which did have good refs, then I apologise. I've now had a quick look at the other refs from that para (which I guess must be the relevant ones), and so far most do look OK, including those in your previous post (by the way, refs don't work on talk pages, because there is no refs section).

Apologies accepted, as long as the content doesnt get removed :) About the refs, i wondered why wasnt it working. On my wiki they work automatically, but i should have supposed it wouldn´t here.

On the language point, having now seen your posts here I suspect that your writing standard is not because you're a vandal, but because English is not your first language – for example I notice you say "those informations" above, where "that information" would be correct.

You are right about english being a second language to me. But i was not wrong to say "those informations" since i reffered to 2 different informations (the one about Russia and the one about Croatia). I do realize, however, that i do make some grammar mistakes and since i´m writing i cannot hide them under a fake texan accent or a fake cadadian accent (or maybe i should add a ", eh!" to the end of my sentences)

If it is a second language for you, your English is actually very good indeed.

Thanks.

I can still find nothing relevant in the thesis. It is a long document – which bit do you say is the one I need to read? (Incidentally, this illustrates very well why refs need to give page numbers.)

There is plethora of references of badgers being regarded as agricultural pests in that thesis. It is even on the summary in page 9. You will also find references of badgers being regarded as a pest on pages 12, 21(almost the entire page talks about the subject), 26, 108, 131 (where it references an entire chapter about badgers being agricultural pests in a book by the well known biologists TJ Roper, P Lüps, S. Lycett). Also, that book he references gives much more precise info about how pest controls works in several countries (including China) and what is the badger status in the pest control system in these countries.

The Shaving Shop ref is one of those which is not of value. It's interesting material, but the page is not authoritative and the information is clearly indirect. It is certainly not a reliable reference – we need to see that page's own source before we can judge the truth of the material. We must also remember the two Animal Diversity refs you gave, which contradict this one.

I partially agree. It is a reliable material considering is a relatively well known comercial stablishment. It doesnt hold the status of scientific articles, however it does helps to support other evidence shown here.

I explained the UK law because you asked... It would indeed be very useful to know what the law is in those other countries.

I asked about it indeed. But there was need for me to remind that UK legislation is different from other countries. German legislation, for instance, does not consider the badgers as an endagered species as far as i know (at least they certainly doesnt look endangered considering the ammount of them that we can find on Spreewald). I know for instance that Badgers are not endangered in south america neither and that hunting them is allowed by Brazilian, Paraguayan and Bolivian legislation, mostly because they are a pest against the soy and rice fields.

I'd like to make two suggestions which may help you. Firstly, why not log in using a named identity? That would show other people that you are an established editor.

I guess i wont get treated as an equal by most editors till i do so...

Secondly, if you find people reverting your material, please discuss it rather than just reverting it yourself.

I tried that several times and got completely ignored. Just looks at the edit summaries

See WP:3RR – I don't think you quite broke the letter of that, but you certainly went against its spirit. You did pretty clearly contravene WP:EDITWAR.

I followed both those rules since i actively tried to discuss with the other users about that content. If anyone violated those rules, it was the ones that repeatedly reverted my edition (and thus removing valid content) with complete disregard to the pleas for discussion over the subject. My editions, as much as they might be contested, were not obvious vandalism (they aren't even vandalism but that i already stated before) and so they couldn't have been reverted the way they were, without any discussion on the matter whatsoever.

Sorry about using quotes, but i really thought it would make my arguements much more objective if i could directly reply to your statements. -201.52.40.246 (talk) 02:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Goodness, this discussion is getting long... I think our last two contributions tidy up most of the points, so I'll try to be brief. A few left over:

• (1)You may not have actually changed other parts of the paras, but you'd done enough so the whole para was marked as changed (see the diff I gave above).
• (2)It is indeed wrong to say "informations" – I understand your reasoning, and it might well apply to other mass nouns such as wine or sand (eg "a choice of wines"), but two separate lots of information added together is still information. Don't blame us, we only speak it...
• (3)Comments in edit summaries can't really be proper discussion. I think if I'd been you I'd probably have started a discussion here after about the second revert. If you felt others were reverting without discussion, even more reason for you to start one.
• (4)The Shaving Shop ref does contribute to an extent: it shows that claims are made by sellers of badger products about badgers being culled as pests. We can use it as a ref for that – however it doesn't say anything about the truth of such claims, which are commonly made for products harvested from the wild. It has no value as a ref for the claim itself.
• (5)Thesis. Thank you for the page numbers. I see that that this paper does mention badgers as pests, and quotes other papers about that – however the paper itself is actually about something else. This situation is discussed in Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources and WP:Verifiability#Reliable sources. From those you'll see that although the thesis is a "reliable, third-party published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", its reliability only applies to its own subject matter. For this particular point it is only a tertiary source, and therefore it is not a reliable source for it – we have to give the original sources as the references. To take just one example, think about the chapter listed (p 131) in the reference section, on the subject of badgers as pests in vineyards. Does it say that they are pests, or perhaps that they are not? Or that they are only minor pests, or that simple deterrence measures overcome any problems? We need to look at that chapter itself to know. If it does indeed show that they are serious pests in need of control, it is that which must be given as the ref. (Though in any case this is all about Meles meles in Europe, not ferret-badgers in China, so even that original ref couldn't actually support the point...)

Regards, Richard New Forest (talk) 10:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I added some numbers to mark your statements in order to reply them, if you dislike the idea, just revert this edition, please :)

Now for the replies :)

• (1)Sorry, Mediawiki sometimes is rather confusing in showing the diffs and i can understand that it might be hard to see the real diff.
• (2)I´m not a native speaker of english as i stated previously, but i´m still quite sure i made that statement without any errors
• (3)They sure are not, but they were intended to at least be replied or to bring the discussion to here.
• (4)I see your point now and i agree with you.
• (5)No problem. But that reference used by the thesis does state that badgers (Meles Meles are found in Asia too) are considered pests in several asian countries, including mainland China (this is tricky detail, Badgers are not allowed to be hunted in Taiwan while they are in mainland China). And the thesis is about badgers so we cant consider it as tertiaty source. -201.52.40.246 (talk) 08:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Very brief now...

• (2). Information about one thing and information about another thing is merely information about both of them. Just how it is. Likewise "knowledge" and a number of similar words.
• (5). The thesis is about badgers, yes, but not about badgers as pests. It includes no research, analysis or discussion of that subject. It doesn't cover many other badger-related subjects either. It is only a tertiary ref for subjects it does not cover; it is not a secondary ref for something just because it mentions it. Richard New Forest (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• (5) If we restrain the acceptable refs to extremely specific topics, its quite obvious it will be very hard to proove the statement. The theses does discuss badgers being regarded as pests and it quotes some very well known main stream authors about the subject. -201.52.40.246 (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

We are not restricting ourselves to extremely specific topics, but to the subject of the paper. It does not discuss the pest point, but only mentions it, using other authors as the authorities. We can also only use those authors as references. I (or anyone) could write a paper quoting all sorts of mainstream authors – but that would not make me an authority on their subjects. The WP guidance I mentioned really is perfectly clear on this point. Richard New Forest (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Moving on

An interesting discussion! But I think it's time to move on now. I've reverted back to Richard's last edit because I believe that it forms the better base on which to continue editing. Please don't simply revert again: after this discussion, doing so would be non-constructive and would probably be considered vandalism. I'll reconsider the references myself and, unless anyone else beats me to it, will probably edit the section to reflect what's been learned above.  —SMALLJIM  19:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you just reverted it again without discussing first as you did in first place causing this mess. Don´t revert added content till you discuss it. And you also removed lots of content that were still being discussed and whose removal was clearly not consensual. -201.52.40.246 (talk) 07:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• I've revisited the ref on Trichinellosis outbreaks in Russia, and added more (too much?) to the section. As far as I can see, there is no mention of badger meat being "a popular food source in Russia and that it´s consumption is widespread", as claimed by the IP. In fact the ref suggests the opposite, stating "We presume that eating badgers is not commonplace".  —SMALLJIM  21:17, 29 October 2008

The article does state that it is popular in Novosibirsk. This ref [3] also supports that idea by stating that: Вот и попали любители экзотических шашлыков на больничную койку. (Translation: That made some of the many fans of the exotic skewers to end up in the hospital bed.) And: Чтобы обезопасить себя от этой болячки, не стоит злоупотреблять мясом диких зверей, считает врач. Но уж если гурманам так нравится "дикая экзотика", то мясо нужно как следуют проваривать. Это, кстати, касается и свинины. (Translation: To protect themselves from this disease, it is sugested not abuse the consumption of meat from wild animals, said the doctor. Even those gourmets who love wild meats should follow basic cooking safety measures. This, incidentally, also applies to pork.)

These, along with the several listed cases of badger meat usage in Russia in the first ref (It states its use in several russian regions such as Altai, Siberia, Buryatiya, Novaya Bryan, Samara, Sayansk, Angarsk, and Irkutsk) would be enough to confirm that badger meat consumption is widespread in Russia. And the russian reference is plain clear about it. -201.52.40.246 (talk) 07:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(UTC)
The IP's version of the section stated that "it is easy to find shish kebabs made from badger meat being sold on the streets". This is not confirmed by the reference, so I have not included it.  —SMALLJIM  23:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed easy to find them. I can get some references on it, maybe even as a friend to take a picture of a shish kebab stand in Novosibirsk selling badger kebabs. -201.52.40.246 (talk) 07:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding Croatia, I've added back the part about badger meat preparation (goulash etc). However the reference does not confirm consumption in "many other Eastern European countries", as the article seemed to say it did. Nor does the ref mention any "tendency towards the consumption…", stating to the contrary that "badgers are rarely hunted and consumed nowadays".  —SMALLJIM  23:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I didnt intended to say that the consumption of badger meat was widespread in Croatia. I intended to say that it also ocurred there (so to set a tendency of consumption of badger meat in eastern europe). I´m not a native english speaker and i might have written that sentence in a poor or unclear way. I´m sorry about that. I tried to fix that sentence in order to make it clear now. -201.52.40.246 (talk) 07:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Small Jim's suggested approach is a good one. However, we now have a wholesale reinstatement of the other version, which is really not helpful. Let's introduce the new material a bit at a time, so we can see where it is and consider each bit separately. User:201.52.40.246: please restore to Small Jim's last edit, or I will. Then we can put in some of your information(s). Richard New Forest (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Richard. I'm sorry, IP, but that revert is not acceptable. I've flagged the section as being under dispute. The issue is not whether there are other reliable references that support what you say - if they exist, then please add them. The issue is that we cannot allow an article to continue to contain referenced statements that are not verified by the cited references. That severely undermines Wikipedia's credibility; it is worse than having statements with no references at all. I mentioned a couple of examples of this above, there are several others in the text you have added. I suggest reminding yourself of our policies, No original research and Verifiability in particular.

Now regarding consensus - since the end of August, the content you have added has been removed by six different editors: me, Tony Fox, Prestonmcconkie (part), Badgernet, Ahoerstemeier and Richard New Forest. No-one but yourself has reinstated your versions. That's a pretty good consensus that your additions have not been considered helpful.

So here's a last chance to show that you are editing here in good faith. Please revert back to my last edit which is built upon consensus and at least attempts to accurately represent the references. We'd all then welcome your collaborative input to further expand the section.

Does anyone else have an opinion on this disagreement?  —SMALLJIM  15:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Your edition has not been built on consensus. It has been built on a bias against IP editors that you and some other users support. You just ignored most of the discussion made here and removed quite a good ammount of content backed up by refs, such as the consumption of Badger meat in Russia and the consumption of Badger milk in Germany, which you just bluntly removed all info about it without even discussing. Those users you mentioned haven´t participated in the discussion even though they should in order to revert added content with refs and due to that reason, they cant be counted as members of this discussion and cant be used to justify your edition. What have we reached in consensus in this discussion? 2 things: First, that the Shaving Shop ref is not enough to sustain the claim that badgers are perceived as pests in China. Second: That consumption of badger meat occurs in Croatia but its not as widespread as it is in Russia. The rest is content in discussion. And btw, you haven´t replied about the new source i just showed you about consumption of badger meat in Russia. Please, dont ignore the discussion. -201.52.40.246 (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

User:201.52.40.246: please restore to Small Jim's last edit. Your material will be included, if it has good refs, and that will then be a consensus edit. It is not one at present. Richard New Forest (talk) 13:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I dont consent with Smalljim's edition since it removed quite a good ammount of info with good refs. -201.52.40.246 (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, please revert to it as a starting point. We can (all) then add any material that does have good refs – as Small Jim had already started to do. The current edit is not satisfactory. Richard New Forest (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

< I don't think we're going to get any cooperation on that point, Richard. So let's build on his version instead. As a start, I've edited its first paragraph to take out the irrelevant parts and request citations for the remaining statements. The edit summary gives detail. IP, in view of the time you've had to research this, I trust you'll provide the requested citations quickly.  —SMALLJIM  23:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've now edited the second paragraph similarly. Details are in the edit summary again. If anyone thinks that the content doesn't match the references, please don't revert, but edit it as appropriate.  —SMALLJIM  01:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Really moving on

Well, I'm glad we've broken that impasse! Thanks, IP, for your work on the references. I've just done a bit of tidying and while some of the refs you've provided look good, some don't appear to be. But I'll leave that to Richard to fix - if I may, Richard?  —SMALLJIM  10:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) By the way, i´m gonna search for some more references. A coleague of mine is gonna help me search some references in Chinese about badger meat BBQ stands in China. -201.31.242.162 (talk) (Also known as 201.52.40.246 , or "That IP from Badger") 00:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. Nothing has happened for a week, so I've rewritten the section again. As mentioned in the edit summaries, I've removed the unsourced and poorly-sourced statements, though in view of your last comment I've been generous regarding those relating to China. Please feel free to amend, but only add reliably-sourced material. Thanks  —SMALLJIM  22:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Small Jim. Good edits (sorry I haven't had the chance to do any of it). Richard New Forest (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem, Richard. I see that the IP has had a similar response to some of his edits on other articles, so if he returns here, I hope he'll see that we were not being unreasonable.  —SMALLJIM  11:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Now that was lame... Since i actually found refs to back up the section you 2 just waited for me to leave and removed the content... -.- -201.31.242.162 (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, removing content backed up by sources is vandalism. -201.31.242.162 (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Please can we do this as discussed – you have removed perfectly good material, and are on very shaky ground indeed to make accusations of vandalism. If you feel that edits are unfair or wrong, please discuss here, don't just revert them wholesale. If you have good, well-sourced material to add, it is very welcome, but please add it incrementally as discussed at very great length above. Richard New Forest (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I am doing this as discussed. I was not the one that disapeared from the debate, waited a few days and then removed content from the article. I have not removed any content, which is clearly noticeable by the fact that the edition i restaured contains more refs, more texts and more information. You were the one to remove sources and content based solely on your guesses of what is plausible or not. I was discussing every single edition in here and we were actually making progress. Then you dissapear and wait till everyone else believes a consensus has been reached and revert to your non-consensual content lacking edition claiming it was consensus since no one argued in the past few days (Of course... After all everyone tought a consensus had been reached with the then present edition after several refs were added... And then you come and revert to a contested edition...). Thats not acting in good faith. -201.31.242.162 (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop reverting and arguing about procedural matters, and discuss the article. The only reason for anyone to be editing here is to produce a high-quality encyclopedia. You could start by explaining how you think this is a reliable reference.  —SMALLJIM  20:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I am the one to ask you to stop reverting to a content lacking edition. And it is necessary to argue about procedural matters since it appears you completely disregard them. About that reference, it is the website of a company manufacturing, advertising and selling badger milk. It is a perfectly valid reference. If a reference about a company selling badger milk is not a valid reference, i dont know what can be a valid reference. I guess no reference will be valid from your point of view as you already "judged" the idea of consuming badger milk as ridiculous. I could order a pack from that company and take a picture of it and you would claim it was original research and therefore not reliable. If you contest the reference, it is your job to provide any proofs that it is not valid. Wikipedia is very clear on its "Assume Good Faith" Policy. It means a reference is valid unless prooven otherwise. If you manage to do so, i´ll just stop reverting your editions when you remove that section. If not, it is vandalism and it will be reverted. -201.31.242.162 (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

(Written before previous comment) You are not doing it as discussed – you have restored material from weeks ago. And actually yes, you were the one who disappeared from the debate, and others then followed the course agreed and reintroduced a good bit of your material. Your frequent wholesale reversions have been treated with great patience by me and others, but you are not making it easy to be patient, nor to assume good faith. Please now restore what is a consensus version and proceed as discussed. If you feel it can be improved upon, then please do improve it, but please do it iteratively and don't revert to a version that you know is not agreed. Richard New Forest (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)