Talk:Honey badger

Puff adders

I know that the National Geographic documentary featured the events described here (the ratel surviving the venom and eating the puff adder), but is it right to imply that this is something that is part of a general pattern of behaviour? I vote it should be removed or reworded unless someone can provide evidence it happens regularly.

--Stephenh 12:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

(even from the fierce African bees)

This parenthetical implies resistence to a particularly venomous variety of bee sting. However, since it does not refer to a particular species, it's not clear how this should be interpreted. A reader might conclude this is meant to refer to Africanized honey bees, due to the similarity in name. Africanized honey bees do not have a particularly venomous sting (something which is implied by their common name of "killer bees" and other sensationalist reporting), though, so the Ratel's ability to withstand hundreds of their stings is no different from their ability to withstand hundreds of stings from any other variety of honey bee.

If a particular species is being referred to here, it would be best to name it. If not, it seems like it would be beneficial to drop the parenthetical entirely.

216.15.126.201 18:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

Predation

I realize that the honey badger is a tenacious animal that has been known to drive off lions, leopards, and hyenas on occasion, but the implication that healthy adults have "virtually no predators" is simply not true. In other words, they are not actually apex predators under conventional definitions of the term. Researchers in Africa report that predation of adults is in fact frequent: http://www.honeybadger.com/FactFile/predators.htm. Another link to the same site, showing the credentials of the researchers: http://www.honeybadger.com/ResearchProjects/Researchers.htm#About%20Keith%20Begg

I understand that there may be conflicting sources on the Web, but I would contend that fully credentialled scientists should carry the most weight here. Ronnymexico 15:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Aside: the Beggs appear to be the pre-eminent researchers on the honey badgers in the world today. Not only do they have a good list of publications on the honey badger, their works are frequently referenced by scholars studying the honey badger. ScissorsMacGillicutty (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, I have heard that their first move of attack when confronted with a larger creature is to latch on to their predator's gentials. Of course, [citation needed]

This account of the honey badger's fighting strategy is based on an anecdote dating from the 1940s. No current research or observation supports this. See http://www.honeybadger.com/FactFile/F.A.Q.htm ScissorsMacGillicutty (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Attack of the Ratels

Maybe this would be a fine addition to the article. 69.236.107.118 17:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Could we please restrain the urge to dump that garbage into the article. It's already yesterday's news. Rogerborg 15:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I took it out. 38.100.34.2 18:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I put this in again without seeing this. My version was a lot more succinct, and I made sure it was at the end of the article. It's certainly not core information for the article (and shouldn't even need a mention in the lead), but it is interesting trivia, and is probably worth a small mention. So, my suggestion is to keep it in, in the inconspicuous spot at the end of the article, and leave it at that. (It's just a suggestion, though.) -Kieran 01:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with Kieran's phrasing and placing it in a separate section at the end. It shouldn't be included in the opening paragraph though... DWaterson 11:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh alright Rogerborg, keep your wig on, it was my first contribution to Wikipedia which just happened to crop up as I was researching the topic. So shoot me. In future I'll just leave it to experts like you. --Geedus71 16:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)geedus71, 18:33 13 July 2007

Fact and fiction should not be mixed. What next, a news clipping about urban myths about Buffy on SMG's entry?- perfectblue 19:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ratels in film

I believe a ratel played a featured role in The Gods Must Be Crazy, either I or II. Anybody know about this? Does it merit a citation in the article? Diogenes 06:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Having just watched again the film The Gods Must Be Crazy II on DVD, I can confirm this. Actually, I am currently visiting the page because of this movie. :-) Gingko (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am visiting this page because of mention of honey badgers in TopGear episode 10x08 where the boys drive through Africa. According to Jeremy Clarkson "a honey badgers doesnt kill you to eat you, it tears off your testicles" Ah well, that turns out to be a false then. Asestar (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That's how I ended up here also, was surprised to find it was a real animal. I've heard the urban legend from somewhere else before TG however, so would it be worth including this as a side note alongside the other existing entry in the urban legends section? 82.46.180.56 (talk) 13:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge Killer Badger into this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was merge into ratel. -- Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 05:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The so called "Killer badgers" are not a paranormal phenomenon at all; they clearly refer to the Ratel, with its ferocity overstated. I find it hard to see why a rumour merits a page of its own, so feel the Killer Badger page should be incorporated here. Verisimilus T 20:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree - merge Willy turner 20:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with the merge. JGerretse 20:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with merge. --ukexpat 21:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed Cobratom 23:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed also, though there should remain a redirect from Killer badger to Ratel (as it is far too wonderful an article name to be allowed to simply disappear). Collabi 04:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed Arthurian Legend 05:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Invoking WP:SNOW and merging. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 05:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

24 hours is insufficient time. WP:Snow does not apply as relevant parties were to aware that this was happening and thus could not respond. I, the page's creator, was not informed of this therefor I could not object. - perfectblue 17:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Arguement was irrelevant as the Killer Badger falls under the purview of Cryptozoology not fact. It's sources do lie with the Ratel, however their increased aggression is suspected to be either due to rabies or heatstroke.Angry Mustelid (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Range?

What's their range? A nifty map would be nice. Arthurian Legend 05:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it would, part of the article says they're native to the Kalahari, and then they turn up in Iraq. Map, please, somebody. Totnesmartin 08:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a range map on the IUCN Red List page on the honey badger (ref 1 in the article). (There are so many inaccurate range maps in WP articles that I now ignore them and go to the IUCN page anyway.) --Stfg (talk) 08:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Split

The Ratel is a real life flesh and blood creature with an established scientific background. Thus it is wholly inappropriate that it include a section about an urban legend based on 60% anti-western paranoia and propaganda and 40% sightings of a handful of Ratel near Basra airport. The section should be spun of into it's own entry so as to avoid any confusion between the real creature and a myth loosely based on it.

Having an urban legend involving an animal on the page about the animal is a bad idea in anybody's book. You might as well have a section on Donald Duck on the entry for duck, or a union of King Kong and the page about the great apes.

Let's separate fact and fiction and put an end to this nonsense.

perfectblue 19:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed to splitting it out. I enjoyed the section but the 'Killer badger' definitely hurt the eye. It has no place in this section. It is like adding a section on Cujo, Stephen King's killer dog, under the dog (Canis lupus familiaris) section.

rvanrensburg 29 July 2007

The difference is, the ratel is not as well known as, say, the dog. While, IMO, the infobox on the "killer badger" section should go, the ratel IS somewhat well known for being mistaken for a killer badger. It's like not mentioning paranoia about giant squids on the article about giant squids. So keep merged.J'onn J'onzz 21:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding an urban legend about a real creature into the page about the creature sets some very unprofessional presidents that could bite other entries if they are copied over. Why not merge chupacabra with the pages for every animal that has been mistaken for one? Or merge Nessie into pages about anything and everything that people have proposed that it might really be from an oversize otter to a pair of seals. There is enough material here for a separate article and it jars nastily with the factual information on the page. perfectblue 17:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that the infobox on the "killer badger" section should go. With that removed and the text on the killer badger trimmed a bit, I don't think it would be out of place here at all. IMO, of course. JGerretse 23:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The info box actually needs to stay, it's a standard component belonging to another project which was actually the project that created the killer badger content in the first place. If people insist on merging articles from two completely unrelated projects, then they must respect the boundaries of that project. The box should only go when the entire section goes.

How about we remove the Ratel infobox instead. No?, I didn't think that you would like that suggestion, well, it's the same for the other project. - perfectblue 06:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough about the infobox. I didn't look at it from a separate project standpoint. I suppose I looked at the killer badger content as simply supplementary details about the ratel. I see your point. JGerretse 20:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• It seems to me there exists sufficient notability to justify a separate article. BBC news, the telegraph, etc. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Split (done)

I agree with the above discussion on the split. I also think the merge was closed prematurely. The current consensus seems to be with the split, so I have split it. If there are people who feel very strongly that it should be re-merged, then an RfC needs to be started. -Kieran 11:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

For a few reasons supporting this:

• A seperate WikiProject has adopted the article on the animal as a cryptid, and has created an infobox. That infobox clashes with the infobox on the factual animal if placed in the same article
• There's a general tendency not to want all of the fictional information cluttering up the factual article here. (eg: See Talk:Ratel#Attack_of_the_Ratels above).
• The current consensus on the talk page is in support of the split.

-Kieran 11:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Running backward?

The french version of this article says that the badger is the only mammal that can run backwards, although there is mention of this on the english version. Can someone confirm? 198.73.165.1 (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Humans can run backwards... --82.180.28.162 (talk) 06:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Honey Badger Ring

Can I get a citation on the Nick Saban and the Honey Badger Ring? I can't find corroborating evidence for that trivia anywhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.106.37.180 (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"Most fearless animal"

The badgers have been named the most fearless animal[2] in the Guinness Book of World Records.

What a pointless category! The Guinness Book has really gone downhill in recent years. 86.135.7.218 (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Also, the "citation" references a web page advertising a children's TV program that doesn't support the contention. I've removed it. Besides, the most fearless animal is the amoeba :) --Stfg (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

National Geographic documentary

In a 2002 National Geographic documentary titled "Snake killers: Honey badgers of the Kalahari", a badger named Kleinman was documented stealing a meal out of a puff adder's mouth and casually eating the meal in front of the hissing snake. After the meal, Kleinman began to hunt the puff adder, the species being one of the badger's preferred venomous snakes. He managed to kill the snake and began eating it, but then collapsed on the dead snake as he had been bitten during the struggle. After about two hours he surprisingly awoke. Once he had recovered, the badger continued with his meal and then resumed his journey.[4]

I'm not sure any of the above should be in the article.

1) Behaviour seen only once could be highly atypical

2) The supporting cite makes no mention of the episode

3) 'Naming' the animal is pointless

4) The use of the word "casually" is anthropomorphism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism) 91.107.200.77 (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Honey Badger in literature

As far as I am aware, there has only been one fictional book (albeit for kids) that is about Honey Badgers - 'Honey Badgers' by Jamison Odone. This fact alone makes it worthy of inclusion in the literature section (far more so than a mention in a book "by" the Hamster). (Ruark's book 'The Honey Badger', while a decent read if you're bored, has nothing to do with Ratels. The title is more an allegory relating to his own personal circumstances at the time).Angry Mustelid (talk) 09:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Tool Use

While it is nice to note it will roll logs to get at prey, this behavior doesn't seem to conform to the standards of tool use, but not being a true biologist, I am hesitant to remove the reference.

The name Ratel derives from the Dutch word for honeycomb, 'raat'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.246.93.49 (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Youtube Randall video

Why is there no mention of this? 24.18.132.80 (talk) 02:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Because honey badger don't care about wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.23.230 (talk) 06:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it time for an "In Popular Culture" section in the article, mentioning the Randall video? ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7wHMg5Yjg ) I mean, come on, it has over 8 million views now. --70.89.189.78 (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This could be the only time in history that the honey badger will be mentioned in popular culture LOL. 68.231.146.198 (talk) 03:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I have a feeling the honey badger will make it into movie conversations and song lyrics given Randall's success — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.161.125.254 (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

At the very least, Randall's video has led to the honey badger being mentioned in an episode of Glee and in a recent Madden commercial — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.50.14 (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned!--208.89.207.226 (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

no mention of the honeyguide?

come on, the honey badger and honeyguide are BFFs! they have a special relationship... i think its worth noting? Wedge 20:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

What the hell is the honeyguide????? --70.89.189.78 (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization

Shouldn't this be pointing to Honey badger, instead of here? It's not capitalized within the article itself. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

"honey badger don't give a s--t"

This phrase has been appearing on the page on a regular basis for quite some time now. Those that post it (or similar) should face an automatic ban (inc. IP blocking). Anyone?Angry Mustelid (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Why?199.106.103.249 (talk) 04:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree about the ban. I even think a quick nod should be given to the meme since it is pretty wide spread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.101.70.68 (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It might be a point to include a note about the meme as long as it can be sourced properly (however I'm not sure that useless youtube videos like that are, or even should be, countable as sources; I believe only legitimate published articles are acceptable - you know, the same way that on a university assignment or thesis that Wikipedia cannot be quoted without original referred sources).Angry Mustelid (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Is the Wikipedia standard for a "source" that it be "useful"? I was unaware of that criterion. As it happens, in this case, the "original source" of the meme is a YouTube video, which you have subjectively called "useless", so your ad hoc criterion seems designed to exclude all mention of the meme, perhaps because you personally find it silly...or "useless". Ridiculous reasoning. 199.106.103.249 (talk) 05:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Does Forbes count? http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelhumphrey/2011/04/21/a-chat-with-randall-on-nasty-honey-badgers-bernie-madoff-and-fame/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.76.28 (talk) 02:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

testicles?

Do they make charge at testicles, or is that Topgear humour? --88.89.69.123 (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)