Jump to content

Talk:Thylacine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Desertarun (talk | contribs) at 09:20, 5 March 2023 (→‎Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/2004–2009). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleThylacine is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 29, 2008.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 28, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
December 2, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 7, 2010, September 7, 2011, September 7, 2012, September 7, 2016, September 7, 2017, and September 7, 2022.
Current status: Featured article

Unconfirmed Sightings Section: Very Poor Sources

Although this is a FA-class article, currently in the "Unconfirmed Sightings" section, we have the following sources:

Most, if not all of these, are obvious WP:RS fails that fall in the territory of WP:FRINGE (and no doubt falls under WP:UNDUE). If we're going to keep the information sourced to these items, we're going to need to find reliable sources (and there are plenty). Otherwise it just all needs to go. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The New Scientist? Really? It's a rag, full of scientific distortions. Doesn't qualify as an RS, even if occasionally they have a good article.50.111.3.59 (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Reliable sources discussion board holds New Scientist to be generally reliable, with a little need to be careful about very contentious claims, but I don't think the claim is contentious - it gets reported in the BBC wildlife book, for example [2], and the New Scientist link lets readers easily look up the pictures themselves, which has obvious value. WilyD 13:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added a line in the Unconfirmed Sightings section to reflect Business Insider's article on the Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment report of recent unconfirmed sightings. It's at least a reliable source for covering official public record. TheRedReverend (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi All,

The link in the Citations list, currently numbered as 55, is a dead link. However, a search of the mother site (The National Museum of Australia) does show the article on a functional page.

Current Wiki link:

"Mummified thylacine has national message". National Museum of Australia, Canberra. 16 June 2004. Archived from the original on 10 November 2013. Retrieved 21 November 2006.


Here is the link to the article on the Museum's website:

Mummified thylacine has national message | National Museum of Australia https://www.nma.gov.au/about/media/media-releases-listing-by-year/2004/mummified-thylacine-has-national-message

I don't know if this is an HTML error on the article page, or if the Museum simply moved the article to a different URL on its website. At any rate, I don't know how to correct it. Could someone with more Wiki editing experience pls correct the link on the article page? Thanks. SaturnCat (talk) 05:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 06:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Extirpated"

@Ddum5347: While the term "extirpated" is used in scientific literature for local extinctions without an implication of intentional destruction of the species, Wikipedia has a general readership, so most readers would assume that the common meaning of "extirpated" was implied. The Random House Dictionary defines "extirpate" as "to remove or destroy totally; do away with; exterminate." Thus, to a general reader, seeing that the thylacine was "extirpated" in the Australian mainland would be interpreted as someone having exterminated the entirety of the population. That is not what occurred--the Aborigines did not hunt the thylacine to extinction in the mainland (nor kill it off to protect livestock, as European settlers later did in Tasmania). That is why "became extinct" is better wording for a general readership than "extirpated." AuH2ORepublican (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ddum5347 really needs to stop drive-by changing every other article to their personal liking. I'm seeing these disruptive edits everywhere. You need to begin using talk pages before making controversial edits.- FunkMonk (talk) 14:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Extirpated" in a biological context means local extinction. While most extirpations happen due to human activity, not all of them do. I really don't understand why this is so hard to understand. Ddum5347 (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ddum5347: It seems that you did not read my comment above, in which I said that "extirpated" can be used in scientific literature to refer to local extinctions without controversy, but that a Wikipedia article has general readership and thus the unambiguous term "became extinct" would be preferable. Let me repeat what I wrote:
While the term "extirpated" is used in scientific literature for local extinctions without an implication of intentional destruction of the species, Wikipedia has a general readership, so most readers would assume that the common meaning of "extirpated" was implied. The Random House Dictionary defines "extirpate" as "to remove or destroy totally; do away with; exterminate." Thus, to a general reader, seeing that the thylacine was "extirpated" in the Australian mainland would be interpreted as someone having exterminated the entirety of the population. That is not what occurred--the Aborigines did not hunt the thylacine to extinction in the mainland (nor kill it off to protect livestock, as European settlers later did in Tasmania). That is why "became extinct" is better wording for a general readership than "extirpated." AuH2ORepublican (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ddum5347 has form in repeatedly changing extinct to extirpated in many articles (e.g. see his edit-warring at List of mammals of South Australia). I raised this issue with him in this request on his talk page, quoting definitions from two reputable dictionaries (the Collins English Dictionary and the Macquarie Concise Dictionary). In the discussion @Nick Moyes: also raised his concerns, but unfortunately Ddum5347 has a habit of responding to criticism by blanking his talk page.

FWIW, here's the Wiktionary definition of wikt:extirpate, which gives as synonyms: annihilate, destroy, eradicate, exterminate, all of which also carry connotations of, or imply, direct human involvement and intention in wiping out a species.

While instances of the use of "extirpated" may occasionally have occurred in scientific literature, Ddum5347 has failed to provide a reliable source to back up his claims that extirpated is synonymous with the neutral term locally extinct, without it carrying these implications. Bahudhara (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extirpate meaning locally extinct is common in scientific literature, and this discussion actually reminded me of the negative connotations. That said, in the particular use case here I don't see it as any more clear than "extinct in". CMD (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extirpated definitely implies active removal of a species by man (whether intentional or accidental, such as over-collection/predator control), wheras extinct/locally extinct is a much more passive and neutral descriptor, and aleo far better understood, too. I would require a WP:RS to clearly show that direct and intentional human intervention had led to extinction via extirpation (and not just via habitat loss, general decline, or natural disaster) and I must comment that I very rarely see 'extirpated' used in the literature that I access. (I am keenly aware of its deployment, as I used it intentionally as a status qualifier only once in the Flora I publshed, specifically relating to the loss of one highly collectable orchid species in my region. Many other taxa had also since become 'locally extinct', but no others merited use of that word. But in all cases, the status code would have been the same, or else it would have rendered status lists too confusing'). I do not agree with Ddum5347's view of how the word can be used. I will also block any editor where evidence of edit-warring is clearly presented if it avoids disruption and personal opinions being insinuated into articles. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You need a reliable source? Page 60: https://archive.org/details/conservationbiog00ladl/page/60/mode/2up?q=extirpation. You cling to dictionary definitions too much Ddum5347 (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even in this ref that Ddum5347 provides, "local extinction" appears as the preferred term, and "extirpation" is enclosed in single quotation marks, so it's hardly a good example to support his argument. Bahudhara (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New remains found

Wow, its a bit confusing at the moment but there are reports of remains that have been found and it is unclear if they are thought to be the one known as "Benjamin" or if they are later remains as they are female.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/dec/05/tasmanian-tiger-remains-of-the-last-known-thylacine-unearthed-in-museum Mutley (talk) 09:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not too confusing, apparently there was a short lived captive female after Benjamin, which is where the skin is from. FunkMonk (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks it looks like it. About the dates, so Benjamin died on 6th September and the new died one died on the 7th September or did they somehow give that date to Benjamin as they are close.Mutley (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping precise death dates for animals largely seen as unwanted pests may not have been a high priority in those days. HiLo48 (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, maybe there was a fine line between "pest" and "one of the rarest and most exotic animals on the planet". Mutley (talk) 10:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That line is 90 years wide. HiLo48 (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The ABC News article https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-05/last-tasmanian-tiger-remains-found-in-museum-cupboard/101733008 specifies that this was the last captive, which is sometimes referred to as "Benjamin" due to an old hoax. Direct quote: "It has long been believed that the last-known thylacine was a male, sometimes known as Benjamin, but Dr Paddle said that was a rumour peddled by a "bullshit artist"." In fact, there's a follow-up article (published today) dedicated to talking about the hoax which mentions Wikipedia as one of the major sites spreading the information -- we probably should do something about that. Arcorann (talk) 06:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, yeah, and I'm sure there'll come a more scientific report about this. FunkMonk (talk) 08:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So what should we call him now? TMFKAB? The Marsupial formerly known as Benjamin? Mutley (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I remember once being told it was called Benjamin before they knew it was a female. Strange how these things spread. That said, if the National Museum of Australia is publishing incorrect information, I see how it ended up here. CMD (talk) 10:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about this one https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tasmanian_wolf.jpg - See the author "Benjamin A Sheppard". It seems that Benjamin A Sheppard was a photographer from the 1920s that took photos of Thylacines in captivity. Purely speculation but maybe Frank Darby saw one of these photos where the author signed his name and took it to be the name of the last recorded Thylacine? Mutley (talk) 11:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but we'd need a source reaching that conclusion. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Link to the follow up article. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-06/benjamin-thylacine-tasmanian-tiger-naming-myth-persists/101734442
Derek Scaith (talk) 10:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, in that case, we need to not just remove the name Benjamin from the article, but explain that there has been a historical mistake. FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article as part of the above drive. The article may need a featured article review, in due course, if the problems noted below aren't addressed.

  • The lead doesn't summarise the article, it doesn't mention large topics in the body, for example the zoo animal Benjamin, cultural significance or Research.
  • There is info in the lead not in the body - aboriginal names
  • The lead mentions the water possum and should stay focussed on thylacine
  • The lead is confusing, it writes bounties are generally blamed for the extinction - but the body writes the animal was already extinct on mainland Australia by the time Europeans arrived
  • The lead is too short and interesting information such as the animal could open its mouth to 80 degrees is omitted.

Desertarun (talk) 12:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Be sure to review all comments above, and check archives for anything that may have gone unaddressed since Yomangani's departure from Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There either needs to be an explanation of where the name "Benjamin" came from, OR the name needs to be removed from the section title and from the figure captions. The current state is half-assed and confusing! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • When this article was promoted to FA it was 20Kb in size, now its 120Kb. I can do a lot of heavy lifting but the article is wholly unbalanced. It requires much of the cloning research and unconfirmed sections to be deleted, updating with new content, huge amounts of copyediting and all of the modern FA cricteria elements. I'm going to continue to try and save this, but I'm doubtful FA status is salvageable. Desertarun (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you're doing a good job, if you're willing to continue, I imagine it's ok to keep it from FARC in the meantime? FunkMonk (talk) 08:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not taking this to FAR myself, and it doesn't look like anybody else is interested at this time. I'm not sure when I'll move on from this article or how close it will be to the current FA standard when I move on. Its just a work in progress at the moment. Desertarun (talk) 09:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding its extinction, the body of the article explains that it was probably extinct on the mainland 2,000 years ago, because of several possible factors, one of which may be competition from the dingo, which did not exist in Tasmania. In Tasmania, the additional factor, and almost certainly a major one in it's eventual extinction there, was the bounties paid by the government. That's a little bit complicated, and looking back at my wording there, probably hard to summarise for the lead. If someone can do it better than me, please do so.
  • I've finished working on the article. I put in 200+ edits and all of the structural work was done. I don't believe it needs a FAR. I'm going to unwatch it now because I'm burnt out with it and don't want to do anymore. Desertarun (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thylacine&oldid=1142983906"