Talk:Cougar/Archive 4

Internal naming consistency

I understand that this animal goes by more than one name, but once that is explained in the lead the text should only use one term and avoid switching back and forth as it currently does in a few places. We had a similar issue at moose and it was agreed there that once it is explained that it has more than one name that the name that is used as the article title should be used throughout the article. I would suggest that the same approach be used here. Unlike the issue of what to name the whole page, this is not an issue of which name is right or wrong and more about not confusing people with inconsistency. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 28 February 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 10:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

---

Cougar → Puma – see discussion below Schmiebel (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Not wanting to beat a dead horse, but I just went to Web of Science and a search on "Puma concolor" in the title and got 22 hits including the common name puma in the title, 6 hits for cougar, 1 for mountain lion and 1 for panther for the top most recent 30 articles [1]. Realizing that the search result could be a function of the similarity of the genus name and common name, it still seems that there has been a shift in just the last couple years from the northern North American "mountain lion" and "cougar" to "puma" in the published literature, perhaps reflecting more authored contributions from Mexican as well as Central and South American scientists. As you know, this felid ranges in all 23 mainland countries in the Americas, and is referred to as "puma" in 21 of them. Most scientists now use "puma", as is referenced in the article. Some have argued (in archives on this talk page) that it is unusual to have a common name the same as a genus name but this is true for bison, lynx, vireo, caracal, alligator, gorilla, aloe and ginkgo. Lastly, I know Mammal Species of the World is used to settle these disputes but its last edition was 2005. In the western US I hear "mountain lion" most often and in the eastern US I hear "cougar" most often. These strike me as regional names restricted to the US and Canada, and so using "cougar" no longer seems to reflect the worldwide view. So I'd like to recommend a page name change to "puma". Thoughts? Schmiebel (talk) 06:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Support, puma is more often used in Central and South America, where they coexist with jaguarundi, and, as you said, puma is most often used by scientists, puma is also used in Cat Specialist Group: http://www.catsg.org/index.php?id=94

Panthera Corporation: http://www.panthera.org/node/32 And ARKive: http://www.arkive.org/puma/puma-concolor/ Editor abcdef (talk) 08:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Support A Google Scholar search for "puma cat" gets 21,000 hits, a Google Scholar search for "cougar cat" gets only 7,080 hits.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Although books typically lag behind published peer-reviewed scientific articles (discussed in start of this thread), I just used Ngram to look at google book usage of puma, cougar, mountain lion and in English one gets quite a jumble with cougar and mountain lion surging recently,[2] which makes little sense to me since Puma concolor is not a lion (only those in the genus Panthera can roar, and puma cannot) nor is it limited to montane habitat. Then if you use Ngram search of books in Spanish of course one sees near universal use of puma whereas mountain lion and cougar are virtually nonexistent [3]. I believe this supports the worldwide view of a page name change to puma. I'll change this thread to a formal request to consider a page name change, giving others seven more days to discuss this with us.Schmiebel (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:ENGVAR , MOS:TIES ; US and Canada are English-speaking localities, South America and Central America outside of Belize and Guyana are not English-speaking. Cougar attacks frequently make the news in the US and Canada, so "cougar" and "mountain lion" is the commonly used name for these animals in English for the regions in which they exist which are English-speaking. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 07:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - MSW3, which has been our standard for mammal common naming conventions, uses cougar. That primarily Spanish sources use puma is not particularly relevant to the English common name, per WP:ENGVAR. And since Puma is the genus name, that term will of course come up in more Google sources than cougar, since many sources that use "Cougar" as the common name also give the scientific name (including Wikipedia), but that does not make puma the appropriate common name, and our naming convention is to use common names, not scientific names. Rlendog (talk) 08:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The three top terms - "cougar", "puma" and "mountain lion" are all used fairly evenly in English, with "cougar" enjoying the top spot as of 2008, as shown in this ngram. Thus, any of the three probably satisfies WP:AT. That means that it's not worth changing the current title. Dohn joe (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE seem to dictate an oppose. I remember way back in the day when this article was moved here--I remember being surprised, because we have such a strong bias towards keeping titles the same (not that that's necessarily a bad thing). But common name won. The scientific name for the cat is, what, puma concolor? And we don't use that. We use the commonest name possible, which remains "cougar". Red Slash 00:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per COMMONNAME and ENGVAR. -- Calidum 04:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:TITLECHANGES, If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. We can debate "good reason", but I'll shortcut that to " no compelling reason" and oppose. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 05:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - I see no compelling evidence to suggest that "cougar" is not as acceptable as any other name. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per above opposers and per MSW3. --Seduisant (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

which was published 10 years ago, things change during the 10 years. Editor abcdef (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per the above, particularly ENGVAR and COMMONNAME. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppogese per the above, and it's getting to be time to look out for snowballs, isn't it?--Hjal (talk) 05:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, while puma is the most common name of the animal in Spanish speaking countries it is not in English speaking countries. Therefore why WP:ENGVAR is a reasonable reason to oppose this move as well.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Clearly there are more in opposition than in support of a page change - so we should wait for MSW4. I very much appreciate all the careful attention to this discussion but would like to clarify just four points before closing:

1. "Puma" is, in fact, an English common name for puma. In English books as in Ngram search above it is not used as often as cougar or mountain lion, but not far behind.
   
2. If we turn from books to scientific journal articles in English, "puma" as the common name for the species takes a slight lead in the last two years. I just searched Web of Science again, this time limiting searches to US and Canada-based scientific journals, and for 2014 and 2013 only, search term is "Puma concolor" and then seeing which common name is also used in the article title - you get 21 articles, and the common name "puma" is used in 9 of them, "cougar" in 8 of them, "mountain lion" in 3 of them and "panther" in one.[4]
   
3. Cougar is very marginally used more than mountain lion in Ngram count of English book usages and is more a regional preference than a national or binational US/Canada preference.WP:COMMONNAME would not augur strongly for "cougar" as the page name either.
   
4. The IUCN Red List consistently refers to the common name of Puma concolor as "puma".[5]Schmiebel (talk) 04:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: A link to MSW3 or to http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/biology/resources/msw3/ would have been helpful for we non-specialists. Reference to MSW4 seems to fall under WP:BALL. Andrewa (talk) 04:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: "Cougar" and "puma" seem to be closely evenly used by the public, only scientists use "puma" more, however, "mountain lion" is hardly a common term, as it is almost always used locally in only Western US, while "cougar" and "puma" are universal, with "cougar" used more in North America and "puma" more in South America, so the possible titles are "cougar" and "puma", "mountain lion" and other names are out of question for the title name. Editor abcdef (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: In the current range in English-speaking areas (Western U.S. and Canada), I think that "mountain lion" is more common than "cougar," which sounds like old Western movie talk to this native Californian.--Hjal (talk) 06:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: Name map Government of British Columbia uses "cougar" Alberta Travel uses "cougar" Oregon government, which holds 1 of the largest cougar populations: 5,700, uses "cougar" But indeed, California, which also has very large population, uses "mountain lion" Editor abcdef (talk) 06:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Please demote this from FA status

A featured article shouldn't have ANY flaws. At all. This one doesn't represent a worldwide view of the subject, so it isn't really featured. TVShowFan122 (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Map accuracy

The map coloration implies insular populations at the top and along the bottom of South America, but there is nothing in the article to indicate such populations exist, and it's unlikely. The map should probably be adjusted to not orange/red color the South American coastal islands unless we have sources indicating populations there. The only insular populations I've ever heard of are/were on Vancouver Island (certainly, and sourced) and possibly the Florida keys (dubious; sources such as these [6][7] do not mention them there, and its current range map does not show them there, though it's possible they were present there historically).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Path of gradual repopulation in the United States east of the Mississippi.

I've just added an entry for confirmed sightings in Tennessee. They suggest a path of repopulation which began in 2015 in north-west TN and by late 2016 had reached the mid south of the state. The DNA testing of one (a female) showed a connection with South Dakota populations.

The sources of each sighting mentioned in the paragraph immediately before mine suggest that between 2010 and 2014, cougar sightings were happening increasingly eastward and southward and reached North Kentucky by 2014. One animal was DNA tested and also showed a connection with South Dakota populations.

Other than a few mostly non-committal sentences earlier in the Distribution and habitat section, there's no mention of the direction and speed of a gradual repopulation. I'd be surprised if there isn't a verifiable source that suggests it. So, perhaps somebody who happens across a source would add that information to the article and update earlier apparently vague entries.

The section's already growing. It could be useful to split it into subsections; one for North America and one for Central/South America. Thoughts, anyone? Twistlethrop (talk) 07:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Louisiana

I added content to a section in Puma:

• "The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) received photographic proof of a cougar in Vernon Parish, Louisiana but it is believed there is not an established breeding population of cougars in the state. A cougar was caught on a trail camera in northeast Louisiana on November 23, 2016. The LDWF still holds the position that animals moving from existing populations in Texas and other states venture into the state.".

I was going to add content to the "Ecology section, in the area after the content beginning with, "Other eastern sightings since 2010...", but 1)- I have to go to work, 2)- this is a featured article and edits should be done to ensure this preservation, 3)- I did not want to mess up the citation scheme. If someone would add this content I would appreciate it. Otr500 (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Page views

Leo1pard (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Ancient naruralists and pumas in argentine, currently section 8.4.2

I'm a bit surprised to see a whole (imho rather questionable) section rely solely on the description of 19th century naturalistin a features article and even more doing so without any reflective distance.

Imho that section needs a complete overhaul with additional and in particular more recent sources or it should even be removed.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: The text in question was actually added in April 2015 ([8]), so after the article got featured.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Hudson was a highly respect naturalist. He had an intimate knowledge of Argentine fauna. Furthermore he states he has questioned scores of hunters on the point. If you can find published sources that qualify what he wrote — and which, to the best of my knowledge, has never been contradicted — please don't just delete long-standing material just because you personally find it "rather questionable". Ttocserp 19:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Present-day Argentines agree with Hudson, BTW. [9] Ttocserp 19:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

That does look like valid source either as far as I can see. The article needs some reputable academic publishing on the cougar in Argentina, not an opinion piece by somebody with unclear qualifications on some website/portal.--Kmhkmh (talk)

Well a naturalist of the 19th (even without a scientific education as far as I can see) is not a good (scientific) for animal behaviour since knowledge, method and standards have changed a lot since then. If modern scientific literature makes similar claims then content might be principally ok but it still should be referenced and rewritten based on those current scientific sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Then find the appropriate new material and update the article. Surely that is better than deleting content because it may not be current thinking.   Jts1882 | talk  20:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Leaving problematic content in an article just because we don't have better content/source at hand right now, doesn't strike me as a proper approach in particular not for a featured high profile article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

But who gets to say Hudson's account is "problematical"? Claude T. Barnes (1960) didn't think so. See :[10]. Was he wrong? Ttocserp 06:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, Barnes does express some doubt about Hudson when he writes "Franklin (1902) says that it is sheer nonsense, that in South America the puma sheds tears and passively awaits the death blow of a man, an occurrence indicated by Hudson" and "I am a little afraid that Hudson too readily accepted reports". Both quotes come from the page you link to.

I think the Hudson descriptions have to be questioned. Hudson seems to be going on second hand accounts, e.g. quoting Claudio Gay, but most of the accounts of human-cougar interaction are anecdotal. While I'm reluctant to delete the whole thing, it doesn't deserve a separate section. I think a better way might be to use block quotes for Hudson's claims so it is clear that Hudson is making the claim rather than an established aspect of the behaviour. The text should also mention the reservations of Franklin and Barnes. I think this approach would provide the "reflective distance" that Kmhkmh found lacking.   Jts1882 | talk  09:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

On reflection, I agree with you. I've now looked into it further and found more sources. They amount to this: attacks on humans by P. concolor cabrerae are exceedingly rare - so rare that belief in the animals' harmlessness is common in South America - but they are not totally unknown. I'll work up a fully referenced version and post it on this talk page for discussion.Ttocserp 10:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, how about this:-

Pumas In the Southern cone of America — often called Argentine cougars by North Americans — are reputed to be extremely reluctant to attack man. The nineteenth century naturalists Félix de Azara, and William Henry Hudson thought it did not happen; Hudson, citing anectodal evidence from hunters, claimed that pumas were positively friendly to people. In fact, attacks on humans, although exceedingly rare, do take place. An early authenticated case occurred near Lake Viedma, Patagonia in 1877 when a female mauled the Argentine scientist Francisco P. Moreno; Moreno afterwards showed the scars to Theodore Roosevelt. In this instance, however, Moreno had been wearing a guanaco-hide poncho round his neck and head as protection against the cold; and in Patagonia the guanaco is the puma’s chief prey animal. Ttocserp 21:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Another authenticated case occurred In 1997 in Iguazú National Park, north east Argentina when the 20-month son of a park ranger was killed by a female puma. Forensic analysis found specimens of the child’s hair and clothing fibers in the animal’s stomach. In this area the coatí is the puma’s chief prey. Despite prohibitory signs, coatis are hand-fed by tourists to the park; this causes unnatural approximation between humans and the coati’s (unseen) predators. Ttocserp 09:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

“ It does not attack man, and Azara is perfectly correct when he affirms that it never hurts, or threatens to hurt, man or child, even when it finds them sleeping. This, however, is not a full statement of the facts; the puma will not even defend itself against man. ” — William Henry Hudson,

“ "All who have killed or witnessed the killing of the puma—and I have questioned scores of hunters on this point—agree that it resigns itself in this unresisting, pathetic manner to death at the hands of man. Claudio Gay, in his Natural History of Chili, says, "When attacked by man its energy and daring at once forsake it, and it becomes a weak, inoffensive animal, and trembling, and uttering piteous moans, and shedding abundant tears, it seems to implore compassion from a generous enemy". ” — William Henry Hudson,

References

I think that is much better. It follows on with similar style to the North American accounts. I have read a bit more from Hudson's work and he is quite a character. The Puma's love for man is only surpassed by their hatred of dogs! I wonder if one or both the quotes should be put in the side bar as an illustration of his writing style, which will help people decide how much credence to put in his views.   Jts1882 | talk  15:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Good idea! Ttocserp 16:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Let me first say that the new suggested version is much better than the current one in the article. Personally I'd still prefer to drop the old sources completely, but at least in this new form the concerns i raised above are somewhat addressed.

As far as adding those block quotes are concerned, I'm rather skeptical. While it is true, that the block quotes do create a greater (reflective) distance and are illustrative of Hudson's colorful character, all of that nevertheless seems a bit off topic. Illuminating Hudson and his writing style belongs in the article on Hudson and is not a task of the cougar article. Similarly old/outdated colorful description of puma behaviour (or rather its historic perception) seem a bit off topic or at best belongs in a section dealing with the historic reception/perception of the cat rather than in one describing its (current) behaviour towards humans or its interactions with them.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, it could be argued the article is somewhat too oriented to the North American subspecies. I put in the Hudson reference originally because he made the contrast himself (at page 37). The trouble is that not much modern work on P. concolor cabrerae is available so anectdotal evidence still plays a preponderant part. (I suspect that's because the puma of South America still has a choice of many habitats remote from human habitations. The puma of Patagonia, for example, is not obliged to prey on livestock because there are many guanaco in remote areas. But I speculate.) Anyway, I do feel the southern continent, even if not given equal time, should not be ignored.

The block quotes do more than just add colourful writing. They do convey a certain truth: that the southern puma is indeed a relatively harmless animal. Even the 20-month boy who was killed (the worst case I've been able to find) was only 100 metres from a trail that's walked by over 1 million tourists every year. You stand a much greater chance of being killed by dogs. Sometimes anectodal evidence, though not reliable, is the only sort we have. The block quotes do give it more reflective distance.Ttocserp 17:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Well I'm all for including more material on cougars in Latin America, just not content for content's sake. Meaning the content should be based on reputable (scientific) literature and Spanish or Portuguese language sources could be used for that as well. By the way Wikipedia also has South American cougar as a separate article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

+++ Despite thorough searches I can't find more than 3 authenticated cases (two fatal). Can we get consensus on this? I propose to replace the existing passage with this if there are no objections:-

Other subspecies

Pumas In the Southern cone of America — often called Argentine cougars by North Americans — are reputed to be extremely reluctant to attack man; in legend, they even defended people against jaguars.. The nineteenth century naturalists Félix de Azara, and William Henry Hudson thought that attacks on people, even children, or sleeping adults, did not happen; Hudson, citing anectodal evidence from hunters, claimed that pumas were positively inhibited from attacking people even in self-defense. In fact, attacks on humans, although exceedingly rare, have occurred.

Absent appropriate forensic knowledge, fatal attacks by other carnivores e.g. feral dogs may be misattributed to pumas.

An early, authenticated, non-fatal case occurred near Lake Viedma, Patagonia in 1877 when a female mauled the Argentine scientist Francisco P. Moreno; Moreno afterwards showed the scars to Theodore Roosevelt. In this instance, however, Moreno had been wearing a guanaco-hide poncho round his neck and head as protection against the cold; in Patagonia the guanaco is the puma’s chief prey animal. Another authenticated case occurred In 1997 in Iguazú National Park, north east Argentina when the 20-month son of a park ranger was killed by a female puma. Forensic analysis found specimens of the child’s hair and clothing fibers in the animal’s stomach. In this area the coatí is the puma’s chief prey. Despite prohibitory signs, coatis are hand-fed by tourists in the park; this causes unnatural approximation between humans and the coati’s (unseen) predators. In 2012 a 23-year old female was found dead in a mountainous area in Salta Province, northwest Argentina. Claw incisions, which severed a jugular vein, established the attack was felid; non-puma perpetrators were ruled out by differential diagnosis. There were no bite marks on the victim, who had been in charge of a herd of goats. Ttocserp 11:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Sizes of cougars and jaguars in North and South America

Mcelite Let me clarify something, it is the South American jaguar south of the Amazon River that is the biggest cat in the Americas, but jaguars north of the Amazon River, including the Central or North American jaguar, are smaller. In contrast, the size of cougars tends to increase away from the equator, which touches South America, towards the poles. Unlike jaguars in South America, jaguars in Central or North America are fairly small. Those in the Chamela-Cuixmala Biosphere Reserve on the Mexican Pacific coast weigh just about 50 kg (110 lb), similar in weight as female cougars. 57.2 kg (126 lb) was the average for six males in Belize, making them similar to South American females in Venezuela. The largest recorded cougar, shot in 1901, weighed 105.2 kg (232 lb); claims of 125.2 kg (276 lb) and 118 kg (260 lb) have been reported, though they were most likely exaggerated. You had cited Bergmann's rule to reject the idea that North American jaguars should be smaller than South American jaguars, so let me tell you that Bergmann's rule is not universally correct. For example, bearing in mind that the Siberian tiger, often misunderstood to be the largest cat, even by experts, inhabits a temperate region, and that the Bengal tiger inhabits a tropical region, the average weight of males was reportedly 176.4 kilograms (388.9 lb) for the Siberian tiger, and 196 kilograms (432.1 lb) for the Bengal tiger, so even the idea that the Siberian tiger is the biggest tiger or cat, and therefore Bergmann's rule, needs to be treated with caution. Leo1pard (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Reversion: Image showing distribution of cougar

The current distribution map is Cougar distribution.jpg (CD). It was created by BhagyaMani and added on 28 March 2019.
The map it replaced was Cougar_range_map_2010.png (CRM). Despite the file name this is a 20 December 2018 revision by Fährtenleser of an earlier map.

Although both images seem to use a reliable source of data, only CRM cites it.

The main difference is that CRM shows areas (shown in yellow on the map) where the Cougar is extinct or present in "severly (sic) reduced populations", but CD does not. The cited source makes no attempt to represent those areas but the presence of cougars is supported at least by verified sightings of cougars in widespread areas east of the Rockies in the USA, as well as other areas in South America.

For that reason, I have reverted BhagyaMani's change of 28 March 2019.

I hope that any new image will also represent the areas where cougars were made extinct in the last century or have been sighted albeit in severely reduced populations. That information is an important part of the article. Twistlethrop (talk) 10:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

While staying agnostic on the relative merits of the two maps, I'll make a couple of comments.

1. The File:Cougar_range_map_2010.png map was updated in Dec 2018 but the description in the summary wasn't. It would be better to upload it to a different, less misleading, filename with an updated description.
2. The File:Cougar distribution.jpg doesn't provide a source for the distribution. While I trust User:BhagyaMani used a reliable source, this should be added to the description.

Then it becomes a matter of deciding if the recent local extinction should be included in the taxobox range or whether it should be in another part of the article.   Jts1882 | talk  11:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Aside from sourcing i see another issue here. The article should have at least one map also illustrating the former range as well (in particular due the vastly different current range).--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The map Cougar_distribution.jpg is based on the IUCN RL map of 2015, which does not show the areas of former cougar range. I'll add this date to the description. BhagyaMani (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I assumed that all the recent maps you have been making were IUCN, but adding this to the description along with a would be useful. What software did you use? A while back I tried some free software to make a new map for lions or leopards but it couldn't handle the layers and mixed the current and recently extinct ranges.

From the upload description the other map used the new IUCN distribution data (it looks identical to your map) and overlaid it on the older 2010 map. I suppose the recently extinct range won't have changed too much since 2010.   Jts1882 | talk  17:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Usually I use QGIS to make maps; for this you need a kml or csv file of the resp. layer, which is available for download at the resp. IUCN RL accounts. Yes, all the other new distribution maps for cats are also based on the resp. IUCN RL accounts. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Cougars in Wisconsin

I'd like to edit this page to include some sources on cougar sightings and habitat distribution in Wisconsin. I have a lot of sources and examples of sightings/studies I could add to the page and I think it would be relevant considering the page's habitat section doesn't contain any information on sightings in Wisconsin -HarryGCollection — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarryGCollection (talk • contribs) 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@HarryGCollection:. The semi-protected edit request requires you to explicitly state what text you want to change or add and where. If you write the text here I can add it.

However, you can edit this article yourself when you get WP:AUTOCONFIRM status. This will happen automatically when your account is 3 or 4 days old and you have made 10 edits. If you make some edits here of some text you want to add it should help reach the autoconfirm conditions.

P.S. You should sign your posts with ~~~~ which will add your user name, the time and date.   Jts1882 | talk  07:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the help and for the information. I would specifically like to add the following information in the "distribution and habitat" section: "Cougars are sometimes sighted in Wisconsin as well, likely to have dispersed from a breeding population in the western United States. There is no current evidence that cougars breed in Wisconsin. Trail camera photographs confirmed cougar sightings in Lincoln, Langlade, and Fond du Lac Counties in early 2018. The Wisconsin DNR stated that the short distance between these areas made it possible that the photographs could have been of the same cougar. Cougars have been sighted in Wisconsin as far south as Waukesha County, as confirmed by video evidence." https://fox11online.com/news/offbeat/cougar-caught-peeping-inside-waukesha-county-home https://fox11online.com/news/offbeat/cougar-caught-peeping-inside-waukesha-county-home I found those two links below to cite the above information, and was also wondering if it would be pertinent to include an image from one of the articles (if any). HarryGCollection (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Red tiger?

The article lists red tiger as an alternate name for the animal, but I don't recall ever seeing or hearing it called that. Can anyone point me to an example?FelineLover (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

According to this 1892 article in JSTOR [11], it's a (now archaic) common name referring to how the animal's summer coat takes on a reddish tone.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Illogical sentence (in the current context)

The article reads: "yielding prey it has killed to lone jaguars"

How about: "yielding prey it is killed to lone jaguars" ? 85.193.242.185 (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

has seems correct tome. "It" refers to the cougar not the prey. So the cougar kills prey and yields it to the stronger jaguar. That a common behaviour between carnivors of different strengths.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

citations in the lead

While it is true that lead just summarizing a sourced main body doesn't need (redundant) citations, i'm not aware of any policy stating that a lead principally can't have any citations at all. The primary concern for Wikipedia is, that its content is sourced, so if the lead contains any content/information not being fully redundant to sourced information in the article's main body, it needs to have its own citations for that content. If in such case somebody wants a citation free lead for stylistic reasons, he/she needs to replicate the information with the according citations in the main body, after that he may remove the citations in the lead.

Note that articles are often a patchwork written by many different authors working/extending different parts of article, hence the information in the lead is often not fully redundant in the main body and therefore often requires a citation in the lead. There is also sometimes information requiring a citation, where it simply makes sense to state them once in the lead without having them repeated in the article's main body - classic examples for that are date of birth/death of person or the full name of person or thing. The latter case sort of applies to the alternative names of the cougar i9n this article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Kmhkmh, the first section already mentions the different names and cites them. LittleJerry (talk) 10:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

A blanket deletion of citations in the lead is reckless. The lead should be a summary and not require citations but there are exceptions. At the very least, the appropriate citations should be transferred to the body of the article before deleting. If an editor is not serious enough to do that, they should avoid editing the article. Fettlemap (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

If there are already citations for the same claims in the body then who cares if different citations from the lead are deleted. I'm under no obligation to add them to the body just because you think cites can't be deleted. They are redundant regardless. The standards for newly passed FAs have been no cites in the lede, I'm changing it back to those standards. LittleJerry (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but general WP sourcing policies and general manual of style guidelines take priority of stylistic preferences for featured articles (the former is the standard not the latter, Fettlemap thankfully linked the according guideline above). And as i pointed out not all content in the lead and its attached citations were redundant.

You are free to review the feature article status or delete citation after assuring, that information and citations are fully redundant to the article's main body. But you cannot just wholesale delete all citations from the lead.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

If the lede contains information that is not in the body, then that information should be deleted or put in the body. LittleJerry (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, if it is relevant/notable information on the article's subject deletion is not an option but only moving it to the article's main body.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Generally that is what should be done but there are exceptions to almost any guideline in Wikipedia. Blanket editing changes are typically done by approved bots since they don't require the expertise of an editor. That is not the case for citations in the lead. Fettlemap (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that the lede either contains citations or it does not and that editors should not change the established citation style. So removing all the citations from a the lede of an article that uses them is against the guidelines, just as adding them to the lede is against policy for articles without them. Editors should not add citations to a citaitionless lead and any so added should be removed. Like other things on Wikipedia changing the consensus style requires a new consensus, just as changing the style of citation (CS1,CS2, harv, etc) or English variant the article is written in.

Personally, I think a lede without citations is a bad idea. The lede is to provide a quick summary, but one might still want to see the sources without having to read the whole article. Why make something unnecessarily difficult? —  Jts1882 | talk  14:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Well if you have very long leads for large articles it might make sense to have citations in the lead as well since in such the lead kinda function like its own shorter encyclopedic article anyhow. However the most common use case for WP readers doesn't really entail looking up sources, so for them sources in the lead are of little value and will just interrupt the text flow. And for the few interested in the source (and/or further details) it isn't too cumbersome to consult the article's main body. So I can understand the desire to keep the lead citation free (and featured articles seem to have adopted that as a criteria now). However that only works under the assumption that really all the information is redundant to the article's main body, where it is properly sourced. As long as that is not fully the case the requirement to source content takes priority over any stylistic preferences or featured article requirements.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

"Zoological Park"

Calling it a "zoological park" instead of a "zoo" is weird and confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.190.21.54 (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

More information wanted for cougars in the Eastern US

For awhile now I've been trying to find more information on the current status and whereabouts of cougars in the Eastern United States. We could definitely be in need of some more information on the mysterious subject. Twice I have seen a cougar with my own eyes near Buttermilk Falls State Park in Central New York, but both times the animals were too quick for me to photograph them and ran off back into the woods. The first animal I believe was a young male, it was 6 feet long, light tan, had a 4 foot long tail with a black tip on the end, and had blue eyes. It came right up to my glass front porch door and looked at me while having a brief "staring contest", before it ran back into the woods and left a paw print in the mud that was bigger than my hand. This was in late April of 2019. I could very clearly tell from how close the animal was, it's size, and it's features that this was not a bobcat or a Canada lynx, which also inhabit the area.

The second time, I was looking out into my heavily forested backyard and saw a slightly smaller cougar with a similar appearance stick it's head out of a bush, sniff the air briefly, and then make eye contact with me through my second story window before darting off into the woods at an extremely fast speed. The white tailed deer and groundhogs in the area were extremely spooked afterwards and constantly alert to something around them. I suspect the cat could have been stalking them from within the woods, beyond my line of sight. I believe this second animal was a female, since it was slightly smaller at around (my best estimate) 5 feet long with a 3 foot long tail with a black tip on the end sticking out of the bush, and I could tell even from the window that it had a noticeably more elongated and slimmer face, which to my knowledge is a common slight difference in female feline species. This occurred about a year ago in July 2019.

My father saw what he believes to be a juvenile cougar that he described as being "About the size of a motorcycle" that was light tan with a long tail that had a black tip on the end, jump across the road one night while he was driving home from doing farm work in Lansing, New York, before making another large jump into the forest surrounding the road. He believes the animal to be a juvenile because of how much smaller it was compared to the large cougar I observed near Ithaca, New York in April 2019.

My mother while being driven to work just last month in July 2020, near the local airport which is surrounded by forest and meadow areas with tall grass, observed a cougar walking through the grass, again light tan with a long tail that had a black tip on the end, and noticed the animal from it's muscular legs moving which she could see through the car window.

These experiences have lead me to believe that cougars in the Northeastern US persisting to this day in a small but growing population is very much a reality. It is also worth mentioning that I have not seen a single white tailed deer on my property since March 2020, almost 5 months now, when we used to see entire herds roaming through the area on an almost daily basis. I believe this is not a coincidence when considering the increase in cougar sightings since last year. I also have a photo of large paw prints that I believe likely were left by a cougar in the snow on February 14th, 2020 I took from my window. I believe that it had to have been a cougar both because of the size and shape of the prints, and the fact that American black bears which also inhabit this area of upstate NY were hibernating at the time. There were also no claw marks in the paw prints, which would make sense considering cougars like other felines have retractable claws, whereas bears do not. I can post this photo somewhere if necessary. I have also heard their screams, which sound far too deep yet too shrill to be coming from a bobcat, in the woods of Central New York. This has occurred both at my dad's property near Buttermilk Falls State Park, and at my mom's previous property in Brooktondale, New York. Comparison with the calls and screams of Western cougars confirmed what I was hearing in these cases. I should mention I have also encountered both bobcats and Canada lynxes in upstate New York, both of which looked nothing like the cougars I had seen. I have also heard the vocalizations and calls of these animals, which to me was not at all similar to the vocalizations of a cougar I've heard.

It is given these experiences that I would like to request more information regarding cougars in the Eastern US, specifically the Northeastern states such as New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts. I will gladly aid in this search if needed. I also believe the NYDEC to be somewhat unreliable given this information and my experiences, and how their stance on cougars in the northeastern United States and southeastern Canada directly conflicts with the stance of the wildlife authorities in Ontario and Quebec, both of which New York state shares borders with. I hope more information will come to light pertaining this subject. If I had to guess, I would say that the cougar population in the Northeastern United States is small at this moment, but is definitely growing. Titanoboa Constrictor (talk) 08:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Your sightings, as well as most in the northeast, are allegorical. The lack of information here on cougars in the northeast is due to the fact that only of handful of sightings are credible and sourced. Without more confirmed sightings, reported by credible sources, there's not much more info to add to the topic on WP. Crescent77 (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

In sports

This section is a collection of trivia and too remotely relevant to be here. It should be removed altogether. The article is about the cougar, the animal. So people name teams after powerful animals — like tigers, lions, cougars, bears, wolves? You don't say! Ttocserp 11:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Well the article could/should have a section on cultural impact/influence and as part of that some well known sport teams could be mentioned. However i agree that the current section probably should be trimmed maybe not even being its on section, but rather a few sentences being part of cultural influence section.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Did you know?

Cougars are the largest species of cats that can meow and purr. ref: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXhfZRE08ko 72.174.131.123 (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2021

Cougar also yield prey to wolverine -- everything does, reportedly. 173.228.119.21 (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 07:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Should be Brazil (country) not Brasilia (city)

The article says that Linnaeus named it for a cat seen in Brasilia in 1771, yet Brasilia didn't exist until 1960. Going to the source suggests it should be Brazil (country) ZuilSerip (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Distribution and habitat

If nothing else, the section suffers from violating a basic rule of writing: "Keep like ideas together."

The second paragraph is largely a laundry list of sightings in the eastern U.S., misleadingly introduced with the phrase "reports of possible recolonization," a term that implies breeding populations. Yet no sources are cited (nor available) that authoritatively conclude that breeding populations have been recently established in the eastern U.S.

The third and fourth paragraphs continue the list -- which is nonetheless arbitrary and incomplete. After wandering far away from this dubious territory, the article's eight paragraph then returns again to this inexplicably random list, also again introducing the phrase "recolonizing."

Obviously, the section should at minimum be reorganized and the term "recolonized" should be defined, perhaps along with the term "breeding population." Even though on its face these terms may appear self-explanatory, this apparently isn't the case. It would be useful very to learn (via sourced material) how the existence of such breeding populations or "colonies" are measured and determined to exist -- i.e. roadkill densities, den discoveries, presence of juveniles, etc.

Because there are many confirmed sightings of cougars in various localities, I would suggest merely a summary and/or approximate tally (as of X date). The problem is that editor XYZ stumbles on a recent A.P. report about a sighting 50 miles from his house in Ohio, and it gets randomly added to this article -- with potentially mistaken implications for the reader.

Doubtless there will come a time, fairly "soon," when breeding populations are established somewhere far from their current range. I'd like to know when that becomes known, but this hasn't happened. 76.250.61.86 (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The word "extricated" in this section should be "extirpated" 75.128.146.91 (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Extricate: "free (someone or something) from a constraint or difficulty."

Extirpate: "to remove or destroy something completely." (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)