Talk:American mink

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Mustelids work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Untitled

Suggestion: Could someone write about the difference between Neovison and Mustela because those seems to create a lot of confusion out there. Also a picture of actual animal, not a stuffed one, would be appreciated. Thanks, bw —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baldwin040 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fact tags

Yesterday I inserted several ^{[citation needed]} fact tags in this article since statements were made without any references. These fact tags are to stay in place until they are either replaced with an appropriate reference or the statements are removed; or if there is a consensus among editors that the material is so obvious and well-known that a reference is not required. Please DO NOT arbitrarily remove fact tags or the unreferenced material will simply be removed or changed to other unreferenced material. I have reverted the fact tags and will revert similar changes as vandalism. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 12:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

some citation needed unnecessary

Several places you wrote (citation needed) were all ready cited. The citations I wrote included more than one sentence, so rather than repeating the same citation over and over after every thought supported by that citation, I only wrote it once. If you read a little more carefully, and look at the names of the works cited, you will see that most of what you wrote (citation needed) next to, had a citation already. The statements that weren't cited I left alone, but the places that are already cited I erased the (citation needed) next to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph David Carter (talk • contribs) 14:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fact tags

Are you saying that your reference [^ Bowman, J., Kidd, A., Gorman, R., Schulte-Hostedde, A. 2007. "Assessing the potential for impacts by feral mink on wild mink in Canada," Biological Conservation 139: 12-18. ] is the source for all four Fact tags that I added? Each of those statements is highly charged and needs its own reference or it has to be more clear that a statement in the previous ph is referenced in the next ph. The same source can be referenced more than once in an article, and maybe should be in a case like this. Is this source available online? If this information is correct, there should be some sources readily available to all editors. Joseph - when you leave a note on my talk page, please add 4 ~ so that your signature will be automatically added. Also, since we're discussing the article, if the discussion is on this page all editors get to see it and comment if they wish. Thanks. Bob98133 (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just saw your note on this page. If you've gone through this as you say, then no problem. The four tildes for your signature are still a good idea though! Bob98133 (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it seems redundant

I repeated the appropriate citations after every statement supported, but it seems redundant to me, but what do I know anyway. If you know a better place to put the citations, feel free, I'm not the best at this citation thing. What do you mean by "highly charged"? This is common knowledge for any one who understands wild mink. Any article that discusses how mink populations are controlled will tell you that mink control their own populations by killing each other, or by causing the weaker mink to starve to death. It's also common knowledge that certain mink habitats can only support a certain number of mink, so any extras are killed through fighting, or by starvation. Well, I should rephrase that. The mink only allow a certain number of mink in a given habitat. The habitat could support more mink, but the individual mink prevent this from happening.The mink family is very wildnever want to have one as a pet unless you get the wid side out of it. This is very important for the ecosystem because mink, like many mustelids, are very efficient hunters. Too many mink would destroy their own prey, causing their own down fall. An example of how mink being territorial protects their prey, is when a female mink lived on an island with ground nesting sea birds. Because she chased away every other mink who swam to her island, she was the only mink eating the sea birds chicks, which were numerous and very easy to kill. If mink weren't so territorial, other mink could have congregated to that island for the easy feast on sea bird chicks. This would have eventually wiped out the entire flock of birds, but thanks to the mink's antisocial behavior, the birds were preserved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph David Carter (talk • contribs) 15:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but saying "anyone who understands wild mink" is not a valid reference. Anyone who can read should be able to find the reference easily, it should not be necessary to know about the subject. This is an encyclopedia, not an expert's article for other experts. Personally, I don't know anything about minks, but I'm learning less and less since so much apparently is simply "known." You make statements like "This would have eventually wiped out the entire flock of birds" - is this a prediction? It certainly can't be a scientific fact since it didn't happen. It kind of borders on original research that you are asking us to accept at face value.Bob98133 (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know "anyone who understands wild mink" is not a valid reference, but (Dunstone, N. 1993. "The Mink," London.) is a valid reference and I did use it and, if you want, I'm sure you can read it. My statements on the flock of birds is of course a prediction, a prediction made by an expert. There are many examples of nest predators such as rats destroying bird colonies, after they were introduced to an island. If you would like references and examples on every statement I make I would be happy to provide them, but it would take quite some time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph David Carter (talk • contribs) 23:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Anyone who understands wild mink" is a reasonable thing to say since you're apparently an expert, and you've accompanied it with a reference... however, an understanding of wild mink is not "common knowledge". Facts about house dogs could be "common knowledge", but I think it's safe to say that if you polled random people for information about "mink", most people wouldn't know anything about their habitat. Most people don't "understand wild mink", so you have to write these articles as if you're talking to a 12 year old who has never heard of a mink before.

Mink intelligence section

This needs a reference. The existing one compares "the learning ability of mink to ferrets, skunks, and house cats." The article then states that mink learn as well as great apes and primates. I think this is nonsense and appears to be totally unreferenced. Please correct me if I'm reading something wrong here. thanks Bob98133 (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mink intelligence statements are all cited and correct

All of the statements under the mink intelligence section come from the same study which is already sited. You simply misunderstood the wording. In the mink intelligence section it states “The learning curve for mink was found to be COMPARABLE to chimpanzees and rhesus macaques, with a rate of improvement only SLIGHTLY SLOWER.” No Mink do not learn as quickly as chimpanzees or rhesus macaques. Their learning curve, or other words their learning pattern, is similar with a slightly slower rate. All of these statements are fully supported by the study sited and if you are skeptical, feel free to read it for yourself. It is a short, yet very interesting article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph David Carter (talk • contribs)

What journal? This is the reference: Dunstone, N. 1993. "The Mink," London. Is this a book? A journal article? Where would I find it? It doesn't pop out at me when I do a google search. If you inserted this reference, can you please see WP:CITEto cite it so that others can find it? Thanks.

By the way,does it make any sense to say that mink do not learn as quickly as chimpanzees. Their learning could be compared to anything. Has this author studied chimpanzees? Bob98133 (talk) 22:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happened was, the author of "Learning-Set Formation by Mink, Ferrets, Skunks,and Cats" compared the results of their study to other studies done, and commented on it in their report on the study they had personally performed. (Dunstone, N. 1993. "The Mink," London.) is a book. You can easly find it on Amazon books(use the authors name to help you find it). I found "Learning-Set Formation by Mink, Ferrets, Skunks,and Cats" in JSTOR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph David Carter (talk • contribs)

Joseph, can you please look at WP:CITEand reformat your reference to those standards so it can be easily found. It might be preferable to have references for the statements you make prior to adding them to articles rather than saying it will take a long time to find them. You do understand that your unreferenced statements can be removed at any time by any editor who chooses to do so. Please sign your comments. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 04:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section has one reference to one study that does not support the claims made, one of which is a non sequitur. I'm not a mink expert. But I am a neuroscientist. this section is not scholarship. Unless this is remedied in ten days from now, I will simply remove the parts unsupported by evidence, or that misunderstand the context of the scholarship they cite. I'll do that (if I remember to) because it's misleading the public. It's actually kind of part of my job. If you don't like it, put it back. I'm not going to bother myself over that. You could pick up some books and decide to speak only whereof you know instead though. Duracell (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

actually I can't stand it. I'm removing two sentences right now. Please: do put these unsourced, downright odd claims back in if you are confident you know what you're on about. Don't if you think you know what the definition of "intelligence" is. Duracell (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in fact re all the above:

i) "site" is not an accepted spelling of any word in british or US english as far as I am aware.

ii) it is not possible to draw a conclusion from one study with a sample size of 7 and *no control condition*! In 1967 in a letter to science (the journal, not the concept) maybe. not now.

iii) it is not acceptable to draw on literature from the 1980's or before unless that literature is presently regarded as seminal (e.g. Einstein, 1905a,1905b,1905c,1905d; Darwin 1859, Hebb 1949 and on). If you are not a scientist DON'T PLUNDER ANCIENT JOURNALS FOR EVIDENCE of odd claims. things move on. they are refuted, refined, reassessed and very often tossed out when better studies are done (improved technology helps this. That's why a minor study from the 1960's is just meaningless or worse). I take my lawyers advice on legal matters. why? she's A LAWYER. The '67 study here is a 43 year old study before neuroscience of any kind really existed. Kandell was still working in some basement lab. If you don't know what you are saying, why do you say it? why?? would you represent yourself in court? do you think science is easier? It pays less. So I guess Lawyers must all be smarter. right?

maybe wikipedia just is what it is, and I should just use scholarpedia instead, which I do for work. But I've been editing here on and off since maybe 2003. I feel a manifesto coming on. community vetted experts in given areas must be permitted to override others in that area. edit wars should be between experts, not experts and non-experts.

No? beg ye differ? represent yourself in court then. Why not? just look up the pertinent statutes. You'll be fine. I believe in your opinion, and your right to express it. Duracell (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow nice work Bob

I really like what you've done with this page Bob! You reworded my sloppy writing nicely, and made some of my one sided statements more well rounded. I also really like the new information, and you do a much better job at sighting things than I do. I really like some of your sources too. You've must have put a lot of hard work into this page. Good work man! You suggested a citation on the topic of how mink are as pets. I'm not aware of any written material on the subject of pet mink other than the PetMink group in Yahoo groups. I'm curious why you erased that off of the page. I think that group is the most valuable source of information on keeping mink as pets. Is there such a thing as using personal observations as a citation? I know in books authors will cite their own personal observations, but this isn't a book, and I have yet to publish my own book on mink. So is there a way for me to sight personal observations? One reason I ask is the only real sources I have to support my statements made on pet mink come from my own experiences (I've had 4 mink 3 adults who I saved from starvation after they escaped from a mink farm, and a baby I'm currently bottle raising) and from what I've read on the PetMink group. Oh, one more question, I'm not quite sure what the whole thing about mink farms dumping mink bodies in land fills, and having dirty cadges has to do with mink. That sounds like irrelevant information for a page on mink. I think it would be more useful on the fur farming page. Other than that I think you've done a great job! Joseph David Carter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph David Carter (talk • contribs) 04:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Joseph. I was afraid you were going to find fault with it since you know much more about the subject than I do. I think I wrote earlier that sometimes it's helpful not to know about a subject because that way you go into things with less POV. I did a bit of research and since I don't have the books you do all my refs are online, but there was a lot of info available. I took down the PetMink link because links to forums are discouraged (it's in WP:EL, I think because the information, while good, is unreferenced and not focused on a particular topic about mink, so someone serious about getting information would have to plow through a lot of discussion and opinion. I agree that forums can be a good source of information, but you're never sure what you're getting.

Personal observations are not supposed to be included since they can't be independently verified. I guess if an expert writes his opinion or beliefs in a book or media article that it's OK to quote that as "this expert believes..." which gives the statement some weight. Even though you know what you're talking about with raising mink, we only have your word for that. I think the only way to include personal observations is to find some researcher or expert who agrees, then quote that person. Or even a known pet trainer or behaviorist who has written about this. But, of course, for every expert who says one thing, there's another who says the opposite!

I'm OK either way with the environmental problems of farm raising mink being mentioned. I'm sure it's already mentioned in fur farming too. I guess if the mink article goes into fur farming, then it's reasonable to include, but maybe not. Change or remove that if you don't think it's appropriate.

I'm glad we're working together on this instead of an edit war! Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 12:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think what discussion we write about on mink farming should focus more on the actual mink in mink farming rather than mink farming methods, conditions, or other similar subject material. Unless of course it relates directly to the explaining of why domestic mink are different from wild mink. For example, I think a description of the small sizes of mink cages would be appropriate to use if it could be used to help explain one of the reasons why Domestic mink might have evolved with such comparatively small hearts. I think some thing like that would be more relevant. One of the reasons I was so impressed was because you knew comparatively little about mink, yet you were able to gather so much interesting, and useful information. Keep up the good work man! I think I'll go ahead and remove the environmental effects of mink farming since it has little to do with mink and more to do with agricultural management and politics. My statements on how fur farming has effected wild furbearer populations, though is a political statement, I feel it is relevant because it describes how fur farming has effected the wild populations of furberers of which mink are of course included. Joseph Carter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph David Carter (talk • contribs) 16:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm editing a statement in Mink intelligence

I think your right the statement made by the author of "Learning-Set Formation by Mink, Ferrets, Skunks,and Cats" about the learning curve of mink, chimps, and rhesus macaques is confusing to the average reader. I'm going to erase it so some one isn't accidentally mislead to believe mink are as smart as chimps. Joseph Carter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph David Carter (talk • contribs) 17:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Water in Mink Farms

From The Propagation of Mink and Marten by William Gates;

A mink is a water animal and for his happiness and contentment and, consequently, his well being and the profit he is supposed to produce. Water to swim in his necessary.- 48

Pages 84-85 include technical drawing and text on how to build a mink swimming pool. The burden of proof is on you. Simply removing text because it doesn't comply with your views (for which you have so far produced no evidence) is vandalism, not contribution. Provide a reference for your claim, and perhaps this can be resolved.Mariomassone (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American Mink

The fundamental problem with this article is that it:

Is about American mink in Russia (I think) and Europe more generally, not their natural North American habitat.
It mixes up facts about wild and domestic mink.

It needs to be carefully gone over to separate these issues.--I am One of Many (talk) 09:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding mink in Tartaria:

It is very interesting that in Tatariya, with naturalization of the animals, within 10-11 years, the number of skins with white patches on chest, belly and groin, decreased sharply.- p. 1394

Quite complete and numerous populations were created in the eastern European territories of the country—in Tatariya, in part in Bashkiriya and other adjacent places. Here populations are of exploitable number and density. Everywhere, in regions of habitation of the indigenous mink, i.e. to the west of the Ural, the American mink has crowded out and exterminated it.- p. 1402

Of greatest significance in foods of mink in Tatariya (V. Popov, 1941, 1949) are voles (36% occurrence), fish (28.8%), crustaceans (26.7%), frogs (17%) and aquatic insects (19.8%). Importance of each food changes noticeably according to season. In winter, foods obtained from water prevail: fish (45.5%), crustaceans (32.2%) and frogs (17%);- p. 1407

In mink having a settled mode of life, area of the home range in southern Tatariya on average equaled about 16 hectares, fluctuating from 0.1 to 40.0 hectares - p. 1408

In Tatariya, in American mink in winter (January) three periods of activity are observed with an interval between the peaks of approximately 8 hours. - p. 1411

All this can be confirmed in Mammals of the Soviet Union, which can be accessed here: http://archive.org/details/mammalsofsov212001gept

As for info on the mink in America, I leave you with this:

It is interesting that a native North American species such as mink has been studied more intensively outside its native range than within. Indeed, most of our current knowledge on this species comes from research done in European countries, with relatively little data for either the United States or Canada. http://books.google.it/books?id=-xQalfqP7BcC&pg=PA668&dq=It+is+interesting+that+a+native+North+American+species+such+as+mink+has+been+studied+more+intensively+outside+its+native+range+than+within&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JDjkUMOcJYfDtAaGuoGoCw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=It%20is%20interesting%20that%20a%20native%20North%20American%20species%20such%20as%20mink%20has%20been%20studied%20more%20intensively%20outside%20its%20native%20range%20than%20within&f=false

Simply put, the European info is necessary, as American material (native or not) is lacking. Mariomassone (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last night, when I started reading the article, I was reading just to see if the basic facts were correct. I came across "Tatariya" and I thought what is this? At first I thought it was something someone slipped in, but then I came to realize that it was referring to some very only region of the old Soviet Union.

I completely agree that most of what we know about American mink are about domestic mink, but there are more sources available in the US. I think a long-term project for this article will be first to make clear to the reader what is known about domestic mink and what is known about wild minks.

I think if a paragraph is added in the appropriate place explaining that some of the information comes from Tatariya and explain what that is and why mink have been imported and studied in this region, it will then be pretty good for now.

Overtime, I can pass along new secondary sources I may have that will be helpful as far as research on Minks in North America.

Finally, I'm sorry about the tone. I'm a little too close to the subject (i.e., having been involved in the domestic mink industry and having had them as pets). But, you don't have to worry in the future, I won't make any substantive edits without discussing it here first! --I am One of Many (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--- Just a heads up about American Mink territory - they are found in the wild on the island of Newfoundland as well. This can be confirmed by googling "Newfoundland Mink". Just thought whoever is caretaking this might want to know. :) Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.168.248.142 (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diet

In the "diet" section, it states that minks do not engage in surplus killing. However, I have caught a mink in the act of killing 14 ducklings, and other local farmers have had problems with minks killing large numbers of poultry in one incident. But I don't have any citation for this other than my own personal experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.33.241 (talk) 01:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Map needs correction

Vancouver Island is excluded in the map of habitats, it should be included. The American Mink is indigenous to Vancouver Island (not introduced through farming) and plays an important role in the local First Nations’ mythologies.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on American mink. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ieb-chile.cl/publications/pdf/Ibarra%20et%20al%202009%20Orix.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on American mink. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727022222/http://www.wildcru.org/research/research-detail/index.php?theme=&project_id=38 to http://www.wildcru.org/research/research-detail/index.php?theme=&project_id=38
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.inta.gov.ar/bariloche/info/indices/natural/Fauna/CT
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.furcommission.com/resource/Resources/MFIUS.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130513060834/http://www.furresearch.org/secure/index.html to http://www.furresearch.org/secure/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on American mink. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marten

There is a link that leads to martens, should I enter in a specific species? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firekong1 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]