Talk:Eastern cougar

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Eastern cougar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.outdoornovascotia.com/features/cougar.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.outdoornovascotia.com/reviews/panther.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 05:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Both links failed. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Why 'deemed "extinct" (sic)'?

"Sic" is not correct if the author means to imply that they might not be extinct, as the article is quoting indirectly someone else's judgment. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

agree. I killed it.Shajure (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I do see their argument... current thinking is that there never were any "eastern cougars"... there were just cougars that lived in the east. Thus, they weren't "extinct", they were "extirpated"... if current thinking is correct. In the purest sense it might somehow be appropriate to beat up the feds for using the wrong word. But they aren't. If there ever was a subspecies, it is extinct. So either we should kill the article and redirect, or it is ok to say "extinct".Shajure (talk) 04:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I gave P1 a go to offer both views.Shajure (talk) 05:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Good. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The article is here because Eastern cougars existed, whether or not they are extinct, extirpated or continue to exist. I have seen them in Michigan, up close and personal, even though the Michigan Department of Natural Resources continues to say they don't exist. I did not get close enough to get a DNA sample, and he/she did not give me a calling card or a travel ticket. They are not synonomous with or totally subsumed in the word "Cougar." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't get a poop sample, either. The DNR apparently thinks the easiest way to regulate them is to deny their existence. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Page views

Leo1pard (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Taxonomy

I don't understand what distinction is being drawn with "however" in the following paragraph:

The 2005 edition ... followed Culver's recommendations. ... However, [related web sites] continued to maintain the Puma concolor couguar (both western and eastern cougars) as a subspecies of Puma concolor.

I don't see the difference between recognising all as one subspecies (Culver's recommendation, in previous paragraph) and (here) maintaining them as a subspecies instead!? Can anyone clarify the page's wording for general readers like me? - Egmonster (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Redundant Page

There is already a page for this subspecies under North American Cougar, whuch includes most of the info present here. Shouldn't these pages be merged? Crescent77 (talk) 02:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose There are enough topics, sources, and information on this page for it to warrant its own page. They should NOT be merged. Ddum5347 (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is well sourced and well discussed. It is a separate and well documented topic in WP:RS. WP:Not paper and WP:Preserve. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 09:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - we would need to move a great deal of information into the North American Cougar, creating work while adding no value.Shajure (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

What sources? All the modern sources indicate the same subspecies.

As for difficulties merging, There's not much more info on this page to deal with. It could easily be made into a subsection.

Having multiple pagesincreases the confusion surrounding the "cougar, catamount, panther, puma, mountain lion..." Crescent77 (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Subspecies doesn't matter, this is a different population with significance. Stop trying to force changes. Ddum5347 (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

That's an unfair accusation. I'm not forcing, I'm discussing, this is the talk page.

Anyways,you hit on the core issue, which is that sources indicate there is not a different population of significance. The limited evidence suggests so, and that conclusion is supported by the scientific community, as is sourced. Crescent77 (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be the only one who thinks so. Genetics aren't the reason this page exists. Ddum5347 (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Only one? Have you actually read the sources... Crescent77 (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, you are hyperfixated on that aspect. I'm not going to entertain you any further. Ddum5347 (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Wow, this isn't about you entertaining me concerning the topic at hand. This is about using reliable sources to build an encyclopedia. So yes, I am hyperfixated on reading sources, and the sources indicate the eastern catamount was a non-distinct part of the widespread North American mountain lion population.

Judging by your reverted edit on the North American Cougar page, it seems you may be editing with a non-encyclopedic agenda. Please reflect on that. Crescent77 (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

That is an uncalled-for accusation. And this population has its own page because it is EXTINCT. In case you didn't figure it out already. Ddum5347 (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Uncalled for? It's documented. Your tone is problematic.

The question is is it a seperate population that is extinct, or part of a larger population that was extirpated from the region? Bureacratic agencies did declared it "extinct", but that was done for management purposes, not as a scientific statement. The law is not encyclopedic. Modern research and scientific consensus, as sourced, has the extirpation view.

Crescent77 (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Even if it was extirpated (which I agree with), that does not warrant a merge. Ddum5347 (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I do agree with you that expiration in itself wouldn't warrant a merge. But the extirpation was long before the article was ever created,and in my opinion, there never should have been two seperate articles. I'm also of the opinion that two seperate articles, as currently organized, adds to the confusion. It added to my confusion, while having interest in the topic for years, I only recently discovered there were two seperate articles. Crescent77 (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• "I'm also of the opinion that two seperate articles, as currently organized, adds to the confusion." - I cannot see that at all. Actually there are a great many articles, not 2... Cougar... North American Cougar... etc. We could roll all the articles for all animals up to some ridiculously high level, but this would add no value. Having these specific 2 articles, 1 for a subspecies that may never have existed as a genetically distinct breeding population, makes a great deal of sense. See the article for the squabbles about... did it ever exist? If so, is it extinct (I just removed a bit of what I saw as trivia on that from the lead). None of this chatter belongs in the Cougar or North American Cougar articles, nor any of the many articles we might roll this content up into. Shajure (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• ...Further, the bit I see as trivia (Canada authorities neither support nor deny extirpation of the population) has been restored and sourced. No, getting rid of an article with this much information about the "does the population exist"/"is it a subspecies" questions does not need to be rolled up.Shajure (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Thanks for putting that thought into words. Ddum5347 (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I think you're too involved to see the confusion, most of the readers don't have your depth of understanding on the topic. The article doesn't read well as a primer.

Please don't strawman me, I'm not saying roll all animals up. Scientific consensus is clear that North and South American cougars are distinct populations, and therefore deserve seperate pages; that's not the case with the eastern cougar.

Sorry, but as for the last part, your grammar and context aren't clear, so I'm having trouble fully understanding what you're trying to get at, but what I'm understanding is that you're saying the importance of this page lies in the question as to whether this population ever even existed as a distinct population, and if it did, how that should be identified. If that is the case, which does seem to be a reasonable reason for a dedicated page,then the intro,and possibly the title, should be modified to make that much clearer. Crescent77 (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no better title. What do you propose to change for the lede? Ddum5347 (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

"Scientific consensus is clear that North and South American cougars are distinct populations" ... "that's not the case with the eastern cougar." Exactly! That is why this content does not belong cluttering up the North American Cougar, nor the Cougar article, but instead belongs here, where those searching for, for example, the cat listed as the mascot for the university will find it, and learn. Those who see the link here from the other Cougar articles can learn about the squabbles if they are interested, by following the link. And no, the content should not be discarded... and I do think it will be entirely clutter if added to the other article(s). In any event, unless some other editor supports this change, I see a clear consensus to keep this article.Shajure (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Only Crescent77 seems determined to do so. Ddum5347 (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Continuing with your own example, scientific consensus supports the fact that the eastern cougar is one and the same as the north american cougar. Therefore if we follow your logic, those pages should be one and the same. And if someone is looking up their mascot, that page provides more in depth information.

I'll respect your "clear consensus, with reservations : It's very unusual for only 24 hours to pass with 4 responses on talk on a topic that's not currently part of the active news cycle. Combined with the fact a quick perusal brings to light credibility issues with a couple of the responders, this reeks of activitist gatekeeping. So be it. Unfortunately it's these kind of issues that continue to strain the credibility of WP as it matures. Your loss, you're undermining your own efforts. Crescent77 (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Wow, activist gatekeeping? What an accusation. Get a load of this guy. Ddum5347 (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Gaslighting isn't a good strategy for you. As indicated before, a quick perusal shows activism on your part on this topic. Your objectivity stands in question. Crescent77 (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

And accusing of me of gaslighting too? Haha wow. I know you're upset because no one agrees with you, but you should cool it with the accusations. Ddum5347 (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

As I hinted at before, I'm not suprised nor upset the activist gatekeepers don't agree with me, change is hard.

It does sadden me that folks such as yourself are undermining WP's credibility, and undermining the work we all do.

Perhaps you should cool it, once again, your objectivity on this topic is questionable, and your continuing attempts at deflection bring into question your integrity. There's others here who support your viewpoint, perhaps you should let them do the talking. Crescent77 (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

What exactly am I deflecting? This is a talk page. There is no such thing as objectivity on here. Edits should be as objective as possible, but talk pages have no such restriction. I have no clue what you're talking about in terms of credibility, considering I don't vandalise or make biased edits. But sure, stay mad that no one agrees with your merge, and accuse them of being "activist gatekeepers". Ddum5347 (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

In your short time here on WP, you have a history of issues with edit warring.

Once again, you're not reading, you're reacting. I said "sad", not "mad", and I explained why. My accusations are based on documentation, which I will willingly discuss with anyone else here. Crescent77 (talk) 02:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC) I find the material on this page quite substantial, like ho there are a good variety of sources being used as a reference. All of the links work well and the page is up to date. keep up the good work — Preceding unsigned comment added by BDMesser531 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)