Jump to content

Talk:British big cats/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

References and sources

Could somebody please insert [citation needed] where they think references/sources are needed, so as they can be put in. thanks Greenfinch100 15:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Captures, road kills, shootings and skeletal remains

Isn't this a bit long for a subsection title? How about just "Captures and remains", which says the same thing? Details of remains belong in the text, rather than the title, I feel. Totnesmartin 12:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm slowly learning that if you want something done round these yer paaarts, you've got to do it yourself... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Totnesmartin (talk • contribs) 18:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

I have move the linkfarm of external links to the talk page per WP:EL. Some of these (for example BBC) appear to be reliable sources that someone may wish to use to add valid content to the article. Others would need to gain a consensus here on talk that they do meet our guidelines for external links.-- The Red Pen of Doom 19:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Burden of evidence

Policy shortcuts: WP:BURDEN WP:PROVEIT

For how to write citations, see Wikipedia:Citing sources

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article.[2] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books.

If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references, and it has always been good practice, and expected behavior of Wikipedia editors (in line with our editing policy), to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.197.11 (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This is ludicrous

How can people justify keeping these edits in the article with a straight face?

"However the first regular sightings of big cats in Britain were in the 1960s, and since then they have been gradually increasing over the past 40 years to the present."

"A few fakes have been exposed over the years, and although most are obvious, some can go on for some time before being proven."

"In recent years indeterminate evidence has also come from CCTV cameras."

Please source those or remove them from the article. THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN TAGGED SINCE JULY 2008. Why can't I remove unsourced information without being called a vandal? Why does everyone insist on keeping crap information in the article and working against an editor that is trying to improve it? 71.178.197.11 (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Concur -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Additional conversation. Since another objects to an ip editor editing the article, does anyone object to the removal of this unsourced piece of information,

"In recent years indeterminate evidence has also come from CCTV cameras." Looks like I need a ten person consensus to edit any portion of the article. Great. Thanks wikipedia, "the encyclopedia that only established editors who login can contribute to". What more do you fucking need. 71.178.197.11 (talk) 06:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to confuse "The encyclopedia anyone can edit" with "The encyclopedia anyone can do what they please with." That's not the case – there are rules and policies and guidelines and procedures and precedents and cultural byways to consider. It's certainly true that even with all that, there's a great deal of wiggle-room available for both personal editorial style and differences of interpretation, but it's sure as heck not going to be afforded to someone who comes in like a bull in a china shop and makes demands without understanding how the place works. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 08:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


Research

I believe the links should be restored to the article as they enable people to see that research is being carried out regarding sightings. Opinions are mixed as to what is actually being seen by people but it can't be denied that the majority of reported sightings appear to be of Big Cats.

There is evidence to point to these sightings being correct but this evidence is often meaningless to those not involved. Pawprints. scats and bodies have been collected by people researching the sightings but how can their validity be proved to third parties? Proof; in itself; is a difficult thing to define but it does not invalidate the research being carried out.

Many people that report these sightings go on to become involved with groups that try to determine what the sightings are.

I believe that the subject has become suitably 'mainstream' for it to be treated seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.121.176 (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It is interesting how little of the research on this subject is included in this article. When and if I have time, I will start to edit this article to include some of the research that has been going on, despite attempts of interference from both (mostly) the "ABC community" and (less) from the government. Where is Henry Buller's article on cultural constructs? Where is Alayne Street-Perrott's work from Wales? Most of this work is in the public domain and has even been peer reviewed. Why is it not included? I would be grateful if someone could up the status on this article from "needs revision" to "needs re-writing".

External link - Big Cats in Britain Research Group

The "about us" page [1] BCBRG looks like a self published site; and I see no evidence that it has met community standards for reliability and fact checking.

from WP:ELNO

Links normally to be avoided
*Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies).

Mark Fraser does not appear to meet our notability requirements.

And I am not sure it passes this test either:

*Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".

I agree with the removal of that web link from the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Scotland and Wales are not counties.

Under Evidence for their existence > Sightings, Scotland and Wales are listed as the counties with the 3rd and 4th (respectively) largest amount of sightings - except Scotland and Wales are not counties, they're constituent countries of the UK - no more counties than england or northern ireland. Angus, Anglesey, or Perth & Kinross are counties. 77.97.211.44 (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


"Fen Tigers"

While there have been reports of creature around those areas, it should be noted this name was *originally* a term given to people within the Norfolk fens who opposed their drainage and transformation into agricultural land from the 17th century onwards.

"The Dark Ages saw a halt to reclamation, however by the early 17th century, with economic recovery, the attention of speculators turned to draining the peat fens in the south and remaining undrained silt fens further north. Under the guidance of the 4th Earl of Bedford, the speculators or adventurers started work on the systematic draining of the Fens. Experienced engineers were commissioned, such as the dutch engineer Cornelius Vermuyden, who undertook the greatest scheme, constructing the Old and New Bedford Rivers between Earith and Denver. Local opposition was considerable as the systematic drainage of the land threatened the traditional fishing and wildfowling rights of the Fen dwellers. Their fierce resistance and destruction of the drainage work earned them the name "Fen Tigers".

Hence, the term was inspired by the locals fierce temperament and bad disposition towards drainage engineers! Therefore, the historical use of this name CANNOT be cited as proof that Alien Big Cats were present about Cambridgeshire and the surrounding areas prior to the mid-late 20th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.227.160 (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


Neutrality

This article strongly argues the existence of British big cats, as opposed to presenting encyclopaedic information on them. I point to quotes like "Unfortunately also, a few people have attempted to fake evidence, and handed the fake pictures to the press", or "However, more and more evidence suggests that they do exist and are growing in number". It doesn't adhere to WP:NPOV. Seegoon 18:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Being the creator of the article i suppose i am to blame - i will try and make it less biased and any help would be appreciated - --Greenfinch100 10:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion with the use of the word 'existence' here. There is documented evidence of the sporadic escape or release of exotic felids in Britain, and it is possible that there is an occasional breeding event between, say, an exotic small felid and a domestic cat, but there is absolutely no real evidence for viable breeding populations of exotics, and no reason to make the leap from the former to the latter. So 'existence' in this case is occasional rather than ongoing; there could well be periods (between one escape-and-recapture, or escape-and-death, event and the next) when there is no existence of any free exotic felid in the country. Maias 03:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Many parts of this article, particularly the 'Sightings' section are basically an advert for groups who are interesting in the sightings, such as Big Cats in Britain. Nightside eclipse 18:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've edited some paragraphs for neutrality and even added a little extra skepticism, and I now judge the article to be reasonably neutral, and have removed the POV box. If somebody disagrees, then please put it back and explain why.--Farry (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The video footage (taken by a policeman no less and shown on the BBC) of the big black cat walking along the railway line looks fairly conclusive to me. No-one is suggesting this faked, are they? Seems to me that the onus is now on the disbelievers to prove their case rather than the other way round. SmokeyTheCat 21:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

case from 1903

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22263874

should probably be added when someone gets a moment.©Geni 14:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Now added although I note the original paper mentions a couple more cases:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08912963.2013.785541#.UYAb4T68PRY
©Geni 19:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal: Cotswolds big cat to British big cats

Not notable enough for own article, but this is a valid merge/redirect target. Boleyn (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I think perhaps the section about DNA testing could be added to the DNA section of this article.QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Isle of Wight case

According to this site, which quotes from two newspaper articles which I haven't had the opportunity to authenticate, the 'leopard' shot on the Isle of Wight at some point around 1990 (I've seen 1987, 1993 and 1994 all reported) was a leopard-skin animal, not an actual leopard. Police reportedly concluded that the animal was a serval, ocelot or leopard cat (not to be confused with the big leopards), but I'm not sure what they concluded this based on - it may just have been the photograph if the shooters disposed of the animal completely before reporting it. (Would conclusive DNA tests have been possible in 1994, even if they had anything to work on?) I can't be bothered to investigate further, but putting this here in case someone needs it. Leopards are huge, so I found the simple claim it was a 'leopard' on this page unbelievable and wanted to dig deeper. Blythwood (talk) 22:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on British big cats. 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:

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: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on British big cats. 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:

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:British big cats/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs references and contains stub sections, both of which require no higher than a Start rating. Badbilltucker 23:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 23:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 10:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British big cats. 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, 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Government involvement

The article says DEFRA made a statement in 1991 - but DEFRA was only formed in 2001. Totnesmartin 16:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

DEFRA made a statement about a Lynx that was shot in 1991 in 2006 - confused yet?--Greenfinch100 09:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


As a note, I used to live in Barton Stacey, near Winchester. We had a large cat (a panther) come in and set up on a hill around 2002; it had met a neighboring large cat (wildcat, I believe, but its territory didn't include the village so I didn't get a good physical description) and had children. Mum met it one day walking the dogs, was worried and called the police about it. The officer that came out explained that large cats were released by private owners (often very liberal/hippies), especially back when the law concerning ownership of exotic and dangerous pets changed. The owner, rather than giving them to a zoo and unable to get these licenses (or overcome by the difficulty of looking after such a creature) would often release them into the wild. Apparently the UK has about 2-400 big cats. The government does try and keep track of them and warn farmers off from shooting them (though farmers tend to be good at burying things and very protective of their livestock). Apparently (before we came into contact with any of this) this used to be an Official Secret, for fear of creating panic, but it's no longer restricted information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.189.17.81 (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on British big cats. 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) 06:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British big cats. 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) 05:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on British big cats. 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) 13:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

2019 Harrowbarrow, Cornwall sighting/attack

I was just wondering if the April 2019 sighting in Harrowbarrow should be moved to the "Attacks" section ? given that a pet dog was attacked.QuintusPetillius (talk) 10:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to move it there! Makes sense to me. PBP (talk) 03:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Further reading

Why is a book about the subject not fit for inclusion as a further reading book?Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Shuker is a cryptozoologist and his work represents a fringe, non-scientific viewpoint. It would be unsuitable as a reference ad we shouldn't be pointing readers toward it as a reliable source of information. –dlthewave ☎ 12:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
We would not be using it as a refence, only as a see also. Moreover we would not be pointing to it as a reliable source, any more then if we list a novel in a see also section as an example of how people employ it. Hell why not have a See also (cryptozooalogical) section if you are worried about people not getting it after they have read out article.Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Tabloid Sourcing

A recent edit added content sourced to the Daily Express. I recommend removing the passage altogether if it cannot be attributed to a better source. –dlthewave ☎ 23:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Why? are we now not to have things people have heard about? If we do not cover it where are they going to go?Slatersteven (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Tabloid sources are not necessarily always totally unreliable. On this topic, it is something that is largely ignored by mainstream broadsheet or berliner newspapers. So tabloids are what we need to rely on, but not entirely. The BBC and other online news sources do also report on this topic and have been used in the article. Added to this the Daily Express is a Middle-market newspaper-tabloid, not a low-end tabloid. It is also not in Wikipedia's list of deprecated sources. See here: Wikipedia:Deprecated sources#Currently deprecated sources.QuintusPetillius (talk) 11:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I think WP:CONTEXT is important here. Media sources have a long history of uncritically presenting material from fringe sources. This certainly occurs with crpytozoology (we have a section on it: Cryptozoology#Lack_of_critical_media_coverage). We definitely need better sources for topics like these than tabloid sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Needs a rewrite

I've just pulled several fringe sources from the article, usually some variation comparable to bigcats.com. What's left seems to be a bunch of poor quality tabloid and media sources stitched together to produce a classic list of purported "sightings"—what one typically encounters with these old fringe articles on the site. Now, there are reliable secondary sources out there on this topic, wherein, say, folklorists discuss this phenomenon and place these claims of "sightings" into a historical and cultural context. It's interesting stuff. The article really needs to be rewritten using reliable secondary sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I concur. I just pulled a bunch of "sightings" that were from The Sun, for example - which is a deprecated source because of its long-documented habit of just making stuff up. I left them {{cn}}, but I'd be entirely unsurprised if they're just nonsense. (I'd link the Sun article here, but it's a long-dead link.) - David Gerard (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
ah, found copies! [4][5][6] Probably nonsense (though the last is by Chris Packham, so might have some relationship to reality), but might be useful for tips on non-sightings - David Gerard (talk) 08:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Merge from Surrey Puma

This was exactly the same topic. I copied over all information and resources. MarialeegRVT (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Diatribe on inappropriate "vague" editorial markup

An editor marked appropriately vague wording, like "big cat", and "cat-like-animal" with improvised markers

[vague]

However much I admire the editor's clever improvisation of an improved version of the

{{Vague|date=September 2021}}

template, slapping it down in those two cases was unmistakably in-the-wrong, and I've commented those two marks out. (There is a third instance where the complaint might be okay, regarding some other matter than felid identification terminology, and I've left that "vague" mark in place for now.) If you think that I am the mistaken editor, please jump in and erase the comment marks – after reading about ¼ of this diatribe.

Whoever put those in was being deliberately hostile; trying to use good editorial policy for spite. Kindly don't do that again. If anything, a great deal of the tabloid-style by-phrases are too specific. With a few captured animals and at least one exotic-felid roadkill, and several footprints, the evidence is clear enough that a variety of escaped or abandoned imported felids have been seen, but not clearly identified. In an era of commonly-available camera traps, it seems apalling to me that there is not more and clearer evidence, but since the evidence is not clear, vague words are good, and specific words not supported by an autopsy are bad.

Good, vague words:

  • "felid",
  • "cat-like-animal", or best of all
  • "big cat" (in the sense of any felid [felidae = cat-like animals] larger than a mid-sized domestic dog, but not to be confounded with one of the pantherinae, sometimes popularly called "the big cats".)

Bad choice words with unmerited specificity (and probably, but not necessarily, wrong)

  • "lion" – an exceptionally large pantherine cat, with a coat similar to a puma,
  • "tiger" – an entirely inapproprite pantherine cat that at no point in its life could possibly be mistaken for any of the felinae that have mostly been captured
  • "puma" – yes, some of the cats captured in Scotland were Puma concolor, but there were also some west-Asian "jungle cats".

The exotic cat pet trade tends to focus on the smaller to mid-sized cats, like caracals, servals, Eurasian lynx, and the previously mentioned jungle cats. With the dark coats, the reported cat sightings look to me like jaguarundi, perhaps just because they're dark and in the reported size range. All of these animals look about the same, in profile in poor lighting, and all of them have sizes that overlapping in ranges during their growth into adulthood. And remember that most exotic pets are abandoned in the late juvenile stage. Any person who has no autopsy or DNA evidence, and yet presents any certainty, or even bears a vague air of confidence about what the animals are or are not is immediately disqualified as an "expert". Especially since Britons appear to be doing quite well at bringing alien species onto their islands, in a single great swoop eliminating any reasonable assumptions about species that can be ruled out. If European lynxes are being smuggled in, it seems to me that not even near-extinction suffices to eliminate a candidate species.

Most cats look about the same in profile, in dim lighting, when seen from a distance. Lacking exquisitely clear photography and photos with documented camera-scaling (made afterward by littering the same scene with meter-sticks and decimeter sticks, all photographed from the same original viewpoint, and then writing a description of what you did, particularly about where you were standing when making the meter-stick photos, and measurements to where you laid the sticks). On top of that, size differences can only reliably distinguish some species, and are only reliable for adults. A young big cat looks like a full-grown small cat. Identifications by "experts" are vacuous without clear explanations of how the expert got around the problem of establishing the animal's age.

Which leads directly into another important point:

More reliable sources are more vague.

You can fairly well estimate that an "expert" is actually a ninny just about as easily as identifying a "journalist" is actually a trash-monger by the style of writing (or speach). The one you might hope is an expert will be an unwanted ninny if their advice lacks profuse caveats and equivocations. Just as tabloid non-journalist use drama-laden wording (too much of a bad thing), so does a the ninny-with-credentials makes insufficiently profuse hemming-and-hawing (not enough of a good, but tedious thing). The ninny and / or trash-monger is shown out by making remarkably specific statements about a poorly documented animal without going on for several lines about all the assumptions being made, and all the possible exceptions that might apply.

Hence, although I certainly agree that the article needs re-writing – perhaps after all the exotics have been rounded up and established in zoos and sanctuaries – and that truthful specificity is a good thing if you can get it, I suspect this article will need a supply of better evidence from / by field zoologists. (... and from nothing from self-identified cryptozoologists, due to the unfortunate tendency of anyone who fails to scrape off that label, of indulging in tabloid-ready sensationalism.) And yes, the tabloid reporting will need to be scrubbed out, as inherently unreliable, but at this point in the story, U.K. & Irish government lack of inquisitiveness, and recalcitrant wildlife management officials' denials based on plausibility arguments that rely on opinions that have been demonstrated flatly wrong, based on roadkill autopsies and captured exotics, the grubby tabloids will have to suffice, perhaps with some scrubbing away of myth-making. Or maybe the already somewhat sanitized compeditors, the small, local news outlets, who actually do seem to be reporting some of the stories on their merits, will just have to do for now.

And no more complaints about "vague". Consider, to the contrary, marking marking zoologically meaningful terms without hard evidence as being "excessively specific" please (no, it's not a tiger if you can't actually see the stripes). 107.115.33.46 (talk) 11:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Totally agree! Some people are clearly trying to fight some kind or edit war here, rather than trying to collate and state the objective evidence. Wally Tharg (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced - Recent sighting section

This article was previously well sourced, but someone has added a huge amount of unsourced info to the "Recent sightings" section. If not sourced soon then I will have to remove it to return the article to how it was.QuintusPetillius (talk) 13:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Making the introduction less dogmatic

I've made a couple of changes to the intro that will hopefully be uncontroversial; please read this before knee-jerk reversion. First, I've said "feral in the British Isles" because we're obviously talking about animals not in captivity, and speaking biologically, we're in the British Isles, not the 'British countryside'. (A friend saw one in a city housing estate.) I've also said that many of these are described as panthers (etc.) because there are several photos of ocelots, jungle cats, etc., that are obviously not; the evidence seems to be that pumas and black leopards account for the majority of sightings, but not all. I've also said that some sightings at a distance may have been mistaken in scale, because the previous wording implied that all were, which is wrong. (There are several credible videos of large felids that include items such as sheep fences that give a good idea of scale.) By being dogmatic about sightings at range the article implied that lots of genuine observers were mistaken, when some were no doubt accurate.

Finally, I've changed the second para to read "rejected by many experts ..." as again being less dogmatic. Depending on who is regarded as an "expert", I've heard several who claim that there's more than enough food out there in the form of deer, lagomorphs, badgers, as well as livestock, to sustain an individual that probably has a 10-mile territory (typical for a leopard) given the very low population densities of the reported large felids. (To say simply "rejected by experts" also looks like a PoV attempt to rubbish the "other side" by claiming that they have the Arbiters of Truth on their side, whereas in fact, this whole field is still a matter of debate and research.)

On a different topic, while I appreciate that big cats do feature in British folklore, is this article about folklore? If one or more species were (for example) proven to be sustainably breeding in the British Isles, would the introduction stand as is? Maybe in the longer term it needs a separate folklore article that splits the appropriate content from this, which I (personally) think should be about zoology. Wally Tharg (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the clause that implied that experts rejected their presence because of lack of food. (Also, "huge amounts of food" is an unscientific term; a leopard needs about 3kg per day ... is that 'huge'?) If you look at the reasons the experts in the references cite, they are that Natural England and DEFRA haven't been told about them (an informational reason), and don't research the subject (I expect a budgetary reason; why would anyone pay them to do so?); the other experts reject them because they think they are "largely imagined fantasies, social constructions and media-driven hysterias" (i.e. social and psychological reasons). At no point, as far as I can see, do biologists or ecologists argue that there is insufficient food. However, if anyone can find a biologist who does argue that, please feel free to add it as a reference, and reinstate the final clause. As it stands, I think simply saying that many experts reject it for lack of evidence is sufficient, particularly for an introduction.
On the subject of expert research, the reason for the lack of university research on this topic is simple – it's not possible to get a grant to study it. Wally Tharg (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Physical evidence

Just going by the info on this page alone, it seems strange that every documentry you see on British big cats always say there has yet to be proof of their existance in the wild. Also the government denies that they exist even after the following proven cases:

Captures, road kills, shootings and skeletal remains

  • "Felicity the Puma" was captured by farmer Ted Noble at Cannich, Inverness-shire, Scotland in 1980. Her capture followed a string of sightings from the area, and they continued after her capture. She lived out her days as a tourist attraction at the Highland Wildlife Park, Kinguisse. There remains some controversy over whether she had ever been "wild" for any period of time. After her death she was stuffed and mounted and is now on display in the Inverness Museum, Inverness, Highland.
  • In July 2005 a farmer in North Devon discovered a skull belonging to a large cat, and has since been identified as that of a Puma. It is currently being examined. It follows many reports of cats in the area (Beast of Exmoor), and even a report of a farmer shooting and later burying a Puma.
  • A Eurasian Lynx was shot in summer 1991 near Norwich, Norfolk. It had killed around 15 sheep within two weeks. The story was only reported in 2003, and the Lynx is apparently owned by taxidermy collector in Suffolk. For many years the cat was considered to have been a hoax, particularly by the hunting community. But in March 2006 a police report confired that the case was true. It was a probably escapee from a facility in the area that bred animals including Eurasian Lynxes.
  • A Clouded Leopard, a rare cat species from the tropics, escaped in Kent in 1975. She was shot nine months after and had fed on rabbits and lambs in the meantime.
  • A Jungle Cat (presumably killed by a vehicle collision) was found at the side of the road near Ludlow, Shropshire, in 1989. It was rumored that the cat mated with farm cats in the area and produced offspring. One cat, called "Jasper" had all the characteristics of a hybrid.
  • A Leopard Cat was shot by Stuart Skinner on the Isle of Wight after mistaking it for a fox taking his poultry. However it was not reported immediately due to their fact that he thought he had shot a protected species.
  • A Eurasian Lynx was captured in Golders Green, Greater London in 2001 after a witness reported "a leopard sat on her garden wall". The Lynx was captured and later taken to London Zoo.
  • Another Caracal was shot by a RUC marksman in Fintona, County Tyrone, Northern Ireland in 1996.
  • A Puma was shot in 1987 by police officers near to the Greenwich Observatory, Greater London.
  • Another Jungle Cat was killed as it crossed the road at Hayling Island, Hampshire in 1988.
  • Also in 1988 a Leopard Cat was shot and killed by a farmer at Widecombe-in-the-Moor, Dartmoor, Devon.
  • In May 1980, a dead Lioness was found in a lake near a disused railway quarry in St Helens, Lancashire.
  • In the late 1970s, a Puma was caught near the Civic Centre in Barnstaple, Devon.

I think thats proof enough, although the case in 1980 of the dead Lioness in the lake did turn out to have had something tied to it and it had been drowned.


Re: Yes, many people refuse to beleive the evidence and many go unconfirmed as people immediatley dissmiss them. Thanks for info on the lioness - i did not know that it had drowned. --Greenfinch100 17:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you cite the sources for all these sightings? 193.118.251.61 14:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm familiar with quite a few of these, and most come from local newspapers that enthusiasts have kept. If you Google the species and the location you'll find the sources. The Hayling Island jungle cat was stuffed, and is now in a museum. There are quite a few more 'suspected' roadkills, including the St. Albans puma on the M25, the A34 pumas at Kidlington, one on the A1 north of Peterborough, and reports of another puma in Winchester. (Strangely, I've seen very few credible reports of black leopards as roadkill.) Have a look around online, and search for big cat roadkill. Wally Tharg (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I stayed on the farm in widecombe in the moor many times as a child on holiday. After a few years and once we had gained the trust of the farmer he talked about the leopard he shot and showed us a newspaper clipping. The leopard was taken to paighton zoo where it was identified. The leopard was after his animals so he shot it. However, he received death threats and negative attention after this. He told me after this the local farmers keep it quiet if they kill anything, but there are lots of big cats making kills up on the moor, and many local farmers know they exist but dont want the publicity. There is def evidence out there, trouble is it gets lost in the fog of time. But i know the widecombe leapard was real as i saw a photo that was in the paper of the time and talked to the guy who shot it. [jackboy29].

'Evidence against'

This part of the article contains refutation of evidence. There is not such a thing as evidence against something. --80.56.36.253 09:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree, and this part of the article has been removed. However, the main part of the argument against (which is something slightly different) now rests on saying that all those people who claim to have seen big cats are at best mistaken, or (as referenced in the introduction) are "are largely imagined fantasies, social constructions and media-driven hysterias". My opinion is that this is sailing very close to being a blanket ad hominem attack, which is an equally poor argument. Wally Tharg (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Massive update, deletions and merges

Apache287, first of all, thank you so very much for taking on the task of rewriting this article. It was a mess when you started, but is much better already.

However, I noticed you have proposed the Beasts of Bodmin Moor, Exmoor, and Buchan for deletion. IMO, they are unlikely to be deleted, but how about elevating the existing "Folklore and historical sightings" and "Contemporary claims" to full sections each, and then merging/redirecting what can be salvaged from those three articles into subsections under Contemporary claims? It would be much less objectionable than trying to delete the three articles outright. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The thing is though, having gone through those entries trying to decide how best to handle them, that it's very much a situation of there's basically nothing to salvage other than the briefest of mentions that pretty much comes to "local examples of this phenomena include the x, y, and z". All three of them are more sentimentality of it being "my local version of this" rather than any true global notoriety that warrants the inclusion of say the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot, in fact many use the same or similar non-reputable sourcing that I removed from this one.
Really taken together this entry and those you mention are more relics from a more quaint period of Wikipedia where you could pretty much write an entry on anything and it would be considered acceptable. Apache287 (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
There is very little, yes, but most other editors will likely favor adding a paragraph about each to this article over complete deletion. There seems to be just enough in the way of RS to write a short paragraph for each. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
There isn't even "very little", there is nothing other than to say "this is an example of this phenomena". I purposefully removed a long paragraph on the supposed "Gloucestershire Big Cat" precisely for that justification because it was:
1 - Person claims to have been attacked/dead animals were caused by "big cat"
2 - Literal scientific evidence proved this wasn't the case.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so an entry on "big cat folklore in the United Kingdom" with a couple of examples where you literally just state the example with an RS makes sense (e.g. "Examples include Beast of Bodmin Moor(RS), and the Beast of Exmoor(RS)"). Having a paragraph for every time this tabloid newscycle plays out of "someone claims it was a big cat, it wasn't a big cat" is going firmly into Wikipedia is not a newspaper territory. Apache287 (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I am well aware of that, but those were articles at one point that were merged into this one. The paragraph-on-each is a good compromise for those merged articles only. Overall, merging is considered more acceptable than deletion, and I am trying to facilitate the betterment of this article in a way that isn't going to cause much more arguing. SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
The thing is whether it causes arguments or not there is no merit for any significant inclusion because one side is "I want to believe these animals are real despite all evidence or rather the lack thereof" and the other is "here are a series of reliable sources that actively, with physical evidence, disprove these claims". If these subjects were centuries old aspects of folklore with serious academic exploration and rigor attached that'd be understandable and an argument to keep them. Instead they're just specific, local examples of this main article rather than any unique stories unto themselves and therefore shouldn't exist and removing them is more akin to undoing a historical mistake. Apache287 (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
They're specific, local examples that got newspaper coverage- and not from tabloids- and which now have a short paragraph each instead of whole articles. I went ahead and redirected the Bodmin, Buchan, and Exmoor beasts. Is it ideal? No, but there will always be people who want to include more, and those who want to include less, and having a short paragraph here precludes the re-creation of any of those articles. Please do not remove those paragraphs. Have a good day and happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
They are tabloids. For "Beast of Bevendean" you just keep inserting three "articles" from The Argus, a tabloid whose inclusion on Wikipedia is that it made up claims regarding a terror attack [7].
For "Beast of Bodmin Moor" you keep demanding the inclusion of this source, which is broken.
For "Beast of Exmoor" you keep demanding the inclusion of this source , which is broken.
For "Cotswold Big Cat" you keep expanding it when the source already used is enough, detailing it doesn't exist. Apache287 (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Then those sources can be removed. Overall, my thoughts are:
  • Beast of Bevendean may warrant a passing mention (if only because of a mildly contentious deletion discussion around it that I don't want to repeat).
  • The Beast of Bodmin was given an official investigation, the Beast of Exmoor was searched for by Royal Marines on stake-out, and the Beast of Buchan was brought up in the House of Commons. In my mind, these three are the ones that warrant a bit more information because of their notoriety. Better sources can be found, I was trying to use what was already available.
  • The Cotswild big cat could be given as an example of how science dispels speculation- for all the hype, the deer had only been chewed on by foxes.
My primary interest here is in precluding any of the merged articles from being restored on account of this article not dealing with them adequately enough. SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
"Better sources can be found"
But that's the point, you weren't finding these sources. I kept it to just a short list of "three examples of this phenomena are" where there was a reliable source for each confirming they were phantom claims. Instead, now protected until the 19th, you've inserted substantial content that has extended this out to a sentence for each where you removed that important aspect, that they are phantom reports, to instead give undue bias towards there may be some truth to these claims.
You personally wanting these merged articles dealt with on this article in more depth doesn't overrule the basic guidelines of wikipedia is not a newspaper, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes. Apache287 (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I can easily reword all the sections to make it clear that all of those were supposed sightings only, nothing real. And as I said, the sources were because I just trying to use what was already there. You didn't exactly give me time to find better ones. Nor have you offered any compromise that isn't throwing out everything I worked on. SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
"You didn't exactly give me time to find better ones."
You literally had all the time in the world to do that before making changes to the article. It's not acceptable behaviour to insert unsourced material and then just put in reliable sources at a later date when you feel like it. And it's not up to me to offer a compromise when you're the one who wanted to change the existing reliably sourced statement. Apache287 (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Page protection

@Apache287 and Apache287: I'm within a hair's breadth from blocking both of you blatant WP:3RR violations. Instead, I've protected the page for 3 days so you two can hash out your arguments here and see where consensus lies. If the edit warring picks up again after the protection expires, there will be blocks made.-- Ponyobons mots 19:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

You pinged Apache twice, but I saw this anyway. I was trying to effect a series of reasonable merges. There was no need to damn all the sources as tabloids and throw it all away. Wikipedia is a collaboration, after all. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I understand why you undertook this @Ponyo, however I will say as put in a reply to the section above it was in response to them repeatedly inserting the same set of unreliable and broken links as supposed evidence for what they wanted included. If those sources could be removed I would be grateful. Apache287 (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
The article was protected to stop the continual recent back and forth between you two. I'm not an arbiter of content and will not be commenting on the content issue. This is an opportunity for you to discuss the changes in a constructive manner as opposed to through edit summaries.-- Ponyobons mots 19:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

What happened? (Trying to address the Beast of Exmoor situation)

So, I'm trying to reconstruct what happened here -- it seems like there's been an edit war and a lot of demolition/renovation (which honestly the article likely needed -- the renovation, not the edit war). I was tagged in connection with some of this since, 20 years ago, I wrote a (not very good, at the time) stub article about the Beast of Exmoor, and that article had recently been nominated for deletion by Apache287.

I have a couple of concerns here. Firstly, though I'll assume the WP:PROD nomination by Apache287 was well intended, I wouldn't say I agreed with the characterization that user made. Apache287's rationale for not using the usual AfD process was, among other things, that the article was "Poorly sourced to the point of being effectively unsourced, with nearly all sources being random blogs and "cryptozoology" (a recognised pseudoscience) books". The article in question certainly used some questionable sources, I'll agree. But it also cited the BBC, several journalistic outlets, and the Exmoor Zoo -- all of which got left out of the characterization defending the use of the PROD approach. I'm no cryptozoology nerd -- I created the article I did 20 years ago based on having encountered mention of the Beast and back then we were just writing whatever we could write. But I'd say that an article that's been up for two decades and has several solid sources is, at most, something that needs repair, not a teardown. Certainly I can't understand a WP:PROD case since that's a process that's supposed to be used only for articles where "no opposition to the deletion is expected", and that's just not the article we had. At least, I would argue that an article edited over 250 times in 19 years is one where, you'd have to assume, at least one of those people didn't think it merited deletion. I was on vacation or I would have objected within seven days, but it's too late for that now.

I say it's too late because Silvertiger12, again I'm assuming working from good intentions, decided to respond to the WP:PROD tag less than 24 hours later by simply turning all 11,000 bytes of the Beast of Exmoor article into a redirect pointing here. From what I can tell, hardly any of the article was transferred -- the BBC citation's gone, as is the citation to the Exmoor Zoo, and the only newspaper citation here to the Beast of Exmoor is to a Los Angeles Times article, not something cited in the article at its moment of deletion that I saw. I don't know what practice ought to be when turning an article with that much material in it into a redirect, but I think we ought to transfer more than 0% of what was in the article, myself. If more than that arrived in this article, I'd be glad to modify my concerns here, but I don't see that enough of the article showed up from my perspective.

So, here we are. I respectfully disagree with the redirect decision -- which, according to Wikipedia:Redirect#Redirects_that_replace_previous_articles suggests that I should be able to just revert the redirect and restore the article. But given that both the editors who effected the deletion/redirection of that article got into a sudden edit war basically immediately afterwards, I feel like it won't be great for the temperature here if I just open up a third front. I have no clue how many people watch this article and can chime in -- and I'm happy to go to some other discussion venue if we have to. I'm sure I'm out of practice with where to go for this particular conversation (20 years is a long time, and my most active days were mostly back then, though I've done my best to keep my hand in here) but I can look into it. First, though, I'm hoping we can all practice a little Wikiquette and just figure out what to do here. I'd argue there's enough for a simple well-sourced article about Beast of Exmoor, and if we want to discuss taking out or revising some details/sources from the old article but otherwise restoring it, that's my preference. If you folks think it's better to consolidate things here, okay sure, but then the Beast of Exmoor really needs its own section (perhaps these other cats do, too, I wouldn't know) where again the good information and links from the old article can be transferred. If that's the consensus, I'm willing to do the work of moving the material over here. If consensus here is that the material accumulated over two decades about the Beast of Exmoor (most of it, as far as I can tell, reasonably good NPOV writing with some sources about what is claimed about this creature and why it's likely not real) is not of value to Wikipedia any longer and merits being dumped into the Void....well, I doubt that's where we'll end up, but maybe I'm wrong. That's what discussion's for.

I expect the discussion will be slow, but that's okay -- we have time, and I figure a good decision arrived at with a little less haste will be preferable to a lot of quick decisions battling it out with each other. :-) I look forward to hearing what folks have to say. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 23:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

(Pinging Apache287 so they see this)
The edit war, and why I admitted defeat, was because pretty much all the citations in the Beast of Exmoor article at the time of redirecting were broken. It sucks, but it happens- sources that were good two decades ago fail to survive the passage of time. That said, if you can find a better source feel free to replace the LA newspaper one. I do not, however, support re-creation of the article as I feel that the Beast of Exmoor, as part of a larger phenomenon, would be better covered here rather than in a separate article. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I would wholeheartedly reject any reconstruction of the Beast of Exmoor article for two very simple reasons:
1 - There is no reasonable level of notoriety to it as a unique urban legend as opposed to being simply "example of this phenomena", so there is quite simply nothing to it that fundamentally differentiates from this mother article.
2 - The sources were overwhelmingly either broken, non-reliable, or frankly misused. The BBC source you claim was there is in fact a dead link to a sub-site that no longer existed while the Exmoor Zoo link on the "Beast of Exmoor" was literally about an animal they had at the zoo, not the urban legend itself. The only remaining reliable source was this article by the Telegraph which doesn't even mention the Beast of Exmoor. The only sources that therefore remained were unreliable and extremely biased blogs that proclaimed these animals did exist (despite all scientific evidence to the contrary).
Also I feel you're very much misrepresenting the "edit war" between myself and @SilverTiger12 as disagreeing on it deserving an article when really to me it was just poor communication between ourselves over the status of links they were bringing over and both of us were in agreement there wasn't anything substantial to merit the existence of that or other "my local big cat story" articles which, quite bluntly, wouldn't have passed scrutiny if created today. Apache287 (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Apache287, apologies if you think I was misrepresenting anything -- I was just trying to make sense of what had happened and I'm sure I was missing a lot of context (and maybe missed some conversation happening places I either didn't or couldn't access). I'm glad it's something you two resolved reasonably smoothly.
I hear both you and SilverTiger12 about the problems with the existing article, for sure. My feeling, though, is that there's enough material (some of which was in the article, much of which I'm seeing elsewhere) to merit at least a couple of meaty paragraphs on the Beast of Exmoor phenomenon (I'll agree with you both that I highly doubt the thing exists -- the unlikelihood of a thing existing, though, isn't an argument for us not having an article about it, since we have standalone articles on any number of fictitious things, including a number of cryptids). Would those paragraphs overwhelm this article, if located in a subsection devoted to the creature? Would it be better, assuming I'm right, to have them exist in their own article? I don't know. I think so, but then I haven't written it yet.
The point, of course, of all these procedures is that we're supposed to discuss these things as a community -- that's what AfD and other venues are for. As I noted above, in terms of policy, I could just insist on restoring the redirected article, and then we could go through the AfD process. But I feel like it would be better if first I test my theory that I can write a good, well-sourced, NPOV article. I think, to be clear, that's what should have happened in the first place -- as far as I can tell nobody had previously tagged that article as having too many bad sources, or too many broken links, etc., so that someone could have improved it. But however we got here, we're here. I can see that you both work hard to improve Wikipedia and I get that when you run into an article with a bunch of source problems, especially on a fairly niche subject, the tedium of tagging/AfDing and waiting for basically nobody to respond or help is a frustration. Acting more swiftly -- boldly, to use our parlance -- isn't a bad thing. But when we disagree (as I, at least for now, disagree with the two of you), I think we have opportunities to sort it out together at least somewhat harmoniously.
I figure in the end either I'll produce something one or both of you accepts, or I'll produce something even I am not excited about and throw in the towel, or else we'll still be at a standoff. If we have to go that third route (as I hope we don't), I'll undo the redirect (as policy indicates I am allowed to do) and let you both know that I'm going that route, one of you will list it for AfD, and we'll see what the community thinks. :-) First, though, I'll use a subpage of my userpage to try to construct what I think a decent if brief article on the Beast of Exmoor would be, and we'll see how it strikes you both. I'll link it here later, and tag you both. Cheers to you, and if you're in a country with a holiday tomorrow, I hope you enjoy the break. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm realizing that I'm out of practice with Wikiquette -- should've tagged both User:Apache287 and User:SilverTiger12 in that comment above. Thank you both for patience with an old Wikipedian. :-) Jwrosenzweig (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
First off, thanks for the understanding and acceptance of what has already happened. Secondly, I would not oppose a short-ish section of this article dedicated to the Beast of Exmoor if one can be written with reliable sources. Though I fear that in the intervening years, old online sources have rotted away and not as much can be found as once could. Especially not since standards have risen over the years. Happy editing (and holidays as relevant), SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
It's quite alright. Again, I'm in almost complete agreement with @SilverTiger12. Quite simply I don't think there are enough reliable sources out there that haven't rotted anymore to justify such a section but quite honestly I would oppose it because it will most likely lead to the same situation that existed before the recent drasticly cut down version of the article where a decade and a half's worth of additions had left it more a collection/list of "my local example of this" stories than a well-written encyclopedic entry about Phantom Big Cats within the UK. Apache287 (talk) 16:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks much, User:SilverTiger12 and User:Apache287 -- and my apologies, too, since above I noted that I wished someone had cleanup tagged the article, but in looking back at the text right before it was redirected, I see it had been and I'd just not noticed. Some work had been done by other folks post-tag, but still, I think I'm better understanding the context in which you both were working: again, I do appreciate what you both are doing to improve things around here, and I'm just hoping to be constructively engaged myself. I do think I can put together at least a viable subsection here, and I hear you both on the importance of finding sources less susceptible to linkrot, etc.: let's see what's possible, I guess. I'll ping you both here when I've done it. Cheers, Jwrosenzweig (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Okay, User:SilverTiger12 and User:Apache287 - no rush at all, since I'm about to go into holiday mode and won't likely be back for a couple of days, but I wanted to share what I'd done. If you have a look at User:Jwrosenzweig/Temporary_workspace you'll see the stripped down version of the article I've put together -- I tried to salvage what I could from the existing article, but man, you both weren't wrong about how much of it was a mess. Anyway, I've worked with the most stable and well-put-together resources I can, and I think that the creature as a phenomenon is worthy of this kind of documentation -- clarifying the era it rose to prominence in, the ludicrous heights it reached briefly in 1983, and enough detail about the allegations (and how unsubstantiated they are) that someone who ran into mention of the creature could inform themselves appropriately. To me it feels more "article level" -- something analogous to the Igopogo, maybe, though with a more recent timeline -- so I've left it structured as an article. If you both see it as a better fit for a subsection in this article, well, I'm open-minded: let's talk. :-) I sure am open to the ways the text can be added to / refined / improved. And if you look at what I've done and honestly think none of it belongs in Wikipedia, well, I have a feeling you won't fully persuade me, and we'll have to go find some more Wikipedians elsewhere to chat with and see if a consensus can emerge. But let's start here first and see what we can do together. Cheers to you both: Jwrosenzweig (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
@Jwrosenzweig for ease is it alright if I leave notes on the workspace rather than on here? Not promising even after I would or wouldn't support inclusion but it'd be easier if it was centralised there. Apache287 (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
@Apache287 Totally fine - and I hear you, no promise is being heard or expected. :-) Jwrosenzweig (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
@Jwrosenzweig and @SilverTiger12
So I was looking through it and I have to say you found some great sources @Jwrosenzweig, however I think it's fair to say many were more relevant to the "British Big Cats" page than any separate "Beast of Exmoor" page. So what I've done is transferred and included those already into a much more detailed lead and "contemporary claims" section (and added some of the expansion on Cotswolds Big Cat you wanted to keep @SilverTiger12) for this page and I've left an edited down version of your workspace @Jwrosenzweig that I'm proposing we put into that section for this page as a really detailed "case study" that keeps just about all of the Beast of Exmoor examples you found (along with a couple I've added including a Daily Telegraph gallery with a photo of those Royal Marine snipers who probably had a crappy three day tour of Exmoor). I've put an invisible comment at the location I think the example would best suit the article.
It'd be a scenario I'd be happy with as it keeps us away from my fears of turning the page back into a "lots of poorly sourced examples from whenever someone saw it in their tabloid paper", while it has lots of reliable sources to justify its existence that also detail not just the story but also the aftermath/legacy some decades later. Apache287 (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Looking at the version in Jwrosenzweig's workspace, I think that would work wonderfully as a section of this article: it brings very nicely into focus how just a handful of sightings can capture the attention of the public and the lasting impact such tales have. And considering the Beast of Exmoor has the notoriety of having had Royal Marines sent after it, it more than the rest has the notability for its own section. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, User:SilverTiger12 and User:Apache287 -- I think we collectively did some good work here. :-) Apache, I made some minor edits to the phrasing of what you'd left behind, but substantively stuck with what you'd made with the material I'd unearthed. I added that section where you left your comment -- I didn't know what pipe level to use, so I stayed at the level you'd indicated. So you both know, I reaimed the Beast of Exmoor redirect at that subsection, and created an Exmoor Beast redirect aimed there (just to forestall the creation of another article that'll be not only redundant but prone to misinformation). I've left a comment in the subsection so that people know that redirects are aimed there, in case they ever feel like tinkering with the phrasing of the subsection name. I know there's something you can do with subst:Anchor for redirects to subsections but I'll be honest, I've either never done it or not in years. If either of you know how to make it even more "correct" I'll be grateful -- I suspect, though, that what we've got is good enough. Thanks to you both, again, for your work on this, and your collaborative attitudes: I think we got a good outcome in the end. Cheers, Jwrosenzweig (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Panthera Britannia Declassified

@SilverTiger12 tagging yourself as you're the other main editor with an interest on the article. I suggest we don't include anything from this "documentary" at this point, even if published via a typically RS due to the self-admitted lack of provenance of the photo that is currently being reported on as "proof". I've already found one RS (New Scientist) where the "documentarian" admits that they themselves think it's a photo of a captive panther:

“It looks like it was photographed in such a way that you couldn’t see the background, which makes me think it’s likely a captive cat,” says Whittard. “This is one of those mysteries that will probably never be solved.”

Given the fact it's likely only emerged to get publicity for their documentary and so far there's been no independent verification of any of their claims I think we should air on the side of caution before giving untoward legitimacy to the subject. Apache287 (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Hm, I'm also pretty dubious about this supposed evidence and how closely tied it is to their documentary, but was wary of completing removing it right away. If you think so too, though, go ahead. SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
I think there are multiple justifications for removal we can defend it on if it gets questioned in the future. The general item falls under Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a newspaper while the previous dismissal of the photo as a hoax definitely fell under Wikipedia:No original research given the direct linking to photos as "proof" it was a hoax. Apache287 (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_big_cats/Archive_1&oldid=1194629271"