Talk:Eastern cougar/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Eastern cougar. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Expanding stub

Used university library access to Proquest to expand this, with references. Imagine links don't work. Have been slightly specific regarding these references, however.

Ambitious editors can nail down references with greater specificity and add more of their own, if desired.

Bottom line is, the "Elvis Factor" is still highly significant but not the sole element of information. Calamitybrook (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Big problem. Three of the footnotes are inaccessible outside of the faculty, staff and students of Michigan State University, and no further information was provided. What are the titles of these sources? Their authors? Publisher? Publication dates? Page numbers? Publication location? ISBN/ISSN/DOI numbers? There are several facts listed in the article that are not supported with citations, including direct quotations. (Each direct statistic and every direct quotation needs a footnote, even if that repeats one at the end of the subsequent sentence.) There's no clue what footnote #4 is supposed to be supporting in the article since it's hanging out in the middle of blank space. In short, half of this article could be erased because of the inability to verify the information and the last of reliable sources. (Those footnotes could be to reliable sources, but we can't tell from a URL that doesn't impart any information.) I've tagged what at a minimum needs citations, please provide them. Don't be surprised if the article is gutted of content by someone else though, or even nominated for deletion. I won't be watching this page. Imzadi 1979 → 04:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Proquest is widely available through public libraries. If you're interested.

Calamitybrook (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Have added publication dates, page numbers, volume numbers, etc. There is wealth of additional research available. Perhaps I'll expand this article. Any resourceful and curious editor can do the same.

Calamitybrook (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Conflict between the legal concept of Ipse dixit and WP:AGF. It is better to have accessible and WP:Verifiablility and WP:Reliable sources. We need to work this out together, but we need real citations, not just apparently made-up-stuff that nobody can find or verify. The irony of the present conflict over WP:Sources has a certain irony, given the unreasonable scepticism that I saw at Upper Peninsula talk. Indeed, a whole lot of the sources from the list at that page belong in this article, and all of them are at least verifiable. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC) Stan

revert

Reverted the many "citation needed" notes. Each of three sources is carefully provided. Each concerns several sentences of article. One needn't repeatedly footnote the SAME source. This would be redundant and needless and may disrespect readers' intelligence. Calamitybrook (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, yes, one does need to repeat the source if multiple sentences or quotations use the same source. That's how we do things around here. As an example, see Capitol Loop, a Michigan-based Featured Article. The first footnote to an article from the Lansing State Journal is repeated fourt separate times in the article.The Google Maps map of the area is repeated five times. Each time is a separate instance requiring citation, so the footnote is repeated. Imzadi 1979 → 03:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

"Around here" being what? Your suggestion is plainly silly and disrespectful of readers. You don't seem to even be able to access online sources available from modest public libraries, yet you lecture about sourcing.

You should perhaps consult how scholarly works (available in libraries) treat sourcing and footnotes and then use that for your model, rather than going off half-cocked. Calamitybrook (talk) 03:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Around here=Wikipedia. Wikipedia policies require a footnote or other citation for the source of a direct quotation. I recall all of my various classes in high school and college requiring a citation (parenthetical or footnote) immediately following a direct quotation or statistic in a research paper. At the very least, we had to provide one at the end of the paragraph, assuming that the whole paragraph is being source from the same location. That's essentially the key to how Wikipedia does it too.

While its true that you might have greater access to information through other institutions than I, you've yet to understand one of my points. The link to http://proquest.umi.com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/pqdweb?index=2&did=1225332491&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1291243603&clientId=3552 by itself is useless as a citation to the readers of Wikipedia. Let's examine this issue from a few angles. Only Michigan State University faculty, state or students can access the source. Ok, that by itself is not an issue. The problem is when there is no further information about the source supplied. If I knew the author, title, publisher and date on the source, I can use other resources at my disposal to locate a copy of the source. For the sake of argument a moment, that link, on its own, could be to a cake recipe in a cookbook stored on a server at MSU. I assume though it is to a news item, a journal article or even a book (excerpt) on cougars. The problem is that no one outside of MSU faculty, staff or students can know without further information.

Let's expand on this idea a moment. Let's assume that you found an article called "Do Cougars Exist in Michigan?" published in the hypothetical Journal of Big Cats. This article was published in the July 2010 issue and written by John Doe. If you inserted, as a citation:

Doe, John (July 2010). "Do Cougars Exist in Michigan? Journal of Big Cats.

Maybe you inserted the same information in a different way. It wouldn't matter the formatting, just what information was there. I could do a Google search on that journal name, or the article title. I could search the databases available through my local libraries to see if they carried it. Maybe the main branch of the Grand Rapids Public Library even subscribes to that journal and I could read the hard copy of the article. The point is, even if that link points to a closed database, there's still enough information in the footnote to allow someone to access the source. In my articles, I've used several newspaper articles only available on microfilm or through paywall databases. I still provide the full citation information so others can locate a copy to verify the source material. When it comes to finding ways to access information, I'm quite proficient in getting copies of sources, when I know what the source is. (why usually keep the links together with the rest of the bibliographic entries.)

A second issue, but how scholarly journal do things is persuasive on how we do things. Wikipedia has established its own styles and policies on how things are done. That's the controlling factor. When someone asks for a citation, provide one. That's the point of those little "citation needed" tags. Someone has questioned the origination of that material. Maybe it's redundant, but do it anyway. Maybe later one, we can combine them down. Our footnoting system is great though. <ref name=BigCats>Doe, John (July 2010). "Do Courgars Exist in Michigan?" ''Journal of Big Cats''</ref> from above can be repeated in the second or subsequent locations using <ref name=BigCats/>. That way the footnote will use the same number in each instance in the article, and it will only appear once in the list of references. (Journals use ibid because the content on paper is fixed. There's no guarantee that between footnote 1 and footnote 2 someone won't insert a new paragraph to a different source. If that happens, the ibid will appear linked to the wrong source.)

If you have questions, please ask. Just telling someone to "go to the library" doesn't help when you don't give any indication of what they're supposed to be finding. Imzadi 1979 → 04:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Reference problem

I am having a problem displaying the 246 total pages in the Bolgiano book I referenced. Citation form, I imagine, but I don't know why. If somebody could help, it would be apppreciated. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC) Stan

The Wikipedia house style doesn't list total number of pages for a work, just a specific page number. The templates don't have a way to show it at the moment. Imzadi 1979 → 21:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Changed "supposed" to "reported

In addition to WP:NPOV, the word "supposed" is specifically listed as a loaded word in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch). 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC) Stan

Point regarding "supposed" seems trivial enough, although "reported" and "supposed" had different meanings at last check.

I've listed publication, date, volume and page numbers for two of the three sources. As for the PA wildlife agency, the date of the document is sufficient. The sources are entirely adequate.........

If you personally feel a need to check them, find a library that gives you access to Proquest, or obtain a subscription, or try one of the many similar databases offered by your local library. [[1]]

You can find much additional relevant content in this same manner, and use it to improve and expand the article.

If I were to cite page one of the Bible, "In the beginning.... blablabla" ... you can't turn around and say it's invalid because you don't personally have access to that particular work at a particular moment.

Calamitybrook (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not an invalid source as you mention. It would be if you just linked to a locked database with no indication of what someone is supposed to find at the end of the link. In general, provide as much information about a source as possible so that others can find that source, no matter what alternate methods are required. Your links only pull up a login page for MSU for me, and that means I have no clue what I'm supposed to find at the end of the link unless I have an MSU user id. Think of it this way. If a reader from England were to click the link that's the only source of information on the source, and they're directed to a login page for Michigan State University, that source is worthless. If you gave some indication of the article in the ProQuest database, then the reader can use their own ProQuest access or other resources to retrieve it. Imzadi 1979 → 21:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Now, is what is currently footnote 5 the same thing as what is in footnote 4, but through an alternate hosting website? If so, we can remove footnote 4 totally in favor of what is now footnote 5. Imzadi 1979 → 21:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Imzadi is correct on this. When citing, you need to provide the author, title etc. and not just a url. That is part of verifiability.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Cougar attacks

I notice that neither the main cougar article nor this one has Danz's book on cougar attacks referenced. With 150 documented attacks, that might be worth the trip to the library.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Doubt that you'd find anything relevant. There was a hoax in SE PA recently.

Calamitybrook (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Problem with url link

For whatever reason [this link] is not working. I don't know why. Tried to fix it. Would somebody help, please. It appears in a number of the "Further reading" articles. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Stan

Fixed. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Stan

This problem has reappeared. I don't know why. The URL in this section works, but it doesn't work in the articles. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC) Stan

Done ...was an extra period in the url.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the help, Berean Hunter. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC) Stan

Page number for Eberhard book

Specific pages is pages 153-161, and there are 722 pages in that 2 volume book. Not displaying properly. Probably operator error. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Stan

The Wikipedia citation templates don't track total number of pages, only the specific pages being cited. The display of the |page= or the |pages= parameters are mutually exclusive. The pages parameter will force it to ignore a page parameter. Otherwise the purpose is to prefix either "p." or "pp." in front of the number(s) and display the result. Total pages are not supported. Imzadi 1979 → 20:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The volume numbers, etc. are also screwed up on some of the other cites. Sorry, but I'm still working this template thing through. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Stan

There's a new tool that was announced in this week's Signpost called ProveIt that's becoming handy for me since I installed it last night. I'll take a look here quick though at the article. Imzadi 1979 → 22:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up. I really have been trying to work with the citation template formula, and I'll get there. It is trial and error. Lots of error. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Stan

Yeah, somebody keeps tagging my citations as incomplete when I've provided title, date, volume and page numbers. Is crazy & makes it seem utterly pointless to continue with efforts to improve this article.

Calamitybrook (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, most articles from Insight on the News have authors and knowing their names helps hunt them down. See these examples. We might be able to locate the article easier if we had it. If you have access, why not just get the info?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Title, date, volume and page number

Title, date, volume and page number of a news periodical amount to fully complete citation. A reasonable response to what you're suggesting is difficult & highlights my above-mentioned frustration.

However, I might mention, very broadly speaking, that bylines are NOT universally provided by newspapers. Especially the smaller wire-service subscribers routinely cut off AP bylines. This dates from pre-Watergate days, when news publications only offered bylines to extraordinarily significant news items, or to opinion column authors.

A fair bit of this tradition remains. Regardless, the copyright is generally held by publisher and not the author, except for comparatively rare contractual circumstances. If one seeks to reference news publications, is generally best to seek title, date, volume and page number, rather than author.

Calamitybrook (talk) 01:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That may be. I've found several old newspaper articles that are missing bylines. I will add though that the Insight on the News and Canadian Geographic references don't even have article titles. That's all that's missing (absent any applicable byline) to make those citations complete. If you can provide that much, then the tag can be removed. Imzadi 1979 → 02:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

News coming

Within weeks or months the USFWS will release results of their latest study on so-called eastern cougar species.

Why ought I engage with Wikipedia by adding this information, or the half-dozen or so other available, reliable and fascinating sources on the topic, if my citations are going to be aimlessly/brainlessly tagged as in some way questionable?

It's a loss.

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

So long as the citations provided are complete so that others may find and access the sources, they will be fine. Imzadi 1979 → 02:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You require online access? This should be deemed entirely unreasonable. Doubt that I'll concern myself with this article in future, given this type of "editing." This is reasonable response.

":Get your OWN freakin library!! Calamitybrook (talk) 03:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ma'am, I don't see Imzadi saying that it must be online. Further, it was your suggestion to get online at a library to access it...isn't that the way you did?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Putting aside the secret presently inaccessible authorities (and I WP:AGF and expect that more information will be forthcoming), there are actually eight or nine hard copy books listed in the article, all of which would be available in print, and one or two of which are available on line. No doubt there are other on line sources. Give what I've already noted, there is plenty to talk about here -- a lot more than the article has touched so far.

Of course, we don't need to degenerate into name calling, ultimatums, or such.

It would be helpful if we can share as much information as we can about identity of sources.

It isn't yet a GA, but we can work toward that goal. If we don't all just 'take our crayons and go home.' This is a worthwhile subject, and for whatever reasons Calamitybrook started the ball rolling. We have gotten involved, and should try to see it through. So I suggest that everybody take two aspirins, go to bed, and when you wake up it will be a new day, and we can begin again. The encyclopedia will be better for it. That's just a gentle suggestion.

That's my respectful suggestion. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC) Stan

Actually, Berean is correct. I don't care if you have the source online or not. As a side example, if I were to include the following citation:

"Would Shift Route Number: Mackie Seeks Int. 96 Designations for Grand Rapids – Muskegon Stretch". Grand Rapids Press. May 1, 1963. p. 32.

Anyone who wished to find the article can do so. For me to find that article after learning about it from another source, I went to the Grand Rapids Public Library and accessed the microfilm archives.

Andrews, Chris (May 22, 2003). "Work Set for Capitol Loop". Lansing State Journal. pp. 1A, 6A.

That required a trip to the Library of Michigan to get the LSJ article out of the microfilm archives there. (The LoM has many, many of the state's papers in their archives.) The point is that with a full citation, any one else can to the same thing to get their own copy, even though they're not necessarily online. Imzadi 1979 → 04:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

55 page bibliography

One of the Boigiano books is said to include a 55 page bibliography THREE NEW COUGAR BOOKS RELEASED THIS YEAR Autumn, 2005 Eastern Cougar Foundation Newsletter. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC) Stan

Sourcing

Indeed.

The big news we can probably anticipate is when federal wildlife folks release their study started in 2007. This will be perhaps ??? in early???? 2011.

As of mid December '10, it seems unavailable but a few obscure Googled news reports suggests the work is complete.

One can certainly and without fail, use the "primary" government source, and expect also that there will be some additional coverage.

Calamitybrook (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

FWS finding seems misleading

If the FWS have stated that the eastern cougar is extinct but there are potentially thousands of captive cougars in the east...wouldn't that imply that some of the cougars are captive Eastern cougars (or is there proof that they all came from the west?). I think they were intending to state that there are no wild populations of Eastern cougars. That isn't the same thing as being extinct.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Generally, the captives, escaped and otherwise, are of South American origin. I don't have the source of this information at my fingertips at the moment, nor did I make it up. I think this was also implied somewhat (though not stated explicitly) by FWS announcement on 2/3.

Apparently, origins can be confirmed with genetic testing, although I gather this is easy to completely mess up (see critique of Michigan's "Mr. Cougar") and I don't know extent (if any) to which FWS applied such tests.

In my view, FWS is a definitive source. I realize others may differ.

Calamitybrook (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is part of a current newsletter from the Mountain Lion Foundation which highlights that declaring the subspecies "extint" and removing it from the endangered species list leave in doubt the status of all those eastern cougars that are being seen.

Cougar News Clippings

MLF Logo Petition Filed to Reintroduce Florida Panthers into Georgia Conservation groups have filed a petition with the Department of the Interior and US Fish & Wildlife Service asking the government to finally take action and help the endangered Florida panther recover. The species' small and only population is currently confined to the southwest corner of Florida, surrounded by roads and development. Without more habitat, extinction is only a matter of time. The petition requests that through relocation, another population of panthers be established in Georgia's Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge, as well as in parts of northern Florida. Not only will this action save the panther, it will benefit the entire ecosystem in the range. Having a top carnivore is crucial to a healthy, stable, and diverse landscape. So far the government has failed to take any action to help the Florida panther return to its historic range, or develop a recovery plan -- as the species is entitled to under our country's Endangered Species Act. Hopefully this petition will finally get the ball rolling.

Eastern Cougar Now Extinct

Today, March 2nd, the US Fish and Wildlife Service officially declared the eastern cougar to be extinct. Mountain lions used to roam the entire country, coast to coast, and the eastern cougar subspecies (Puma concolor couguar) occupied the northeast region. P. c. couguar has been on the endangered species list since the early 1970s (when the Endangered Species Act first passed), but the last known cat died back in the 1930s. The USFWS continues to receive reports of sightings, but they have not been able to confirm any of these cats were the couguar subspecies. They believe these individuals have been released pets or lions dispersing from the western population. The delisting of Puma concolor couguar does not take away any protection from the current endangered Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi). However, it does raise concern for what, if any, protection laws are in place if a mountain lion is now spotted in the northeast. Could it be shot on sight like many Midwestern states allow?

Read the actual news story here... 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

And which midwestern states would those be?

Am deeply skeptical of this statement.

Calamitybrook (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I find it odd that they reported that it "occupied the northeast region"...as if it weren't in the south and mid-Atlantic states at one point also.

One could break the country into Northeast, mid-atlantic, and southeast or simply northeast and southeast. The USFWS seems to have used the second since they consider the original range of the FL panther to be the entire southeast (up to Virginia I believe). This makes sense to me.

Trying to re-introduce or spread populations is a bad idea, in my opinion.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This is about the Eastern Cougar, which ain't the Florida guys.

Right, except that some people now think the cats in Florida are eastern Cougars. But, since USFWS doesn't follow Culver's suggested taxonomy, policy keeps them separate and FL cats still have protections. Not sure what happens if a FL cat gets up into Georgia (as they've done before, albet rarely).--Paddling bear (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

This source is saying that cougars can be "shot on sight in many midwestern states." I'd like more information before accepting that idea.

Calamitybrook (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Good point, is it true or just an assumption?--Paddling bear (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Same as North American Cougar?

The articles give the same taxonomy. 150.212.21.49 (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that other article is hooey.

As for this article, I removed the lovely & apparently recent color photo of a cougar, incorrectly labeled as an "eastern cougar."

Calamitybrook (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I just read the wiki help about merging, and see that both this page and the North American Cougar discussion have the proposal. Next would be to get more feed back, notify the editors of both pages, and mark the pages for merging.--Paddling bear (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Photo

Is highly doubtful that there are photos available that can be sourced as depicting member of "eastern cougar" subspecies. Photos of other subspecies probably are insufficiently relevant.

Moreover it is to be preferred that any such photo conform with copyright guidelines. Calamitybrook (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The photo is licensed as Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic correctly and has been at Commons since 2007. The other photo that was here today was indeed a copyvio and is up for deletion (which I agree with). Can you document that it isn't an Eastern Cougar? That argument is the converse of the one that you are requesting that it must be. A slippery slope. The confusion lies with the fact that biologists have stated that there may be no genetic differences. I can accept that there might not be any wild breeding populations but I don't see the FWS as any kind of definitive authority to declare that a species is totally extinct when they may not know about captive specimens that could be anywhere in the world. Their lack of knowing shouldn't be confused as having knowledge. They have made a conclusion (i.e. deduction)...doesn't necessarily mean they are right. The FWS also said the Red Wolf would stay in the swamps of NC but they got that very wrong. Obstinately, they refused to hear it for a long time until they were forced to admit they were wrong and had to begin paying out damages. The FWS also has no dominion over Canadian territory so they have no idea...just a best guess based on what research they have done.

In Wikipedia terms, they should be treated a a single source, not the definitive one.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't document that it isn't a cougar from Mars, for that matter. I don't trust the durn Federal Government either, dag nabbit!!!

This is an article about the eastern cougar. You've got what's probably a South American cougar photo, but you don't know.

If you don't care, I don't care.

Calamitybrook (talk) 11:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No need to be angry. It is just a discussion...it's not like we're edit-warring over the photo or anything like that. I have to admit that I thought you were taking the government position based on that you were waiting for these results and when I wrote in an edit summary that they weren't definitive, you wrote something to the effect that they were for you.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Extinct?

The U.S. government has declared the Eastern Cougar extinct, while Canadian officials have not made that determination. Is it appropriate to say that the species is extinct based on the view of one government, while another government disagrees? - Pictureprovince (talk) 13:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Moreover, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. National Park Service continues to put signs up warning that areas of Michigan in the Lower peninsula and Upper peninsula (see extended discussion there and references at Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore), for example, are cougar areas in which hikers should beware. Likewise various state governments hve a different take on the situation. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Has the government or anyone else actually published the raw genetic data? I haven't seen that...only summary info. We need to see the genetic marker comparisons for the Florida panther vs. the Western cats vs. the South American varieties. Once that basis is established, they need to take DNA from a tooth of the stuffed specimen of known Eastern Cougar for comparison. The raw data needs to be published so it can be vetted by other scholars, etc. Summary conclusions lacking data open to scrutiny doesn't amount to much.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

- Discussion re DNA and separate subspecies 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Lots of confusion here, and perhaps an inability even to distinguish basic terminology, let alone good and bad sources. Then, somebody wants the DNA data, so they can analyze this?? Whoa Nellie!!!

Here are some more sources to consider: [[2]]!!!!![[3]]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Calamitybrook (talk • contribs)

Sorry if we are confusing you and you don't know the terms. Clearly I said, "The raw data needs to be published so it can be vetted by other scholars, etc." My use of "we" above is talking about the public-in-general...my point being that the empirical data needs to be examined rather than simply basing things on one governmental source.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Please Read FWS Report (not press release)

The "one government source" I've now skimmed through for about an hour.... It's a meta analysis of ALL existing studies. Its list of cited references alone runs more than 30 pages.

An interesting little bit of it traces history of post 1950 "sightings" & related theories & theorists of crypto-population.

Editors should at minimum skim through it before continuing work on this article.

The segment on taxonomy is quite useful & currently lacking in Wikipedia article.

Calamitybrook (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Canada

Recent changes are confused and are misleading the reader and are based on a single newspaper article that is in part based on a hasty reporter's apparent misunderstanding or oversight.

This needs to be re-worked based on more reliable sources.

I've removed it.

Neither U.S. nor Canadian officials, state or national, dispute that individual cougars have recently been found in Eastern North America.

We are working here, however, on a Wikipedia article on the "eastern cougar," a subspecies established by the 1946 taxonomy based on a number of museum specimens & historical records.

The newspaper article concerns the conclusion of the U.S. FWS that this subspecies became extinct early in the 20th Century. The reporter then asked a provincial wildlife official whether individual cougars (of any subspecies) had been present in Ontario in more recent times. The answer is yes, but is incorrectly presented (both by the newspaper article and in Wikipedia) as relevant to the FWS conclusions.

Here is the takeaway quote from the source I've removed.

"Kowalski added that any cougars still in Ontario may not be native. Instead, she said, they could be escaped zoo animals or pets or may have migrated from the western parts of North America, where cougars are still common."'

A recent and somewhat standard reference work reclassified the species into, I believe only three subspecies; the South American, Nicaraguan and North American varieties. This reclassification is, however, in dispute by specialists, and was made unilaterally in a somewhat unorthodox manner by a single taxonomist (who has since died as I understand).

The committee responsible for Canada's national policy currently has no position on the existence of the eastern cougar, nor even on the taxonomic question itself.

The committee's non-position is based on a 1998 study that it sponsored, which found no evidence of the continued presence of the subspecies in Canada nor the U.S.

The committee, in effect, punted.

It's as if a group of scientists failed to find evidence of the existence of fairies, and then stated "there is insufficient evidence to conclude that fairies don't exist."

Calamitybrook (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Your vision is that we should limit this article to the taxonomy of Eastern Cougars. To be sure, I think that section should be expanded. However, their history, their continued existence, and the continued existence of eastern Cougars is relevant and documented. I disagree on your Procrustean view. Have a nice day. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The "eastern cougar" is specific subspecies, as established by taxonomists.

A cougar subspecies is a legitimate topic for a Wikipedia article, and well, yes, that'd be my "vision;" to have a Wikipedia article on this particular subspecies. Hence the title "Eastern Cougar."

This point is key to, well, to cougar taxonomy, and is too easily lost on the casual reader (editor?).

Perhaps another article could be written titled "cougars in the east," though I think this matieral can be contained in present article as a subsection that needn't cause undue confusion, if sufficient care is taken.

Please, before further work, please read the most relevant and useful and recent source. It includes via objective summary, ALL of the available research, history and anything you could possibly want: I promise that if you make the considerable effort, it will help you, and probably surprise you. Here is the link [[4]]

Calamitybrook (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that fragmentation is a good idea, although it has its attractions. You could call this article Eastern Cougar (taxonomy), and it could interface to eastern Cougar (presence). Just like the people who are debating this subject in the real world, we are not communicating. Your theory seems to be that taxonomy trumps presence. Assuming that there were a separate subspecies of "Eastern cougar" and assuming further that it is now extinct. My theory is that there may or may not have been a separate subspecies, that if it existed as a subspecies it may now be extinct, but that cougars are present. You don't like my sources. You don't like what they say. Yet they exist.

Indeed, the current articles on the subject in the press recognize the dichotomy, which is something that you want to ignore or suppress. My theory at least considers yours and would deal with it on both sides of the issue. You want to exile mine. You are not Moe Howard, and I decline you invitation to debate the merits of the Three Stooges.

The eastern cougars that you say are extinct are still there, albeit perhaps not (and maybe never were or as) Eastern Cougars. The simple declaration (by you or by fish and wildlife) does not make either the controversy or the wildlife disappear. Ipse dixit. To reduce this to a question of taxonomy without regard to problems of politics, ecology, game management, governance and truth that are inherent in it is just plain wrong. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Taxonomy

Can't live with it; can't live without it.

It's how we speak and write about animals. Editors aren't free to make it up.

Calamitybrook (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

CT Cougar killed

Hit by car, June 2011: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/11/us-mountainlion-killed-idUSTRE75A1QK20110611

98.118.62.140 (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Illinois Cougar Hit By Amtack

Wasn't an cougar hit by an Amtrak in the forest in Southern IL S of St. Louis recently? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brechbill123 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Quotes Autopsy report of cougar hit by Amtrak train in 2000 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I do find these on-going news reports very interesting indeed, and great on talk page. Thanks very much for the info. But I don't think they are relevant to the larger thrust of the article, which does refer generically (and adequately, I think) to thousands of such reports.

The several theories that may account for these reports are fully represented in current version of the article.

Those theories are, of course, A) the persistence of a native population of cougars in the region, whether of "eastern" subspecies or otherwise, and B) migration of individual "western" cougars, of distinct subspecies or otherwise, and/or (B2 theory) escaped captives.

Also I guess, a fourth possibility is also somewhat covered; that migrant cougars from the west have recently established a viable breeding population in former range of "eastern subspecies" or non-subspecies, as the case may be.

Maybe this needs to be expressed more clearly, and I think it is reasonable to assume this will happen at some point, but I haven't any usable source suggesting that this is known to be already the case.

We've definitely covered the idea that some people do currently believe this to be true.

Calamitybrook (talk) 04:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Cougar hit by auto in Milford, Conn., was said by state (via NYT article today) to have originated in Dakotas. Interesting. I mention this NOT for inclusion in article but just FYI.

Reporter chose to quote state spokesman fairly extensively to the effect that (in his opinion, apparently) there are no native or breeding populations of cougar in Connecticut. Nothing about Central Park or Jersey though.

Calamitybrook (talk) 13:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

May I reiterate my view that trying to mention in this article, every cougar sighting and road kill is counter-productive and also, ultimately, not possible.

Calamitybrook (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Ditto the Greenwich, Conn., item.

Certainly is interesting to me.

But it's not relevant to the "eastern cougar" subspecies. There is no source to suggest otherwise.

Nothing. Isn't related to this article, according to any available source.

Shouldn't be there!!!

Am not going to do more than make this here note.

Calamitybrook (talk) 01:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Moved it to a footnote. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge

Probably don't merge.

This article is about the eastern cougar, including, extensively, the question of whether it actually existed.

Either as an actual subspecies or merely as long-established (though now uncertain???) taxonomic category, it was or continues, separate from non-eastern cougars.

That's why they're called "eastern" cougars.

There is of course, a certain amount of confusion about all this among the public, but merging the articles wouldn't be helpful in this regard.

The other article may have shortcomings, but can serve as at least a placeholder for something of its sort.

Calamitybrook (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't merge per Calamitybrook. There is a taxonomic question, which without definitive sources it wouldn't be appropriate to intermingle the articles.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 06:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't merge 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge. Either wikipedia is an organ of science, or not. The variations of the North American cougar - including the Eastern and the Florida Panther should be noted (no-one is suggesting deletion), but they should be noted in the appropriate place, based on science, not sentiment. The correct place - so far as I can tell (I'm no expert) is North American Cougar. Heenan73 (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

First sentence illogical

The article begins with "Eastern cougar (Puma concolor couguar) is considered by many puma biologists to be a subspecies of the North American cougar" This is of course wrong, as the North American cougar (Puma concolor couguar) is a subspecies of the cougar (Puma concolor). So either Eastern cougar is the same subspecies as P. c. cougar, then the articles must be merged or the first sentence is wrong as there is never a subspecies of a subspecies. FelixReimann (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting point. Got a source for that position? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Cryptozoology

Should this really be categorized as crypotozoology? I understand it is debated whether they're genetically different from other North American cougars, but I'd hardly group them up with Bigfoot and Nessie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.182.48 (talk) 10:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

As the animal is not listed with those, I have removed it.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Reference removed again; it is irrelevent, innaccurate, unscientific and probably mischievous; there is no reason for it to be here - looks like there's a troll in the house! Heenan73 (talk) 12:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Technically by definition it would fit into cryptozoology in that outside florida mountain lions are basically extinct. cryptzoology even encompses populations that are "alien" to a location. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raifu (talk • contribs) 20:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eastern cougar. 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/20110930014057/http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct1/searchdetail_e.cfm?id=132 to http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct1/searchdetail_e.cfm?id=132

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

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Eastern cougar. 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.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)