Jump to content

Talk:List of mammals of South Australia

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

Use of "extirpated" instead of "extinct"

[edit]

Last year User:Ddum5347 repeatedly changed "extinct in South Australia" to "extirpated" (his preferred term), which is not used in the document (Kemper et al) that this list is based on, and is also not a recognised IUCN category. Along with several other editors (see the extended discussion at "Talk:Thylacine#Extirpated"), I have tried to explain to the user that this change is not appropriate, because it implies that the extinction occurred due to direct human involvement and intention in wiping out a species. We supplied definitions of "extirpated" from three reputable dictionaries, as well as from Wiktionary, to support our argument, and Ddum5347's counter-arguments were very unconvincing. I have now restored the original wording to this list. Bahudhara (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "extirpated" is a very commonly used definition that is synonymous with "local extinction"[1], whether or not it was directly caused by humans. I have added a source above. Also, would you not argue that most of these local extinctions, that happened relatively recently, have at least indirectly been caused by human activity? Ddum5347 (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


As I replied to Ddum5347's addition of this same ref (in Talk:Thylacine#Extirpated), Even in this ref that Ddum5347 provides, "local extinction" appears as the preferred term, and "extirpation" is enclosed in single quotation marks, so it's hardly a good example to support his argument.
As a number of other editors have pointed out to Ddum5347 with several definitions from reputable dictionaries, "extirpated" is NOT synonymous with "local extinction", and, in my experience, the term is NOT used in Australia. Bahudhara (talk) 01:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I included a reference to support my statement, quoting someone else won't do you any favours. And thanks for reverting the article even though I added species that weren't even on the list before. Hard to think that it isn't personal at this point. Ddum5347 (talk) 05:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You will both have to decide whether we are writing for the reading public or writing for biologists, because this is not the definition that one will find in any common dictionary. William Harris (talk) 07:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this helps, but we use the word extirpated all the time in the bird wikiproject. It is not this wikiproject, however. You may have different rules....Pvmoutside (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Copying comment I made in Dec 2020. In the sources I use regularly, they're treated as synonymous, historic usage or etymology aside; e.g. [1][2][3][4][5], none of which are from poaching/targeted removal by humans. Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 19:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Plus regarding @William Harris:' comment: I highly doubt anyone who isn't interested in biology will read this "List of mammals" articles. It is just a Google search away. And thanks for the sources @Hyperik: Ddum5347 (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The examples provided by Hyperik are mostly from US sites, and in my experience the term is not used in this way in Australia. I've posted a notice of this discussion at Talk:WikiProject Australian biota and the Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians notice board. Bahudhara (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few more with less a US-focus, from a quick look: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 03:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I live south of the dingo fence - I can see what the term "extirpated" means in the US, but I certainly know what it means here in South Australia. However, we write for the English-speaking world's version of Wikipedia and not an Australian one. A counter-argument might be that at the top of this Talk page, the article is badged as Australian English usage - so we would then be referring to the word's meaning in the Macquarie Dictionary. Let us see how this unfolds. William Harris (talk) 04:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, this is an unprecedented event. Let's see what happens. Ddum5347 (talk) 05:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not following—did you mean to reply to different comment? Several of the links are from Australian sources referring to Australian taxa. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 23:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a ton of time to put into this, but here are a few notes on some of the Australian uses of extirpated as synonymously with local extinction, in case people weren't able to check out the links. These were just a handful of examples I found in a couple minutes of searching. The terms are very commonly used interchangeably when talking about the conservation of species.
  • I can only say that in my (British) understanding, "extirpated" is not the same as "extinct". As per the OED definition, "extirpate" means "eradicate or destroy completely". It's not an appropriate synonym for "extinct" in an international encyclopedia, since it will mislead many readers. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tomorrow I intend to look up the meaning in the "real" Oxford dictionary and the Australian Macquarie dictionary, both available in the State Library of South Australia. (I say "real" because the multi-volume printed form carries the meanings from across the English-speaking world, US included.) Then we can be better guided. Be aware that both dictionaries may carry both meanings as acceptable, or maybe not. William Harris (talk) 10:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@William Harris: the key issue is WP:COMMONALITY. So long as some dictionaries used in some English-speaking countries give a restricted meaning (my old Cassell's English Dictionary says "extirpate" means "to root out, to destroy utterly, to exterminate, to cut off or out") and there exists an equivalent term with a more widely understood meaning, we should use the latter. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Peter, I have no position in this matter, and I intend to provide definitions from two relevant sources - including the OED that you yourself have mentioned - and then leave the matter to others to hopefully form a consensus. (Be aware that MOS:TIES probably trumps WP:COMMONALITY.) William Harris (talk) 11:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary meanings

[edit]

Australia's National Dictionary - Macquarie Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p520-521:

Extinct (of a species) without a living representative.

Extirpate 1. To remove utterly; destroy totally; do away with. 2. to pull up by the roots; root up.


The Australian Oxford Concise Dictionary, Third Edition, p465:

Extinct (of a family, class or species) that has died out.

Extirpate root out, destroy completely.


The Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, Volume V, Dvanda-Follis

p520 Extinct see Extinguish

p603-606 Extirp 1. to root up (plants) 2. to root out, exterminate (a family, sect, or nation)

p603-606 Extirpate 1. to clear of stumps. 2. to pull or pluck out by the roots; to root up, destroy, or remove root and branch (a tree, plant) 3. to root out, exterminate, or completely destroy (a class, sect, or nation); to kill off, and render extinct (a species of animal or plant) 4. to root out, eradicate (an immaterial thing e.g. heresy, vice etc.)

p603-606 Extirpator one who, or that which, extirpates.

William Harris (talk) 09:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Extinct" is an adjective - it describes the state of a species. "Extirpate" is a verb. Someone did something. "Extirpated" can either be the past tense of the verb or an adjective describing the state of something that has had the thing done to it. To read that a species is extinct means that there are no living examples with no judgement on what happened. To read that it has been extirpated makes me want to know who did it and why. --Scott Davis Talk 00:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC) (Australian English speaker)[reply]
Agree with ScottDavis, Bahudhara and whoever else above that "extirpated" implies intention, and is not equivalent to "extinct", neither in dictionaries nor in general usage in the rest of the English-speaking world. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You guys are being real sticklers about this and wrong. But if you don't believe that this is a word commonly used to mean "local extinction", then it's your choice. Ddum5347 (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Non-human (or indirectly human) and non-intentional acts can "render [locally] extinct". —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 13:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, just a note to say thanks to William Harris, which I meant to do earlier, for taking the trouble to find and transcribe those dictionary entries.
I have been doing a bit more reading on the biological definitions, where I see that extirpation is defined as meaning "local extinction" in several sources (Encylopedia.com, Biology dictionary, and some usage: [14], [15], [16]); however, oddly, not in Biology online, which gives the aforementioned standard dictionary explanations, nor does it appear in The Oxford Dictionary of Biology (8th ed.), but they define Extinction as "The irreversible condition of a species or other group of organisms of having no living representatives in the wild, which follows the death of the last surviving individual of that species or group. Extinction may occur on a local or global level; it can result from various human activities, including the destruction of habitats or the overexploitation of species that are hunted or harvested as a resource...".
And then I found this interesting discussion of terms (2015 paper by a group of scientists and academics in Oklahoma), which I skimmed through, but the Concluding Remarks contain the nub of the problem, comparing current popular usage of unique and theory. "It is clear that use of extinction versus extirpation has changed over time and that the public has a different sense of what extinction means relative to how many conservation biologists use the term." What to do about it? Has the boat already sailed? How should Wikipedia represent these usages? IMO, we could add improved explanation (citing the above article) to the Local extinction article, bearing in mind that Extirpation (+ related forms) redirect to this page. There was a discussion about terminology started on that talk page in 2018 and perhaps we should return to it, hopefully with a good number of general and scientific editors. In individual articles, perhaps we could consider using both terms, with one in parentheses, where it obviously relates to local extinction? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Ladle, Richard; Whittaker, Robert J., eds. (2011). Conservation Biogeography. John Wiley & Sons. p. 61. ISBN 9781444398113.
Thankyou LTYT. In my opinion, biologists are qualified in the study of animals but have no qualifications in the English language. There is only one source for the English language as it is used across the English-speaking world, and that is the OED. The researchers were concerned that "local extinction is often shortened to extinction in media sources", and therefore they are looking to misappropriate the use of another word. Their Figure 3 in their paper does not support their position:
"Prevalence of the terms extinction, extirpation, and local extinction (note the different scale), per Google’s ngram (run 14 January 2015), from 1800 to present. Usage of extinction has been more or less stable, usage of extirpation has declined steadily, and usage of local extinction spiked upward beginning in the late 1960s."
The use of "extirpation" has been falling (and rightly so). I see nothing wrong with using the term "local extinction" when that is what was meant. William Harris (talk) 03:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, William Harris, I agree with you there, although I don't think that these authors are actually arguing for forcing the use of extirpation. ("Such an effort may be doomed to failure. Not only may the language already have evolved to the point that the problem cannot be undone—a problem words such as theory and unique also face—but enforcement of use will invariably engender accusations of language snobbery, prudery, and conservatism." etc.) I do think that the discussion of terms could be better covered in the Local extinction article though, with reasons for its use in favour of extirpation (including Oxford Dictionary of Biology usage, imo a strong argument). I will post something on the talk page there. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feral animals

[edit]

My stance on feral populations of domesticated animals in lists of mammals is usually to exclude them. This is due to them being present virtually everywhere on the planet, since they accompany humans (this includes feral goats, dogs, cats, etc.) This removes redundancy, and doing otherwise might set a precedent of including domestic animals in these lists, which gets extremely convoluted. I say stick to wild species only. J0ngM0ng (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's just your opinion. As you have been doing this to multiple Australian species lists, I've initiated the discussion at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, at Feral species being removed from lists of mammal species, to centralise the discussion. Bahudhara (talk) 03:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. See you there. J0ngM0ng (talk) 12:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_mammals_of_South_Australia&oldid=1208261891"