Talk:Siamese jackal

Merge to Golden jackal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Do we want/need an article for this subspecies? I would suggest not, as this appears to be the most doubtful of all the subspecies listed at Golden_jackal#Subspecies, and all but one of the sources listed here do not even argue for subspecies status, but merely deal with obervations of individuals observed in the region. As far as the usual thresholds for subsepcies articles go, this falls below the bar. Suggest merge of "Characteristics" only to species article. (Pinging some previous contributors to the topic: @William Harris, BhagyaMani, and Mariomassone: --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, this subspecies is extremely doubtful. Mariomassone (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

You can merge it if you want, or if you dont want you dont have to do it. I only have one think to say: "Im afraid to create an article because, you or BhagyaMani would propose a merge of article or propose a deletion of it. 70% of my edits to en-wiki have been reverted by BhagyaMani. He begin showing interest for every article that I edit. Once, Bhagya was inactive for couple of days but as soon as I edited leopard, he reverted me and then edited it for like 3 days in a row. Starting a a sockpuppet investigation about me being Leo1pard.. I dont know what to say"
Anyways, I made this a "blue link" article after I saw it at Requested Articles about animals, and I dont think this article should be merge to golden jackal. Punëtori' Rregullt 17:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, Elmidae! I checked for sources that corroborate or object distinct subspecific status of the golden jackal in that part of the world, but did not find any recent ones, i.e. from this century. Authors of the resp. RL account neither discuss validity of (purported) subspecies. The most recent publication on conservation status of Canidae in Vietnam does not even refer to a golden jackal subspecies. Instead, authors use the name 'Eurasian Golden Jackal' : see doi:10.11609/jott.4846.11.8.13951-13959. In view of this and furthermore the poor references in this page, i.e. mostly newspaper, I fully agree that this content should be merged into the main golden jackal page and replaced by a redirect. Cheers -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC).

Elmidae, thankyou for sending a ping to the three most-interested parties regarding the golden jackal.

1. Editor Punëtori' Rregullt, if you have an issue with another editor then you may take the matter to WP:ANI for review, but you will need to be very sure of what you are proposing there with evidence. That matter is irrelevant to this discussion.
2. Given that the subspecies is recognised by Wozencraft on page 574 of MSW3, then we must accept it as a valid subspecies.
3. There are only 3 jackal subspecies that warrant their own articles - the nominate subspecies, the European subspecies because it is well-studied and because of interest in its expansion across Europe, and the Sri Lankan "island" adapted version.
4. The Siamese jackal article fails WP:NOTABILITY and should be blanked into a redirect.
5. The "Vietnam Express" is not a WP:RELIABLE source, and given the WP:FA status of golden jackal I would be against any of this material making its way into that article. What we have in the golden jackal regarding this subspecies is cited from reliable references - I recommend that we keep it that way.

William Harristalk 09:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC) .

@Punetor i Rregullt5:, if you are committed to keeping the Siamese jackal article, let me suggest you might develop it further using a search through Google Books, where you may be able to gather some information from WP:RELIABLE sources. William Harristalk 08:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I added more WP:RELIABLE sources from books, and removed the refs from newspappers. William Harris, you can also help me improving the article. — Punëtori' Rregullt 09:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Good work. I suggest that you structure the article similar to other canid articles, therefore "Characteristics" would be better headed as "Description". You have located a good description in the book by Castello, p142. You could take that paragraph and restructure the information in your own way. On page 143 its distribution and other topics are given, so you might include that as well. William Harristalk 11:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose merge - based on reliable sources in the article, this seems like a valid subspecies and should be retained. While not all sources recognize this subspecies, any controversy over its status is an issue that can (and should) be addressed in this article. Rlendog (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
• @Elmidae, William Harris, BhagyaMani, Mariomassone, Rlendog, and Leo1pard: Is the consensus to merge or to not merge?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Kinda lost sight of this. I agree that the sourcing has been improved, and there's now enough sources that use the designation to make the objection of "unrecognized subspecies" less telling. However, it's still not enough material for a separate article, based on how we deal with subspecies: treat them in the nominate article unless there's a lot to say about the subspecies in particular. That is not the case here; this article mostly consists of repeats from the main article, painstakingly attributed to the Siamese population. That's pointless padding. It still looks like a merge to Golden_jackal#Subspecies to me. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Just merge. There are no genomic or morphological studies to demonstrate its distinctiveness. Mariomassone (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

If all the information that is here but not in Golden jackal can be safely put there, such as regarding this population's ecology and appearance, then I support a merger. Leo1pard (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I checked again for sources on golden jackal taxonomy, but nothing has changed since August: I did not find any post-2000 source insisting on a distinct subspecies in this part of Asia. So I agree with all those who voted for merge. This also because this page's content is so very scanty, and does not even show any locality records from this century. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Despite giving another interested author more than adequate time to develop this article further, what does it tell us? It tells us that this taxon is a subspecies of the golden jackal, that it is the same size as other golden jackals, and that these eat the same things as other golden jackals. As there is no more information here than can already be found in the golden jackal article, I support a merge. (Basically, this page is blanked into a redirect.) Note that we do not even have a separate article for the Persian jackal - the nominate subspecies.

There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic.

— WP:PAGEDECIDE

The claim that a pack of jackals killed a dozen pigs on someone's farm in Vietnam in an un-WP:RELIABLE newspaper article can be dismissed - there is no claim of this happening anywhere else in their range. Thanks for following up on this one, D. William Harristalk 20:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.