Raccoon is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 9, 2008 Good article nominee Listed December 21, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Mammals High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 2.

We have a user asking what the collective name is for a group of raccoons. I see no mention of it in the article, but are there any raccoon aficionados out there willing to help us out? Plasticup ^T/C 23:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is one. I've heard adults called both boars and sows (although that may not be 100% accurate either) and the younger raccoons are kits or cubs, but I don't think there is a name for a group of raccoons. 76.117.253.135 (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. I have never read an article or book which uses a specific name for a group of raccoons. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a claim that the term is "a mask of raccoons."[1]^[1] Now, I have not examined the claimed authority. I do not doubt the claim is made there. I merely doubt that there is anything behind it (usage established by numbers, time or geographic distribution) except the author's inventiveness. DavidOaks (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can not edit the article as the edit this page tab is missing, but I wanted to mention that it was not uncommon to serve raccoon for Christmas dinner in the Southern US up until about WW2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.167.146.130 (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a chapter about raccoons as food and it really shouldn’t get any longer as it already is. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the section's quite short, especially in light of its cultural significance. If there's a reliable citation for the claim, it certainly belongs. DavidOaks (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the section is quite long, since eating raccoon has little cultural significance. This is proven by the fact that there is almost no information about it in all six existing, somewhat recent, monographies about the species. There are even just a few sentences about it in Raccoons in Folklore, History and Today's Backyards by Virinia C. Holmgren which discusses the whole history of raccoons and humans and has an extensive bibliography. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This turns out to be quite interesting, and indicates that the modern revulsion towards eating the animal, or at least to treat it as normative, is a bit of now-ism. It was not always the food of those who knew no better or could get no better; in the San Francisco "Golden Era" of December 21, 1856, it's among the specialties advertised for the seasonal trade (San Diego's Hilarious History By Herbert Lockwood, William Carroll Published by Coda Publications, 2004, p. 46)

In "From Slavery to Wealth, the Life of Scott Bond: The Rewards of Honesty, Industry, Economy and Perserverance (Daniel Arthur Rudd, Theophilus Bond Published by The Journal printing company, 1917, p. 61) coon is treated as a delicacy, and a joke is played on an expert cook by substituting the presumably inferior beaver.

Raccoon was served for Christmas dinner aboard the USS Fernandia in 1863 (Life in Mr. Lincoln's Navy, Dennis J. Ringle, Naval Institute Press, 1998 p. 77) Among American slaves, raccoon was also eaten at Christmas, as was oppossum, though preferentially pigs or poultry were stolen. (Harriet Jacobs, Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl, Digireads.com Publishing, 2005, p.72). Barbecued raccoon is also reported as traditional by Richard Rhodes (Farm: A Year in the Life of an American Farmer. Richard Rhodes, reprint, U of Nebraska Press, 1997, p.270). President Calvin Coolidge was sent a raccoon to be served for Thanksgiving dinner (yes, there's a pattern of festive eating here), but it was made into a pet, and named "Rebecca." (Jen O'Neill. White House Life: Filling the Position of First Pet November 12, 2008. http://www.findingdulcinea.com/features/feature-articles/2008/november/Filling-the-Position-of-First-Pet.html). The traditionality of the association is affirmed by proverbial usage: "Negotiations between Wright and Paul 'The Punisher' Williams died at the table like a roasted raccoon on Christmas Day." [2] It's also listed on a BBS page dealing with "Christmas Traditions" tho' that's not an ideal RS. DavidOaks (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to edit the article, but it has a lock on it. Fix please..

Pls let us know what you want to add with a reference, we will add it for u. Thanks. Docku:“what up?” 21:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has a lock on it because of rampant vandalism in the past. Since he did not bother to come back, it couldn’t be that important anyway... --Novil Ariandis (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the range images removed Nova Scotia as a habitat; Raccoons are quite common here. Natural Resources Nova Scotia actually has a fact sheet on Raccoons as a nuisance. ( http://www.gov.ns.ca/natr/wildlife/nuisance/raccoons.htm ) Not a super high priority, but NS could go back onto the red blotch at some future revision. 142.167.161.161 (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the info. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this in the Conflicts section of this article:

In a study published in 1981, the equivalent value of the maximal crop loss per raccoon was given with C$4.42 in a field and sweet corn...

A study this old quoting dollar amounts is a bit silly. This should be removed and either replaced with some more current reference or restated as "make a financial impact" or something generalized that gets the same point across. Bob98133 (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An update tag, if not for the entire article, for that particular section or sentence, may be necessary? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's certainly less outdated that one may think: http://www.micorn.org/heat/prices.html The same study is quoted by Hohmann and Zeveloff in their books. I am quite sure that there is no more current study available. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me what the current "equivalent value of the maximal crop loss per raccoon" is, based on this reference? I can't. Why would a reference be given in a Canadian dollar value? It just seems like it would make more sense to have a figure such as "each raccoon eats 5.6 pounds of corn" or whatever, so that the reference isn't keyed to inflation, the value of the Cdn dollar or how much corn is used for ethanol. Bob98133 (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever heard of American Raccoons that do not have the characteristic mask? I have one in my yard and would like for someone to identify it. It seems unafraid of me but I know that could be a sign that it has some type of disease although it seems to be in fairly good health1beautifulchild (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen some photos of raccoons with a very light mask. I have also seen photos of albino raccoons without a mask. I have, however, never seen a photo of a normal colored raccoon without a mask. It would be cool if you could make a photo. That the raccoon is unafraid of you does not have to be a sign of a disease, more likely it is just used to humans. However, always stay away from wild animals far enough so that they can't attack you. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for my revert:

• I have added the ^{[citation needed]} since Zeveloff does not mention coonskin caps made out of fake fur on page 170 of "Raccoons: A Natural History". So the source is not given.
• It is totally ridiculous to assume that most of the 118,166 killed raccoons in Missouri were eaten afterwards. The source does also not say that but just contains an obscure guess.
• How to prepare raccoon does not belong into this article since it is not encyclopedic. Such information is also not present in articles about species which are eaten much more often. To add more information to the "As food" chapter would also give this very minor issue undue weight. You can see that it's a minor issue since almost no information can be found about it in all existing monographies, most of them having more than 100 pages.

--Novil Ariandis (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restricting sources to monographs of over 100 pages is of course not wikipolicy. And just speaking for myself, it doesn't make a lot of sense as a standard. There are a great, great many subjects that would be difficult to write upon if that were the case. In fact, much popular culture and folklore would disappear altogether; these subjects require a different kind of documentary record and procedure, though claims of fact must be backed by verifiable evidence. For example, we cannot say that it rained in London on March 20 1659/60. We can say that Samuel Pepys reported rain in his diary for that day, and give a link or hardcopy cite. Similarly, we can report that there are numerous references to raccoon as a festive meal (not a deprivational one), and we list the cites. DavidOaks (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are putting words in my mouth here. There are lots of additional sources in this article which were used to support facts not present in the books, like new research results about the island raccoons. It is, however, unaccaptable to add irrelevant pieces of information to the article just because there is a (potentially) reliable source about it. You could write 50 pages about physical characteristics of raccoons, but we don't do that here because a Wikipedia article requires summary style. Because of that, less important facts have to be dismissed. This includes mentioning all sorts of events where raccoons are eaten. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange section title, but OK. Supplied cite for "faux fur."

Strange logic -- you have your sources ""Raccoons: A Natural History". If it does not appear there, "source not given." Seems odd to me. Think on this. Hard.

As to the Kansas City Star, argue with them. As a longtime resident of Hannibal, MO, I can affirm that the number of animals killed corresponds roughly at least with the number of animals taken. You may not be acquainted with people who have to eat this way. Meanwhile, it's well-cited.

Thanks for your ruling what's encylcopedic. I fear it's not universal. The information is well-sourced, and does not constitute instructions, but information on common practice. You disagree, take it to the discussion page, and we'll both await consensus. DavidOaks (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep the cite tag on the coonskin cap bit. I wouldn't consider wisegeek.com to be a RS. I agree with Novil on the interpretation of the Star. I read "Statewide, consumption of raccoon meat can be tracked somewhat by how many raccoon pelts are harvested each year. In 2007, 118,166 pelts were sold" as meaning that the number of pelts sold is some vague indicator of consumption; the two figures are pegged. The article does not estimate that consumption in MO in 2008 was the meat of 118 116 raccoons, as David's wording would suggest. The additions at the end of the food section are unacceptable. Primarily, they purport to be sourced by the NCSU webpage; nothing of the sort appears on the page. I wouldn't object to them being added, if only they had a source. And a period to end the sentence wouldn't be bad, either. carl.bunderson (talk) (contributions) 02:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done (joke). KSStar method of estimation explicitly noted. Sources added on the traditional treatment of game. DavidOaks (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Your edit did not make things any better. The sources do not say what you're attributing to them. I'm reverting to Novil's last version after I finish this. Noting that the Star says... does not fix the problem. The source itself does not say what you're attributing to it. The sources need to say pretty much exactly what you attribute to them. That is not the case in your edits. carl.bunderson (talk) (contributions) 05:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mmm, think the cites do say so, but will inspect more closely. Will undo own revert (hit the trigger too fast) DavidOaks (talk) 06:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okeydoke. "As a fad, the coonskin cap was at its zenith during the decade of the 1950’s, when the new medium of television offered young children an adventure show built around the exploits of Davy Crockett. Children in both the United States and the United Kingdom were caught up in the fad. These latest versions of the coonskin cap were not made of actual raccoon, however. Faux fur was used for the body and tail, and a simple fabric lining was used to complete the cap. While aimed at young boys, a few entrepreneurs also designed a coonskin cap design for young girls as well, often using white faux fur as the material of choice." ^[2] Then there's this: "Statewide, consumption of raccoon meat can be tracked somewhat by how many raccoon pelts are harvested each year. In 2007, 118,166 pelts were sold." ^[3] "Eating raccoon has never gone out of style. It's just hard to get unless you know somebody," he says as he carefully trims away the fat and the scent glands." ^[4]. I see the trouble with the web-version of the book-cites. Will work on it. DavidOaks (talk) 06:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you're right. Those details were not in the source. Deleted. DavidOaks (talk) 06:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Took me a bit to get your point about how the figures are "pegged" (not a term I regularly use. You're right, and I duly changed the wording. DavidOaks (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think that sentence is good now. carl.bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still strongly oppose the inclusion of the sentence The Kansas City Star indexed consumption using pelts reported -- 118,166 for Missouri alone in 2008. It is obviously neutral, but it doesn't make sense at best, and is misleading at worst because the number of raccoons used for consumption could lie anywhere between ca. 1,000 and, say, 50,000. This is a featured article and only accurate statistics should be included, using the best possible sources. Newspaper articles are NOT one of them. In fact, almost all newspaper articles about raccoons get major facts about them entirely wrong! I'm also strongly opposed to all other edits you have made during the last days since they have significantly reduced the quality of the article. You have added pieces of information already present in other locations and you have added irrelevant pieces of trivia to an article which is already very long. If you truly want to contribute something meaningful to this article, you have to educate yourself and read some scientific literature about raccoons to understand what is important and what is not. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your opposition is of course noted, but your position that newspapers are unacceptable sources isn't wikipolicy. Seek better sources if you feel they are needed. I appreciate your sharing your view about the reduction in the article's quality, but I'd point out that "irrelevant trivia" is a judgment dependent on one's own idea of relevance. Now your edits, all entirely admirable, focus on the biology of this animal. You need to understand that it also has a cultural place, and although this is evidently of comparatively little interest to you, it might well be so to others. By all means delete any actual redundancies I might have inadvertantly introduced, and have thanks. I urge you in turn to educate yourself about folklore and cultural matters, and to try to become a little more open to ideas other than your own about significance. I believe the sources I gave on the discussion page (waiting a decent period for response before putting them into the mainpage) make it abundantly clear that the animal was and is of cultural significance as a food item. Folklorically/anthropologically, they have undergone category shift, from "game" (desirable) to "varmint" (privation diet) to vermin (taboo for food use). that is, from a social scientific point of view, quite an interesting matter. DavidOaks (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

your position that newspapers are unacceptable sources - They are not unacceptable, a few are used for some facts if you have a look at the article. However, articles or books written by raccoon experts are always preferable.

Now your edits, all entirely admirable, focus on the biology of this animal. - This is obviously not true. The chapter "Raccoons and people" is longer than the section "Description"!

You need to understand that it also has a cultural place - That's why there is a section about "Raccoons in mythology and culture" and some pieces of information in other chapters. You are, however, exagerating the importance of the cultural significance of the raccoon as a food item when compared to the space about the subject in raccoon books by experts and even the total number of popular sources. Maybe you are even exagerating the cultural significance of raccoons as a whole because the raccoon has never played a main role in human culture like wolves, foxes or livestock.

I urge you in turn to educate yourself about folklore and cultural matters - Lol. I have read Raccoons in Folklore, History and Today's Backyards twice. There is really no way you can get more info about folklore and cultural matters about raccoons. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the sources I gave on the discussion page (waiting a decent period for response before putting them into the mainpage) make it abundantly clear that the animal was and is of cultural significance as a food item. - No, they don't make it clear that the section about raccoons as food has to be expanded. In fact I strongly oppose the expansion of this section, except for a more accurate statistic for the number of raccoons eaten each year.

You have to understand that the length of each section has to be correspondant with its importance. Since you have obviously only interest in limited parts of the article, you are not objective about their general importance.

--Novil Ariandis (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back down the fires a little bit. I know you worked long, hard and exceedingly well on this article. Now, I understand the sense of investment, but it's not the same as ownership, and doesn't give you the status of final arbiter -- certainly not of what's a good source or not, what's relevant or not. Look, a 20-year old book from Capra Press is not much in the way of a scholarly monograph, IMHOP. There's serious scholarship on the raccoon as trickster in NA lore (it was covered, so I didn't add). There's much about the animal in the literature of foodways (mostly obiter dicta; it's rare for a single animal to get a book on itself-as-main-course. Not aware of a university press volume, for example, on Truthahn as festive-bird, but we're not expunging all reference to it on the relevant pages. You have to go to mentions within articles and primary documents. You make a good point about proportion, but let's look not at "as food" vs "description;" let's look at "scientific" vs. "cultural" -- rather a different balance, don't you think? We must distinguish things-I'm-not-interested-in from things-that-are-not-interesting.DavidOaks (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I understand the sense of investment, but it's not the same as ownership, There are several pieces of information in the article which were added by other users or requested by them. And I was very happy for the additional input at the GA and FA nomintations.

a 20-year old book from Capra Press is not much in the way of a scholarly monograph - This book has an extensive bibliography citing 135 other works. It is also used as source by raccoon book authors Samuel I. Zeveloff and Ulf Hohmann.

We must distinguish things-I'm-not-interested-in from things-that-are-not-interesting. Exactly. I am, however, interesed in all fields of study regarding raccoons while you are mainly interested in their use for consumption. You are thus not objective on the importance of this issue.

rather a different balance, don't you think? No. The article got overwhelming support in the FA nomination in its current state. Nobody mentioned that the article should contain more info about "culture". --Novil Ariandis (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Novil, we're both getting closer than is healthy to edit-warring. I will declare a 24-hour, unilateral withdrawal, both to permit cooling down and to let others weigh in here on the talk page about specific issues. Meanwhile, I'll go offline and see if I can't develop a shorter, brisker, more focussed culture section. DavidOaks (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, withdrawal is easy when your version is currently online... --Novil Ariandis (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I am, however, interesed in all fields of study regarding raccoons while you are mainly interested in their use for consumption. No, that's inaccurate, as well as presumptuous. I am interested in folklore and foodways. And professional folklorists aren't going to look on the Capra Press volume as authoritative and final. Though apparently it was regarded as reliable enough to serve as a source for writers you respect. But I'm guessing they didn't use it as their sole source, did they? What's there is probably meritorious. I just wouldn't treat it as comprehensive on social-scientific approaches. for example, does it have extensive treatments of raccoons in petroglyphs? Along with possums, it's a common feature. Nobody mentioned that the article should contain more info about "culture". Ah, well I'm suggesting it now. Nothing huge, but yeah, the subject was significantly under-treated. FAs aren't perfect. Changes to them -- including change in direction -- is not by definition destruction. DavidOaks (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the following controversial points exist with differing viewpoints between Novil Ariandis and DavidOaks:

• Novil Ariandis requests to remove the image [[Image:Spiromoundsraccoon.gif|thumb|left|Raccoon as depicted in artifact found at Spiro Mounds, in Oklahoma. <ref>Graphic created by Aaron Walden, and based on pre-Columbian original</ref>]] because there is currently no source to verify that this is in fact an accurate representation of the actual artifact and that this artifact even exists.

• Novil Ariandis strongly requests to remove the sentence ''The [[Kansas City Star]] indexed consumption using pelts reported -- 118,166 for [[Missouri]] alone in 2008.<ref>http://www.kansascity.com/637/story/977895.html</ref>'' since this figure does not contain any information about the real number of raccoons which were eaten and is thus misleading.

• Novil Ariandis requests to remove the sentence part though the Delefeld MN "Coon Feed" has been an annual event for more than eighty years. since it is not necessary to mention another event besides the Gillet Coon Supper where raccoons are eaten.

• Novil Ariandis strongly requests to remove the sentence The proverbial<ref>for example, the phrase appears in the lead of a 1972 ''Sports Illustrated'' article http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1086629/2/index.htm</ref> simile "crazy as a pet raccoon" reflects a folk view of the unwisdom of the attempt.</ref> since it is an irrelevant piece of trivia and the phrase gets only 182 hits at Google making it entirely un-notable.

• Novil Ariandis opposes the expansion of the chapter "Raccoons as food" to not give this rather un-important chapter undue weight compared to more important chapters about physical characteristics or behavior.

--Novil Ariandis (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about all the points but I think the sentence "The Kansas City Star indexed consumption using pelts reported -- 118,166 for Missouri alone in 2008" should be removed. This wording can imply that the consumption in MO was 118,166. That is not at all what the source states "Statewide, consumption of raccoon meat can be tracked somewhat by how many raccoon pelts are harvested each year. In 2007, 118,166 pelts were sold." One key word is "somewhat", so it is clearly not implying a one to one relationship, and doesn't make any suggestion as to what the actual relationship is. So the 118,166 can really only be used as a statistic for number of pelts sold, not at all for number of racoons eaten. With that sentence removed, I think the food section is pretty much okay. It does not seem overly long. I am fairly neutral re the Delefeld MN "Coon Feed". While I would not what to see the Food section devolve into a list of every area and occasion in which racoons are eaten, having a 2nd instance of some sort included does give some additional context that the Gillet Coon Supper is not the only event at which racoons are consumed. Rlendog (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also suggest removing the last sentence of the food section: "Recipes usually suggest removing the scent glands and fat before roasting to lessen the strong gamy flavor." That may be a little overly detailed information about preparing the racoon as food. But, unlike the sentence about the 118,166 eaten in MO, I do not think it is essential to remove this sentence. Rlendog (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input, Rlendog. It's not that I would commit seppuku if another sentence would be added to the chapter "Raccoons as food", but together with several other edits by DavidOaks which are/were giving redundant or trivial information on the wrong places, I feel that there is a great danger that the worst chapter of the article, regarding accuracy and quality of sources, gets even worse. You just can't come around and add this and that to a featured article. This applies for myself, too. I'm very cautious about making any significant changes at this point and would want to hear the views of other persons interested in the topic first. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NA, I will point out once, and only once, that this consistent tone creates an atmosphere generally unproductive of the kind of collaboration these projects require. DavidOaks (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep the last sentence of the food section. It has a source, and is quite relevant to the section. carl.bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) I'm fine with the image being removed. 2) I think there is some place for the Star-based sentence. The wording might still be imperfect, but I would regard an article from a major US city's daily to be a RS. 3) I think the wording on this could be changed, but keep the gist of it. It demonstrates that eating raccoon is a phenomenon not restricted to the South. 4) This can be deleted; not really notable, and the point is already made in the previous sentence. carl.bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the Star based sentence isn't that the Star is not reliable, but that the Star doesn't actually say anything truly relevant to the section, and the sentence as constructed is misleading. The Star says basically two things:

1. that the "consumption of raccoon meat can be tracked somewhat by how many raccoon pelts are harvested each year" (emphasis added) - okay, but so what? It doesn't state what the relationship is. Is one racoon consumed for every 10 pelts? Every hundred pelts? Every two pelts? 9 out 10? The language doesn't even necessarily preclude the relationship being "somewhat tracked" to be more than one racoon consumed per pelt (if, for example, nearly all racoons killed for pelts are consumed plus some racoons are killed for meat but not used for pelts).
2. that "118,166 pelts were sold" in MO in 2007. That may be interesting information for a section on how many raccoon pelts are sold. But unless we know the missing relationship between pelts sold and raccoons consumed, that statistic does nothing to tell us how many raccoons were consumed. Based on the Star, the number consumed is almost certainly not 118,166. Rlendog (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now to business; as I said before, I'm observing a personal moratorium on changing the main article while we try to work things out on the talk page: there is currently no source to verify that such pre-Columbian art exists.'

Don't know about the specific image which the artist used as the basis for his work, but here's rocksolid proof (joke) that the animal was indeed a motif of Native American art, and across a wide geographic and chronological spread: Incised raccoon tracks are identified at the Crow Hollow Petroglyph site (Rock Art of Kentucky. Fred E. Coy, Thomas C. Fuller, Larry G. Meadows, James L. Swauger University Press of Kentucky, 2003 P60 & fig 65A). Also the Lewis Canyon Petroglyphs, TX[3] Prominent in petroglyphs occurring in the Reserve District (San Francisco and Tularosa river Drainages) (Schaafsma, P. Indian Rock Art of the Southwest Albuq., U.NM, 1992)

My argumentation was not clear enough. I do not challenge that pre-Columbian art exists in general, but that there are lacking sources for this piece of art. I have therefore re-written my initial concern. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it is an irrelevant piece of trivia and the phrase gets only 182 hits at Google making it entirely un-notable.

You are not referencing (despite a request) a previous conversation on the topic to which you were directed. Search "crazy as a pet coon" and "crazy as a pet raccoon;" add "lazy" "goofy" and "mean" and sum . I get 1098, though I may be off a little either way. Now, I'm not sure what number you have in mind as adequate -- it would be nice if you'd share that -- but if you search similarly (to take a reasonable comparand) "as a pet possum" and sum it with "as a pet opposum" you get three hits (one for "plump" and one for "patient"). The differential suggests to me that there's a proverbial significance to the raccoon. I don't think the charge of insignificance sticks. I understand that you are not interested in the matter. DavidOaks (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1098 hits is nothing for a popular saying. "crazy as a pet raccoon" has also 0 (!) hits on Google Scholar and only 1 hit on Google Books. I also don't see how this adds anything significant to "Raccoons are sometimes kept as pets, which is discouraged by many experts because the raccoon is not a domesticated species. Raccoons may act unpredictably and aggressively and it is usually impossible to teach them to obey commands." You really can't get any clearer than this to say that keeping raccoons as pets would be a really bad decision for 99,9% of the population. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have demonstrated its currency. It indicates a proverbial understanding. Cp "snake in the grass" "sly as a fox" "stubborn as a mule" "constipated as a quahog." Maybe the placement doesn't belong, and we need to think about putting it into the folklore part, as I suggested in the first place. What's concerning me here is the determination to exclude cultural and historical information. These animals really have a cultural life -- a big one. And documented. And ancient. As you can see from the section on "Christmas food" above, there's lots, solidly documented. And I'm really not finding much reasoned basis for opposing, except -- I infer -- that you are much more interested in biological aspects. DavidOaks (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to remove the wisegeek.com ref. That does not meet RS standards, and as I'm not the only who thinks so, I think that is firm enough to do without establishing consensus first. I'll replace it with a cn tag. carl.bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to participate in this discussion as I requested a source for the spiromounds.gif image of the raccoon that may be found in petroglyphs in Oklahoma during the FAC. I think it should be in the article, but the image, if the article is to be an FA, needs a reliable source on the image summary page that states pre-Columbian Native Americans used raccoons as art subjects. Just the bibliography and page number would suffice. --Moni3 (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

“Raccoon Priests Gorget” from Spiro Mounds, fig 105 p. 123 in The Arts of the North American Indian: Native Traditions in Evolution. Edwin L. Wade, Carol Haralson, Philbrook Art Center. Hudson Hills, 1986

Clearly shows two priests with a number of raccoons; don’t know if this was the original for the illustration under discussion Here’s the gorget:[4]

Now, the artist Bryce Muir said he saw something at Spiro mounds virtually identical to one he had sketched earlier at another Mississippian site, Ocmulgee in central Georgia, and the sketch (whether it’s from Oklahoma or Georgia) does indeed look to be the same as that offered by Aaron Walden (it’s on the right, as you scroll to the halfway point[5]

The two folks who publish americansabbatical.com are not a reliable source, unfortunately. Try here. --Moni3 (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, though the whole discussion has now got me focussed less on particular matters of content than on wikiprinciples and their application in this article and its editing process, so I want to ask specifically why Muir would be a non-reliable source for a matter having to do with art. Here's how it looks to me: reliability is always tied to the nature of the claim, and their claim is that they went to a given place, saw a given thing, and drew a picture of it. Now, it matches the claim of the artist of the wikicommons image. Moreover, neither claim is particularly controversial -- that pre-columbian art included representations of raccoons; even if it were disputable, that claim is thoroughly secured by Wade and Haralson (though really, to be consistent, we have to acknoweldge that it is possible they fabricated their book, just as it is possible Bryce fabricated the website. Yet I think we'd all agree that Occasm's Razor applies here -- the simpler explanation which covers the facts is that these convergent claims are authentic). IOW, there's a preponderance of evidence (the principle on which journalists and scholars require multiple sources). Bryce Muir appears to have been an artist of standing, who would have had considerable to lose and nothing to gain from very public fraud. I'm just asking for a reason for judging Bryce non-reliable that can be applied systematically to all similar sources. I don't care whether he's admitteed to the RS category or not. It's about removing arbitrariness from decisionmaking.DavidOaks (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Will try to make some edits reflecting consensus. I think a Native American image of the animal belongs in the mythology portion, if we can find a free one. This onepasses most tests, but it's acknowledged as an image of an image (of an image). I think there's cause and consensus for deletion. The proverbial phrase does not add to understanding in proportion to the degree it upsets some people. Out with it. Editing KC Star sentence to clarify issue while retaining core idea -- that nontrivial numbers go to food use. Will add a ref from MO DNR for "many thousands." I do not sxee consensus yet for removing the reference to a non-southern raccoon feed, nor to removing the mention of fat and scent glands. I will capture the whole section and noodle with it offline as time permits, to see whether it can't be improved, though I do not hear consensus that it's too long. I think there may be a cultural thing here -- raccoons are much more important to the culture of the rural United states, including history, hunting, folklore (indigenous and euro-american) and foodways than might appear to urban and European points of view. DavidOaks (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retitled the food section for accuracy, and revised for better sequence of discussion, acknowledging its status as privation diet item and festive food, with sources. Am thinking the culture section as a whole needs re-sectioning. DavidOaks (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete the MO DNR sentence and ref? I think it would be better to maintain that one and delete the Star sentence and ref. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The Star sentence/ref really only provides information about pelts, not conumption. But the MO DNR sentence was fine. Rlendog (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The MO DNR ref duplicates the NEbraska DNR ref already present -- right down to phrasing. Avoiding redundancy. DavidOaks (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, after cleaning up a bit, I think the chapter "As food" contains now some interesting new facts instead of made-up statistics and meaningless preparation methods. The sentence about the petroglyphs is still a bit vague, but it is a good incitement to write one or two additional sentences about Native American artwork. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Making numerous small edits for cleanup of spelling, punctuation, usage and style, a few bigger things as noted. It would be nice to get a figure for the numbers lost to vehicles. Roadkill says it's 15m/year, but the source does not seem to me reliable.

This sentence puzzles me: The larvae of the Baylisascaris procyonis roundworm, which seldom causes a severe illness in humans, is contained in the feces and can be ingested by humans cleaning latrines without wearing a breathing protection.^[5] How do raccoon feces get into latrines? I'm not sure how this fits with the subject. Are we talking about raccoon latrines (and if so, why would humans be cleaning them?). Could the editor who contributed this check the source and clarify? DavidOaks (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 15 million doesn't sound right to me either. If one in twenty gets killed by a car each year (and it couldn't be much more than that if the population is viable - after all, raccoons die of other causes as well, and presumably need to survive a few years to reproduce effectively) that would imply 300 million raccoons. That's more raccoons than people in the U.S. (as of 2000), which doesn't seem right. Raccoons can be a nuisance, but if there were that many, it would be an infestation. Rlendog (talk) 04:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here, things that could be added to the article can be discussed beforehand:

• I think it is very interesting that Kassel might also benefit from the presence of raccoons. According to Frank-Uwe Michler there are many tourists visiting the city just to see raccoons. This could be added as contrast to the "Conflicts" section, although it might be hard to find the right place. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 01:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]