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]

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. Not longer that important.

• 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[2] 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:[3]

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[4]

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.^[2] 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]

Went back and did some repair; there's been damage to the cultural section, but it can be smoothed out over time. DavidOaks (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It IS an infestation -- you should see my backyard -- and they're nesting in the airspace over my office. However, I won't run them off, because a) I like them and b) it won't help -- they just ratchet up breeding (I could go find the source for that, but I won't since I'm not putting it in the article space). Point is, they breed to meet the losses to roadkill, but yes, 15m sounds high. Will continue to look for a good stat. DavidOaks (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana's wildlife management office runs, or has run, a raccoon roadkill survey, and came up with a high-stable figure of 37 dead coons per 10k miles of road for the annual March count. That's in a high-population state, at a time of overall elevation in pop. It's solid, but not to be extrapolated. It could simply be reported as a sample. ^[3]21:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting; the more I look, the more I find that roadkill stats on this non-endangered creature are used basically as population-trackers, not with an eye to reducing mortality. Some indication that the roadkill is even regarded as beneficial (feeding corvids). DavidOaks (talk) 22:16, 3 February 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]

I propose to revert the recent edits by N.A., which scooped up a lot of things with the key claim that one of the sources for one of the items was inadequately sourced. Still trying to stay on the right side of the edit-warring line. I think the refs are good, but here are more* (I trust official scouting orgs can be seen as authoritative on these matters?), but as I look at the reliable sources guidelines and policy, it seems to me that information on raccoons as campground pests is a noncontroversial claim adequately addressed by an edited, hosted blog on the subject. Other matters in the two different versions: “automobile coats” is likely to remain a redlink; disrupts the article. “Many thousands” is (and was) properly cited to an authoritative source. “Festive meal” contextualizes what follows; ref to culinary & festival use as sanctioned by the US government is a significant fact wrt cultural issues. DavidOaks (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• http://www.thecampingclub.com/zztips/raccoons.html
• troop85bsa.us/file_download/33/New+Scout+Overnight+Checklist.pdf

Will wait for some feedback; would be nice if the person who made the suggestion were to honor it himself. WRT edit summary: "I don't really care about that link, it was just included in otherwise objectionable edits every time" -- such problems can be avoided by not doing mass reverts. Little usage check -- "objectionable" is not the same thing as "I object;" it's a simple matter of not universalizing one's own judgment. DavidOaks (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion was made on the admin notice board (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edits_to_raccoon_by_User:DavidOaks --Novil Ariandis) that the view of eating raccoons as other than mainstream needs to be documented. Will comply. It's actually made clear in the article earlier added (and discarded in favor of better sources) from the KC Star, and backed by another from the Chicago Tribune; references to overcoming "ick factor" and inhibitions, more familiar as roadkill than main course, or simply surprising to find served at home, pretty well do it. Both are I think reliable sources for indicating present day cultural attitudes and practices, but anyone who feels differently should take the opportunity to weigh in, indicating what would, alternatively, be sound evidence and reliable sources. The following quotes need not be embedded in a ref, in my view; I certainly wouldn’t want to appear to be disrupting the article in order to make a point. I think it’s fine if they’re available for inspection here – but of course anyone who feels they do need to appear in the notes should not hesitate to put them in. I’m a little concerned about going over the top here, but there’s a history of intense scrutiny of sources. Trying to be careful and collegial here.

"If stores could sell coon, we’d run out of them. It's a long-hidden secret that they're so good." [...a]s long as you can get past the "ick" factor that it's a varmint, more often seen flattened on asphalt than featured on a restaurant menu. (One exception: French restaurant Le Fou Frog served raccoon about a dozen years ago, a waiter said.) http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/59566.html

http://www.kansascity.com/living/food/story/977895.html http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/59566.html

And though it may surprise many who dine on deep dish and Polish sausage, the bandit-masked critter is turning up in kitchens across the state [...]“You have to overcome certain inhibitions,” said Catherine Lambrecht, 48,of Highland Park, who brought the meat to Moto after purchasing it in Wisconsin. “But when it’s prepared right, raccoon is really good.”

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/jan/18/food/chi-raccoon_18_jan18 DavidOaks (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me a very brief warning is warranted, at the end of the etymology section, that "coon" is an extremely offensive ethnic slur. There's an academic-press volume ^[4] that attributes it to the minstrel show figure Zip Coon, in turn claiming the derivation depends on a stereotypical association of the target ethnicity with chicken-theft, just like raccoons. Interesting conundrum, though -- while this passes all tests for WP:RS, IRL I know something about the subject, and I can't see that this is anything more than speculation...but faulting an RS because one simply happens to be a credentialed jusge of sound evidence is OR. Tricksy situation...DavidOaks (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Here's a major source news story that documents current usage and general understanding that it's offensive.^[5][reply]