Jump to content

Talk:Peanut (squirrel)

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


Deletion

[edit]

this page shouldn't be deleted. 64.229.210.77 (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that, please go and participate in the discussion linked at the top of the article page. Your argument should make reference to Wikipedia policy and apply it correctly in context. Thank you. GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
why do you want it deleted? Gahex220 (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This question is extensively discussed on the deletion discussion page [1], and that, rather than this, is the appropriate venue for such a dicussion. Please go there to have it. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do administrators need to be involved? 2600:4809:B932:B901:157C:5ED5:82C6:7BAF (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators will not be involved unless there's a serious problem or the process fails to run its course in the usual way. Until and unless that happens, the thing to do is to participate in the discussion, at the link I have provided, in the way I have described. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page shouldn't be deleted, it has to be deleted. Encylopedias are not the battlegroud for cultural warfare. 193.166.253.150 (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "cultural warfare" to be upset at the senseless murder of an defenseless animal. I was a Democrat (now registered with the Green Party after the Democratic Party failed to come up with any good climate policy and let the genocide in Gaza happen) and i am appalled by this. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 07:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Euthanasia"

[edit]

Various sources repeat the government line that the killing was "euthanasia". We should not repeat this, as per MOS:EUPHEMISM. The killing was not euthanasia, the squirrel was not sick. "Killed" is neutral, encyclopedic language. cagliost (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The killing was euthanasia, though? That's the standard way these agencies put down animals. Using "killing" doesn't specify the manner of death specified in the sources. We're not using the phrase "put down", which would be an unfair euphemism. Euthanasia in this context is equivalent to Execution in that it's clear the subject died, while specifying the manner of death in one word. Departure– (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a style issue. Even when sources use euphemisms, we do not. Please consult a dictionary on what euthanasia means. For example, Wikiquote says either (1) "The practice of intentionally killing... for humane reasons, especially in order to end suffering" or (2) "(euphemistic...) The practice of killing a human being who is considered a liability to society".
Clearly neither apply. The second definition is always euphemistic. The first definition would be euphemistic in this case, because the animal was not sick. "Euthanised" might be the standard way these agencies describe their killing of animals, but if the animal is not sick, it is a euphemism. cagliost (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Euthanasia is an acceptable term here, I'd think. It's in the same vein as execution. See below example:

John Doe was captured by authorities and killed on 12 November 1912

is not preferable to

John Doe was captured by authorities and executed on 12 November 1912

for these reasons. Alternatively, "killed via Euthanasia" would also work, but not specifying the cause of death when all the reliable sources agree the animal was euthanized likely isn't the move, regardless of whether it's a euphemism or not. Departure– (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Euthanasia is not a "cause of death". cagliost (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"killed via Euthanasia" -- is English your first language? cagliost (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary.com has many examples of "die by euthanasia" and it's variants. Leaving the fact that the death was via euthanasia out of the article ignores important context that is confirmed by sources. Departure– (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What context does "euthanasia" add to the article? It adds an implication that the animal was sick, which is false. cagliost (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Killed" is implied by "euthanized" which is the manner of death reported, regardless of whether or not the animal was sick. I've wikilinked to the article on Euthanasia to clear it up for readers unfamiliar with the term. Departure– (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus for this. It seems GenevieveDEon (talk · contribs) agrees with me. cagliost (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Oxford Dictionary says euthanasia is "the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma." The University of Missouri School of Medicine defines it as "the practice of ending the life of a patient to limit the patient's suffering." To maintain factual accuracy, "euthanized" and other tenses/participles of the word should be replaced with a variation of the word "kill". Peanut was not suffering from anything, the reason for him being killed was because he bit someone. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 21:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Oxford dictionary entry on euthanasia hasn't been updated since the 19th century, it doesn't concern animal euthanasia which is what the topic is here.
Here are some excerpts from veterinary sources: 'Euthanasia is the act of humanely causing the death of an animal. To be considered euthanasia rather than just the termination of a life, the act must minimize any pain, distress, or anxiety experienced by the animal prior to its death.'[1]
'An especially vexing industry problem is that of euthanatizing the well, but uneconomic, farm animal.'[2]
'Euthanasia derives from the Greek roots of “a good death” and in human semantics is restricted to circumstances of mercy killing, in which death is viewed as a respite from inevitable suffering that cannot be alleviated by reasonable means'[3]
'[Euthanasia] is usually used to describe ending the life of an individual animal in a way that minimizes or eliminates pain and distress. A good death is tantamount to the humane termination of an animal’s life.[4]
'The reasons for performing euthanasia in cattle include: acutely injured animals; unfeasible treatment options; national or regional disease control measures; and neonates in cases of unresolved dystocia requiring fetotomy.'[5]
'Examples of conditions which would justify euthanasia include the following: ... Rabies-suspect animals—where there is a significant threat to human health'[6]
Clearly the term is applicable here and is used by a variety of RS, excluding the term based on outdated dictionary entries is absurd. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the history of the United States, there is no record of any human contracting rabies from a squirrel. The reason is obvious. If a rabid animal were to bite a squirrel, the squirrel would not likely live. Think about the animals that would bite a squirrel. So, the squirrel was KILLED for no legitimate reason other than the abuse of bureaucratic power. 2600:1015:B04F:AFDF:0:1F:24F:3301 (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, the squirrel showed no signs of rabies that we know of; biting someone was most likely due to feeling threatened. Even if some definitions do not specifically need the subject to be ill, some do, and just to be accurate and respect all of the definitions, the best word to use would be "kill" as that's implied by euthanasia. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 19:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kill implies a weapon was used such a gun and is more emotional. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's ridiculous, "killed" does not imply a weapon was used, and is not emotional. cagliost (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are documented cases of squirrels with rabies and it does not matter what your opinion on the actions were. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DC Health: "squirrels are almost never found to have rabies. No person in the US has ever gotten rabies from a squirrel." Anyway, this is beside the point. cagliost (talk) 23:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only abuse here is making a squirrel become a cash-making mascot for some OnlyFans content. The only weird thing here is interner-warriors defending the abuse of wild animals. That squirrel deserved better. 193.166.253.150 (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting off-topic; let's not have this sort of debate on this thread. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 00:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was sick. A wild animal that cannot live it's life like it's supposed to and became some sort of cahs-making mascot for an OnlyFans accout. Even I would like to be EUTHANIZED in that situation, to let me out of my misery. 193.166.253.150 (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Euthanasia does not imply the squirrel was sick. In veterinary medicine, it refers to a method of killing. Healthy animals are sometimes euthanised in shelters for reasons of space. It's still called euthanasia. https://www.msdvetmanual.com/management-and-nutrition/euthanasia/euthanasia-of-animals
Typically in most veterinary contexts it would consist an injection of Euthasol. Mvolz (talk) 20:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with this, "euthanised" is simply the correct term. An alternative which is used in the veterinary field and in literature would be "humanely destroyed"; either of these terms are more accurate and less emotionally charged than "killed". CoconutOctopus talk 20:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming “killed” is emotionally charged and then hawking edits is not a valid excuse. SamWecer (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a scandal, that zoo animals were euthanized to avoid inbreeding. Grimes2 (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Woodbury, Murray (2014-07-25), Euthanasia, Wiley, p. 149–153, doi:10.1002/9781118792919.ch10, ISBN 978-0-8138-1183-3
  2. ^ Meyer, Robert E.; Morrow, W. E. Morgan (2004-01-07), Euthanasia, Wiley, p. 351–362, doi:10.1002/9780470344859.ch17, ISBN 978-0-8138-0473-6
  3. ^ Kipperman, Barry; Cooney, Kathleen (2023-12-08), Euthanasia, Wiley, p. 53–65, doi:10.1002/9781119986355.ch6, ISBN 978-1-119-98634-8
  4. ^ https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/Guidelines-on-Euthanasia-2020.pdf
  5. ^ Mueller, Karin (2015-04-24), Euthanasia of Cattle, Wiley, p. 262–270, doi:10.1002/9781118948538.ch26, ISBN 978-1-4443-3643-6
  6. ^ Shearer, Jan K.; Reynolds, Jim P. (2011-08-30), Euthanasia Techniques for Dairy Cattle, Wiley, p. 331–339, doi:10.1002/9780470960554.ch25, ISBN 978-0-8138-1539-8
I don't want to get drawn into the "killed/executed" analogy, I don't think it's relevant. Suffice to say, for a human, "executed" might be appropriate depending on the circumstances, but if there were disagreement about those circumstances, "killed" would be neutral. cagliost (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the article Animal euthanasia. Rabies is one of the reasons for this procedure. Grimes2 (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No sources that the animal had rabies (it did not, rabies in squirrels is very rare). The authorities implausibly claim the killing was necessary to test for rabies. cagliost (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mere suspicion is enough for euthanasia. That are the laws. Grimes2 (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But still, there was no proof regardless of the opinion of the people who carried out the killing of the squirrel. And, as stated before, "euthanasia" is not the proper word here. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 21:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Euthanasia is mandatory, slaughtering is forbidden. Grimes2 (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth are you talking about? GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About animal protection laws. Grimes2 (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if you think that the death of the squirrel was "euthanasia" or "slaughtering" (both of which are incorrect by definition, slaughtering is "to kill animals for food" or "to kill great numbers of human beings" which did not happen whatsoever). UserMemer (chat) Tribs 21:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article reports that having rabies is cause for euthanasia, as it's an invariably terminal condition. Peanut was allegedly killed in order to test for rabies, which isn't a thing; there are non-destructive tests for it. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search turns up that the way to test for rabies in animals is a direct fluorescent antibody (DFA) test. Which requires the animal to be dead. Suspicion is enough, given that peanut had allegedly bit someone, better safe than sorry. Fantailedtomb (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This debate isn't about rabies prevention or animal protection laws, though. It's about the ordinary meaning of the word 'euthanasia', and how it obviously doesn't apply here. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above where I referenced veterinary sources, which not only show that the term is not exclusive to a sick animal- but also that deaths for the purpose of suspected rabies or as part of disease control measures are considered euthanasia. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reply here rather than get into an edit war, but please revert your last change. There's a clear consensus here to the contrary. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That consensus came about before appropriate sourcing had been provided. I've provided clear evidence that the term is applicable here and references use this term, unless you dispute those facts there is no policy based argument for removal. Euthanasia is not being used here as a preferable term to 'killed': it is being used to describe the method of death presumably. They wouldn't use the term if the squirrel was shot or decapitated for example. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a method, though. There isn't a bottle of Euthanasia that they use. It's a characterisation (arguably a false one) of the motive. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Euthanasia is a method that involves minimal pain and suffering.
'[Euthanasia] is usually used to describe ending the life of an individual animal in a way that minimizes or eliminates pain and distress. A good death is tantamount to the humane termination of an animal’s life.'
It does not relate to the motive here. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The minimisation of pain and distress is a motive. It's the reason for the killing, and the reason for choosing one method over another. It's not a method. Intravenous barbiturates is a method. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RS all use the term. To ignore their use of the term based on a specious argument goes beyond the level of acceptable editorialising. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, but the majority here rules, ignoring facts. Grimes2 (talk) 09:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly "better safe than sorry" is a matter of furious debate,not settled fact,in this case.71.105.190.91 (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not accurate. There are NO approved testing methods for detecting rabies in live animals approved by the CDC or WHO,[2][3][4] and testing methods performed without samples of brain tissue are notoriously unreliable - when dealing with potential rabies cases in animals, especially animals that have bitten humans, this is the standard procedure due to both the difficulty of detecting the virus and the extreme risk it poses to both the animal and the human. Cases in which animals must be put down to test for rabies are routinely referred to in medical and veterinary literature as euthanasia. Please don't spread misinformation about this. This is an extremely serious disease and spreading incorrect information is genuinely dangerous. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of that has any bearing on the consensus you have ignored in your edits. SamWecer (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was a personal comment directed at GenevieveDEon, not a comment on the article or this "debate". Clear consensus has not yet been demonstrated on this talk page (by my count, excluding random IP comments and comments that don't express a clear opinion, there are 9 users supporting the use of "euthanasia" and 6 supporting the use of "killed"). If you would like to start a RfC, please go ahead, but I'm afraid that any reasonable closer will be more persuaded by the users following the terminology used in reliable sources than by those arguing against that terminology because they don't personally like or agree with it. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the animal did not have rabies. I don’t understand the insistence on using a term that simply does not apply and has been demonstrated repeatedly so. SamWecer (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand the root of the problem, and have identified a few other subarguments.
a.) The animal did not have rabies, and therefore "euthanasia" is an unfair term to use.
b.) The animal did not have rabies, however euthanasia is still applicable to their death.
I'm firmly with position b in this instance. My position is that the animal was euthanized despite not having rabies. To avoid further content disputes, can I get the participants of this discussion to !vote on their positions here? (not sure if this is the proper procedure, but I'm just trying to get my facts straight).
Alternatively, c.) which can be any other argument besides a.) or b.). Departure– (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of being fair, it's about being accurate. The word 'euthanasia' has a specific and limited application: it is the intentional killing of a person or creature who would otherwise die of an incurable condition, so that they do not instead die of that condition. Killing a creature at random, and then declaring afterwards that it had such a condition and it was therefore euthanised, would not follow. But that's not even what happened here. They claim to have killed Peanut in order to test for rabies - a condition almost unknown in American rodents - and found that he didn't have it. That's just nowhere even close to the meaning of euthanasia. Calling the dog's tail a leg doesn't make it one. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put that down as "A". I don't mean fair as in just, but fair as in the correct term to use. Departure– (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the tail is deemed a leg by popular vote. SamWecer (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, no need for a vote here. Consensus is clear. cagliost (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A per WP:EUPHEMISM. I have collected various definitions of the word "euthanasia" and will demonstrate why each one would be a euphemism.
a. the act of killing someone who is very ill or very old so that they do not suffer any more (Not applicable, Peanut is a squirrel and no proof of illness)
b. act or practice of painlessly putting to death persons suffering from painful and incurable disease or incapacitating physical disorder or allowing them to die by withholding treatment or withdrawing artificial life-support measures (Not applicable, no proof of illness)
c. an easy or painless death, or the intentional ending of the life of a person suffering from an incurable or painful disease at his or her request; also called mercy killing. (Not applicable, not enough information on specifically how Peanut was killed)
d. the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (such as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy (Not applicable, reason of killing was due to biting someone)
For simplicity and accuracy, option A, in my opinion, should be used. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 21:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm under the impression euthanasia in this context just means a means of painless death, regardless of the reasoning. My main method to back this is the sources, which almost all use 'euthanize' and I personally find it hard to believe they're all being inaccurate, but that's my opinion. Departure– (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources can use euphemisms and it's not uncommon. Official dictionaries, like Cambridge, Merriam-Webster and Oxford, provide more formal and correct definitions. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 22:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The word 'euthanasia' has a meaning, which is determined by its general usage, not its specific use by some sources here. My impression is that the government agency used the term euphemistically, and everyone else is uncritically quoting them. That doesn't change the actual meaning of the word. (Although, Memer15151, there is no legal concept of an 'official dictionary' in English; the international standards for English usage are descriptive, not prescriptive.) GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By "official dictionaries" I really just meant well-established ones. Since we don't have to copy exactly what the source said, and death is a corollary of euthanasia, to follow what most dictionaries say and just write "kill" would be, in my opinion, the best course of action. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 22:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see the apparent need to put this issue to a vote. It seems, based on this flurry of responses, that option A is by far the most supported by both the editors here and the sources and supporting evidence put forward. SamWecer (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand how this is even a serious debate. None of the definitions of euthanasia apply to this case. Peanut was healthy and had no symptoms of rabies or any other disease, had no history of aggression, was an indoor animal (thus no risk of rabies), and was seized solely for bureaucratic reasons. Peanut acted rationally in response to being kidnapped by strangers from his home, and in self-defense bit an agent. The DEC agent then used that as an excuse to have Peanut killed. If the DEC agent was really that scared of rabies (even though there was no basis for it), he could have taken a rabies shot. Killing Peanut was not medically or ethically required. --Jay.Jarosz (talk) 14:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One could argue this discussion doesn't have a clear consensus, but since there is no consensus, should the category "Animal deaths by euthanasia" be removed? UserMemer (chat) Tribs 17:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. cagliost (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Euthanasia is an applicable term here, kidnapped and self-defence are not.
    '[Euthanasia] is usually used to describe ending the life of an individual animal in a way that minimizes or eliminates pain and distress. A good death is tantamount to the humane termination of an animal’s life.'
    'Examples of conditions which would justify euthanasia include the following: ... Rabies-suspect animals—where there is a significant threat to human health'
    'The reasons for performing euthanasia in cattle include: acutely injured animals; unfeasible treatment options; national or regional disease control measures; and neonates in cases of unresolved dystocia requiring fetotomy.' Traumnovelle (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the best word to use is "killed." The Last Hungry Cat (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the root of this dispute is that we have two definitions of euthanasia. One is about killing of sick animals to prevent suffering (also known as "mercy killing"). The other refers to any humane killing of animals by a veterinarian, regardless of whether the animal is sick (also known as "convenience euthanasia"). The first definition does not apply, the second does. The second definition, apparently, is used by the DEC. However, in my opinion, if we use the word "euthanasia" to mean the second definition, we risk implying the first, that the animal was sick. Whereas, if we use "killing", this is neutral and carries no such implication. I suspect the DEC used the word "euthanasia" euphemistically to trade on this confusion. cagliost (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So we should disregard every single source because it might imply something that can easily be clarified through the text? Killing in this instance is not neutral and implies a different manner of death than what euthanasia does. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is "killed" not neutral? It implies nothing. cagliost (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Killed just means "to deprive of life". UserMemer (chat) Tribs 00:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should be as specific as possible: killing > euthanasia, the act of killing an animal humanely > injectable drugs (The most specific term is pure speculation and not given by sources) Grimes2 (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Injectable drugs is speculation. cagliost (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When discussing any animal put to sleep by a vet the term is always "euthanised" and never 'killed". It's simply the correct terminology and thus should be used in the article (I note it is literally used in the source we reference in the segment). CoconutOctopus talk 23:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply untrue. The word 'killed' clearly is applicable, in that the vet performs an action causing the end of life. That's what killing is. You may prefer euphemisms like 'euthanised' or 'put to sleep', but they are not unambiguously preferable to the plain statement of fact. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is 'killing' correct? Yes. Is it the terminology used in the veterinary world? No. An article about an animal, when discussing a veterinary related issue, should use veterinary terminology. It is simply the word that is used when describing the humane destruction of an animal by a veterinary professional. You will be hard pressed to find a single vet anywhere who uses the word "killing" in a professional context. CoconutOctopus talk 23:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't wish to be excessively conspiratorial about this - I really don't have a stake in the underlying case - but it seems to me that a word which, by etymology, means 'good death', has a certain appeal over plain old 'killing', for the people who actually have to do the job. But this is not an article about veterinary medicine; it is an article about an incredibly minor celebrity. The audience is not vets, but the general public. And 'euthanasia' generally has the meanings discussed extensively elsewhere on this talk page. (And there's been no shortage of utterly daft semantic arguments - people asserting that 'killing' implies malice, or that it implies the use of a weapon. Neither of those things is true!) But words have meanings, and in generalist articles we should normally be prepared to use words which, if taken with their normal meanings, will convey the correct impression of the facts to the audience. Peanut was killed; why should we not say so? GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the day I'm not super fussed; I think this whole story is incredibly stupid and overblown, and that much like so many things it's been turned into a bizzare American political issue (and as a non-American, so many things that should not be are).
I'm purely stating that, in my view when discussing anything, including the destruction of an animal, the more specific terms are preferrable. If an animal "celebrity" was run over by a truck I'd say killed was the correct word. But it was (most likely via injection) humanely destroyed in a veterinary scenario and so the word "euthanised" is most accurate and specific. CoconutOctopus talk 23:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So now you're resorting to the etymological fallacy to disregard sources? Traumnovelle (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To restate a point I made further up, because changes are still being made to the article that do not take this on board: Motive and method are different. If Alice kills Bob with an axe to steal his money, the money is the motive and the axe is the method. If an animal is killed with barbiturates to relieve its suffering, the relief of suffering is the motive, and the barbiturates are the method. Euthanasia simply is not a method. GenevieveDEon (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite silly. Animal euthanasia is a medical term for when an animal is killed, usually with injectable drugs. This is not a euphemism, that is literally the cause of death. The squirrel died because it was injected with drugs designed to kill it. That is euthanasia. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the drugs are the method. They cause the death. The animal's just as dead whether the motivation is mercy, malice, or meat. GenevieveDEon (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Euthanasia is the process by which this happens, much similar to an execution (analogy coming again). Execution can be done by hanging, lethal injection, electric chair, firing squad, etc. but the reasons for doing it are all the same. Innocent people can and do die of execution and we say that they get executed on their pages, because execution is the process. The process is more important than the specific method, although the method should be described somewhere. "Killing" is incredibly non-descriptive anyway and there is plausible room for ambiguity so in my view "euthanized" is appropriate. Departure– (talk) 00:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've put your version back for a third time. I'm not about to breach 3RR by changing it again, but you are wrong. Words mean things, and motives and methods are different. Euthanasia has a regular, common meaning that is not obviously applicable in this case. This whole situation is ridiculous. There is nothing inaccurate about using the word 'killed', so why are people so keen to change it? (Aside, I suppose, from demonstrably false beliefs about additional implications of the simple word 'killed'.) GenevieveDEon (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because the sources do not use the term. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to use the term that the sources use if the word we're using is implied by the source's term. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 00:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing with this. "Euthanasia is the act of killing an animal humanely"; that is, euthanasia is a specific kind of killing, and thus very much counts as a method of death; more so than "killing" does, in my eyes. CoconutOctopus talk 00:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the method is the means by which the killing is carried out. What distinguishes euthanasia is the humane intent. That intent is not, itself, a method; it informs the choice of methods, as does the species of the animal, and other factors. But the desire to be humane does not cause the death; it is not the method. GenevieveDEon (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By that definition, we don't know specifically how the animal was killed, other then that the squirrel was killed humanely. Was it killed by an injection, or perhaps some other method? UserMemer (chat) Tribs 00:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it matter if it was killed via gas or injection? Both are humane and meet the definition of euthanasia. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, since the term "euthanasia" has various definitions, and the sources don't explain which definition is being used (neither does the government, which is presumably where most of these RS got it from), we would have to make an assumption here to use the term. Although the death was most likely humane, using the word "killed" which doesn't imply anything, would be, as I stated before, my choice of wording. We could possibly put "killed humanely", if wanted. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 00:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Killed is used by non-RS trying to politicise the issue. Euthanised is used by RS reporting on the issue in a neutral fashion. It seems quite obvious which one we should used based on our policies of NPOV and RS. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite an odd argument. Euthanasia is the term used by reliable sources, and frankly, that should be enough. If you look into similar cases of wildlife being put down, you'll see that euthanasia is indeed the standard term. An animal does not need to be sick or injured to be euthanised in the context of wildlife care - it is not unusual for animals illegally raised in captivity that cannot be released to the wild to be euthanased out of concerns for their long term health and welfare. We are all entitled to our opinions on the ethics of this practice, of course, but in this case the term "euthanasia" is being used correctly in context by reliable sources and there is no reason to exclude it from the lead. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the last two commenters - it seems to me that the word "killing" is being used in an emotionally slanted context, i.e. "I've decided this is a bad thing", so is hardly a neutral term, especially as the full background facts are yet to be verified publicly. And we should always follow the reliable sources for whichever term gets used in a supposedly neutral encyclopedia. For me, that's euthanasia, as happily reported by countless sources, especially at the start of the coverage days ago. Ref (chew)(do) 08:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, "killed" is a neutral term, and claims that it is "emotionally slanted" or "trying to politicise the issue" are nonsense. cagliost (talk) 11:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely not an inherently neutral term, and much of its use in this context has been heavily emotionally and politically charged. Regardless of neutrality, the term used by the vast majority of reliable sources is "euthanized" and that is what we must follow as editors. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 12:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments relying on a claim that "killed" is "emotional" and "politicised" are doomed to failure. cagliost (talk) 12:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - the word "killed" is not an emotional or politicised word at all. However, the ways in which it is used can influence how it is interpreted in a statement or sentence. It's the use of the word, not the word itself, which is off-neutral in many reports being relied upon. Some appear very squirrelly. Ref (chew)(do) 15:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is truly silly if you repeatedly claiming that there is consensus for your revisions while concurrently arguing consensus here. SamWecer (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From my 2p, given that even our own Animal euthanasia article says "put down" is equitable alternative meaning for that, and given that a large number of the sources across the spectrum either use "put down" or "euthanised", I think that either of those two would be the most neutral and appropriate terms to use rather than killed. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 11:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CoconutOctopus:, please do not claim there is "clear talk page consensus" when there is not. cagliost (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue there is, but each to their own. CoconutOctopus talk 12:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There really isn't a conflict here, the vast majority of sources use this term to describe the animals death. I've untagged the article because there's a snowball chance in hell consensus will form against using that term with the vast majority of reliable sources using "euthanised". Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources use the word "euthanasia." However, wikipedia's own article on Euthanasia says that it is "the practice of intentionally ending life to eliminate pain and suffering." There was no pain or suffering until the raid. I wonder if there is a way to address different interpretations of that word in the article. The Last Hungry Cat (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's article on euthanasia also has a note right at the top that states: 'This article is about euthanasia of humans' Traumnovelle (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we look at the greek root of the word, it makes sense. Regardless, we shouldn’t editorialize reliable sources overwhelmingly using this term, and it’s not controversial at all when taken in context. Animals are often euthanized for reasons that have nothing to do with their health or well-being. It’s simply a euphemism for being put down as humanely as possible. Kcmastrpc (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kcmasterpc is currently blocked for repeated incivility. Disregard. SamWecer (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions

[edit]

Whose "reactions" are worth including in this article? It currently features quotes from Nick Langworthy, Elon Musk, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the House Judiciary Committee / Jim Jordan (?). None of these people seem like experts on wildlife to me and I think the whole section should be deleted. 2A07:A081:0:1883:7CDA:1D99:C975:A312 (talk) 03:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

as this is inherently a political issue, quote those people who hold significant influence on politics. the reason you are on this page is because one of the people listed above (indirectly) brought it to your attention. 135.180.49.239 (talk) 03:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should tread carefully with responses. Elon Musk is an extremely well known figure, so his might be appropriate. Beyond that, I'd opt for restraint. Frivolous or obviously political comments, unless they are from someone either extremely important or with a clear connection to the controversy, should be eschewed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was my logic for removing the fake Trump reaction. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Curiously the article itself does not mention that this has become a very weird republican talking point online, even though all quotes in the Reactions section are by Republicans or Trump-affiliates. Surely some of the news coverage touched on that? — jonas (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And why would only the reaction of wildlife experts be worthy? The killing of this pet is not only an environmental issue. The department that killed him was an "expert". Regioncalifornia (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tweets are not reliable sources. Grimes2 (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about RFK's Tweet?
From WP:Verifiability: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as:
The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; (Just a comment)
It does not involve claims about third parties; (He's only making a comment on the incident, not making any claims)
It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; (The source is about the death of the squirrel which is what the Tweet replied to)
There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; (It's his official Twitter account, and another reliable source commented on the post) and
The article is not based primarily on such sources. (The article is not based primarily on Tweets)
I think RFK's Twitter post should be kept, as a reliable news source also verifies this. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 17:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see someone has rewritten this section since yesterday, and the current version looks a lot better to me, providing some context rather than just copying quotes. (And I was not aware that the death of this squirrel is a political issue in United States. That country continues to baffle me.) I am still not convinced that the quotes by Musk and Kennedy are worth including, but it is an improvement compared to when I started this discussion. 2A07:A081:0:1883:3C82:41E7:6F22:D788 (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Memer15151 @HopalongCasualty I see that the improvements are primarily your work, thank you. 2A07:A081:0:1883:3C82:41E7:6F22:D788 (talk) 02:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wish it featured some comments by experts and not just politicians, like Harambe#Reactions (another great all-American tragedy), but I don't know if any such person has stooped to commenting on it. 2A07:A081:0:1883:3C82:41E7:6F22:D788 (talk) 02:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about we add a sentence such as "Other critics of the use of euthanasia on Peanut include..." and then list some more instead of giving a whole sentence to Musk or Kennedy? UserMemer (chat) Tribs 00:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]

(
)
Created by Thriley (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 256 past nominations.

Launchballer 22:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

ALT1... that the death of a squirrel named Peanut was a Republican rallying cry in the last days before the 2024 United States presidential election? Source: Washington Post Thriley (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar! "a" squirrel Johnbod (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT2... that Peanut the squirrel was taken from his home by New York State and euthanized soon after? Johnbod (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Oh, that squirrel... I followed this when it was at ITN and in the pre-election hullaballoo. Article is new enough and long enough. Hook facts are all cited and interesting, though my preference is for ALT0. Earwig flags a fair bit, but they seem to be properly attributed quotes. Good to go.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd appreciate it if the alt1 hook runs. Far more consequential than making money for the owner. It was the hook I was going to use as the article creator before this drive by nomination was made. Thriley (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's me being tired of American politics, but going with a politics-related angle feels cheap at this point. It's like all those previous hooks about COVID: just because a hook is about COVID or US politics does not automatically make it interesting, especially when there's oversaturation both on and off-Wikipedia. Endorsing ALT0 instead as more likely to get readership interest, especially to those not interested in politics. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Due to concerns raised at WT:DYK, the nomination has been pulled for now. Consensus is leaning against ALT1 (the promoted hook); however, a concern has been raised that ALT0 (the hook consensus was leaning in favor of) may not be accurate or supported, and thus may need revision. The discussion did not discuss ALT2. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I changed the Express Tribune and New York Post with the Telegraph and misread it. The sentence now ends with just the Express Tribune. Should be supported now.--Launchballer 23:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think ignoring a citation to an in-depth article from a reliable source and instead using a four paragraph summary of a NYPost article from a random Pakistani newspaper which doesn't actually reflect the source just for the sake of a DYK hook is what editors should be doing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I skimmed WP:RSN for "Express Tribune" and saw nothing of concern nor any indication in the article it came from the New York Post, but I've put the Telegraph back. Hmm, "helped steer viewers to its owner's OnlyFans account", cited to Vanity Fair...--Launchballer 16:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I've been out of it the last few days. ALT3: ... that a squirrel helped steer viewers to its owner's OnlyFans account?--Launchballer 15:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


If stability is a DYK requirement like for GA and FA this will not pass. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the DYK guidelines: "The article should not be subject to unresolved edit-warring and should not deserve stub or dispute tags." From the edit warring page: "An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts." I don't see any back and forth reverts on the page between two editors. The reverts in the history of the page don't really count as edit warring. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 00:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to nominate this once editing dies down by Friday or so. Thriley (talk) 04:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thriley: You have my permission to edit the phrase "Created by Launchballer" to credit the actual authors of the article. (The size of the history is making me dizzy.)--Launchballer 10:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New development

[edit]

Grimes2 (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 November 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is a clear consensus against the proposed move. BD2412 T 19:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peanut (squirrel) → Death of Peanut the squirrel – The vast majority of the coverage of this animal appears to be about the animal's death rather than about the animal's life. I think this article might be better focused on that event and cover the squirrel's life in the context of the main focus of coverage here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 02:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, the squirrel has been a social media star for years. The major reason the events of his death have been notable rest on Peanut's previous internet fame. The events of his demise, focused on here by Red-tailed hawk, are an important and necessary part of his story but not its entirety. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Contrary to Randy Kryn's claim, I do not see sources pointing to notability before its death. Kryn has not presented such sources, only saying vaguely that they exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully Zxcvbnm, the first reference on the page, from USA Today, reports on the squirrel's years of stardom. Likely most of the rest of the references do as well. Doesn't seem to be a dispute about that, and it's why the events of his death have attained surprisingly wide media coverage. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That reference was written after the squirrel's death. References have to exist that were written before the death to prove your assertion, as WP:SUSTAINED does not apply to retroactive coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The squirrel was a long-time social media star, as USA Today and likely all of the other major reputable sources report. That simple and provable statement has nothing to do with Wikipedia rules and regs, just stating what the sources say and what the article now contains. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per all above. I maintain after opening the deletion discussion the fallout from the death of the squirrel is far more notable than the squirrel itself. Departure– (talk) 03:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support reporting is clearly about the death Traumnovelle (talk) 03:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not all of it is about his death. That is a seerate section of the article. Sushidude21! (talk) 04:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will say though that without the death I don't think the squirell is sufficiently notable. Sushidude21! (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And not without the exact circumstances of that death. Not many squirrels get to promote porn websites? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Whilst I really don't think the squirrel would be at all notable without this bizzare political furor around its death, I agree with voorts in that other similar articles are titled this way and so for consistency we should keep it. CoconutOctopus talk 18:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Peanut the squirrel was a well known social media star for years and the primary topic here is the squirrel himself. Much of this article is about his life, not just his death and the resulting firestorm
I’d previously read an older news article about Peanut that was written by a major news outlet years before his death. I tried to locate it again tonight to link here but the coverage of his death and the subsequent outrage have currently buried the older coverage.
If someone can manage to dig up the article I’m speaking of or another one written before the squirrel’s death it would be great asset to this discussion. I unfortunately forgot to note the exact publication but perhaps someone more savvy than me can find a way to exclusively search through content that was published prior to 2024.GladeMist (talk) 07:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a YouTube video from 2022 (Australian TV's Seven News)? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you look up “longo” “peanut” on DuckDuckGo or Google, click on “Any time” and choose “Custom date range”, you can choose a time range to search in, as if you were looking at the internet from that day; if you choose a date like January 1st, 2017 to October 25th, 2024, you will find much coverage. See if you can find it using that method. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 13:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, but I do support it being split into a new article named Death of Peanut the squirrel. Kolano123 (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per @The C of E Killuminator (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Nightmares26 (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Split - While the circumstances of Peanut's death are clearly the most notable things about his life, his prior life and (limited) fame are also of note and relevance - but there isn't nearly enough material to justify an article about each of those elements separately, nor is such likely to develop. No-one has yet provided a credible rationale for such a split. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
[edit]

Seems odd that this article makes no mention of the related porn controversy. Isn't that the reason that anonymous people complained about the squirrel? The owner, Mark Longo, had a porno Only Fans account. The squirrel appeared. Only Fans subscribers lodged complaints. Seems odd that this entire angle to the story is not mentioned at all. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 10:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, not sure why this has been removed. Quite a bizarre aspect of the whole affair. xHamster, anyone? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is in the article, in the "Life and Career" section. Per WP:CRITS the "Controversy" section was removed as it lends undue weight to the issue (the vast majority of sources are talking about the death of the squirrel, not the owners other business activities, unsavory as they might be). Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've always thought of squirrels as quite savoury, not sweet. But I know what you mean. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that the raid happened due to complaints submitted by subscribers to his OnlyFans account. In fact, in a recent press release by the union that represents DEC, they stated that the complaints were filed by “several New York State-licensed wildlife rehabilitators alleging Longo was operating an illegal wildlife sanctuary.” Ruleisrainbow (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have a source for Longo bringing up his work on OnlyFans in relation to Peanut's death, so it's probably relevant to the media reaction at least.
In any case I don't believe any further coverage of the "porn angle" is necessary. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 06:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I have removed it since the only sources, at least the only one cited, is the New York Post, which we no longer consider reliable, and a Pakistani paper that basically reprints the Post's story. Daniel Case (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Daniel, I have been considering removing that line for a while. If Longo's speculation is reported in more reliable sources, should it be added back into the article? It seems to be a pretty baseless accusation. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Vanity Fair source mentions it, although, admittedly, it also cites the NYP. After reading the sources more closely, I'm starting to think the initial speculation was probably blown out of proportion. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 05:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could we change the name?

[edit]

From Peanut (squirrel) to Peanut the Squirrel Cheesegobblers (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:Article titles, "adding a disambiguating term in parentheses after the ambiguous name is Wikipedia's standard disambiguation technique when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title." Peanut (squirrel) should be kept here to keep it similar to other similar article titles such as Freya (seal) or Peanut (gamer); adding "the" would not be necessary here. Also, if you want to start a requested move, follow this page's instructions. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 17:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Nickname"

[edit]

Posting this since I don't want to violate 3RR, but an IP keeps readding an unsourced nickname from social media to the article.

Does anyone have any usage of that name in RS, and if so, can we come to a consensus on it? Currently consensus does appear to be that it isn't valid, but once again, 3RR. CoconutOctopus talk 08:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did some searching on this when IPs initially began adding this nickname to the article, and could only find it mentioned on Longo's social media. No use in reliable sources. This seems like a pretty clear case of a non-notable nickname, per MOS:BIOALTNAME: Nicknames and other aliases included must be frequently used by reliable sources. The IP users making the changes seem unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works, so I anticipate they will continue to add it back regardless of MOS.
FYI, I've already requested that the article be semi-protected (again) to stem the tide of disruptive IP edits. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I was considering asking for protection (again!) myself, if I didn't get through to the IP on their talk page. Probably best anyway, this is such a weirdly contentious article! CoconutOctopus talk 08:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When the owner of the squirrel has called him ‘Mousey’ in multiple posts, to be exact—that’s not reliable enough for you? The sources you’re insisting on don’t even own the squirrel, yet you’re dismissing the most direct and authoritative source on the matter: the owner’s social media. While MOS:BIOALTNAME emphasizes frequent use in reliable sources, we have to consider context. Primary sources, especially from the subject or their owner in this case, are valid for verifying commonly used nicknames in niche situations where secondary coverage is limited.
Dismissing this nickname outright because it hasn’t appeared in third-party publications seems unnecessarily rigid. It’s clear that ‘Mousey’ is how the owner consistently refers to the squirrel, and that usage is publicly documented. Instead of gatekeeping based on overly strict interpretations, we should focus on providing accurate and contextually relevant information to readers. 2607:FEA8:FCF0:7D7B:8975:A4D7:2F48:3E8E (talk) 09:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would kindly request that you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's guidelines and re-read the section of the Manual of Style linked in my comment above. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of trivia; we don't include every nickname used for a given topic - nicknames are only included if they are notable, based on their usage in independent, reliable sources. Secondary coverage on this topic is not limited, and if this nickname is important, it will be reported in reliable sources. If coverage proves this nickname notable, you are welcome to add it to the article, but in the absence of wider use, it is not warranted. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 09:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response and for highlighting MOS:BIOALTNAME. I understand the importance of adhering to Wikipedia’s guidelines, but I believe there’s a strong case for including the nickname “Mousey” in this article, given its significance and context.
Firstly, while the Manual of Style emphasizes the need for independent, reliable sources, it’s also important to consider the unique circumstances of this subject. The nickname “Mousey” has been used consistently by the owner in at least 15 public posts. While these are primary sources, they represent direct and verifiable evidence of the nickname’s usage. Excluding it would omit a crucial aspect of how this subject is identified within its niche community.
Secondary sources might not cover such informal details, but Wikipedia should strive for completeness, especially when it improves understanding for readers. As the nickname is widely recognized in the squirrel’s social media presence, it serves as an essential identifier.
As a compromise, I propose including the nickname with appropriate context, such as:
“The squirrel is often referred to as ‘Mousey’ by its owner on social media, though this name has not been widely reported in independent sources.”
This would maintain verifiability and transparency while ensuring the article reflects the subject accurately.
Additionally, I have a question: If the owner were to confirm directly (for example, through a public statement or response) that “Mousey” is indeed the squirrel’s nickname, would that still require independent sources for verification? Considering the owner is the most authoritative source, I’d appreciate clarification on how Wikipedia would handle such a case.
I’m open to further discussion and seeking consensus on this matter. What are your thoughts on this approach? 2607:FEA8:FCF0:7D7B:8975:A4D7:2F48:3E8E (talk) 09:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think your approach is contrary to Wikipedia policy. We'd need multiple WP:SECONDARY sources. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not so much truth or accuracy (even in the absence of coverage in secondary sources it's obvious that this nickname was used, that's not up for debate) but notability. For a nickname to be included in the lead of an article it must be in widespread use (BIOALTNAME says Alternative names that are not well known to our readers may not need to be in the lead at all), eg. a name that an average person might search for to find the relevant article if they don't know the "real" name. The nickname "P'Nut" is included in the lead because it is used in reliable secondary sources and is an alternate name that a reader might use to try and find this article, but I don't think "Mousey" is comparable. To be clear, I am not fully opposed to mentioning this nickname in the body of the article (eg. "Longo created an Instagram account sharing videos of Peanut, who he also referred to as P'Nut or Mousey"), but we need to establish notability for its inclusion to separate it from all the non-notable, non-recognisable nicknames people commonly have for their pets. You seem much more familiar with Peanut's social media presence than myself (full disclosure, I do not use social media and only became aware of Peanut after news coverage surrounding his death) and say that this nickname is widely recognised by his social media following. While I believe you, that is anecdotal and we need secondary sources to validate that in order to include it in the article. A mention of the nickname in a news article would suffice for brief inclusion in the body IMO.
RE: your question about direct confirmation from the owner, WP:ABOUTSELF immediately comes to mind, however, this is usually used for biographical articles on humans, not animals, and self-published sources generally do not provide notability. Not quite sure if or how it would apply here, to be honest.
Thank you for the thoughtful response :) Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 10:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's best RS then owner of squirrel? All this wiki is based on Squirrel been posted on social media. Owner was calling squirrel Mousey and there is multiple post on various social media from him where this can be confirmed Aprikpl (talk) 09:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See above. We're not slaves to social media. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without independent reliable secondary sources, the keeper's pet name for the squirrel does not fly here. It's also not widely used like Bono or J Lo. Cute or affectionate nicknames are not necessarily notable. If Melania refers to Donald by the nickname Stud we don't need to publish that in Wikipedia. WWGB (talk) 10:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is "rescued" NPOV?

[edit]

I'm not sure I like saying that Longo "rescued" Peanut in the lead. It feels a bit biased towards him. Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My personal inclination is to simply use the phrase "found by", omitting the "rescued" part. I must note that the word "rescued" (or "took in"/"orphaned squirrel", which have similar implications) is used in quite a few sources, though this is simply repeating what Longo has said about Peanut's origin. Interestingly, this Vanity Fair article is one of the few sources that qualifies this by stating Longo "claimed to have rescued" Peanut. I do think there is value in attributing Peanut's origin story in the article, given that all the information we have is derived from Longo himself, and that he has a clear financial (and legal, if he is indeed pursuing action against the DEC) interest in framing Peanut's story in this way. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 02:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added 'allegedly' which should be enough to cover the language. If Longo's story is true, then 'rescued' seems accurate if the baby squirrel would have otherwise died. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peanut_(squirrel)&oldid=1261246290"