Talk:Brown rat

Alberta

see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Brown_rat_distribution.png#Alberta as well as even older "HOAX map removed" discussion on this page

also see the comments on the edits and reverts in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brown_rat_distribution.png

Removing so called "hoax map" again

I'm removing the map altogether because:

• The map is without sources. There has been much discussion about the status of Alberta, but the rest of the world is not documented at all. If we look at the history of the file, we find a deleted file from Dutch wikipedia and a user inactive for 6 years, so I don't know how the map was constructed.
• The map is completely wrong.
  • Wikipedia has been shamed for it in a newspaper
  • The map incorrectly shows rats living in deserts (sahara, gobi, saudi arabia). Several sources aggree that the rat only lives near water.
  • The map incorrectly shows rats living in cold places (Himalayas, Kamchatka, Yukon, Andes). The rat does not hibernate. So where there aren't human homes to warm them, the rats don't survive in these regions.
  • However, contrarily to what the map says, there are rats in Iceland, though as in most of the world, only in human settlements.
• For other species that only live where human live, wikipedia generally doesn't show a map. For instance, see Dog, Head louse, Domestic pigeon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yitscar (talk • contribs) 08:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Since that map has just seen another change (forcefully expressed), I'm going ahead and removing it entirely pending some clarification of the above points. I agree that showing blanket distributions across Africa and Australia, including almost certainly rat-free inland deserts, is misleading and unjustified. In the face of these discrepancies, wrangling about whether Alberta should or should not be excluded is indeed premature. I would also agree that we'd be best off not having a map here at all, rather than one that will have to make broad guesses for various 10⁶ km² chunks. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Seems like if you're going to show a distribution map of an animal, it should be based on political boundaries. IE if the rat is found in Canada, the entire country of Canada is shaded in. You can't say that rats exist at the 49th parallel but not the 49.0001, that's absurd. But you can say "they exist in this country, they don't exist in this one". 76.64.118.162 (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Organisms don't care about political boundaries. We certainly don't colour in the entire US to show the distribution of the Gila monster. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• I just reverted another reinstatement of the map, this time with just Alberta neatly excised. These maps are wildly incorrect. However, I have found it frustratingly difficult to come up with a single publication that gives a detailed global distribution. This will probably have to be pieced together by continent, or parts of continents. As an example, all previous maps shown here just completely colour in Australia. Compare that with the actual distribution from occurrence records: yeah... it's a fringe, mostly on the east coast, and 95% of the continent does not have a brown rat population.

I'm sorry, this may be a slog, but we are way better off not having a map at all than one that makes such gross errors. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• So... next round, I guess. Rewindturtle, the problem is not whether Alberta is or is not rat-free (although it is ludicrous to assume that the exact boundaries of the province denote a rat-free area... but okay, works as an approximation); the problem is that there are many other areas in the world that are also rat-free, such as inland deserts, which this map indiscriminately colours in. I have not been able to find a reliably sourced world map that provides an accurate depiction. This means that a) one would have to be constructed, taking specific sources for individual continents into account (see above for a usable source for Australia); and b) that in absence of such a map, we are doing everyone a disservice by publishing an obviously faulty one. As you are currently trying to do. Your map is not a defensible one, and in its current form it cannot go into the article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The global population distribution map of the brown rat should be on the Wikipedia page as it is unique and of interest.

If the brown rat was only found in a single forest on Earth, that would be a notable piece of information about it. Similarly, if the brown rat is found everywhere in the world except a few locations, that information is notable and should be included in the Wikipedia page. Those claiming that the brown rat is found in Alberta have clearly not done any research into the subject. The brown rat can not survive in the mountainous regions of the province and there is a strict rat control service that exterminates any that are found in the prairie regions. The map is very eye-catching and accurate, thus it is a good idea to have it on the brown rat's Wikipedia page.

"Eye-catching" + "wrong" = BAD in an encyclopedia. The Alberta thing is being discussed in the article; we do not need to throw faulty maps at the reader to make the point. What's your response to the issues laid out above - that the map is plain wrong in many other respects? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Rewindturtle, you have now been reported for edit-warring. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

White rats

"Brown rat (Redirected from White rat)" - yet no mention of white rats. What gives? 92.25.47.124 (talk) 14:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Brown rats, wild type, vary from darker gray, almost black to agouti (orange-tan + gray with darker guard hair) to mostly orange-brown. White, spotted/blotchy and other 'odd colors' occur in Domestic rats, domesticated laboratory grade brown rats – these short-haired, often paler forms aren't seen in wild.

grammar problem

"Hawadax Island (formerly known as Rat Island) in Alaska was is thought to have been the first island in the Aleutians to be invaded by Norway rats (the Brown rat) when a Japanese ship went aground in the 1780s" was or is? NOt both. Kdammers (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Rasnaboy (talk) 04:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The Origin of the brown rat

Hello all, Hope this finds you well. I noticed a few elements that should be looked at with more scrutiny in the article about the brown rat. In the Section “ Naming and etymology “, I noticed the following sentences with regards to the origin of the brown rats.

“ By the early to middle part of the 19th century, British academics believed that the brown rat was not native to Norway, hypothesizing (incorrectly) that it may have come from Ireland, Gibraltar or across the English Channel with William the Conqueror. “

and also :

“ Academics began to prefer this etymology of the brown rat towards the end of the 19th century, as seen in the 1895 text Natural History by American scholar Alfred Henry Miles:

The brown rat is the species common in England, and best known throughout the world. It is said to have travelled from Persia to England less than two hundred years ago and to have spread from thence to other countries visited by English ships.

Though the assumptions surrounding this species' origins were not yet the same as modern ones, by the 20th century, it was believed among naturalists that the brown rat did not originate in Norway, rather the species came from central Asia and (likely) China.”

And finally in the Section “ Distribution and habitat “  :

“ Possibly originating from the plains of northern China and Mongolia, the brown rat spread to other parts of the world sometime in the Middle Ages. The question of when brown rats became commensal with humans remains unsettled, but as a species, they have spread and established themselves along routes of human migration and now live almost everywhere humans are. “

I am rather flabbergasted to see unsubstantiated beliefs, preferences, hearsay and possibilities mentioned as sources for assertions about the origins of the brown rats.

Instead, it would be less speculative to have reliable sources before mentioning any place as the potential origin of the brown rats since the groundless preferences and beliefs of some scientists are anything but science and facts.

The repetition of China throughout this article as a possible origin of the brown rats, unfortunately, gives the article a heavy inclination towards this very same mechanism mentioned at the beginning of the “ Naming and etymology “ Section :

“ The brown rat was originally called the "Hanover rat" by people wishing to link problems in 18th-century England with the House of Hanover. “

Is there a wish here to link the origin of the brown rat, without proof, to China ? If not, it sure does seem as such.

Since it seems unacceptable that Europe could potentially be the origin of these animals,may I suggest a removal of those sentences pointing continuously at China and simply leave the origin of the brown rat as an unsettled subject ?

Just as for the topic about when the brown rats became commensal with humans. Thank you. Azgazaki (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

You know, it may be more satisfying to write long, outraged screeds here, but it is more productive to read the cited sources. Your flabber may be de-gasted by looking into the details of why people make these statements, and what they are based on. Click on the blue links and educate thyself. (reduced whitespace in above by 200%) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Your utterly unnecessarily abbrasive rethoric could have made the economy of such an approach by simply providing advice.

I was in no way in search of a confrontation but rather in search of understanding.

The blue links ... I shall gladly look at them , sincerely hoping they will shed light on my ignorance and display nothing more than facts as opposed to biased beliefs as it has been the case in many instances in the circles of academia. Azgazaki (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore : which blue links are you referring to ? Azgazaki (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)