Talk:Brown rat

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

Alberta[edit]

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

grammar problem[edit]

"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)[reply]

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

The Origin of the brown rat[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Is it a Social Animal?[edit]

The intro does not describe it as a social animal. The article spends a lot of time discussing social behavior, but also calls it a territorial animal, which doesn't sound social to me. (But then, I'm not a biologist.) The article could use a sentence or two resolving this apparent contradiction. MiguelMunoz (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]