Talk:Ferret/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

New Image (?)

from TiHa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.136.230.137 (talk) 10:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Reduction of the section on Ferret's status internationally

Most of the first five or six sections merely take up one or two lines; not enough for a section. I figured it would be better to keep them in bulletin form, rather than pad the table of contents for the article with redundant fluff. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Should the same be done for the import laws section? Seems to be a similar situation. -- Greyed (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Rumor has it that Ferrets and cats don't get along, so far i have only noticed that one of my cats are very curious and my ferret can give to hoots about the cat sitting on his house looking at him. any feedback or experiences would be appreciated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.117.22 (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ancedotal evidence is not evidence. Ferrets and Cats CAN get along, and often do. As with dogs and cats, there will always be some that do not tolerate other animals... even within their own species. 76.16.24.38 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC).

With anecdotal evidence, for everything that claims one thing, another piece of anecdotal can claim the opposite. As someone who has owned 8 ferrets, 3 cats and a dog myself, I can tell you that ferrets, cats and dogs all get along*. But that's just MY anecdotal evidence. ;) groovygower (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Although any 'not getting along' is usually always down to the cats - self-important creatures that they are. :)

European polecat

According to this link from U of Michigan the ferret is indeed a subspecies of the European polecat. I thought maybe we can include that even though it comes from an anon user with doubtful record. The only thing I have not verified is the latin translation, but it sounds plausible. Dr.K. (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the claim from the U of Michigan, as there is no evidence in support of it; many authorities consider the correct scientific name for the ferret to be Mustela furo, to make that clear. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This topic has been discussed before, here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I see. But this discussion link is not very exhaustive and not very detailed. Maybe some more effort should be directed in determining this, since anecdotal references to a scientist using the name M. furo in preference to Mustela putorius furo are not exactly reliable. And the question remains how can a distinguished University such as Michigan make such an assertion if it were false. Seems like a reliable source to me. Dr.K. (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not the university that is making the claim, it is simply a web site containing information from an anonymous source. All that can be said with any certainty is that the use of the trinomial implies that ferrets are a subspecies of the European polecat, but there has as yet been no evidence produced to support that claim. Hence many authorities refer to the ferret as Mustela furo. If you - or the U of Michigan - are aware of any evidence to support the notion that ferrets are a subspecies of Mustela putorius then let's see it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It is the university as in here:

Overview

Animal Diversity Web (ADW) is an online database of animal natural history, distribution, :classification, and conservation biology at the University of Michigan

Quote: If you - or the U of Michigan - are aware of any evidence to support the notion that ferrets are a subspecies of Mustela putorius then let's see it.

I didn't know that I or for that matter the university have to provide any evidence other than the one presented in the website. The logic goes as follows: University of Michigan is a reliable source. The website is from the University of Michigan, i.e. reliable. Therefore let's quote the website. In fact the onus is the other way around. It is on the editor who wrote that there is a controversy to cite this controversy using a reliable source. The way it is now, without a citation is unacceptable. Anyone can write anything they want. Without a citation this claim is basically meaningless. Dr.K. (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(Unident) To make it more clear I quote again: All that can be said with any certainty is that the use of the trinomial implies that ferrets are a subspecies of the European polecat, but there has as yet been no evidence produced to support that claim. Hence many authorities refer to the ferret as Mustela furo

If we can substatntiate that: many authorities refer to the ferret as Mustela furo using citations this will be fine. Otherwise the word many, without a citation, is a prime example of WP:WEASEL. Dr.K. (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

How ironic, when you consider what the article is on! LOL! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Where I do agree with you is that the claim made later in the lead about the uncertainty of the ferret's ancestry does need to be supported by a citation, which I will provide. Where I don't agree with you is that a disputed naming convention sheds any light on the ferret's genetic origin in the absence of any supporting evidence. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Great. Let's split the difference and agree on your first point. That will be sufficient for strengthening your argument and therefore will make the second point moot. Thank you for an interesting discussion. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added a citation as promised. Looking at that References section, I really think that it needs to be beefed up. I've made a start, what do you think? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Your citation is excellent. The size of the references section seems to be ok. At first glance some sections such as "Activity and nature" need a little beefing up because the citations there seem sparse. Your citation has strengthened the lead and therefore the confidence the readers feel as they read further into the article. Thank you for taking the time to address this point. It's been a pleasure. Dr.K. (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead section intro

"A ferret is a domestic mammal...". I'm almost certain this is - whilst still a minor problem - part of the overall problem with this article. I think it ought to be reworded so it reads something like "Ferrets are domestic mammals..." and so forth. The Bold text bit, I believe, is supposed to be the direct start of the article. This is what I'm going to do right now. If anyone reverts me, please leave a detailed explanation as to why below this message. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking of this being done for all articles, as a matter of fact.

Instead of just one plain sandbox in Wikipedia, and a few owned by some users, why don't we create a sandbox for each article? We can make the sandboxes look exactly like the articles, only here the vandalizers are allowed to play around with the page! I'm posting this here because Ferret gets vandalized alot. If someone could point to me the proper project page to post this on, I'll repeat myself there. Thanks! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 07:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think it would do any good. Vandals mess up articles because they enjoy causing trouble, and I don't think we should be going out of our way to accomidate them.JeffStickney (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I probably misunderstand the meaning of "accomidate", but that's what I thought we would be stopping. Oh well; easy come, easy go. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandals usually do what they do simply to mess with people. Making a Sandbox for each article for the Vandals to play in would defeat the purpose of vandalism: They'd be doing what you wanted them to do. No one wouold use it because there's no fun in blanking an article that's already been thoroughly screwed with. 70.70.97.117 (talk) 10:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ferrets in literature

--Isn't there also a poem by Jean Follaine titled "Death of a Ferret?"66.217.45.44 (talk) 06:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)--Ray

Yes. You are correct. I'll put it in. Dr.K. (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed a large portion of the content from this section, as it was unreferenced. Anything that is notable enough to be included in an "in popular culture" section should at least have a website that can be cited. Sorry if this upsets anyone, but verifiability is rather important. CCG _(T-C) 01:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree; had I been brave enough I'd have done it myself. In fact I'm not at all sure that there's a place for this Triva section at all. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

For this section it is kind of tricky. Sources do NOT have to be websites Wikipedia:Citing sources verifies that books and print-only magazine articles are acceptable sources, whether they are online or not. In this section since we are discussing instances where ferrets are clearly shown in TV shows movies and books, the show or book itself IS the source. (Acceptable primary sources according to WP:PRIMARY). To verify the claim that a ferret appears in a movie or book, you are told which movie to watch or book to read- so everything is verifiable. By its very nature everything in this section is automatically sourced. The section is overlong, and a lot of it could be deleted as non-notable trivia, but everything in here is sourced.JeffStickney (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree up to a point. For example let's look at these facts:

• The main character in the manga series Peach Fuzz is a ferret named Peach who has delusions of being a princess.
• Former Doctor Who lead actor Sylvester McCoy got his acting start as Sylvester McCoy, the Human Bomb, a stage act that consisted of stuffing live ferrets down his trousers.
• In the film The Big Lebowski, Lebowski is attacked in the bathroom by a "Marmot" which is really a ferret.

1. The Peach Fuzz fact is easy to verify since the ferret is shown on the movie poster.
2. The Doctor Who fact must be verified because it does not involve a movie or a book.
3. In the The Big Lebowski the phrase "... attacked by a Marmot which is really a ferret" verges on WP:OR.

So we should not accept all of these facts without examining each one individually. Of course the need to keep any trivia section like this one in any article is a system-wide question and is a matter of policy. Dr.K. (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. If there is any room for question or interpretation it needs a secondary source. Only if there is no ambiguity that a ferret is shown or mentioned would the book, show,etc would be acceptable. For most of this section the source mentioned is acceptable, but I stand corrected on my claim that all of it is. The real problems with this are trivia and notability, and the question of which ones are notable and which are not is a matter of opinion guaranteed to start an edit war. JeffStickney (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a trivia section is always problematic but this is a generic problem with all such sections in any article. Notability of these facts is not always clear. Edit warring over trivia sections happens for sure but I think it is normally tied to verifiability, not notability. Anyway I just supplied the citations for two of the rather less obvious facts. As a corollary to the above we should not summarily erase facts, even if improbable sounding, before we Google a few keywords first. It takes a bit more work to do this but it can salvage an interesting fact or two. In this sense your reinstatement of the facts was a good idea. Dr.K. (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could trim the detail. Instead of having a paragraph added for each movie going into excessive detail about the plot, we could combine them into a couple paragraphs like "Ferrets are featured in the movies Kindergarten Cop, Starship Troopers, The Beastmaster,..." along with a footnote that clarifies that in these cases the Movies are themselves the source. That way we could keep all the mentions without making the section over long. And it would appear organized rather than haphazard.JeffStickney (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've started on reorganizing this section. I broke it into a few subsections and reorganized the film and TV section. Still a long ways to go.JeffStickney (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I personally like it. Good job. Dr.K. (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Blue ferret?

I am almost certain there is no blue ferret even though it is listed as a color. If there is no such thing then it should be deleted. I'm not 100% sure so that's why I haven't deleted it. There could be that slight chance that there is.Mikeyc4023 (talk) 01:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There are "blue ferrets", but of course they're not really blue. Just a very slight hint of blue in some with very light fur when seen in a particular light. I think the same description is used in cats and dogs? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sable ferrets will look kinda blue when their fur grows back out (from an operation for example) here is a [photo] to illustrate --Erlend Aakre (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ferrets belong to a kind and genorouse family the same with other animals they don't need to be treated like crap some people treat them like crap if u don't like them after you have them and they don't work out well talk them back to the place you got them or ask if any body alse want's it or them but don't let them run free because other people hate them so just eather ask or take them or it back Just please don't hurt any animal they don't diserve it be kind to any animal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.54.210 (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone put that ferrets have lifespan of 30-45 minutes, I reverted it back 66.119.9.207 (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Types of ferrets

Ferrets are usally three grougs European Albino and Black-footed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.176.181.192 (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

that does not make much sense, care to specify? --Erlend Aakre (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent "rvv" Edit against split9102

Split9102 (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
It was not deserving of being called vandalizem.
My internet cord is broken, and often jumbles up my posts on websites albeit.
My main edit was that for ferrets, toys are a necessity.
All of the books I own about ferrets say so.
Thank you for reading, and I hope you understand what I mean.

Sorry about that but the top part of your edit didn't mention any toys. It actually looked a bit random and it had nothing to do with ferrets. Therefore I classified it as vandalism. I understand your internet difficulties and in this spirit I accept your good faith. Thanks for letting me know. Bye for now. Dr.K. (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Missing text

The section Terminology and coloring has something missing. The text "man with a colored pet ferret wearing a red collar on his shoulder" doesn't seem to fit anywhere? I have uncommented it. --87.55.201.159 (talk) 06:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Link Farm

The External links section has become a linkfarm, and I propose that it needs to be dramatically reduced and focused as per the WP:EL guidelines. Thoughts? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Unqualified support. My thoughts exactly. Obviously this is happening in many other articles as well but this is a start. Dr.K. (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

And you could look at the in the media and celebrity owner stuff too.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. And I'm sure squirrel, opossum, raccoon and many other unfortunate articles. And this is just from the animal kingdom. The list is basically endless. --Dr.K. (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a great deal that ought to be chopped out of this article, I just thought one step at a time. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It might help to focus a few minds if this article was to be compared against the good article criteria; it falls way short IMO. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't had the chance to look it over in any detail recently but if its past versions are any guide there is no question there is a lot of work to be done to make it GA. Dr.K. (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I just saw your recent edit. Good work. This article functioned as Yellow Pages. Dr.K. (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I expect there will be some wailing and gnashing of teeth, but I intend to chop out a good deal more than that before I'm done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope it doesn't end in edit warring. But I will support from the sidelines. (Hopefully not by reverting but through discussion). Dr.K. (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I share your hope, and have no intention of edit warring with anyone. Hopefully through discussion this article can become what it ought to be, not a ferret keeper's manual but an encyclopedia article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. But people need to be educated that Wikipedia is not an online link farm but a serious encyclopaedia. It may take some discussion but I will participate if the need arises. Take care for now. Dr.K. (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Foot rot

I have now twice removed the following text from the new Foot rot section, on the basis that wikipedia is not a "how-to" manual. Does anyone apart from the originating editor believe that this has a place in the article?

Upon veterinary consult, most will prescribe antibiotic treatment. Vet prescribed antibiotic treatment is not only expensive but also often proven inadequate. An effective early treatment for foot rot is a simple preparation of common sulphur powder mixed in a paste with human moisturising lotion. This remedy must be applied at least once daily, with greater success found with more frequent applications. Continue application until all traces of foot rot are gone, as even the smallest remnant can develop again. Sulphur is also reported to have worm control properties as ferrets lick their feet. Sulphur can be purchased from local drug stores or from garden nurseries.

--Malleus Fatuorum 14:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I certainly would not be keen on unsourced advice telling people to ignore vets.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

What?

I'm confused. The article starts off with "the ferret is not always a domestic species" and then mentions black-footed ferrets. This implies the article is about domestic ferrets and other kinds of animals with "ferret" in the name. Then the article mentions, "There are other animals with 'ferret' in their name, like the black-footed ferret' which applies that this article is only about domestic ferrets, and that they are a separate species than black-footed ferrets. -ARE- they the same species, and what is this article about?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.117.146.111 (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It's been fixed. This article is about the domesticated ferret, not wild species (including the Black-Footed ferret) 72.16.237.66 (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Living peace

Are ferrets okay with kittens and cats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.101.107 (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Mostly. Ours love our cats and will chase them around the house just to be near them. The cats aren't too crazy about them though and the ferrets will often get a closed-claw whack if they're too much of a pest. But overall they get along fine.

These talk pages aren't for general advice but ar focused on improving Wikipedia. If you're wanting more advice, please go to another source - I'm a member of some Yahoo groups and also have bought a couple of ferret books.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ferrets and children section

Given that it's been established that this page isn't a users' guide, the whole section on ferrets and children seems a bit unncessary: I'm minded to delete it all, but if someone wants to edit it down to something more appropriate for an encyclopedia (i.e. weeding out all the pieces of advice such as "interaction between ferrets and children must always be closely supervised for the protection of both") it would greatly benefit the article ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Bad wording

"Ferret curiosity surpasses common sense in domestic environments, and ferrets are good at getting into drains, through holes in walls, under doors, inside drawers, in or under cupboards or cabinets, and inside, under, or behind household appliances such as clothes dryers, refrigerators, stoves, ovens, and dishwashers."

This sentence contains unnecessary personification by suggesting that ferrets have common sense. It's not in the correct tone for Wikipedia. DanTheShrew (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The tone of much of this article is poor, and I think that most of it ought to be simply removed. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ferrets in popular culture/fictional ferrets

Is there enough instances of ferrets in popular culture to warrant an seperate page covering this? I can think of the ferret from the bud commericals, the characters from the comic Peach Fuzz and the ferret from Along Came Polly but that hardly seems enough for an article. Does anyone know of some additional or more noteworth fictional ferrets? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.219.168.5 (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about those. The commercials and movies are automatrons or stuffed animals. I'd take Beastmaster and Kindergarden Cop over those as at least in those movies they were real, live ferrets. -- Greyed (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"...this has occasionally resulted in feral colonies of ferret polecat hybrids that have been perceived to have caused damage to native fauna..." I can't understand why this is on a wikipedia article. They have been "perceived" to have caused damage? That's definitely not something wikipedia-friendly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.235.24.2 (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality (NPOV) of "Ferrets as pets" Section

On 20 January 2010, an anonymous IP (4.235.84.247) placed a neutrality disputed tag on the "Ferrets as pets" section. The section does read somewhat pet happy, with statements like "ferrets are energetic and curious," "actively solicit play with humans," etc., and other parts read like suggestions for providing a good diet or avoiding dangers (replete with a long list of things ferrets may try to chew on), but after pondering it for 24 hours I'm not sure that this section is really Non-NPOV within the meaning contemplated by a neutrality in dispute tag. So... are there any editors out there who agree with 4.235.84.247 and feel the section really has a neutrality problem, and would like to weigh in on "fixing" what they think is wrong with the (alleged) Non-NPOV components? Or do you think the tag is unnecessary? I'm going to leave this posting here for a time, and if no one wants to take up the Non-NPOV case, I will probably return to remove the tag. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 03:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I entirely agree with the tag, and in fact I think the whole article is largely an embarrassment. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That was fast Malleus, I wasn't expecting anyone would be posting on this subject anytime soon and you replied within 10 minutes that you entirely agree with the tag, so you obviously have a strong opinion in favor of it. Please note, however, I was calling for editors who would like to weigh in on what is wrong with the non-neutrality of the section, i.e., to share their reasoning. To be more specific, take a look at the link on the neutrality tag and the explanation of neutral point of view:

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. Therefore, material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is "POV", although it may be shortened or moved if it gives undue weight to a minor point of view, as explained below. The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. It is not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather a specific, editorially neutral, point of view. An article should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common. It may contain critical evaluations of particular viewpoints based on reliable sources, but even text explaining sourced criticisms of a particular view must avoid taking sides."

Although we may not care much for the way the section is written (I saw your other comment and I too feel some parts are written too much like a "how to" manual), it is difficult to see exactly how the "Ferrets as pets" violates Wiki neutrality policy. The section, as currently written, does not push a particular majority or minority viewpoint, does not give undue weight to a minority point of view, does not sympathize or disparage its subject, does not endorse or oppose specific viewpoints, and does not take sides. So why a "neutrality disputed" tag? If you disagree, by all means share your reasoning why you think this section specifically violates the policy on neutrality. --AzureCitizen (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we definitely need to give the section a bit of a going over. Their use for running cables and their diet don't belong in this part of the article. I think that the biting issue is somewhat slanted. A bite that causes two or four puncture holes is unlikely to need the same rush to hospital that a mauling from a large dog might, but it is still going to produce a tearful child and angry parents.

And on diet, the three warring schools of "of course, they can be vegan", "ferrets evolved to eat whole raw small prey and therefore that's what I'm going to give them" and "the Famished Furbit range of ferret food is scientifically formulated to meet all your furry friend's nutritional needs" may need a mention--Peter cohen (talk) 11:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Difficult to know where to start. Take the very first paragraph for instance, with that well-worn claim by the California Fish and Game Department that there were 800,000 pet ferrets in the USA by 1996. It's often challenged and is very likely complete nonsense. Also, why the emphasis given to Wendy Winstead and her celebrity friends? And do you really believe that "[ferrets have] a repertoire of behaviors both endearing and difficult for some human owners" is an appropriately neutral tone for an encyclopedia article? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have too much problems with that. I might add digging at the carpet and dislodging the newspaper that is there for their use as additional difficult behaviours, but really we need to reference things.

I'm reasonably up for a discussion on how to improve things if we three want to work together. I have a couple of "owners' manuals" whose intros might be relevant. One mentions that ferret eye-slits are horizontal so they're sensitive most to vertical movement which may explain the jumping up and down in the war dance. I can't remember what it's called without digging it out. The other is Ferrets for Dummies.

If we are going to make a team effort a place to start might be agreeing a general structure for the article. As I said above, the pets bit includes lots of extraneous material.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Something along the lines of dog might be a reasonable structure to consider adopting? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks better than we have.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Peter. I'm in agreement with your sentiments that the section needs re-working and doesn't sound encyclopedic; but first I'm trying to get to the bottom of whether or not the section properly rates a neutrality disputed tag. In my opinion, it doesn't appear to push a particular majority or minority viewpoint, doesn't give undue weight to a minority point of view, doesn't overly sympathize or disparage its subject, doesn't not endorse or oppose specific viewpoints, and doesn't take sides. Would you mind examining the quoted text above (or visit the link on the neutrality disputed tag itself to review the Wiki policy in question), and let me know your thoughts as to whether or not you think this section truly has a neutrality problem as contemplated by the Wikipedia neutrality policy? Or is this just a case of a section which could use some editing for improvement and making it sound more encyclopedic? --AzureCitizen (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're unhappy with the tag then just change it to something more appropriate. Like "this section is a pile of shit that needs some serious work". Honestly, does it matter? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm the one who added the tag. This is now irrelevant, as the section has been largely eradicated, but I chose the tag because the section was obviously written from the perspective of a ferret owner. The language was needlessly endearing and definately seemed intended to encourage ferret ownership. But I tend to agree with Malleus that the specific tag doesn't matter. There was so much wrong with that section that I wouldn't know where to start. Bsdaemon (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Mustelid work group

BTW, I've just added myself to the not terribly active group that owns this article. Anyone else want to join?--Peter cohen (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobody owns this article, and as you say, the mustelid group appears to be moribund. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Changed rating to C

I've changed the rating of this article to C as there is no way it meets the criteria for B. Large sections of text are unreferenced, there are a number of tags and the section "Ferrets of pets" is a total embarrassment as it reads like a "how to" manual and it has cutsie pictures of "ferret crawling under a recliner" and "ferret playing with toy" etc. which add nothing to the article. All that's missing is "ferret with tinsel round its neck hiding in a Christmas stocking". The "ferret health concerns" belongs in a book on keeping ferrets - not in an encyclopedia. I would be quite happy to try and help improve the article but it would involve removing all the irrelevant stuff and I suspect that would probably end up in an edit war. Richerman (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Not with me it wouldn't, as I completely agree. We can and must do better. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I decided to be bold and take out the "how to" and unencyclopaedic stuff. Rather than spend ages discussing what should come out, it's sometimes better to just take it out what doesn't belong, or is unreferenced, and rebuild the article from the bottom up. Then anything that get's added in can be challenged if it doesn't belong there. I'll come back to the article as I get time to make improvements and I'll definitely add some stuff in to give more of a world view - and I can assure you that it will all be properly cited! Richerman (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the article definitely needed some cleaning up.. I'll try and add the information I wrote under "Denture", but this time cite more sources. 213.236.200.10 (talk) 09:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Left it for now, but this needs changing

The image in the Terminology and coloring section is not a typical sable, as it has white flashes above its eyes. Also, the fact that it's lying in a hammock looks, well, naff. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we really could do with some decent photos that look like they belong in an encyclopedia rather than cute ones. Richerman (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking at a sampling of ferret websites, including breeders, I could not find any justification for the statement "There are four basic colors.... All the other colors of a ferret are variations on one of these four categories." Can someone provide a reference for this? Jrbart (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

This is more information about Domesticated ferret coloration from the American Ferret Association it should help with better information about coloration. I do own some ferrets and might be able to help with some pictures. http://www.ferret.org/events/colors/colorchart.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelle Paige42575 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected

Given that most of the unconstructive edits to this article are from anonymous users, isn't there a strong case for semi-protecting the page? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Rebuilding previous information

I see about 50% of the material on this page has been removed, I think lots of the material on health and diseases should be brought back, but this time with references :) The material I want back (but in improved form) can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferret&diff=340129753&oldid=340129698

Does anyone else agree/disagree about bringint this information back (if rewritten to include proper references)?

No I'm afraid I don't agree. There could be a few lines about diseases but nothing like the amount of stuff that was in the article before. This is an encyclopedia article about ferrets and should be about their general biology and usage - not information about keeping them as pets. The only interest in ferret diseases that I really think is relevant is the fact that they can contract influenza and so are used in medical research. Richerman (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreeing wholeheartedly with Richerman. This is not supposed to be a ferret-keeping manual. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello 213.236.200.10. Ferret was reformed in January 2010 to model it more closely to the articles on Dog and Cat so the extensive health and disease material doesn't belong here on the main page. In keeping with precedent in the dog and cat articles and their subsections with links for dog health and cat health, however, I've simply created a subsection for ferret health with a link and restored the material you're looking for. Feel free to expand and improve upon it there as you've indicated, using dog health and cat health as your guide. --AzureCitizen (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Do they make good pets?

I think Ferrets make verry good pets but it is somtimes hard to get food and a good cage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.86.252 (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This page is only intended for discussion of what should go in the article, not for discussion of issue of keeping ferrets as pets. There are several online forums, mailing list, groups etc for that purpose. Also please don't put in links to companies that could be interpreted as spamming.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think spamming was the only point of this post - I've removed the link. Richerman (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

"Ferrets are sort of common house pets. if you would like to adopt call your local animal shelter and they might have some —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.254.156.122 (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC) "

Copyright issue

There is no copyright issue —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.155.195 (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyright tag

I think this may be mistaken. The text suggested as a source actually lists Wikipedia as one of its own source Therefore it looks like they copied us rather than the other way round.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking back over the history it seems I added the text at 4.15 on 30th January. It was taken from the Oaklands Zoo site but as it's just bare facts I couldn't see a way of rewording it and I didn't think what was there was enough for anyone to worry about. Richerman (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

As the content is mostly factual but includes nonetheless copyrightable wording, yet remains limited, I've converted the paragraph to a quote, and am clearing the copyvio investigation. MLauba ^(Talk) 11:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ferret senses

I was reading the 'stoat' article and it contains an informative section concerning the stoat's olfactory communication, and their vision. I think a section similar to that would be a nice addition to the ferret article. 207.255.158.157 (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Feral population and hybridization with polecat species

This article contains no references for the claim that the feral populations consist of hybrids of ferrets and polecat species. I've heard several people claim on other websites that this is a biased statement, and that it is a common claim of proponents of ferret legalization. I, for one, would like to see a good source. I also think that the article needs to go into a little more detail on their effect on native species, whether the ferrets in question were intentionally introduced, etc. This article may be improved since the other discussions that criticized a perceived pro-ferret bias, but I think it has a long way to go until neutrality. Since the ferrets have had a dramatic effect on New Zealand's wildlife, I feel it needs to be explored in more depth. Statements like "have been perceived to cause damage on native fauna", seem, if you excuse the pun, like weasel words. Possibly not. I'm not informed on proper Wikipedia parlance, but the pun wasn't going to make itself and I'm nonetheless uncomfortable with the statement. Perceived by whom? Is there evidence, or is the article attempting to portray ferrets in the wild as some sort of bogeyman in terms of superstition? I think we need more clarification on their effect in the wild, especially because it affects the divisive issue of their legal status. It's disappointing, because I would have thought the editors of this article were adept at ferreting out the proper information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.138.90.228 (talk) 05:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

There are many demands on our time, not just here but elsewhere. No doubt someone will get around to this in due course. Malleus Fatuorum 13:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a referenced source on the European Polecat article.
kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 00:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Ferrets as Pets

The "ferrets as pets" section contains the claim that dog bites are 5 times more probable than ferret bites, but I cant make the numbers add up. One of the figures for bites is over a 10 year period (ferrets) and seems to be local (?) and some other ones are for just one year (dogs) and seems to be for the whole U.S. I don't know anything about ferrets and I don't live in the U.S. but maybe this section or at least the "5 to 1" claim should make the math easier to follow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.65.213.54 (talk) 07:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Your right - it seems someone has put a few statistics together from different sources and synthesised them to support their own point of view. The sources used say nothing about this comparison, so it is in effect wp:synthesis. Actually, the figures in the first reference are there to support the position that the City of New York believe ferrets are dangerous and shouldn't be kept as pets, where as they have been used here to try to show exactly the opposite. I've deleted the paragraph. Richerman (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Legal Status as a "Domestic" Animal

The article begins by saying that the ferret is a domestic animal. This may be misleading for pet owners, because in United States law ferrets are considered wild animals (and thus if a ferret injures somebody, the owner is held strictly liable, regardless of a lack of negligence). Gallick v. Barto, 828 F.Supp. 1168 (M.D.Pa. 1993) (found that a ferret is a wild animal despite evidence that approximately one million are kept as pets in the United States). --98.198.170.252 (talk) 02:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I've moved this post to the end because that's where new posts should go. Ferrets were domesticated a long time ago and as such are a domestic animal. The situation in the US is a legal nicety specific to the US rather than a scientific definition, so what the article says is correct. This can easily be resolved by adding a footnote about the US situation with a reference to the case you mention - which I've done. Richerman (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the legal situation is not uniform across all US states, most notably different in California. However, that does not alter the fact that ferrets are no more "wild animals" than are domestic cats or dogs. Malleus Fatuorum 13:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Their illegality as pets in California pretty much defines them as wild animals in California law. In my research, I have managed to uncover one state in which ferrets are domestic animals, and that is South Carolina by statute. The simple fact is, under the Common Law, ferrets are wild animals and subject to statutes controlling wild animals, and only a legislative act can change this fact. This can include manditory destruction of the animal for any number of reasons that would not occur with domestic animals. Again, this is a statement about law, not about science. --207.193.182.254 (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not the place of Californian law to decide whether or not ferrets were domesticated some 2,500 years ago, that's a matter of scientific fact. They may have gone feral in some places, but then so do dogs and cats. Malleus Fatuorum 20:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

In the section "Regulation on ferrets as pets," the reference to the import requirements for the state of Wisconsin is out of date and should be deleted. An import permit is no longer required to bring a pet ferret into the state. The weblink in footnote 39 is also out of date and should also be deleted. The correct information regarding ferret imports can be found at the new website for the Wis. Dept. of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) at Ellis Solros (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That whole section really has no place in the article, as it will never be complete or up to date. A summary of the restrictions in place with a few relevant examples would suffice. Fancy rewriting it? Or alternatively creating a new list type article containing this material? Malleus Fatuorum 20:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

References

Activity and Nature

I'm not entirely certain that it goes in the Activity and Nature section, but there was incorrect information. Ferrets don't hiss when they're excited and doing the "Weasel War Dance" they dook, or cluck. Hissing is generally a fright/alarm sound. I've provided a reference (The only one for that section :S).

Given that this section contains talk about a ferret's nature, should it contain a discussion about aggression and socialisation? I see that there is an effort to keep the article from being a "how-to keep a pet" guide, which I certainly agree with, but mention of vigorous play that can sometimes veer into aggression is surely relevant? Opinions?

Jamethiel (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality of Diet

I find the current reference to the dietary requirements of the ferret to be woefully inadequate. It in no way reflects the modern dietary requirement of the domestic ferret any more than if i were to make an entry on human being under ===diet=== stating that human ancestors subsisted on meat, feathers, beaks, etc...

I see no relevance between the diet of wolves and the diet of domesticated dogs. Equally i see no relevance between the diet of domesticated ferrets, (the oldest domesticated animal in the world), and the diets of their ancestors.

If no adequate dietary discussion is to be allowed, then i submit that all dietary discussion should be removed, as it tends to prejudice the reader into believing that only a diet of meat, beaks and feathers is appropriate. Buffmuffin (talk) 22:26, 28 Aril 2010 (CST)

Please add new sections at the bottom of talk pages. I've reformatted your post to gain visibility. Do you have sources that will show us how the present section is "woefully inadequate"? Tiderolls 01:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

A short statement about their diet is all that is appropriate here - not a long discussion about how they should be fed. This sort of thing has already been discussed on the talk page a number of times - have a look back through the archive. Richerman (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually quite astonished that anyone would believe ferrets to be the "oldest domesticated animals in the world", and therefore somewhat reluctant to take seriously anything they have to say about diet. Malleus Fatuorum 01:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. Sorry if my formatting offends, but i am a new editor and not familiar with all the formatting tricks and nuances yet. Picking it up rapidly though.

With regard to the dietary requirement of ferrets, those are available from a multitude of sources.

http://exoticpets.about.com/cs/ferrets/a/feedingferrets.htm

http://www.bestfriends.org/theanimals/pdfs/ferrets/ferretdiet.pdf

http://www.peteducation.com/article.cfm?c=11+1296&aid=498

http://www.ferretcaretips-vip.com/a-ferrets-diet/

None of which mention feathers, beaks or organs, i might add...

With regard to it being the oldest domesticated animal, ferrets as domestic partners are documented as far back as Egypt; ferret remains have been dated to 1500 BC, according to your own cited reference, while dogs were still only work animals. Cats, early prototypes of today's domesticated animals, first appeared around 1500 B.C, again in Egypt, but these would not have been considered of the same species any more than the Savannah Cat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savannah_%28cat%29) is considered a domestic animal today.

Once again, Wiki's own reference. Buffmuffin (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, where to start. Let me begin by saying that wikipedia isn't a reliable source, therefore it can't be used in support of any of your arguments. Let me add that the web sites you link to can't be considered to be reliable sources either. It's now surely pretty obvious that there were no ferrets in Egypt; for one thing no mummified ferrets have ever been found, and for another they are physiologically ill-equipped to deal with high temperatures, as they don't sweat. Malleus Fatuorum 02:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

And you seem to be confusing the term "domesticated animal" with "pet" or "companion animal". Domesticated animals are those that rely on humans for food - which includes pets, working animals and farm animals. Richerman (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I despair of this article; it seems all that can be done is to slow its decline into the wiki grey goo. Malleus Fatuorum 02:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I see. So there are mummified rats from Egypt then? Or mummified Asps? In fact we don't actually *know* what an asp is do we? We *Suspect* it was a monocled Cobra, but we have no idea. Why? Because we never found any mummified asps or cobras named 'asp' or 'cobra' ... (oh, btw, they don't sweat either, neither do dogs)

Yet the Encyclopedia Britannica lists it: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/38840/asp

So where to end?

Is not the encyclopedia Britannica a reasonable source to substantiate the inclusion of a creature which has a hieroglyphic representation in the Egyptian language? Which holds a place in the lore of the land, but cannot be substantiated through modern means, only by stories like when Eliseé Reclus declares, "We are indebted to the African for sorghum, dates, kaffir, coffee and the banana, also for the dog, cat, pig, ferret, ass and perhaps for the goat, sheep and ox; which is sourced from 1750-1500 BCE? Or when Cleopatra killed herself by means of an 'asp'?

http://www.all-about-ferrets.com/ferrets-in-ancient-times.html

Buffmuffin (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand so much. Where would you like to begin? Let me begin by saying that links to commercial web sites are not reliable sources. Agreed? Malleus Fatuorum 02:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica is considered a commercial web site? We may be approaching an understanding as to Wikipedia's lack of consideration as a 'reliable source' here...

Is it your opinion then, that nothing except the will of Wikipedia editors will ever be considered admissible, whether it comes from an empirical source like an internationally accepted encyclopedia or not?

If 'Asp' is acceptable to Encyclopedia Britannica as an animal which existed in ancient Egypt, simply because of a 1000 year old record that indicates Cleopatra killed herself with one, and it appears in their hieroglyphs, i don't understand why 'ferret' which also appears in their hieroglyphs, and has stories dating back 1000 years, ***neither of which have ever been documented to exist*** should not be considered on par? Please explain? Buffmuffin (talk) 03:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Your consideration of the EB as an "empirical source" I think gives the game away. You haven't got the faintest idea what you're talking about. Malleus Fatuorum 03:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Errr.... You consider Wikipedia to be more empirical than Encyclopedia Britannica? I think you are the one giving the game away sir..

This is becoming very personal, and less than professional, i really do not believe i should waste any more time with you. I am going to petition to a higher level, and hopefully find more reasonable resources.

I cannot understand, for the life of me, why i should encounter such resistance to posting a modern, and well accepted dietary requirement for a standardized pet? [I posted, in a neutral tone, except for the 'caps objected to,(which, btw were COMPLETELY INADEQUATE in use only on the method of feeding i happen to favor). it reeks of partiality. [User:Buffmuffin|Buffmuffin]] (talk) 03:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that before you make any more of a fool of yourself you look up the word "empirical" in a dictionary. One of those big books full of words that you clearly don't understand. Malleus Fatuorum 03:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Goodness, with 'help' like you, who needs enemies?

em·pir·i·cal    /ɛmˈpɪrɪkəl/ Show Spelled[em-pir-i-kuhl] Show IPA –adjective 1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.

Does this not fall within the domain of internationally accepted publications like Encyclopedia Britannica for *your* definition?

Can you suggest a more empirical source i could reference that would satisfy your personal vendetta?

Edit>>> Look, you keep a dietary section on dogs, cats, even goldfish, i don't understand why a dietary section reflecting the current scientific philosophy on ferret diets is unacceptable?

Buffmuffin (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue here is the tone with which you inserted it in.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, then perhaps you could coach me in my tone? Honestly i do not see the problem, There *is a current sociological debate*, there *is* a current movement *regarding ferrets as safe pets*, and i don't see why those issues, largely perpetuated by taught feeding habits should be excluded form the discussion? Buffmuffin (talk) 04:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not these in particular. See your talk page.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

EDIT>> Ah wait check that, was edited in middle of post so didn't see, looked at bot edit below...

I see now what you posted there. OK, well i can agree with some of it, however i feel dietary percentages are a critical point of ferret nutrition. If you can link me one site that does *not* specify a specific level of fat and protein content, i will review its criteria, however, the 2 primary considerations i am aware of for a ferret diet are the percentage of fat and protein content. I know of no other criteria to link the quality of the diet to? Buffmuffin (talk) 04:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

.....................................

Our article isn't supposed to be a nutrition facts label.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

.....................................

Why is it OK for dogs and goldfish but not ferrets?

Dogs: "are not dependent on meat-specific protein nor a very high level of protein in order to fulfill their basic dietary requirements. Dogs will healthily digest a variety of foods, including vegetables and grains, and can consume a large proportion of these in their diet.[3]

A number of common human foods and household ingestibles are toxic to dogs, including chocolate solids (theobromine poisoning), onion and garlic (thiosulphate, sulfoxide or disulfide poisoning),[136] grapes and raisins, macadamia nuts, as well as various plants and other potentially ingested materials"

Goldfish: "Goldfish-specific food has less protein and more carbohydrate than conventional fish food. It is sold in two consistencies—flakes that float, and pellets that sink. Enthusiasts may supplement this diet with shelled peas (with outer skins removed), blanched green leafy vegetables, and bloodworms. Young goldfish benefit from the addition of brine shrimp to their diet. As with all animals, goldfish preferences vary"

Why OK for these but *not* ferrets?

Neither Dogs nor Cats have an entry stating their *ancestors* used to feed on organs, feathers, meat and beaks.

Yet they did.

Both goldfish and dogs have an up to date nutritional or dietary requirement. But it's a bad 'tone' for ferrets?

Why OK for these two, but not OK for ferrets?

Diet should be a basic and required section of any animal under human stewardship to an information repository. Buffmuffin (talk) 11:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Where were beaks ever mentioned in this article? Just to try to explain what was wrong with your edits I'll point out a few of the problems:

All domesticated ferrets are bred in captivity, and as such have no skill whatsoever at predating on other animals.

stating the obvious.

The distinction between 'live prey diet' and 'whole prey diet' has become blurred, with owners throwing live animals in the pen to be killed by the business of ferrets calling it a 'whole prey diet.' By in large, this is considered objectionable and unnecessary; even masochistic.

This is entirely your own opinion formed by viewing some film on youtube which is not a reliable source anyway. Also I assume you meant "by and large this is considered objectionable and unnecessary; even sadistic"

True 'whole prey' diets should consist of baby chicks, mice, other small Rodentia and reptiles humanely dispatched by non-toxic methods.

This is your own opinion which no-one much cares about

It is important to note that like most other pet foods, 'commercial' grade foods are readily available which COMPLETELY FAIL to meet a ferret's nutritional needs.

What's this got to do with anything? - it's just your opinion and why the capitals? as I said this is not a ferret keeping manual.

Domesticated ferrets complete nutritional needs can be exceeded with dry food kibble and supplementary protein, calcium and trace minerals. A Good staple diet should consist of a dry food with zero grain listed as any of the first 3 main ingredients. No corn, no rice, no wheat, etc... Primary ingredients should consist of fatty animal products, with not less than 50% Crude Protein and 20% Crude Fat.

While this is a 'stable' diet, it is not 'complete.' Ferrets on a domestic diet should be supplemented with heavy whipping cream, egg yolks, fish oil and powdered egg shells to meet minimum trace element requirements.

One quarter oz. heavy whipping cream, 30 mg. cod fish oil, 1 egg yolk and 1 whole powdered egg shell should be provided per ferret, per week in addition to their dry kibble diet.

Again this is an encyclopaedia not a ferret keeping manual.

And as for the points about what's in the dog, cat and goldfish articles - there are things in there that I wouldn't consider should be there (particularly in the goldfish article) but I've not got them on my watchlist. However, they are at least presented in a neutral manner. Richerman (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Obviously we are at an impasse here. You feel that dietary retirements are not relevant to an article on an animal which relies entirely on humans for its diet, and i disagree.

If you disagree with the content, would not modifying the content to be more accurate, neutral or whatever your objections are be more productive? Would you be willing to work with me on what you feel would be an appropriate expansion of the diet section? Buffmuffin (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Whipping cream? Are you completely unaware that ferrets (like most carnivores) are lactose intolerant? Do you actually know anything about ferrets? Malleus Fatuorum 14:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for others but I'm not against a small expansion of the section, however, I can't modify something that shouldn't be there in the first place. If you want to add a couple of properly sourced sentences on ferret nutrition then go ahead, but this is not the place give advice on how pet ferrets should be fed with phrases like "A Good staple diet should consist of" and "It is important to note that". Richerman (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

@Malleus Yes. I'm completely aware. Are *you* aware that heavy whipping cream is almost all fat, and has only 2.9% lactose content? That would be .1 gram of lactose per serving, @ 1oz, not enough to trigger intolerance. I have raised 8 ferrets so far, my eldest have died at aged 8.5, which is ancient for a ferret, the youngest i have had pass was age 7, still very old, due to periodontal disease. Interestingly, he was the one that always rejected his calcium supplements. Coincidence, i suppose? I currently have 4 ferrets, aged 7, 6, and two approaching their first birthday. 7 were from private breeders, 1 was a rescue.

You presume too know an awful lot about ferrets, i think you should be more open. Clearly I'm doing something right to have zero incidents of ferret diseases or endocrine disorder among 6 ferrets aged 7-8. Buffmuffin (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't presume anything, I do know an awful lot about ferrets. I currently have 10, the oldest of which is 9, and a friend had one that died just one day short of its 13th birthday. The proper diet for any carnivore is BARF, no need for any dietary supplements. I'm involved in a research project to determine why it is that American ferrets seem to be less healthy than those bred elsewhere. So far the preliminary results suggest that it's nothing to do with genetics, but perhaps more to do with early neutering/diet/living conditions. Malleus Fatuorum 16:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Aged 13 is astounding.

See, i find that relevant. I don't know why that should not be included under diet. I mentioned whole prey in my edit, but whole prey or raw food /animals are not available to all ferret owners, and does pose a risk of disease if you are not able to breed your own animals. I use zero grain kibble with the aforementioned supplements myself.

They have all been getting around .025 g of lactose in their 1/4 oz of heavy cream for their entire lives with no ill effect, with the exception of the one i mention that refused his calcium supplement, and he developed periodontal disease. It wasn't severe, or debilitating, just some yellowing and receding gums. In the end he just stopped eating, but he was a bonded pair with the other ferret that died at nearly aged 9, and i think the loss of his friend had more to do with his kicking off when he did than the periodontal disease. Once his buddy passed, he just stopped caring. We fed him by hand for weeks, and he would eat from our hand, still active you know, running around, just refused to eat. He died almost 1 month to the day after his buddy did. The one at age 9 had a sudden attack, i think a stroke, as it suddenly became paralyzed in it's rear legs, without warning or incident. Had to have him helped across.

But i digress... @ 1/4oz. we are talking about a bottle cap full of heavy cream here, with the full days diet, so the amounts required to trigger an issue with lactose are not manifest, i guess. Its a huge fat / protein boost, and the soluble calcium in it just can't be replicated with calcium carbonate. It's just not as readily absorbed. Buffmuffin (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me me give you my perspective on this and see if it makes any sense to you. As a general rule, as I've said many times elsewhere, I actively avoid articles on topics that I have any specialist knowledge of. I know acres about computing for instance, but I've only written a few articles on early valved computers, something that I didn't know much about before I started researching them. The problem is that as a ferret keeper there are things that you know to be true from experience, but that's not enough; they also have to be attributed to what wikipedia considers to be reliable sources. Articles like this have one have an additional problem, in that they can so easily slide into becoming a ferret-keepers handbook, which is not the purpose of wikipedia. Malleus Fatuorum 17:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, i give up. I still do not agree, and i think that an article on an animal should include it's dietary habits. Personally I'm astounded anyone would think that should not be the case, but that consensus seems to be unanimous, and i concede to it. Buffmuffin (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You still seem to be missing the point. Of course an article on any animal ought to address its diet, but it equally not to include your own personal recommendations. Malleus Fatuorum 17:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Mummy of a polecat

Just found that really interesting picture. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/18/zorrilla-animal-smelliest_n_810318.html#s225569 Go see image 8. Text under the image. "The mummy of a polecat, photographed at the Reiss- Engelhorn-Museum in Mannheim, Germany, on Thursday, Sept. 27, 2007. The exhibit is part of the world's biggest mummy exhibition titled "Mummies - the dream of eternal life", which will start on Saturday, Sept. 30, 2007 in Mannheim." Trying to get more informations. Image near the middle of the web page with the text: "But eternity is not only worthy people - as, for example, that the mummified ferret" http://www.zimbio.com/Dakota+the+Mummified+Dinosaur/articles/TdNrCKda1q1/Mummies+dream+eternal+life

Cant seem to find information on what exactly is that mummy, where it is from or how old it is.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.24.29 (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly an interesting mummy, but we need to know a bit more about it. Is it actually a polecat or (less likely) a ferret, or a mongoose? Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

/* Other uses of ferrets */

The article used as a citation for this statement was an April Fool's joke: "Ferrets have had multiple uses throughout history, such as running wires and cables through large conduits" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7541455/Ferrets-key-to-bridging-the-digital-divide-between-cities-and-rural-areas.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.3.92 (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't edit the article, but there are documented cases:

In 1906 the Wabash Valley Telephone company used ferrets to lay cables through conduits and the Minneapolis Journal stated "One ferret, it is said, will do the work of four men in the laying of cable"

 In 1844, President John Tyler approved the plans of Samuel F. B. Morse to create underground telegraphs. (Morse ended up running out of time and forming above-ground telegraph wires, but underground telegraphs soon took off.) This form of communication involved laying cables through long underground pipes. Cable-laying was a time-consuming, difficult and labor intensive job - until someone thought of employing the ferret 

http://thatslifesci.com.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/2019-12-09-technological-advancements-thanks-to-ferrets-kotter/

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ratting_ferret.png “Ferret facts and fancies; a book of practical instructions on breeding, raising, handling and selling; also, their uses and fur value” by Arthur Robert Harding. 1915.

A group of highly trained ferrets has been recruited to save a millennium pop concert in London. When millions of people watch coverage of the Party in the Park concert in Greenwich on Millennium Eve, they can thank a team of "electricians" lent by the National Ferret Association. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/582123.stm

And of course there was Felicia the Ferret https://history.fnal.gov/felicia.html (site may be down right now) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.137.84 (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

VaCWhiteFerret0681.jpg

The perceived cuteness of the white ferret is besides the point; the photo illustrates the domesticity and tameness of the animal, especially in contrast with the war-dancing ferret. kencf0618 (talk)

A business of ferrets

I couldn't find this meaning of the word “business” in any of these dictionaries, besides Wikipedia: http://www.onelook.com/?w=business What's the source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexey Feldgendler (talk • contribs) 09:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Cited in Susan Brown. Ferrets for Dummies. Wiley 2007, Hoboken NJ.

"the purported collective nouns,including “besyness”, “fesynes”, “fesnyng”, and “feamyng”, appearin some dictionaries, but are almost certainly ghost words". Dmitri A. Borgmann. Beyond Language: Adventures in Word and Thought. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.137.84 (talk) 08:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Malicious redirection

The article for "Ferret" currently redirects to an article about "Draco Malfoy", a character from the Harry Potter series of books. Obviously this is a joke and needs to be redacted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.229.4.2 (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Redirection from Futret

Okay, maybe the Futret=ferret is a misspelling thing, but Futret is NOT a misspelling of "ferret"! It's a band! (as far as I know- I don't know much about it, although they're good.) Look it up on Bandcamp!71.80.89.46 (talk) 02:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Decendence

I did not cite the article on the European Polecat. I cited the referenced source. If the source is wrong then the a new source should be found and cited. In any case a sourced statement takes precedence over an unsourced statement.
kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 00:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It isn't unsourced, see the History of domestication section. There has been a source supporting the statement that the ferret's ancestors are uncertain in the article for ages (Lewington); the convention is that statements in the lead supported by citations later in the article do not need to have the citation repeated in the lead. Malleus Fatuorum 00:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Ideally I should not be part of editing an article where I'm not as knowledgeable as others, but the Polecat article cites a source in conflict with the (sourced) statements in this article. I suggest that both statements be mentioned and their sources, at least until you or I or someone with time to do so can sort through the sources. That said, best to all and I'm not watching this page.
kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 23:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

If you want to fix the polecat article then feel free. But the facts of the matter are not in dispute. Malleus Fatuorum 23:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The most recent cladistic work on the genus is "Phylogenetic Relationships and Divergence Times among Mustelids (Mammalia: Carnivora) Based on Nucleotide Sequences of the Nuclear Interphotoreceptor Retinoid Binding Protein and Mitochondrial Cytochrome b Genes" (2003). It gives the following information:

Origin of Mustela putorius furo

Both Kurose et al.’s (2000) date of 1.06 Ma and our cytochrome b date of 860 ka for the split between the lineages of Mustela putorius furo and Mustela putorius putorius are overestimates in view of our cytochrome b date of about 430 ka for the separation between Mustela putorius and Mustela eversmanii. Our IRBP date of 340 ka for the divergence of the Mustela putorius furo lineage, however, is in agreement with both our other divergence-time estimates (Table 4) and the fossil-based minimum age of approximately 400 ka for the emergence of Mustela putorius (Wolsan, 1993e).

Domestic Ferret has been recorded since the fourth century BC when Aristotle mentioned it in his work (e.g., Davison et al., 1999). It is generally thought to have been domesticated somewhere in the Mediterranean region, although Strabo explicitly indicated its African origin (e.g., Davison et al., 1999) and Linnaeus (1758) named this taxon as being from Africa. The earliest African record of Mustela putorius is late Pleistocene in age (Aouraghe, 2000) and thus younger than 130 ka (Kolfschoten and Gibbard, 2000; Sánchez Gon~i et al., 2000). Our IRBP date of 340 ka for the separation between the lineages of Mustela putorius furo and Mustela putorius putorius is in harmony with this fossil evidence from North Africa and supports the view that Domestic Ferret was domesticated from the African branch of Mustela putorius, which diverged from the European branch in the late Middle Pleistocene to immigrate to North Africa.

This would seem to suggest that there is currently more evidence supporting a lineage from the European Polecat. 208.87.217.46 (talk) 07:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Weaning

Ferret babies (also known as kits) are born roughly the size of lighters. The weaning process takes place at roughly 25-30 days.

Baby ferrets should be with their mothers until they reach a minimum of six weeks old - that's when the pet stores separate them, but almost every breeder will tell you that is far too young, and possibly the reason that ferrets develop bad habits such as suckling or eating fabrics and other items dangerous to ingest.

Ferrets are "obligate carnivores" which means their digestive systems are made to digest MEAT ONLY (or meat-based kibble) when weaned. If you do feed kibbled food (store bought), it should be a *minimum* of 34% protein. Food also needs to have Taurine in it, or you can add Taurine if you feed raw or cooked meats. This will help your ferret stay healthier and live longer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.68.58 13:23, 5 July 2012 (talk • contribs)

"Ferrets are 'obligate carnivores' which means their digestive systems are made to digest MEAT ONLY". With all due respect, that's complete bollocks, on so many different levels. Malleus Fatuorum 12:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

References

"Business of Ferrets" reference is not valid

The reference given for "business of ferrets" as the group name refers to Robertson's Words for a Modern Age. [1] In there, the only place listing "business of ferrets" is Appendix M for Group Names, page 231, which at the top of the list clearly states "Many of the words in the following list have no authoritive basis and have been created to express possible names for the groups represented." Given that disclaimer, I would think a more definitive source would be needed to properly refer to a group of ferrets as a business. Thunderkatz^Ho! 15:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Mustelid or not?

According to the wikipedia page on Carniovora as well as Herpestidae, ferrets are a member of the Herpestidae family not Mustilidae. This contradiction needs to be addressed as it's a signicant one. ````Topher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.201.89.146 (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

There are no ferrets on the Carnivora page that I can see and the only animal under Herpestidae is the mongoose. Herpestidae redirects to Mongoose. Where are you referring to? Richerman (talk) 10:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Ferrets are included in mustelid entry on britantica webpage. https://www.britannica.com/animal/mustelid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelle Paige42575 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Regulation of ferrets as pets --- Rationale

The Regulation section needs some overview of the reasons given when ferrets are restricted by law. Thanks if you can give some ideas about that.CountMacula (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Ferrets in Need

I twice tried to link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferret&diff=635349065&oldid=634473177 this long-running and important Manchester charity for the welfare of ferrets (founded incidentally by one of Wikipedia's most prolific editors, a personal friend) and immediately got reverted twice https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferret&diff=635349880&oldid=635349065 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferret&diff=635376757&oldid=635375972, once without explanation and the second time with instructions to write about it first. Ferrets in Need has raised tens of thousands of pounds to support ferret welfare and promulgate information about their welfare, but I don't think I'm qualified to write about it. That's why I put it as an external link. As far as I know it's one of the best, if not the best, source for ferret welfare in the UK.

I don't know enough about Wikipedia how to press this. It's frankly a bit of a shock and slightly depressing. Perhaps someone else can deal with. Did my best (I want to stay anonymous).

Name

It was stated on QI (BBC broadcast, December 23, 2014) that "ferret" means "little thief"....are there any other sources of this?__DrChrissy (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Ignore the above - have just found the information in the article. Probably needs moving to etymology.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Redundant attribution of quotes

I have recently been editing a quote on the characteristics of the ferret. There is an in-line reference to the information at the end of the quote. I have been editing-out, further information simply stating the organisation at the source of the information. Repeating the name of this organisation is redundant. Furthermore, it is fairly lazy editing to simply copy-and-paste a web-site describing characteristics of a well known animal. I paraphrased the article to avoid this and create more readable text, leaving the in-line citation in place, and now I have an editor suggesting on my own Talk page that this is plagiarism!__DrChrissy (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ferret. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.maf.govt.nz/MAFnet/articles-man/rbag/rbag0010.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.pref.hokkaido.lg.jp/ks/skn/aigo/jyourei.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Polecat ferret hybrids

The lead section implies that ferrets don't cause a problem, or can't survive or something of the sort, by talking about wild polecat/ferret hybrids and gives an example of the New Zealand experience. The New Zealand experience is of domestic ferrets, that were released into an environment without any wild polecats. The NZ wild/feral population of ferrets are entirely from this domestic stock, and survive and cause environmental damage quite happily without the help of additional wild polecat genes. So this paragraph needs to be rewritten, I don't really see how it can be asserted that only polecat/ferret hybrids have any relevance. (see also https://web.archive.org/web/20060220122756/http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/species/nuis_exo/ferret/ferret_issues_3.shtml) --Tony Wills (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Ferret. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131012052641/http://www.craftycreatures.com:80/forferretsonly/ask_angela/rawdiets.html to http://www.craftycreatures.com/forferretsonly/ask_angela/rawdiets.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060905185101/http://www.dfg.ca.gov:80/hcpb/species/nuis_exo/ferret/ferret_issues_3.shtml to http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/species/nuis_exo/ferret/ferret_issues_3.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929132134/http://www.hawaiiag.org/hdoa/newsrelease/00-21.htm to http://www.hawaiiag.org/hdoa/newsrelease/00-21.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090227182249/http://www.datcp.state.wi.us:80/ah/agriculture/animals/movement/companion_animals.jsp to http://www.datcp.state.wi.us/ah/agriculture/animals/movement/companion_animals.jsp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150423173347/http://www.countrymanfairs.co.uk/family-entertainment/ferret-racing to http://www.countrymanfairs.co.uk/family-entertainment/ferret-racing
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090328022309/http://www.inspection.gc.ca:80/english/anima/heasan/import/foxrene.shtml to http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/import/foxrene.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901095759/http://www.defra.gov.uk:80/animalh/quarantine/pets/ferretpets.htm to http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/quarantine/pets/ferretpets.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ferret. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110213092535/http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/pubs/Ferrets06/ferrets.htm to http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/pubs/Ferrets06/ferrets.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)