Talk:Badger

Why are stink badgers included

They are literally badgers only in name. They are skunks in every other regard. I don't think anyone considers them to actually be a badger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.128.19 (talk) 12:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. the stink badger article notes that DNA work in the 1990s found them more closely related to skunks and moved both out of Mustelidae and into a new family, Mephitidae.

Janet McConnaughey 2600:1700:4761:1D0:2C65:C149:E093:86C6 (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

---

Regarding "only in name": That's... pretty much what a paraphyletic group is, I think? "Badger" is simply not a particularly scientific word, at least not in the modern cladistic sense. The article for the word shouldn't ignore that fact in order to try to shoehorn it into some tidy little cladistic package. To this end, I have just replaced the {{taxobox}} template that had been used on the page with a {{paraphyletic group}} template, which is intended for situations just like this one. -Rwv37 (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The stink badgers are also called false badgers - I'm not convinced false badgers should be included in this page. The edit was unreferenced - is there a recent reluable reference to support this change? Somewhen (talk) 13:31, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

The closest I can find is 'badger-like' given the genetic and other studies. If no reliable sources can be found I'll revert this as unreferenced.

Somewhen (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

skunks arent a paraphyletic group, skunks are members of the family Mephitidae, all of them, including stink badgers.

badgers make sense as a paraphyletic group across the family mustelidae. i dont see any reason that after genetic studies that badgers, even in colloquial usage, should include stink badgers. furthermore, the article has no reference for the "polyphyletic" claim at the beginning of the article. 2605:59C0:4160:2808:9033:D0D7:751A:584A (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

---

It already says in the article that Stink Badgers are not considered badgers, why are they still on the page this late? And why aren't they removed to the Skunks page as the badger page says they should be? It's now a year after the unreferenced edit adding them to a page where they don't belong, and the edit/info is still there, on the page.

---

German translation

German Article would be the one about "Dachse". Going from that article to its English equivalent "Melinae" redirects to here too. 195.176.112.76 (talk) 08:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

polyphyletic group?

The single citation from some random website about mammals doesnt really seem like it is a good enough reason to claim that badgers are a polyphyletic group. as noted above about the stink badgers, they are skunks. badgers arent a real taxonomic group so there is no correct answer, but wouldnt it make much more sense as a paraphyletic group only in mustelidae. skunks already include stink badgers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:59C0:4160:2808:9033:D0D7:751A:584A (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2025

Reference [26] used for the following sentence ‘In Britain, they are the main predator of hedgehogs, which have demonstrably [26] lower populations in areas where badgers are numerous, so much so that hedgehog rescue societies do not release hedgehogs into known badger territories.’ This reference doesn’t actually qualify the statement. The ZSL study mentioned in the linked information states it was a single site and not countrywide or conducted in multiple areas. Yet the sentence mentions Great Britain as a whole.

The sentence is located in a dietary section of the Wikipedia page for badgers so instead of replacing this I would simply recommend removing the whole section. Small mammals are already mentioned. This implemented change would also fix a typographical error too. ~2025-42167-41 (talk) 11:11, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done Day Creature (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2025 (UTC)