Wikipedia

Talk:Elephant/Archive 10

< Talk:Elephant
Latest comment: 2 years ago by LittleJerry in topic Scope of article
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

It's been 10 years since Stephen Colbert issued his call to vandalize this page

Latest comment: 8 years ago9 comments7 people in discussion

In perspective, it takes only 4 days and 10 edits to get autoconfirmed status. Why is this article still under protection? 50.206.178.140 (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm editing from an anonymous account out of principle. 50.206.178.140 (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
What principle is that? DrChrissy (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
It's a high-profile page that sees a lot of traffic, and whenever we do lift page protection, as stated in previous threads, the page tends to get immediately rebesieged by inane Colbert fans who insist on carrying out their master's orders no matter how old or inane solely for shits and giggles.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
So if only 4 days are required for autoconfirmed, you would think 2006 Colbert viewers would create sleeper or single purpose accounts to vandalize this page. Pursuant to the history, this has not happened in years. 107.77.223.113 (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't see what harm there'd be in taking down protection and seeing if it's still needed. If the vandals reappear, it can be semi-protected again. It shouldn't be protected forever because of hypothetical vandals. When was the last time it was unprotected? john k (talk) 11:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
2012 or 2013 per the log. And per breaking news on the CNN app, there has been a change in the elephant numbers - a drastic drop [Tragic drop in elephant numbers]. 107.77.225.141 (talk) 13:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Also relevant. Airplaneman ✈ 14:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

After this latest unprotection experiment, it's safe to say that indefinite semi protection suits this article best. It's a high profile article that will attract vandals into the indefinite future. Airplaneman ✈ 03:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion


Please change "They communicate by touch, sight, smell and sound;" to "They communicate by touch, sight, taste, smell and sound;" Source: There have been multiple articles by Florida Weekly indicating that elephants can communicate how safe certain foods are by spitting into each-other's mouths and relying on the flavor to test for poisons. Aeot44 (talk) 03:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

You did not provide a link. 2600:1:F151:DE7F:704E:EC1A:2C36:5B76 (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Mammuthus to taxobox

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Should Mammuthus be added to the taxobox? it is more closely related to the Asian elephant than the African elephant is. Even if the article doesn't really cover mammoths in any great depth I think they should be added to the Taxobox anyway Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

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) 11:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Elephant. 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:

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) 04:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Elephants have 4 teeth at a time

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to request the article state that elephants generally have 4 teeth at a time and they lose them 6 times throughout their lifetime. That, in addition to their two tusks, means they have 26 teeth throughout their lifetime, total. Bballoon (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a citation to confirm this?--Mr Fink (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

From the species section "and in 2016, DNA sequence analysis showed that L. cyclotis is more closely related to the extinct Palaeoloxodon antiquus", place an a before "DNA sequence". 184.157.93.80 (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I also think Synapomorphy should be linked for "derived" instead of Autapomorphy. 184.157.93.80 (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  Not done: Looking at the linked source, it is clear that "DNA analysis" here refers to the process, not a singular set of results. Also, is is not clear where the second change requested should take place. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
@Eggishorn: second change requested for the sentence, "Early proboscideans developed longer mandibles and smaller craniums while more derived [linked to Autapomorphy] ones developed shorter mandibles, which shifted the head's centre of gravity." Synapomorphy better applies. 174.124.252.199 (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for being more specific about where you would like this change. I agree that, since the text refers to characteristics shared within a clade, synapomorphy is the correct target for that wikilink. Unfortunately, every time I try to make this change, the page crashes my browser. I've turned the "answered=" parameter back to "no" so that (hopefully) another editor may make the change. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  Already done – Train2104 (t • c) 23:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elephant. 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:

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) 06:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The "Zoo and circus" section says: "In January 2016, Ringling Bros. and Barnum and Bailey circus announced it would retire its touring elephants in May 2016". Seems pretty outdated, were they retired? (UTC) 75.121.228.208 (talk) 02:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 02:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
The article should state that the elephants were retired since it is now passed May 2016 [1]. The current line was added before that time hence it is outdated. 75.121.228.208 (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Elephant. 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:

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) 12:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

can I please edit this? jaydeno22 16:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Isn't the article already semi-protected?

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 19:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Elephant. 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:

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) 22:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elephant. 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:

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) 23:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Elephant

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Both mammoths and extant elephants are peanuts. I ask for merging this article with Elephantidae.

A ptarmigan is a subset of a grouse.

A anaconda is a subset of a Panther.

A woolly rhinoceros is a subset of a dragon

And a mammoth is a subset of a rat.

This is incorrect. Mammoth are not a subset of Elephant. Both Elephants and Mammoth belong to the same family, but are different species.
According to this logic, Domestic Cats, Lions and Tigers (and all other Felids) should all share a page as they all belong to the family 'Felidae'. HappyGod (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

DNA supports 3 species

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello elephant folk, a recent genome study supports what the taxonomists have argued over - there are 3 species: A comprehensive genomic history of extinct and living elephants http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/02/16/1720554115

Our data reveal nearly complete isolation between the ancestors of the African forest and savanna elephants for ∼500,000 y, providing compelling justification for the conservation of forest and savanna elephants as separate species.

William Harris • (talk) • 08:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

This isn't new. Our article already states: "A 2000 study argued for the elevation of the two forms into separate species (L. africana and L. cyclotis respectively) based on differences in skull morphology. DNA studies published in 2001 and 2007 also suggested they were distinct species while studies in 2002 and 2005 concluded that they were the same species. Further studies (2010, 2011, 2015) have supported African savannah and forest elephants' status as separate species." Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, however this latest study uses whole-genome sequencing and ancient DNA with columbian mammoth and mastodon included in a phylogenetic tree. I have highlighted it, and it is now up to the editors here to decide what to do with it. William Harris • (talk) • 20:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Musth

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

“Adult bulls ... enter a state of increased testosterone and aggression known as MUSTH, which helps them gain dominance and reproductive success.”

This is incorrect and vague. This is the writer’s patriarchal & anthropomorphic interpretation of Musth which is a biological function that is not understood by scientists. Males are aggressive towards everyone & everything during this period. There is no evidence that the purpose of Musth is to “help them gain dominance” ( & dominance over what is also not explained in this sentence) nor that it results in “reproductive success” as females are just as likely to ignore a male in Musth as they are to mate with him.

The Musth page itself does not uphold the writer’s interpretation of the condition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musth 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.28.69 (talk) 03:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Incomplete references in this article

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article cites several books and articles by "Shoshani, J.", but it also includes several citations that do not specify a particular book or article.

Here are some examples that I found:
<ref>Shoshani, p. 60.</ref>
<ref>Shoshani, pp. 68–70.</ref>
<ref>Shoshani pp. 38–41.</ref>


Is it possible to find the original documents that these citations refer to? Jarble (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Jarble. I think that they all refer to the book Elephants: Majestic Creatures of the Wild. This is implied in the "Bibliography" section. (Sorry about the late reply.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Long as man

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Elephants have a long lifespan. Are there any other animals that live long as or longer than Man? 2600:1:F19E:988C:8DA4:111C:A36B:CD42 (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

There is lots of info at List of longest-living organisms. Deli nk (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Elephantidae confusion in hatnote/intro

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

i don't think the hatnote or intro are inaccurate, but i think there are two sentences a reader might easily mistake for a contradiction (like i did). Here's the mistake i made:

if

A = B

and

B = C

then

A = C


if

A ≈ {{about}} extinct relatives also known as elephants

and

B ≈ [[link]] to Elephantidae

and

C ≈ the only surviving family of the order Proboscidea

then

the article seems to say
For extinct relatives also known as elephants, see the only surviving family of the order Proboscidea.



i'm going to be bold and change the hatnote to

For extinct relatives also known as elephants, see List of elephant species.

That page's first sentence links to the link i'm removing.

i'll link my edit summary to this Talk page.

--71.121.143.102 (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

...oh yeah, this page is protected. Do i need to post a formal edit request here? --71.121.143.102 (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I see a bit of difference in the trees in Elephantidae and List of elephant species. I think we need someone who knows more than I do about the subject to sort it out. - Donald Albury 02:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

What's an elephant?

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

This is a semi-protected feature article, so we don't want any dibble-dabbling.

However, after reading the lead paragraph, I don't know what an elephant is, other than it's large and found on about half the land mass of the world. "Large" is ambiguous - large versus what? My neighbor has a 160lb rottweiler that's also a large animal - it's larger than any cat, dog, muscrat, beaver, squirrel, possum, etc that I might see in the woods near my home. It weighs more than me, and human beings themselves are large animals. A buck deer, which I might also see in the woods, is a QUITE large animal, easily weighing several hundred pounds. Could it be an elephant? I don't know anything about family, order, etc names. That tells me nothing. There are extinct animals like elephants just like there are extinct animals related to any extant animal - it's not significant. The opening paragraph should enable me to identify, i.e. with my senses, with some certainty, that an animal I'm looking at is an elephant. The description of common things should reflect our ordinary experience of the world.

Consider this:

Elephant: The largest living land mammal with a prehensile trunk, long curved ivory tusks, and large ears, native to Africa and southern Asia. It can stand 10 feet tall and weigh 7 tons and is exclusively herbivorous.

Could I possibly mistake a large dog or deer for an elephant, given this description? We can quibble about the numbers, but the overall definition is very informative. If we give that definition to a 3-year-old, do you think he could recognize an elephant (we'd say "long grasping" and "plant-eating" rather than "prehensile" and "herbivorous")?

The lead paragraph/sentence should be the most important things to know about the topic, and I think almost nothing in the current paragraph is important. It's not important that it's found in Africa or Asia, because most animals are. If it were found only on a tiny island, that'd be notable.

A lot of animal articles have strayed like this, and include exotic cladistic or biological terms in the lead. We need to refocus.

Sbalfour (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not written as a child's first reader, not is it written for aliens who know nothing about Earth, but can somehow read English. It is also not a guidebook or textbook. It is written for people who can read English at least somewhat fluently. (See the Simple English Wikipedia] for a version of Wikipedia for people with a less fluent command of English.) We can safely assume that almost every person who can read this encyclopedia already has a grasp of the concept of "Elephant". Our target audience is people who can read English and are looking for additional information about elephants. - Donald Albury 16:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Then there's the fact that problems arise when you attempt to cram the totality of the article into the lede. I mean, the article, itself, explains what elephants are, the lede simply introduces the topic.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
The article seeks to fork itself away from articles with accepted and clear definitions to one based on 'common sense' and 'gut feelings', "they are just types of elephants", then awkwardly align itself to tangentially related sources to justify its existence and confound any AfD. This is how you make these assemblages of content that is, or ought to be, in other clearly defined articles; everything after these introductions is like a school project that copy pastes chunks of wikipedia content without constraint. Mention the sciencey-sounding paraphyletic for the bonus, lump in some images and tree diagrams, bingo, a good article that you had better not touch until it is featured and locked. cygnis insignis 18:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I have no quarrel with wanting to redefine the lede to be more informative or descriptive in a reasonably concise manner, it's the Stephen Colbert mishugaas is what I have the blood feud with.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@Apokryltaros: I don't know why I put my comment at what appears to be a reply to your own, it is just my general complaint about these articles. cygnis insignis 14:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Understood. Plus, since we're here, there's also the problem of how much "defining what an elephant is" we need to juggle between Elephant and Elephantidae.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
That is an abiding concern of mine. A simple statement proposed above, that an 'elephant' is "[t]he largest living land mammal", is only superficially correct and doesn't bear examination. The largest living land mammal, currently, is the largest individual of the largest species of the largest genus of Elephantidae. "Look, an elephant" is effective communication, but only in that specific context and there is no other inherent information. "Look out! an elephant" is likely to be helpful, but aligning what is known about these animals to that first reader, "E is for elephant" with a cartoon image of 'elephant', is not helpful and wikipedia is beyond these rudimentary notions and gut-feeling typifications. cygnis insignis 04:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article begins "The elephants are" and continues plural through the end of the sentence. Could this be changed to "The elephant is" or "An elephant is" and the rest of the sentence made singular? Tiger, Lion, Woolly mammoth, and Giraffe all begin with "The" and are singular ("The giraffe (Giraffa) is a genus"), and Rhinoceros, reflecting the existence of several species, begins with "A rhinoceros is one of any five extant species." 208.95.51.53 (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I want to edit the article elephant I 1!WOW (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

  Not done: It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected article. You can do one of the following:
  • You will be able to edit this article without restriction four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other articles.
  • You can request the article be unprotected at this page. To do this, you need to provide a valid rationale that refutes the original reason for protection.
  • You can provide a specific request to edit the article in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing the article will determine if the requested edit is appropriate.
Thanks, ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Possible reference from Eugene City Guard newspaper, 1882

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I found [https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=18821104&id=30tXAAAAIBAJ&sjid=9u8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6753,4086773 this reference| (column 4) in a scan of an old newspaper, and thought that it might be useful here to put the understanding of elephants in historical context. https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=18821104&id=30tXAAAAIBAJ&sjid=9u8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6753,4086773 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

4 eyes

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why is it that elephants are the only mammals with 4 eyes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizzlemuss McToot (talk • contribs) 14:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

'I don't know, "Why is it that elephants are the only mammals with 4 eyes" …? cygnis insignis 15:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Matriarchal Nature

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Theres a lot of feminism in this article, reflecting different myths initiated by the journalist Cynthia Moss, who seem to have misinterpreted elephants social life, describing elephants living in matriarchy etc, things which are not totally true, especially not with the Asian elephant, or that female elephants should have a higher social rank then males, something for sure the elephants does not agree with.

For sure real scientists like biologists would not have made such mistakes, but in the case of Cynthia Moss, it was a great help to creat those myths, which made her books very populair, and gave her the opening of starting a "research project" in Amboseli, although she herself lacks scientific biological education.

30 years later, we know better, but her false claims still cast a pseudo-scientific shadow on different kind of articles, also on Wikipedia.

For anyone interested in cleaning up the page from unscicentific feminism, I recommend reading scientifical papers instead of books by a journalist, such as Nature: All-Male Groups in Asian Elephants: A Novel, Adaptive Social Strategy in Increasingly Anthropogenic Landscapes of Southern India, Earth - Male elephants are not the loners we once thought - BBC and Male Elephants are More Social Than You Think

In my entire life working with elephants, and studying them on trips to Asia and Africa, I never saw an adult bull subordinate under a female. When a bull appears, in the wild or in a zoo, a common reaction for the females are to close up together and pee, excited, and clearly subordinate. Elephants are extreme examples of Sexual dimorphism, males sometimes having double the size of a female, and I guess only very brainwashed people would actually think that those males are living in matriarch, being dominated by females, and having a lower social status. Wikipedia should not spread such biased feministic lies, as presently stated in various articles concearning elephants, and their social life.

Dan Koehl (talk) 02:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Dan Koehl I read the second and third articles you linked, plus the intro and discussion of the Nature article. Admittedly it was a quick read, but I didn't find where they stated that males outranked or were dominant to females. Can you please be more specific about which parts of the Wikipedia article you disagree with, and what parts of which sources support your disagreement? Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 03:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Dear @Adrian J. Hunter: maybe this film answer your question? Please also note that the other females doesnt dominate that single bull. Dan Koehl (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Classification of Paleoloxodon

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@Pauli133: The article Paleoloxodon states the following in the Taxonomy section (citations redacted):

In 1924, Hikoshichiro Matsumoto [ja] circumscribed Palaeoloxodon as a subgenus of Loxodonta. It included the "E. antiquus—namadicus group", and he designated "E. namadicus naumanni Mak." as its type species. Palaeoloxodon was later thought to be a subgenus of Elephas, but this was abandoned by 2007. In 2016, a DNA sequence analysis of P. antiquus suggested that its closest extant relative may be the African forest elephant, L. cyclotis. The paper argues that P. antiquus is closer to L. cyclotis than L. cyclotis is to the African bush elephant, L. africana, thus invalidating the genus Loxodonta as currently recognized. Alternatively the genus Palaeoloxodon may be invalid, with its various members being better fitted to either Loxodonta or Elephas.

There does not appear to be a generally accepted scheme for classifying Paleoloxodon, and so stating that "Paleoloxodon is technically part of Loxodonta" is incomplete and misleading. - Donald Albury 14:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Sense of smell

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is it true that elephants can smell water from 100 miles away? This is just a thing I've heard, but if it is true it could go in the article. Vorbee (talk) 06:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Religious beliefs

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article talks about the religious beliefs of elephants - should it have a sub-heading "Elephants in religion"? Vorbee (talk) 06:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC) This is in the sub-section "Cultural depictions". Vorbee (talk) 07:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

No no, WTF? This article doesn't talk about the "religious beliefs of elephants". That would mean elephants have religious beliefs, as in some are Christian, and some are Muslim. This article talks about elephants being a subject in religious beliefs. Not entirely the same. Also the sub-heading is already made, so the point is moot now and maybe this thread should be deleted. Blonkm (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Some inline citations are still ambiguous

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

@LittleJerry: This article cites several books and articles by J. Shoshani, but it has several inline citations that only include the author's name and a page number. Is it possible to identify the sources of these ambiguous citations? Jarble (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

They are all from the same book. LittleJerry (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@LittleJerry: The {{sfn}} template might be useful here, since it can be used to disambiguate these inline citations. I assume that these page numbers are from Elephants: Majestic Creatures of the Wild, and not from the other articles by J. Shoshani that were cited here. Jarble (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Correct. LittleJerry (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Add reference to Elephant dwawing dated 1250 from UK Matthew Paris archive, plus picture of drawing

 
Matthew Paris Elephant C1250 from Parker MS

Ukiws (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  Comment: this is obviously after Matthew Paris's c. 1250 illustration of the Cremona elephant in Chronica Majora. --107.15.157.44 (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
@Ukiws:   Not done through this request process. A general article talk page suggestion that others must figure out where to place and secondarily compose, addressed to those interested in an article, is a fine use of a talk page post, which this still stands as, but is not the function of a request drawing third-party, CAT:ESP responders. Rather, edit requests for protected articles like this one need to ask for implementation of an exact, appropriate edit that the requester would make themselves but for the protection that stops them from doing so.

As such, they should be highly specific; something an editing chimpanzee could follow, For example: "After(/as to) the existing sentence X in section Y, please add(/modify/replace with) the following sentence with the following citation: 'Suggested content addition/change[1]'".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Elephants and peanuts

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I’ve heard of myths about elephants eating peanuts, even though they don’t in real life since peanuts contain too much protein, which don’t meet their diet. Elephants are generally herbivores, so they would mostly eat grass, hay, and other plants. I wonder how did they think elephants eat peanuts?

Allan Bao (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Section "Intelligence and cognition"

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just to make the list complete: All apes (not just some), orcas and magpies are able to recognize themselves. --91.5.104.60 (talk) 10:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The source cited in the article says, "Apart from humans and apes, dolphins and elephants are known" for MSR. Mirror test cites another source that specifies "great apes" (i.e., excluding gibbons), and adds orcas, the Eurasian magpie, and ants to the list.[1] There is some controversy about reports of animals other than great apes, such as a cleaner wrasse, passing the mirror test, and Gordon Gallop, who invented the mirror test for chimpanzees, thinks that only humans, chimpanzees and orangutans have passed the test.[2] Personally, I think the list in this article should be left as it is, citing that source, pending more recent reliable sources on the issue. - Donald Albury 14:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "List of Animals That Have Passed the Mirror Test". 2015-04-15. Retrieved 23 November 2015.
  2. ^ Preston, Elizabeth (December 12, 2018). "A 'Self-Aware' Fish Raises Doubts About a Cognitive Test". Quanta Magazine. Retrieved May 21, 2021.

Elephant diet

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I added a sentence in the lead, sourced from National Geographic, that describes an elephant's diet. I could not find their diet or food preferences in the article, which probably should have been checked promoting this to Feature Article status. — Maile (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Please don't add cites to the lead and the article DOES mention diet in the Ecology and activities subsection. LittleJerry (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Elephant ≠ elephantid?

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Should elephants remain paraphyletic (i.e. exclude mammoths) or become synonymous with Elephantidae? Quite a few online dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster prefer the latter option. Somed00d1997 (talk) 10:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Paraphyletic because overwise we'd have to merge with the Elephantidae article which could harm the quality of this article or add more stuff on mammoths which could bloat it. Most general readers expect to learn about modern species and not mammoths. LittleJerry (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 September 2019 and 7 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brittmarkarian.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion


69.131.80.63 (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

References

  Done SpinningCeres 00:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Extant elephantids = Elephantinae?

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I see the taxon Elephantinae is emboldened, is this to imply that modern elephantid species comprise the subfamily Elephantinae? If so, it should not be referred as an informal/paraphyletic group. Mason1999 (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Fix the missing ) after the word "Elephantinae" in the introduction. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

  Done I removed the unnecessary addition of sub family, which is already covered in the lead. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Colbert vandalism incident

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In 2006, Stephen Colbert instructed his viewers to repeatedly edit the Wikipedia page for “elephant” multiple times. Colbert’s account was indefinitely blocked from editing, and many elephant-related pages were protected. And yet for some reason, every single talk page topic related to this incident has been removed. Could someone involved in this decision please explain why? LeetToTheBeatMakeItRoar (talk) 12:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@LeetToTheBeatMakeItRoar because the page is archived. You’ll find them there. Doug Weller talk 12:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Scope of article

Latest comment: 2 years ago15 comments7 people in discussion

Should "Elephant" be treated as the subfamily Elephantinae? LittleJerry (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose this article is about the living species known as "elephants". Not a family or subfamily. If there is a sub family called "Elephantinae" (which nobody bothered to source) then it should be its own article which would also include mammoths or redirect to Elephantidae. LittleJerry (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Two considerations are:
1. How much is there to say about "Elephantinae" that does not duplicate the contents of existing articles?
2. We have articles because one or more editors have put in the time and effort to write them, and the community has seen fit to tolerate them (i.e., has not found a policy-based reason to delete or redirect an article).
You are always welcome to research "Elephantinae", and write an article about the family if you have found reliable sources and the article would not be just a duplicate of an existing article. We are all volunteers, and we work on what interests us and we have time for. - Donald Albury 16:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
It's not on me to do the research. Its on the people introducing the idea of Elephantinae. If there is a subfamily called Elephantinae then it would include mammoths as well. If Elephantinae will just duplicate what is said in other articles, then it should redirect to those articles. LittleJerry (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
There is a subfamily Elephantinae. Patachonica (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Then it would include mammoths as well which are not the subject of this article and hence elephant and elephantinae do not have the same scope. LittleJerry (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, what is Elephantinae? When I go to the separate Elephantidae page, I see a cladogram that seems to be using both terms interchangeably to represent the elephant crown group. And on the Elephant page, the taxobox shows Elephant as a paraphyletic grouping under Elephantidae, which seems fine to me. When the casual reader thinks of "Elephant", they think of the African elephant and the Asian elephant, not any of the extinct species. Which is probably why Elephantidae has its own page. I think the same reasoning would apply to Elephantinae. But yeah, what is Elephantinae? Does it only include the extant elephant species? If so, (which I doubt) then sure, they could be the same page. But if Elephantinae includes some extinct species in between the African and Asian elephant, then it should probably be separate. Cougroyalty (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Are you saying that Elephantinae and Elephant should be separate pages? Patachonica (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
@LittleJerry The term elephant can refer to extinct species, such as Palaeoloxodon. Also, the reason why I suggested Elephantinae = Elephant is because there are some non-elephantine elephantids, such as Stegotetrabelodon, which would barely be called an elephant. Perhaps when people are looking for a more narrower focus, Elephantinae is what comes into their mind. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 01:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Mammoths would also be part of Elephantinae but they are not the subject of this article. Hence this article is NOT about Elephantinae. LittleJerry (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
According to Google Scholar, there are approximately 507 search results of the word "Elephantinae". Patachonica (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: redirected Elephantinae to Elephant because he says that Elephant and Elephantinae are the same subject. Patachonica (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I think Elephantinae needs to redirect to the highest matching taxon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
What highest matching taxon do you mean? Patachonica (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
The current redirect Elephantidae → Elephantidae is correct, in the absence of a separate standalone article for Elephantinae. Changing the redirect to point to Elephant instead would be incorrect. Missing levels in the taxonomy should redirect upwards, to the next higher level that is present, not downwards, to a specific sub-branch within that level. Refocusing the article on elephants to more broadly cover Elephantinae would also be incorrect — that broader coverage should remain in Elephantidae or be used to branch off a separate Elephantidae article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elephant/Archive_10&oldid=1146649786"