Talk:Elephant/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Eco mumbo jumbo

Well, not really, it would be far too harsh to call it that. But still, this fragment is bad:

Usefulness to the environment

Elephants' foraging activities help to maintain the areas in which they live:

Can we find a way of formulating it that doesn't assume that preserving the current environment is good by definition? Zocky | picture popups 13:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It does not say that preserving the environment is good: it says that preserving the environment is useful to the environment. It makes no claim of "goodness," at least in the part you quoted. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 00:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought that overgrazing was a serious problem in areas with elephants, because generally they're confined to small nature preserves. john k 18:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

it is true, the elephant maintains savanna, which otherwise becomes wooded and can turn into forest, because the elephants destroy small trees and can graze on large trees. Out of interest, hippos are the opposite, they convert savanna to woodlands because they graze the grass and trample in into mud, but ignore areas where bushes start to grow. Hardly "eco mumbo jumbo", the elephant is a key-stone species. Sad mouse 23:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

They may be key for preserving savanna, but why would that necessarily be good? Zocky | picture popups 10:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Did it say "good"? But it increases ecosystem stability, which most people would agree is a good thing. Sad mouse 16:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe just phrasing it "role in the environment" is a good compromise? It's certainly more neutral.

Their Knees

According to some quick googling, elephants are the only animals with 4 foward pointing knees. IANA biologist, but Backwards pointed knees appear to go along with powerful "spring" tendons. Anybody know about the effect on running, or ability to climb hills? (There was a recent study on elephants hill-climing habits, can't find it at the moment)

The "elephants have four knees" idea is a common misconception. Elephants have two forward bending knees and two backward bending elbows. What people commonly call "knees" are in fact wrist and ankle joints. Looking at an elephant's skeleton may be helpful: http://www.archaeology.org/interactive/hierakonpolis/thumbnails/skeleton.gif There is also a short explaination on this zoo's elephant page: http://www.krugerpark.co.za/africa-elephant.html

Please sign comments in talk section ;) As far as I can tell, there are many websites that clearly state that the elephant is the only animal with four knees. elephant facts I don't like the sentence in the section that mentions cats and dogs. The wording seems odd to me. The undertow 03:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I quote this part of the article which I was thinking of changing - "Elephants are the only mammals to have four knees, most others either have two knees and two elbows, though the knees are often found in the front legs, or they have four elbows, like cats or dogs." Same deal with the cats and dogs. Those aren't elbows on the hind limbs, those are ankles. They have regular knees as well, except they're higher up, close to the body. Correct me if I'm wrong, but most mammals have the same limb joint structure, it's just the positioning is different.. like the difference between digitigrade and plantigrade, right? I'm not really a biologist or anything, though, so I'm not 100% certain if it's a difference in terminology. I just know that's a common misconception I run across all the time, confusing the analogous joints. Errick 16:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Being a vet, I confirm that elephants, cats and dogs have 2 knees and 2 elbows: A knee is a joint which has four parts: the FEMUR (thigh bone) meets the TIBIA (large shin bone) and FIBULA bone and form the main knee joint. The knee also includes a PATELLA (=kneecap) which protects the joint. Elbows are the joint between the HUMERUS (upper arm) and RADIUS (the outer bone of the forearm) & ULNA (the inner bone of the forearm) bones. There is a clear image of the skeletton of an elephant on: http://www.indyzoo.com/pdf/elephant_skeleton_image.pdf Please remove the sentence "Elephants are the only mammals... cats or dogs." 193.48.189.202 14:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Use of the term 'species'

The entry claims that "It has long been known that the African and Asian elephants are separate species." The term "species" is ambiguous and there is not consensus in its definition. From one of the most accepted it's deducted that two living beings don't belong to the same species when they cannot reproduce together. So from the current wording it can be deducted that there can't be hybrids of Asian and African elephants. Is that the case? Shouldn't all this be clarified in the article? MJGR 10:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There is sometimes not consensus that things are two separate species. But it can certainly be know that two things are separate species. We know, for instance, that dogs and cats are separate species, whatever definition of "species" one may use. The same is true of the two kinds of elephants, which, after all, belong to different genera and are not all that closely related at all. john k 18:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. But my doubt about the possibilities of crossbreeding Asian and African elephants are still there? Is that possible or not? MJGR 07:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

.....I think you, the editors of this site, are missing two key issues in the Colbert satire: 1)the point that Wikipedia can be changed at any time and that that is eerily like what certain politicians seem to want to do to reality; and 2) the elephant population is INDEED decreasing (remember, Colbert is satire), and his use of this as an example was because only someone truly ignorant would argue otherwise. As satire, this is obviously aiming at various politicians (and the current administration's) efforts to solicit science by consensus rather than scientific research.....

I know you guys posted these comments several months ago and have probably moved on with your lives, but I thought I'd mention this anyway. A species is often defined as any two creatures that can reproduce and create viable offspring. In other words, their offspring must be able to reproduce. For instance, you can mate a horse and donkey to get a mule. However, mules are sterile and cannot reproduce, therefore horses and donkies are different species. I have no idea if this is the case with Asian and African elephants though. -- Fogelmatrix 15:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Trunks

At one point in the article, it states that the trunk is almost useless on newborn elephants as it has little muscle tone, and then in another it says that they rely on their trunks a lot when they are young, since they are blind. What's the deal with that?RadicalPi 03:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The article currently states that biologists say that there are over 40,000 muscles in the trunk. This should cite a source either way, but I thought I'd mention that Steven Pinker in The Language Insinct (page 340) says there are over 60,000 (citing some other guys). JordanDeLong 03:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality

The section of this article was somewhat intriguing, but it feels out of place by itself, considering that elephants are not the only mammal or animal in general that has this type of behavior; it's been seen in a lot of other animals, and one could assume that any given species can be "gay". I don't think it doesn't belong in the article at all, but at least could be moved to the "reproduction" part. Okay maybe it's not actually "reproduction" but its at least somewhat related.

I don't know, I guess I feel like it's akin to having a section called "breathing". That fact that elephants breath is sort of significant and informative, yet at the same time isolating this information makes it too prominent in the article because the behavior isn't unique to elephants.

Eleo 20:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Seems like a reasonable suggestion. Haiduc 02:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The extent of homosexuality in mammals is not yet known. You assume that homosexuality will be found in any given species. This may be true, but is a massive assumption at the moment, and cases of documented homosexuality in animals are still rare, and thus notable. I would say leave it in for now, and if later down the track a universe theory of flexible sexuality in mammals is determined then take out individual species references then. Moving under reproduction would be okay though. Sad mouse 20:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• This is rather absurd. The source for that section, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, is an entire book about homosexuality in the animal kingdom. The author suggests 450 species of aniamls are involved in homosexual acts. One of which is dogs; do we have a homosexuality section in the dog article (or the other 450 species of animals this man suggests)? We already have List of animals displaying homosexual behavior and a section on this in Animal sexuality. This can't be any more notable than the fact that they have a huge penis... JustOneJake 21:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC) (Signature Added for Clarity)

• • While the heading under which this information appears is debatable, its inclusion is anything but absurd. By your logic we should not have any discussion of elephant reproduction since, after all, all animals reproduce. As for the other four hundred and fifty animals, please realize that for me this is only an avocation - I have a life too, and I simply have not had time to get around to all of them yet. Others can help - this topic is notorious for having long been censored. Haiduc 01:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • Maybe I misunderstand what the page is supposed to be about, and if so that's fine. Here was my thought process on this though: I skimmed some books on elephants. All of the ones that talk about the biological of elephants have a section on reproduction. I don't see any with a section on homosexuality in elephants. When I search for elephants AND biology at Google books, then search the corresponding books for homosexuality none get results. Additionally, search for elephants AND biology AND homosexuality, and all your results will be books that specifically talking about homosexuality in animals or are completely unrelated. There is only 19 resulting books too, and I'd say only half are relevant (compared to 7860 for elephants AND biology). Just because we have one book that might have a reference to this doesn't mean it is a widely held belief. If we put everything someone thought was interesting about elephants in the article it'd be unreadable. I also still think the large penis is a great analogy. It seems to be a consensus that doesn't belong, because all animals have penises and this one just happens to have the largest. Sure, all animals reproduce, and some may have homosexual tendencies, or behaviors that mimic this, but that doesn't make it encyclopedic. It just seems it fits better in an article about the subject of homosexuality in animals. JustOneJake 14:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • • I would draw your attention to a couple of points. First, Bagemihl does not "suggest" nor is he expressing a "belief." He is reporting on the observations of other zoologists. He specifically cites twelve (!) sources that discuss homosexuality in elephants. Even if he were the only one to report such activity, proper encyclopaedia editing would require us to report on his claims, and to adduce counter claims, were there any. As for the lack of mention in the general literature, I do not think anyone here is unaware of the censorship that has attended this topic over the years, and the professional risk of studying and publishing on this subject. Haiduc 23:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • I only read the referenced page on Google Books, and did not realize he cited 12 other sources. At any rate, I agree with most of what you said. Perhaps the section belongs on the page. With that said, I am opposed to moving it under reproduction. Reproduction is "the process by which plants and animals give rise to offspring" (Merriam Webster). There is no possible documented way for homosexuality to directly lead to reproduction, and thus is completely inappropriate in that section. Specifically Bagemihl states past research in the field has often failed to find an explanation "particularly when they try and show how homosexuality might contribute to heterosexual reproduction" (Bagemihl, pg 5). He does not refer to it as reproduction, and specifically states research in attempting to find a connection has failed. The section would need to be titled to sexuality to make sense. JustOneJake 21:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC) (Signature Added for Clarity)

I think it belongs here. If it just said 'elephants can be homosexual' it wouldn't be very interesting. But the section describes homosexual behaviour that is specific to elephants, like the use of the trunks, etc. It therefore belongs on the elephant page. The article is a whole is an admirably long, detailed one that discusses many aspects of elephant behaviour that are specific to elephants. The homosexuality section fits in perfectly with that. And the cited source is a book published by a thoroughly reputable publisher. If it came from a dodgy website or some self-published book, I'd be more doubtful, but it doesn't. The Singing Badger 01:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I say keep it in. First of all, wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia so we can go more in depth than some other sources on the topic, especially when the information is verifiable. This is a topic that many people would find interesting, so why get rid of it? Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 22:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• It does describe some unique behavior, but most of the section describes the sexual behavior that is stated to be analogous to heterosexual sex between elephants. There's nothing especially unexpected about that. The only unique behavior is the apparent social structure that is different from that of heterosexual elephants. And again, it's not that the section is unnecessary, I just think it's out of place. The most informative part of the section is about the social structure, not so much the actual sex.

Since this isn't about reproduction, wouldn't a more appropriate section be "Social behaviour"? Zocky | picture popups 15:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Given that humans weren't "homosexual" until the 1870s (passim Foucault), it's a little odd to apply this word to non-human animals. Same-sex genital behaviour, yes. Homosexuality, no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.8.102 (talk • contribs)

"Same-sex genital behavior" is by definition homosexual. Homo = same, sexual = obvious. --Chris (talk) 10:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually Homo does not mean same it means man. It comes to English from Latin not Greek. When first used in homosexual it implied man-man relationship. --72.92.124.109 00:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You are entirely incorrect. Where did you get such an idea?! Homosexual is in contrast to heterosexual. Go look up the root hetero, please. -Harmil 02:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• • This is a classic case of anthropomorphism, and should definitely be removed from this page. It is applying human behavior to animals, which is more concerned with human sexual politics than it is with science. Unlike human homosexuality, this behavior in elephants does not interrupt with normal reproduction, and is in harmony with a long established order in the elephant society.

The material is the work of zoologists and is properly cited. If you have evidence to the contrary please feel free to produce it. Haiduc 19:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The behavior is not in doubt, but peer review does not support the label homosexuality. "Male Bonding" is a more appropriate term. It is a natural process that does not interfere with normal reproduction of the species. Playing human sexual politics does not advance the science!

Whose peers? Zoologist peers concur with the description as "homosexual". Other "peers" have no standing. Haiduc 13:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever pondered the title of your single source (Biological Exuberance)? It's not exactly something that screams objectivity. In fact, almost everything about Mr. Bagemihl's works suggests a rather strong agenda on his part. Nor is Mr. Bagemihl a zoologist, but a biologist professor of "linguistics and cognitive science." Paired with qualitative statistics and the deluge of papers and studies that accompany the "publish or perish" philosophy, I think some skepticism is warranted here. Doubtless, there is homosexual behavior amongst elephants and other animals (I can't wait until you get to jellyfish homosexuality, personally), and likely it has been overlooked and even ignored at various times, but I think the reasonable position here is to think of Mr. Bagemihl as an antithesis–a reactive extreme, not a model of neutrality–and to not become too zealous in his defense. Mind you, this is directed more at these and other comments than the content itself, though I would tend to doubt specific statistics for the above reasons. -- MLS

• • Indeed, in reviewing Bagemihl work I would concur that it is agenda-driven, and my inclination after observing Haiduc's great efforts to have this section included on the elephant and lion pages is that this user is also agenda-driven, but at the same time, I don't know that it necessarily detracts from the article or is necessarily irrelevant. I know there is a bit of controversy in the scientific field regarding Bagemihl's work, despite some of Haiduc's claims to the contrary, and perhaps at some point I'll add cites to those as well to give the section a little more substance. Ronnymexico 17:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

i wouldn't mind terribly this section being thinned and replaced under "social behavior"; but the title should stay. "same-sex bonding"? that's called "friendship" when there is no committed relationship or mutually pleasurable sexual behavior. when it does, it's called "homosexuality"; the word has the additional benefit of being less ambiguous than the 'revised' title. and who says elephants don't have social constructs, even some analogous to our own? they are large-brained, highly social, long-lived mammals after all. - Metanoid (talk, email) 02:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Allomothers

The article has its own subtopic about the "allomother" elephants that help raise baby elephants, but under the reproduction headline, elephant "aunts" are mentioned as doing the same thing. This seems redundant and the section in reproduction should probably be taken out, especially since it really has nothing to do with actual reproduction.

largest elephant recorded

The largest elephant ever recorded is a bull African elephant, which was shot in 1974. It measured 4.16 m (13 ft 7 in) to the shoulder and weighed 12.24 tonnes (26,984 lb). No, according to guinness 2005, and their web site, this ele. weighs an estimated 12.24 tons and measured approx. 3.96 m at the shoulder, measuring when the ele. lied dead. I believe the actual weight is much less. i am quite sure that most of the weight of old ele., which are unusually high, are estimation, as are the case of hippo's weight.

[Citation: Guinness World Records 2006] Scribenz 06:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Crushing by elephant - comments requested

Would anyone here like to comment at Crushing by elephant? It is currently up for featured article status at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crushing by elephant. In particular, comments on the different species of elephants would be welcomed. Carcharoth 14:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Both in the main article and in Crushing -- the Elephant Traps story should be deleted for several reasons. Citing "a newsletter" is no better than "an anonymous online source." The conclusion drawn in Elephant Traps sounds perilously like a blend of rumor and opinion. For contrast, an example of a sourced quote seems to strongly contradict Traps. In the 1951 book Circus Doctor (Boston: Little Brown and Company, page 157), author J. Y. Henderson, DVM gives this eyewitness account of behavior following a fire in Cleveland in 1942:

The zebras were so wild they couldn't be handled. They ran in circles until they fell. The elephants couldn't be moved until Walter McClain arrived. When he arrived he shouted an order. At this point each elephant reached his trunk down, pulled up his stake, and in perfect formation they grabbed one another's tails with their trunks and marched out. [So, I would argue, they aren't too stupid or brainwashed, but they will work as a team, cooperate with their boss, as do many humans -- soldiers, fire fighters, Olympic athletes -- even in times of great pain or fear. At least Doc Henderson's story was widely published, naming people who could be questioned for years following those specific events, rather than the folktale approach in Traps.]

I don't recommend this story for the general article because there's no end to eyewitness stories of fascinating bits of behavior and psychological theories based on them. For that same reason the Elephant Traps paragraph also fails, and the Crushing article could be deleted in its entirety. The treatment of elephants in the general article is inconsistent with wiki articles on humans, bears, horses, tigers, for examples. Flimsy statements and bizarre sub-topic choices still need to be weeded out. Articles on comparable intelligent/trainable mammals do not attempt to focus so much on crime and cruelty. That an unverifiable tale has been cut and pasted many places makes it more important to avoid repeating that unsourced item. Please delete sections that fail to meet minimum criteria. (Sorry about the signature, but sign-on is looping tonight. 49) 172.136.169.187 03:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hannibal's elephants

There is only a very brief mention of Hannibal's smaller North African Forest elephants. Can more please be added about this? Carcharoth 14:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Do it yourself. Be Bold. --andreasegde 15:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Classification

At the very start of this article, it says that elephants are of the family "pachyderm", but following that link one discovers that the classification "pachyderm" is obsolete. This creates confusion, at least to me, and should be cleared up. -- Unsigned

It says A family of pachyderm, not THE family of pachyderm. The word "pachyderm" is still a clearly defined word - meaning "thick-skinned" - and it is hard to deny that it truthfully describes elephants. It is not used by biologists because modern taxonomy strives to use monophyletic classifications, and the various animals which are (correctly) known as pachyderms are not closely related to each other. Thus, there are multiple unrelated families of animals of which all are a subgroup of the group of pachyderms - and elephants are one of these families. In short: the world pachyderm is valid, but scientifically almost useless. Hope this helps. -- Milo

SProtection

I see that the article is now SProtected with no note on the talk page. I propose unprotection pending any note from an admin --Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 08:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that should be unprotected, but last time I proposed unprotection, my request was denied by an admin. Perhaps you might want to make a request on the requests for protection page. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 17:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The article was last unprotected 6 days ago. It was vandalized several times an hour for the following 24 hours, after which it was reprotected. I'm a little bit confused by what kind of note you think is required on the talk page; the tag on the main page says "persistent vandalism," and in fact persistent vandalism can be seen in the edit history.

Given how long the issues here have already persisted, I propose to wait a bit longer—say, another week—before trying unprotection again. -- SCZenz 18:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. What Nick was saying, though, is there is no indication of its protection on the talk page, as there normally is on a protected page's talk. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 18:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, common sense seems to indicate that an explanatory note on the article itself is just as good as a talk page note, and should be sufficient if there's nothing more to say. For those who prefer prefer policy pages to common sense, you might refer to Wikipedia:Protection policy, which lists many requirements for page protection but does not, as far as I can tell, require a special note on the article's talk page. -- SCZenz 22:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

A note on the talk page would clarify what the admin's goals were and make requesting unprotection easier. You would know the original intent of the administrator in regards to the reasoning behind the protection in the first place. I don't know why the page was protected, and now I know. So when I go to ask unprotection, I don't have to ask why some random admin did xyz. It isn't required, but at the very least it is common courtesy and aids in the goal of improving Wikipedia for new or anonymous users by opening up these articles. --Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 03:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

All the information I gave above came a quick look through the article history. And I have to admit I still don't see how "frequent vandalism" as cited in the talk page note is unclear. But yeah, you can always ask for more information—asking the admin who did the protection, or asking on the talk page, would both be appropriate. I guess the only thing I find odd is the implication at the start of this thread that not knowing why the page is protected is grounds for arguing it should be unprotected. It should rather, I think, be grounds for asking questions. -- SCZenz 04:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

There have been numerous incidents of vandalism to this talk page alone, too (I have reverted several of these), so I think now that removing the semi-protection would be a bit premature. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You might want to look at the page's protection log -- it's been protected pretty much since Colbert's show. Every week unprotection has been tried, always resulting in a flood of the same old vandalism from IPs. Also I am unsure what about the protection is unclear, given the message at the top of this page: On August 1 and August 3, 2006, the article page associated with this talk page was the target of vandalism encouraged by The Colbert Report, a popular television show. --Chris (talk) 10:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think semi-protection should stay, for at least another month or so. By then things will have died down, and if not, extend it to the end of the year, if not even then, then an additional month. As long as necessary for the flood to evaporate.--Planetary 00:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Not only has the time passed, but the article is now fully protected! I see no reason for this, and have lost all faith in humanity, or what little I had in the 1st place.--Planetary 04:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It's only semi-protected, not fully protected. Honestly, this article just has to stay semi-protected indefinitely, or at least for a very long. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 03:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a real shame. Why can't people be more productive with their time? --Planetary 05:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)