Talk:Elephant/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Distinguishing african/asian elephants: tip of trunk

Asian elephants have a pointed tip only on the upper end of their trunk, while african ones have two pointed tips (source: Grzimek encyclopedia, easily confirmed from photos). I don't see this in the article --- it says ear size is the easiest characteristic (for novices, that's only true if you have both side by side) --- and I don't have editing rights.

Note also that the article says there is a subspecies smaller than the smallest of asian subspecies: so "The smallest of all the elephants is the Sumatran Elephant, Elephas maximus sumatranus.." contradicts "... Named the Borneo pygmy elephant, it is smaller and tamer than any other Asian elephants"; I can see it's an editing out of sequence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.5.197 (talk) 09:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you cite a reliable source for the difference in trunk tips? I'[ve read this before, but we have to cite a reliable source. In any case, we would also need a reliable source stating that it is easier to tell the species apart by looking at the trunk tips than the ears. Personally, I think it easier to go by the ears, which are prominent and easily seen from a distance, than by the trunk tip, for which you must be closer, and which may obscured by the elephant's activity. I also edited this article to remove the 'smallest' claim for the Sumatran Elephant, as that claim is not found in the Sumatran Elephant article. As the realization that the Bornea Elep[hant is a subspecies is recent, the claim about the Sumatran Elephant probably was supportable from reliable sources when it was added to the article. -- Donald Albury 10:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Elephant graveyards

There is a link to the elephant graveyard wiki topic (that nicely starts with ".. fictional sites where.."), but this article treats them as a reality, not a fiction: (older elephants lose teeth and will starve close to the sources of softest food, and) "Rupert Sheldrake has proposed this as an explanation for the elephant graveyards." My first reaction, who cares what a clown like Sheldrake says about real animals; second reaction, anyone not clicking on the link may continue to believe these graveyards exist (possibly wondering why there is no more text about them in this article).

I was in a 10-person group on a tour in Asia recently, and a British lady asked whether Asian elephants also had graveyards like the African ones: I think it's a fiction quite fresh in many babyboomers' minds, so helpful to point it out here. 144.173.5.197 (talk) 10:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed the reference to one theorist, and moved the link to see also. If the assertion that older members of the genera (extant) feed on softer foods is also challenged, it would require citations in the article. The unequivocal facts there should be summarised here, with references, and the move to "see also" reversed. cygnis insignis 16:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

info inconsistency

in the 'habitat loss' section "These conflicts kill 150 elephants and up to 100 people per year in Sri Lanka."

in the 'elephant rage' section "In India, elephants kill up to 200 humans every year, and in Sri Lanka around 50 per year."

115.64.113.30 (talk) 12:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

There are several mentions of statistics, from more or less reliable sources, none were contradictory except the second sentence above; I removed it, it needs to be clarified and referenced in the article before inclusion here. cygnis insignis 16:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

While not inaccurate, the first fact has been preened a little; it is presented in the source as 50 - 100. cygnis insignis 16:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

interwikis issue

Hello,

I just want to inform here that many interwikis of this article should be moved to Elephantidae. If you find an interwiki, please inform me so I can make the transfert properly (all interwikied page must be updated).

I will run the update for last update from User:Nordelch

Regards

--Hercule (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional elephant information sidebar?

When I came to this article I was a little disappointed because unlike most other articles of animals, this one didn't have that sidebar information thing that showed stuff like scientific classification or conservation status, or where is it located in the world. I found all of those things highly interesting, yet they're absent in this article. I think it would be extremely useful to readers, including myself, if someone were to add that information. Here's an example if some of you don't know what I'm talking about. It's on the right side of the article, all of that information below the picture of the Cheetah. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheetah --Mark0528 (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is about several different species. The item you want (called a Taxobox) can be found at Asian Elephant and African elephant.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. --Mark0528 (talk) 02:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

elephants step over humans?

I thought I read from this article that elephants sometimes go out of their way to avoid stepping on humans, even if it means stepping back, but I can't find that in the article anymore. Why was it removed? Is it false? Web wonder (talk) 08:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

One of those unanswerable questions im afraid, from my experience working with elephants i know many elephant keepers that have been crushed and some killed by elephants so that in itself busts the myth. "Sometimes" may be correct depends on the temprement and human contact the elephant has had, some people share extremely close contact with their elephants and some might consider it "love" in this sense i imagine the elephant would do all it could to keep its "owner/handler" out of harms way. hope that helps, however i never seen it in the article and i imagine it was removed for lack of sources. ZooPro 12:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Range distribution

Hey, you all might want to check out the map at http://nv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bichį́į́h_yee_adilohii, its really high quality. Sadads (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Source for lower tusks claim

I want to edit this article, but I am not permitted to (there is a padlock on the article). I was advised on my Talk page to try to gain consensus for my edit here on this Talk page. The portion about the Gomphotherium having lower tusks lacks citation. This has been cited in scientific literature, including here in this book. Someone (if we can reach consensus here) could please add that reference for me, and co-attribute the effort to me, since it was my idea? The section is even calling for citations from editors, but the article is padlocked. -- Bayshorer (talk) 13:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Your link provides no direct reference just a link to the book, do you have a page number to assist?. Could you provide me with information as to what section of the article you intend to reference as i cannot find it. I would be happy to add the reference if you provide me with some information. ZooPro 00:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

My link clearly provides reference to the portion of the book that "Gomphotherium 'had fully developed lower tusks'". It's right there embedded in the link, so I'm perplexed as to why it would present you with such a problem; but if it helps you, it is on page 430 of the book. Furthermore, it is perplexing as to why you would need to ask what "section of the article" I intend to reference, as there is only one point in the Elephant article that makes any mention of Gomphotherium. Are you unfamiliar with the "Edit / Find" function of most web browsers? Really, this is no way to run an encyclopedia. -- Bayshorer (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

A lot is left to be desired about your behavior, your link provides a google search to a book, nothing more. I asked for the section in the article because i did not want to waste my time reading the whole article to look for a few words. Your rudeness and lack of good faith are disturbing to say the least, it is not a good idea to insult experienced editors that only wished to help you. Because of this I withdraw my offer of assistance and will warn you against personal attacks in the future. ZooPro 23:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

As the user above was to ignorant to provide a clearer reference I searched for it myself and found it here the user above was close but not very concise, i will rectify the reference in the article. ZooPro 08:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

ZooPro, you used the exact reference (page 430) that he provided you. You failed to attribute this work to Bayshorer as he'd requested, writing only "per talk", and you failed to cite the author, posting only a link.[1]24.22.141.61 (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia we dont attribute any editor for information used in the article, and no i did not provide the exact reference as bayshore, it is a newer published version of the book that provides a text exert that shows to the reference. ZooPro 22:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

For further information "Bayshorer" is a banned and blocked user. ZooPro 22:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

etymology

I can not edit the main page, so i will put it here so that some admin can insert it in the article. Eliphant is derived from sanskrit word hanti(s) meaning elephant (literally meaning having large hands). The Arabs took this word and put El (the) before it and it passed into Italian as :elephanti and from there on made its way into other European languages.Account1000 (talk) 09:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you just know this or do you have references to support it? References would be better. Bob98133 (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I have a 19th century Sanskit-English dictionary at home and i hae read it years ago and since i found it curious i remembered it.Account1000 (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ivory ban/ IUCN listing

Unless I missed it, someone needs to do a section on the ivory ban and its subsequent history of reversals (and failed reversals), and the official listing of elephants as Threatened/Endangered. As it is, there is only a superficial mention in the African Elephant section (and that needed to be corrected). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mukogodo (talk • contribs) 15:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ivory trade

I just started the article. Please let me know if this article already exists under another name. If not, please help expand it and maybe make a "Main article" link in this article. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Can elephants really climb trees?

I mean, I know they're forrest animals, but... 156.34.190.134 (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No. Who said they could? —Stephen (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Latest stupid question of the month. ZooPro 02:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Whoever started this myth is pretty stupid to think we'd actually believe it! User:Dinolover45, 17:05 pm, 5 April, 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 21:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC).

How many muscles in the trunk?

The article claims variously that the elephant's trunk has either 40,000 or 100,000 muscles. Both of these seem extremely unlikely to me, since the entire rest of the animal has only a few hundred muscles. The citations given were not to reliable sources, but to web sites. A quick review of Google Books did not turn up anything that I considered reliable enough. Most of the references were from biology books for children; some were to books of trivia, or other did-you-know type articles. The numbers varied enormously, from a few thousand up to 150,000.

The canonical reference seems to be "The elephant's head : studies in the comparative anatomy of the organs of the head of the Indian elephant and other mammals", by Johan E V Boas and Simon Paulli, published around 1908.

I would like to see the article include a correct number with a reliable citation to the scholarly literature. —Dominus (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A letter to Nature (Nowak, Martin A.; Plotkin, Joshua B.; Jansen, Vincent A. A. (30 March 2000). "The evolution of syntactic communication". Nature. 404: 495.) says "... the elephant's trunk (which is a most complex organ that consists of about 6,000 individual muscles...)". This isn't sufficiently reliable, but it's closer. —Dominus (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I was at Taronga Zoo in Sydney on the weekend - a world famous conservation zoo with a successful elephant breeding program (2 out of two lives births so far and a third pregnancy in progress) - and the elephant handlers told us that elephants have 40,000 muscles in their trunk... which is why it takes baby elephants so long to develop their truck "coordination". I wasn't able to ask for a journal reference though! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitty346 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"African Elephant" heading

The heading in the article for African elephants is currently "African Elephant" when in fact there are more than one specie discussed. Request that it be changed to the plural "African elephants". --Gyrobo (talk) 01:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed tags

Ryankearney - first of all, the fact tag, properly formatted, looks like this . Second, there is a tag to flag an entire section as needing references. It's not the job of other editors to fix your sloppy editing particularly when it is inappropriate and unneeded. If you continue to make this stupid reversion, you will be banned from editing. Why don't you just look at the Wiki rules, or look at other articles to see how to place tags? I don't know how to do it, but I don't think the tags should be there anyhow, so why should I do it. I am fine reverting what must now be considered vandalism since you have been told in edit summaries that your edits are inappropriate. Copied to your user page in case you haven't figured out how to watch articles. Bob98133 (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Teeth section

I tagged it as needing references and clarification, because it's a mess. First, the only reference in the section does not support the data in the section. The reference (to a zoo info sheet, hardly very authoritative), says that the teeth change 6 times in a lifetime, not 5, and that the total number of molars is 4, not 12. The other very strange statement is that elephants could live longer, if their teeth didn't wear out. That's quite an extraordinary claim. The next one - that with reduced roaming, they would die earlier, looks plausible, but definitely needs citations, if true. And finally - that they go to live in marshy areas when old to eat soft grass, while probably true, needs confirmation of some sort. Unfortunately, I'm not a biologist, otherwise I'd try to find citations myself. El Kot (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I have worked on the 'Teeth' section. I tried to be specific in the use of terms. As I understand it, an elephant can have up to 24 (very rarely 28) chewing teeth (12 pre-molars and 12/16 molars) if they live long enough. There are four chewing teeth in primary use at any given time, but as the elephants grow the teeth are replaced from behind by bigger teeth. They are born with two pre-molars on each side of each jaw. The foremost pre-molars fall out after a couple of years, the 2nd pre-molars move forward and the 3rd pre-molars start erupting. This process continues until the 3rd molars are in place. It would seem that there is a gradual shift of primary chewing action from the old tooth in front to the new tooth emerging behind it, until the old tooth falls out. This means that an elephant may have 4 to 8 chewing teeth at any given time. I gather from the source I used that chewing tooth replacement is determined by age rather than by tooth wear, per se.

As for moving to marshy areas to find soft food when their teeth are worn out, I don't have a source addressing that, but I would note that female elephants are strongly integrated into family groups and would continue to travel with their family. My source (Moss) relates an anecdote of an aged female whose teeth were very worn who spent more time time browsing and chewing than did the younger members of her family, presumably because of the less efficient chewing action of her teeth, and who died within a couple of years. Male elephants do not live in family groups, and might be free to move to marshy areas, but I suspect that almost all males die of other causes before their teeth become too worn to handle their usual browse. -- Donald Albury 11:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Taxobox

A taxobox was added here, removed here, and restored here. Taxoboxes are ordinarily used for taxa. This article is not about a taxon; it is about the living species of the Elephantidae, which are found in two genera. To provide a taxobox for an article like this is unusual, and should have consensus.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. Thanks for clarifying, Curtis. Rohan nog (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No we have taxboxes for all articles on groups of monophyletically related animals like spider, turtle, ect. It doesn't matter if they are part of the same genus. There is no policy against taxoboxes in articles like this. Bobisbob2 (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Is a mammoth an elephant? If so, it's missing from this article. If not, you'll need to provide a reference that Elephas and Loxodonta form a clade that excludes Mammuthus.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed it again. The lead explains what would be misleading in the taxobox. Read that, read the other articles, convince the scientific world that their systematic arrangement of extant, extinct, and fossilised organisms are just "a variety of elephant", then come back and change the consensus here. cygnis insignis 19:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand Curtis Clark's point. Why aren't elephants a taxa? They seem to qualify under the definition used at taxon. I'm inclined to think the taxobox should be there. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Elephantidae is a taxon, but this article only describes those members of Elephantidae that still live, excluding the extinct ones. As such, it doesn't describe a taxon. --Stfg (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Largest elephant

In the 2. paragraph of the article you find this sentence:

The largest elephant ever recorded was shot in Angola in 1956. This male weighed about 24,000 lb (11,000 kg).

In the section "African elephant" you find a max. weight of 12,000 kilograms (26,000 lb).

Both figures refer to the same animal but come from different sources. Which one is correct?

In the German WIKI an animal shot in 1978 is named as largest animal; a height of 4,21m is given but no weight. --83.135.48.91 (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Invalid link

Remove last external link: "Elephant Conservation Science and Veterinary Medicine Group" This site has been suspended. Bad article is protected.. --79.118.39.24 (talk) 15:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed. Thanks.--RegentsPark (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

misspelling

Just reading the article, noticed that in the section about the teeth, the word pieces is misspelled. 'where the latter break off in picces until they are gone' Just thought I would point that out --Shortypunk (talk) 01:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done ZooPro 14:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Elephant breathing system

Should be included as i heard they have a unique way of breathing not found anywhere else.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Find some sources and references and then add the information to the article. ZooPro 14:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Mating behaviour

Exerpt : "(image 1). (...) (image 5)"

What image 1 ? What image 5 ? Is this copied from a book ? Unless I missed something, it looks like it was. 216.221.33.38 (talk) 02:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC) L.D. Looks like nobody cares. 216.162.79.230 (talk) 05:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC) L.D. Noticed this too, and should probably be fixed. 68.187.192.30 (talk) 23:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Does not need to be fixed, refers to image 1 and 2 on the left. ZooPro 08:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Picture of elephant dung

{{Edit semi-protected}} I took this picture in Kerala, India last week, when we nearly missed seeing a wild elephant in the tropical forest where we were trekking. Could you please add the following picture to the "Diet" section or any other section you think is appropriate:

Elephant dung

Melanurya (talk) 12:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I am sure a place can be found for it, not sure just yet but I am sure another user has a use for it. ZooPro 14:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I tested out putting it in the only section that mentions elephant dung ("Effect on the environment"), and it just does seem necessary there. If we had more information about their digestion, or if the dung were important in other ways, then it would make sense, but I just don't see how it clearly fits in. I'm untranscluding this to take it off the category, but other editors are welcome to try adding it in somewhere. You can see my attempt by looking at this diff. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The source of the image is currently problematic, hearsay, if is it verified then the source of its subject matter is specific and should be included in that article: Asian Elephant. cygnis insignis 05:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Elephant skeleton?

Is the second image in the article really the skeleton of an African elephant, it looks a little too gracile and it seems more like a skeleton from Elephas falconeri or some other dwarf form of elephant to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.158.178 (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Not a dwarf, look at the original image on the files page. ZooPro 08:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

longivity of elephants

It has been stated that recorded maximum age of elephants is 82 yrs old but i have seen elephant in sakcrebyle elephant cap by name Indira still surviving at age 85 yrs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drchandrashekhar (talk • contribs) 07:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The RECORDED maximum age is 82 that does not indicate that they don't live beyond that age. ZooPro 08:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Does this article really still need to be protected?

We all know it. Stephen Colbert pointed out that you can 'change' the population of elephants to make them not an endangered species by editing wikipedia. This article has been protected ever since. But that was in like 2006. It's 2010 now. This article may not need to be protected anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 00Eregos00 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The article was protected at my request because of the huge amount of vandalism it receives from anon users. The article has been unprotected many times however vandalism continues to surface again and again, as a consequence the article has been protected. ZooPro 05:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

As ZooPro stated, this page sees constant, massive amounts of vandalism. Furthermore, many of the vandals appear to be totally oblivious to the fact that the elephant tripling population is a tired and unfunny joke.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree - protection should stay. Unapproved editors can still make suggestions on this talk page. Bob98133 (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Accordingly, the last sentence of the second to last paragraph on African Elephants, the type exampled by Mr. Colbert, is stating just such a claim and the two citations (apparently referencing the same article) are both dead links. "According to a recent analysis by IUCN experts, most major populations in eastern and southern Africa are stable or have been steadily increasing since the mid-1990s, at an average rate of 4.5% per year." I'm not sure how long that's been around, but please, if you approve an edit or double-check recent ones, make sure the source corresponds to the statement and moreover that the link is valid. 70.15.11.44 (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Note that both citations are to articles in a journal, and while a link to an on-line copy of a published article is convenient for WP readers, it is not necessary for the article to be used as a source. I also note that both citations now link archived pges at the Internet Archive, which seems to be having problems (i.e., although the Wayback Machine indicates that the last archived version of the second source was in 2008, it was unable to provide a link to it). I suggest that we check the Wayback Machine again in a few days. In any case, the loss of a link to on-line versions of the articles does not invalidate them as sources for the article. -- Donald Albury 22:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Taxobox

As already discussed here, a taxobox is inappropriate for this article, since it is not about a taxon. By analogy, it's the equivalent of putting a biography infobox on James-Younger Gang, and modifying it to include all the members.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Height is incorrect

The height listed is 10 feet at the shoulder (3.2 meters). 3.2 meters is 10.5 feet. So either the 10 feet number is wrong or the 3.2 meters number is wrong. I don't know which as I am reading this to become informed, but I do know math. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.212.234.180 (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Trunk

This link provides information about using of trunk related to smell. --223.207.120.101 (talk) 07:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

No Natural Predators?

Are humans unnatural? I think a better adjective is necessary. Endemic? Local? This article is littered with trivialisms. (Not in the sense of Wikipedia's equally unsourced article on trivialisms. 173.19.98.151 (talk) 07:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Humans hunting elephants is unnatural, they are not part of the human diet. Some animals do kill elephants but in the sense of the word nothing actively predates on elephants. ZooPro 11:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Absolute statements can be so troublesome. :) The Batwa, until fairly recently, hunted and ate elephants. -- Donald Albury 11:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Not that I doubt you but do you have a source link for that? I am interested in learning more as I was not aware of this. ZooPro 15:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. A web site (travel guide) here (scroll about half-way down to the Traditional Foods heading), the 1911 Britannica article on Batwa, an 1890 book, and a case study (see page 60) from an advocacy group. I've left out blogs and other travel promotion sites. -- Donald Albury 16:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It's irrelevant whether or not humans are killing Elephants to eat them or not. Humans hunt elephants, and that act alone makes them predators. Since humans did not appear via unnatural voodoo, humans are natural predators. The statement needs rephrasing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyGod (talk • contribs) 16:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

According to the first sentence in our article on Predation, "In ecology, predation describes a biological interaction where a predator (an organism that is hunting) feeds on its prey (the organism that is attacked)." That sentence, usually missing the "In ecology" qualifier, pretty well sums up the dictionary definitions of predation. -- Donald Albury 12:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Two things:

1. I don't think that other Wikipedia pages should be used to validate/invalidate an entry.

2. There are two definitions usually given in Dictionaries for the word predator. The second reads as follows (url: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/predator): "One that victimizes, plunders, or destroys, especially for one's own gain.". I would argue that pretty accurately describes the actions of some humans toward elephants (and other animals/resources in general). HappyGod (talk) 11:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Elephants are predated on by lions. Check out Sir David Attenborough's BBC show "Planet Earth" there's other sources as well. It's not lions' usual prey, but hungry lions will, and some lion prides pick it up as a usual predation habit. Of course, elephants will try to kill lions when they can, and will gang up and wipe out prides that do pick it up as a habit. Saying they have no natural predators ignores millinium of lion predation. And lions are "in ecology". 68.226.20.51 (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.34.9.93, 27 July 2011 - Possible non-native English contributor?

Section = Threats, Subsection = Fertilizer

Current text: The initial suspicious is the elephants had eaten fertilizer spread around trees in the plantation.

New text: The initial suspicion is the elephants had eaten fertilizer spread around trees in the plantation.

71.34.9.93 (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Aarmstrong128, 27 August 2011

Section = Social behavior

New text (maybe at the end of the section): The matriarchal society of elephants may be a recent adaptation (since perhaps 1930) to the arrival of firearms. In West with the Night, Beryl Markham describes elephant herds containing multiple adult males as well as females. She further describes how the females attempted to hide the males (hunted disproportionately for their tusks) from hunters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_with_the_Night

Aarmstrong128 (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Wikipedia cannot be used to cite itself. Topher385 (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Please read a little more carefully. I'm not using Wikipedia to cite itself. I'm using Wikipedia's internal link to the book. Would you rather I just listed the book's title? (Seems worse to me.)

Done. Thanks, and sorry for the misunderstanding following your first request. It would be great if you could tell us which page Markham's suggestion is recorded, as it's hard for a reader to verify something from a 293 page book. I think it would be page 207 or 208. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. That looks nice. What if we say the reference is pages 205 and following (205ff)? I actually heard a recording of the book, so it's harder than normal to come up with the page number. Reading in Google Books suggests that 205-208 is the right section though. As I recall, there were a couple of other sections that also supported the idea of multiple males in a herd with females.

Thanks. "ff" notation doesn't seem to be common in Wikipedia, so I just added 205–208. Not perfect, but enough for a reader to verify, which is the important thing. Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Intelligence (brain) section

What's overall most informative when comparing brains between different animal species is brain size relative to body size, but this is not even mentioned... AnonMoos (talk) 08:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request:: 03/12/2011

Under the 'Skin' section there is a clause that does not make sense. It reads: 'and local herds will often come too close over the right to use these limited resources.' It should probably read 'and local herds will often come to blows over the right to use these limited resources'. In other words because there are limited resources the elephants will fight each other for water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.222.243 (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

First few words

"Elephants are large land mammals in two extant genera of the family Elephantidae". Why not "The elephant is a large land mammal in two extant genera of the family Elephantidae"? Our article is entitled "Elephant", not "Elephants", and other articles on high-profile mammals (e.g. Giraffe, Horse, Hippopotamus) get the singular. Nyttend (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds sensible to me DrChrissy (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Tuskless Elephant Population Increasing?

Every now and then, I come across articles online saying that elephants' tusks are disappearing/getting shorter due to poaching. Can anyone tell me if this is true? Because I just returned from Kruger National Park, South Africa and I saw plenty of elephants during my stay, all with long, perfectly healthy tusks. User:Dinolover45, 13:31, 5 April 2010

Sources? 203.11.71.124 (talk) 08:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Here are a few I found searching Google for "tuskless elephant evolution":

• World: Africa Elephants 'ditch tusks' to survive - BBC
• Tuskless elephants evolving thanks to poachers - China Daily
• The Tuskless Elephant: A Case of Human-Driven Natural Selection? - paper from Allie Weill at the University of Chicago, lists sources which might be useful
• How humans are forcing other species to evolve - Grist (magazine)

So, there are reports that tusklessness is increasing in both African and Asian elephants under pressure from poaching, but I would like to see at least one article from a peer-reviewed science journal on the subject. -- Donald Albury 12:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Trunks

If elephants can breathe through their trunks how come when they suck up water with them, the water doesn't go into their lungs? Is there a flap to stop it or do they just control it or something?

-Megan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.248.226.12 (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

How come when you suck water up with a straw, the water doesn't go into your lungs? Is there a flap to stop it or do you just control it or something?--Mr Fink (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Get a book. Take a class. MadZarkoff (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think some people might be attacking Megan personally. You can say it politely at least. ApokryItaros I believe was making a polite metaphor, while MadZarkoff was straight-up attacking her.

Walex03. Talking, working, friending. 17:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Legs and feet

Would like to replace use of "Indian elephant" with "Asian/Asiatic elephant", since Indian is merely a subspecies. Lovely mention of the number of nails on various feet, but nothing about the actual number of digits? The casual reader may assume that #nails = #toes, which is not correct (5 digits all round). Also, I thought that the Forest Elephant had the same number of nails on each foot as the Asian. Thanks 124.148.211.236 (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Why semi-protected?

Is there any good reason this article is still semi-protected? I assume it has been so since Stephen Colbert asked his audience to vandalise elephant articles four years ago ? ··gracefool☺ 08:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

See the edit history for late February, the last time protection was relaxed. -- Donald Albury 13:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check the recent history next time :X ··gracefool☺ 06:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 June 2012

In 2011, only 3 Asian elephants was borned in Laos for 16 death of Asian elephant. These baby elephants are now staying with their mother in the Lao Elephant Conservation Center in Sayaboury. In this picture, the youngest elephant borned in this centre in october 2011. A 3-year reproduction program is organized with the mahout and the elephant's owner in this elephant sanctuary thanks to the NGO Elefantasia.

A baby asian elephant and his mother in Laos

Sophie47 (talk) 07:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Dru of Id (talk) 09:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

oldest in europe

the oldest African elephant from Basel zoo died in 2010, please correct the information in the chapter humans and elephant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.90.16.48 (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

etymology

'... was borrowed from Medieval French olifanz. The French word owes something to both Old High German olbenta "camel", and to Latin elephantus "elephant", a word of Greek origin.' It is never quite clear to me what is meant by 'borrowing' in Indo-European languages, since they have a common origin, which has inevitably been subjected to intense diversification. If OHG has a word, it is very likely that Old and Middle English have a similar word, which may have been slightly modified by its contact with French, but not much more (Pamour (talk) 12:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)).

Merge Elephantidae here?

Is there any reason why this article is only about the living elephants? There is nothing in the definition which includes the extinct species. FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems that any member of the family Elephantidae could be considered an "elephant" including mammoths. I'm in the process of giving this article a rewrite and I think I should treat mammoths as extinct elephants. LittleJerry (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Four knees

Some sites on the internet are circulating a factoid that the Elephant is the only animal with 4 knees. Perhaps a blurb can be added somewhere (under Legs and Feet) to indicate that this is false? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.195.154.31 (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Elephant/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 13:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Nice detailed article... would love reviewing this. My comments, will have more later:

Lead ✓ Pass

• The three images seem to spoil the appearance. I advise to use a picture of African bush elephant or Asian elephant (because the other is already shown in Taxonomy) in the infobox, just as two other family articles Rhinoceros and Giraffidae do.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I have added the infobox as well, it looks perfect now. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Mention after the first line in lead that Gray described the family and when.

I don't think this is needed since this centered on the living species and not Elephantidae family overall. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• The lead could be summarised. Exclude or shorten the parts after you give the ranges in the first paragraph, you have it in the rest of the article. Some parts are repeated, which mustn't be. You could keep the most relevant parts, as the lead is getting too long.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Taxonomy ✓ Pass

• In the first line, ";" can be replaced by hyphen, as - The three extant elephant species - the African bush elephant (Loxodonta africana), the African forest elephant (L. cyclotis) and the Asian elephant (Elephas maximus)- all belong to the family Elephantidae and the order Proboscidea.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Is Mammuthus the direct ancestor of elephants? You imply so, and if it is then mention it before the lines about DNA studies. The reader mayn't understand.

No. As the evolution article states. Loxodonta branched off before Mammuthus' and Elephas

• Link 'cloned', 'embryo', 'described', 'separated', 'speciation'.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• From east to west, Asian elephants vary in color and amount of depigmentation; those further west are darker and have more depigmented patches, while further east they are lighter and have less depigmentation This seems a part of physical description mostly, and though I see you mean to describe the species, it really should be in 'Anatomy and morphology' section. I think it can be reworded - Asian elephants vary in color and amount of depigmentation geographically.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• 'Hybrids' says about Motty only. Could use {{main article|Motty}}.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Anatomy and morphology ✓ Pass

• Spelling mistake, degress - degrees

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• The proboscis, or trunk rather be The trunk, or proboscis as the section is named 'Trunk'.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Behavior and life history ✓ Pass

• Something is wrong with [[File:Asian Elephant in Corbett National Park.jpg]], didn't appear on my browser.

Removed the image, the article is already full of these anyway. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Link 'estrous'

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think the info about sexual maturity should be given to the reader before coming to the mating.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Could have a line of explanation about alloparenting.

Done LittleJerry (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Females are sexually mature by the age of 9 years and can come into estrus estrus-estrous

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• What is the lifespan under captivity?

Made chances apparently some do live as long of those in the wild. LittleJerry (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

You need to mention this, with an appropriate source, of course. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 02:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Conservation issues ✓ Pass

• In 1989, the African elephant ... (making trade of them illegal) Did their listing made the trade of elephants illegal or do you mean their trade is illegal? Could be made into another sentence.

Yes it made their trade illegal. LittleJerry (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Removed the brackets. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Elephants and humans ✓ Pass

• However, they were not used as much as horse-drawn chariots by both the Pandava and Kaurava Should be Pandavas and Kauravas.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• ...used in theMauryan army space needed.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• ...trunk waying or route. tracing Up to 54% ... - ...route-tracing...

Done LittleJerry (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• During the 10th century better say AD or BC.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• As characters, elephants are relegated largely to children's stories Related, not relegated (which means distancing away)

The text is say that elephant characters are used only in childern's stories. Hence "relegated" (To assign to a particular class or category).

• The story of the blind men and an elephant... - The story of the "Blind men and an elephant"...

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Notes ✓ Pass

• Author of ref 1 is Douglas Harper

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• No need of linking the article in ref 8, PMC already given

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Keep journal article titles in one case, either sentence or title case. Same with book titles.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Italics for scientific names in refs 11, 14, 20, 100.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Capitalization needed in ref 22

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Rest is well, awaiting your replies. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Quite satisfactory. Only an issue or two left (in bold letters). Anyway, I don't expect more problems after two GA reviews already! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

the elephant can bring good fortune to people who belive! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erutas1 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Beast of burden section

The section on Beast of burden needs to be re-written, e.g. elephants have an 'in-built memory'! I would re-write this myself, but I do not have access to the cited sources and therefore do not understand what the authors were trying to communicate.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't. I'll make sure it matches the sources. LittleJerry (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean 'Beasts of burden' section or the whole 'Elephants and humans'? I can't do much about this, for I too can't access the sources. Anyway, bult-in would do. LittleJerry, I found you have made many spelling and capitalization mistakes here and there, mostly in this section. I hope you are careful about it afterwards. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 02:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't find any mistakes. If you found them then just correct them. I also don't see why this should be re-written. Just let me get this copyedited after this is done. LittleJerry (talk) 03:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It is these two sentences in particular I believe need changing. "Elephants can be trained to respond to over 30 commands, although they do not always listen and sometimes come up with their own ideas on how to perform a task. Elephants have advantages over vehicles in that they can work in relatively deep water, require less maintenance, need only vegetation as fuel, and have a built-in memory." They are un-encyclopaedic and spoil what is otherwise a very good article__DrChrissy (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

What do you suggest? LittleJerry (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I made some changes. Are they better? LittleJerry (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I have done some rewording for the first line, surely that would look encyclopaedic. Do you have an idea how to rewrite the second sentence? LittleJerry, once this issue is over I shall promote this as a GA. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 01:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is how I would write the sentences. "Elephants can be trained to respond to over 30 commands. They are valued as working animals over mechanised tools because they can work in relatively deep water, require relatively little maintenance, need only vegetation and water as fuel, and can be trained to memorize specific tasks."__DrChrissy (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks good-thanks.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, this issue too is resolved. So we can have a formal WIAGA review:

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Good, descriptive.

   b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Strong, reliable sources.

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): All about elephants here.

   b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): Fine, matching-with-the-topic images!

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Pass

Congratulations! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Conservation Status

Can someone please add the conservation status http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_status tab to this article. Other pages like the one about Lions and Cape Buffalo have one. Basheera Masih (talk) 06:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Elephants are not a single species and do not have a single conservation status. LittleJerry (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Image of elephant dung

elephant dung

How about this image for a use in the article? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Where? EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

"Ecology and activities" ... :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Call me old fashioned, but I think pictures of elephants are better for the article than pictures of their crap. ;) (but seriously, that section already has two images, as does the section below it; adding a fifth image right there would do nothing but clutter the text) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

References need attention

The references in this article need attention.

• Why are the references listed under 'Notes' and not 'References'
• There are many Soshani references with no date e.g. Shoshani, pp. 152–54. How is the reader to know which of the Soshani publications to refer to?
• There are several references to Sukumar, e.g 118.^ Sukumar, pp. 59–64, but there is no complete reference for a Sukamar publication listed under 'Notes'.
• Several of the references list authors as 'et al.'. It is more ususal to name every author in the full reference.

__DrChrissy (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You are confused, cites like Sukumar, p. 118 and Shoshani, pp. 152–54 are referring to the books listed under "General" subsection. In addition et al. is used alot, especailly is there are tons of authors. LittleJerry (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You are correct - I am confused. That is because the article is confusing. The full book references should be in the same section as the other references. Furthermore, I agree 'et al.' is often used in the text but rarely in the reference list, otherwise, all the authors do not get the recognition they deserve. These references need changing. __DrChrissy (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

You are correct - I am confused. That is because the article is confusing. The full book references should be in the same section as the other references. My method of citing these sources is quite common in other wiki articles. See lion, raccoon, painted turtle, ect. I meant that et al is used commonly for citations, not just here. LittleJerry (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

This style of referencing is widely used in Wikipedia. LittleJerry has listed a few articles that use this format. (My personal preference is to have the main inline citations in a "References" section, with a "Bibliography" subsection for the main texts.) See WP:SFN. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I asked for advice at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources on the matter of citing only the editor in multi-author books. There seems to be agreement that the original author of the chapter should be cited, not only the editor. This seems only fair - if you wrote a chapter for a book you would expect acknowledgement of your efforts and expertise, rather than this being attributed to the editor. The Template:Cite book will help clarify the citations.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll fix it. LittleJerry (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. The citation style is simliar to that done in lemur. LittleJerry (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I also got rid of the et als. I hope all the problems have been solved. LittleJerry (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

martha!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erutas1 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge elephantidae into this

The terms are basically synonyms, and the articles cover the exact same ground. FunkMonk (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: This article is about the living species called elephants not every member of elephantidae which includes mammoths and Stegolophodon. LittleJerry (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the tag for now, since it isn't urgent, but elephant is usually used as a term for even the extinct species, so I disagree. We don't have separate articles for living penguins and Sphenisciformes either, for example. But a merge can wait, no worries. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Occisonally it is but only the mammoths. The majority of the time it refers to the living species. LittleJerry (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems that the elephantidae article is too inclusive, as it lists many genera outside it for some reason. So it may seem harder to integrate here than it is. A book about mammoths written by Adrian Lister[2] specifically mentions "true elephants" (i.e. elephantidae) as referring to living elephants and mammoths collectively. I think it would be easy to absorb the little material there is in that article. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. FunkMonk has a good argument but I am concerned that the "Elephant" article is already rather long, and "Elephantidae" is certainly not a stub. There is enough text in "Elephantidae" to justify its position as a stand-alone article, and it has the potential for further expansion. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The other article is only long (or rather, has a long list) because it includes taxa that are not widely regarded to be part of elephantidae. Cut these out, and it's only a few. Michael Benton also terms elephantidae "elephants and mammoths". It would take about five minutes to redirect that article here, and add a couple of lines about the extinct species, if that hasn't been done already FunkMonk (talk) 11:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Editing politeness

LittleJerry, you recently made multiple changes to the section on seismic communication in this article. Your revised version deleted relevant information and contained inaccuracies and typos. You left no edit summary so there was no indication of your motivation behind these changes, therefore I manually reverted to the previous version. Your subsequent immediate revert indicated the motivation was "(your verison contains close paraphasing and direct copying of the sources.)" Yes, I may have closely paraphrased, but this is permissible according to Wikepedia:Close paraphrasing if suitable in-line attrubition is given. I have done this. Similarly, with direct copying, this is attributed to the author from where I have taken the information although I felt it did not require quotes. I use the highest quality material when researching my edits and sometimes this means the statements of authors simply can not be improved upon. Please revert your changes and please use the Edit summary for each of your changes. __DrChrissy (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Direct copying without qoutes still violates copyright. Your wording is not an example of "suitable in-line attrubition" because it is not being attrubited to a person (e. g. John Rawls says that, to reach fair decisions, parties must consider matters as if behind a veil of ignorance). In addition, your wording is way to technical and needs to be put in laymen's terms. Wording like "Elephants may also use seismic communication from signals generated through percussion on the substrate or acoustical waves that couple with the substrate" is not appropriate for an encyclopedia that's meant to be accessable to the general public. LittleJerry (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

If you had these concerns you should have raised them with me on the Talk page rather than reckless editing in an almost complete absence of giving edit summaries (something you have been warned about several times on your User Talk page). It is your own single opinion what material is accessable to the general public - making a unilateral series of heavy editing without discussion indicates you may be in violation of thinking you own this article__DrChrissy (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I did, and I'm not the only one who feels that way. Axl pointed that out in the PR. LittleJerry (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Guys, we are all trying to improve the article. I am sure that we can collaborate and do so. The references for the "Communication" subsection are of good quality, and we can use them to support statements in the article. Let's avoid accusations of ownership. Collaborative editing is one of Wikipedia's principles; we can all expect have our work edited by others. Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this has not been a collaborative effort. It has been editors other than LittleJerry making good faith changes only to have these pounced upon and deleted or changed with no discussion and no edit summaries. This leads to much work for other editors to follow which edits LittleJerry has been making. I will be making no further contributions to this article until it is submitted for Featured Article status.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing review

The peer review has now closed. However I still have comments to make. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• In "Elephants and humans", subsection "Attacks", several incidents are listed that all seem to have the same pattern: elephants go on a rampage, locals claim drunkenness, officials deny drunkenness. Perhaps these incidents could be combined into a single sentence that summarizes them? I don't think that it is helpful to list them individually. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 14:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• From "Elephants and humans", subsection "Cultural depictions", paragraph 2: "Similar beliefs existed among certain other African tribes, who believed that their chiefs would be reincarnated as elephants." Are these "other African tribes" named? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Nope, just the Igbo-Ukwu. LittleJerry (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• From "Elephants and humans", subsection "Cultural depictions", paragraph 3: "Elephants in fiction are typically surrogates for humans and their concern for the community and each other is depicted as something to which to aspire." Can you simplify this sentence please? Perhaps split it? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Better? LittleJerry (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I have finished reviewing the text. I have not checked the references. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. LittleJerry (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 December 2012

Text apparently contains a spelling error:

"Female same-sex behaviours have been documented only in captivity where they are known to mastrubate one other with their trunks."

Perhaps "masturbate" is more appropriate?

219.117.23.10 (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed, thanks. Well spotted! Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

File:African elephant warning raised trunk.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:African elephant warning raised trunk.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 5, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-03-05. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A portrait of an African elephant, highlighting its trunk. The trunk, which contains some 150,000 muscle fascicles, is a fusion of the nose and upper lip with a unique nerve running along both sides. An elephant can use its trunk for power functions, such as lifting up to 350 kg (770 lb), or more delicate functions, such as wiping its eye.Photograph: Muhammad Mahdi Karim

Comprehensiveness

I see this article was featured recently - congratulations to its authors!

But I would suggest that there are a few omissions. I know we can't mention everything at List of historical elephants and Cultural depictions of elephants and List of fictional pachyderms, but why do we get passing mentions of Ganesh and Babar and Dumbo, and the symbol of the US Republican Party, but not Jumbo or Topsy the Elephant or Elephant and Castle or Elmer the Patchwork Elephant or Seeing the Elephant or Shooting an Elephant or the elephant test? No depictions of elephants in art, such as the Kakiemon elephants or Dali's The Elephants?

The discussion of the historical significance of ivory - ivory carving, ivory trade, chryselephantine sculpture, even perhaps the ivory tower - is also rather short. -- Ferma (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I added in Jumbo. I don't think the others are needed though. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Image captions

I want to start by thanking the editors for another beautiful article! Good job! There's just one thing: the image captions—"Walking," "Trunk raised," "Foraging," etc.—seem less than inspired. In fact, they're pointless. Perhaps we can replace them with something more substantial or creative? The image summaries and WP:CAPTION are good places to start. --50.46.231.88 (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words and thank you for your suggestion. However, image captions are not the place for flowery prose, no matter how tempting, mostly because of size-constraints. Literally. I've found out the hard way that if an image caption is too long, it tends to look visually awkward, so, ultimately, it's better to be brutally concise.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply! I wouldn't want to see flowery prose in a caption either (!), but I respectfully disagree about visual awkwardness. I find a caption consisting of a single word not only awkward but unencyclopedic. A caption like this adds nothing of value and fails most of the criteria for "good captions": (1) it clearly identifies the subject of the picture, without detailing the obvious [emphasis mine]; (2) is succinct; (3) establishes the picture's relevance to the article; (4) provides context for the picture; (5) draws the reader into the article.

In my opinion, the captions detract from an otherwise excellent article. You just wouldn't see this in a published work, and it bothers me seeing it on Wikipedia. However, if others are fine with this, I guess I'll live with it too.--50.46.231.88 (talk) 03:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, after reading this discussion I scanned the images, and the only one that really got me was "Trunk raised". I know it's a featured picture, but could we think of something a little more informative? An elephant actually using its trunk, perhaps? Or we could mention that its supposed to be some kind of warning like it says in the file description. FallingGravity (talk) 06:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I too felt that many of the captions needed improving - the least we can do is inform the reader which species of elephant they are looking at! I have been bold and edited several of the captions. Hopefully these are a little more inspired but without being flowery.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Anthropomorphizing

DrChrissy please stop adding in your personal opinion that the researchers are "anthropomorphizing" elephants. By putting that, you are stating that only humans can feel "concern" and therefore the researchers are wrong which violates NPOV. When scientists say that other scientists are anthropomorphizing animals, its meant as a criticism. You are free to cite other researchers who say that Douglas-Hamilton et. al are anthropomorphizing them but you can't put it in like it is fact. LittleJerry (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

If I say someone is using a metaphor it is a statement of fact, not personal opinion. If I say someone is writing in Latin, it is a statement of fact, not a matter of opinion. The definition of anthropomorphism is "Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena." By using the word "concern", Hamilton et al. are attributing a human motivation to the behaviour of the elephants. I make no statement about whether elephants can feel concern or not, simply that the authors are attributing a human motivation to the elephants. I am also not criticising the authors - I am simply stating the authors have attributed human motivation and are therefore being anthropomorphic. This is a statement of fact, not an opinion.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

When people anthropomorphize something, they give them human traits that they clearly don't have (eg. a talking rock, a monkey that wears clothes and lives in a house). However, if I were to say that a dog is angry or in distress, would that be anthropomorphizing? No it wouldn't. Because these are things that they experience just like people. Like I said, when a scientist says that another scientist is anthropomorphizing an animal, its negative and meant as a criticism. LittleJerry (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

If you said a dog was "angry", you WOULD be using anthropomorphism - anger is a human emotion and, contrary to your statement, we do NOT know whether dogs experience the same emotions as humans; you are attributing a human characteristic to a non-human animal in exactly the same way as writing that elephants show "concern".__DrChrissy (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, that's your opinion that certain emotions are only human emotions. The researchers disagree. Find a PR paper that supports your position or let it go. LittleJerry (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with my opinion about whether other animals experience the same emotions or not. Please look again at the definition of anthropomorphism. "Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena." By saying an elephant is "concerned" this is attributing a human characteristic and is therefore anthropomorphizing. Your own opinion of this having a negative connotation is YOUR interpretation of the word, it is not contained in the definition, and I have not attributed any negative connotation....I am simply saying what the word is.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This issue is more complex than simple dictionary definitions. When it comes to ethology, "anthropomorphism" IS a negative term. LittleJerry (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The contentious edit adds the word "anthropomorphically". The source does not use that word. "Anthropomorphize" means to endow a human characteristic to something that is not human. Use of the word in this context would imply that "concern" is a purely human characteristic. I do not believe that that is the case here—indeed the presence of "concern" in elephants shows that the characteristic is not unique to humans. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The above arguement is circular. Just because a research paper states that the elephants are concerned does not prove that concern is experienced. It may prove that the elephants behave AS IF they are concerned, but it does NOT prove that they WERE concerned. Concern is an emotion. It is a private, subjective experience which can not be measured in other humans, let alone non-humans. If I was to write a paper stating that when a 12-yr old dog sits and whines it is grieving for its brother which died 10 years ago, would you support this explanation?__DrChrissy (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Your right, the paper does prove that elephant feel concern hence why I don't object to This has been interpreted as expressing "concern". By adding in "Anthropomorphically" you are giving your opinion on their interpretation. LittleJerry (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The aim of Wikipedia is not to publish "The Truth" but rather to state facts from reliable sources that are verifiable. The source ascribes the characteristic of "concern" to elephants. Implicitly, this indicates that the characteristic is not unique to humans. Thus it is contrary to the definition of "anthropomorphism". Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

" If I was to write a paper stating that when a 12-yr old dog sits and whines it is grieving for its brother which died 10 years ago, would you support this explanation? "

If it was published in a peer-reviewed journal, it could well be appropriate for inclusion in the corresponding article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, after publishing for 25 years in international peer-reviewed journals on subjects of animal behaviour, welfare and emotions, I hope with all my heart and professional integrity you never see me writing in such a peer-reviewed journal.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Protection

It's been seven years since the Tripling Elephants incident, and we've not attempted to modify protection for a year and a half, so I've reduced protection: the page retains move=sysop, but semiprotection is removed and feedback is enabled. Feel free to restore everything immediately if vandalism shows that I made the wrong decision, although I'd suggest we try pending changes before putting semiprotection back. Nyttend (talk) 05:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 October 2013

It is mentioned on this article page that Elephants are working animals. I'm having a video which is showing the elephants as working animals. The video file link on WikiMedia Commons is

Exciting Elephant Ride in Jaipur at Amer Fort

Kindly check this video and embed it in article if you find it suitable.

Goyal Sameer Goyal (talk) 10:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I have added the video. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adding video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goyal Sameer Goyal (talk • contribs) 09:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Colbert elephant epidemic

IT's been 7.5 years now. It would seem like many people would've forgotten about it. Considering how long it's been, I don't know if there'd be a sudden spike in "tripling elephant population" edits. 67.182.171.189 (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're wrong: check the protection logs. You'll see that I thought the same thing and unprotected it in September, only to see vandalism return to the point that semiprotection was again necessary. Nobody did anything about 300% population increases; it was simple vandalism such as "elephants can paint and surf", replacing the infobox photo with a coconut, and purple...20-pound max weight...incisors grow into swords..."The elephant's tiny ear flaps help to fly". I'm sorry, as I'd really like to see this unprotected, but it's simply not practical. This is the case for many prominent articles on important, basic topics: schoolchildren go here all the time and toy with the contents. Nyttend (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2014

I want to add an optional name for the Elephant which would be Sadik. Zhastakingkong (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Where are elephants called "Sadik"?--Mr Fink (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2014

I would like to edit this arcticle. I have noticed some spelling and grammar errors. I seek premission to go through and clean up the arcticle.

Zachisasexybeast (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Zach - This article is actually in good shape. It's a featured article, which means that it's some of the best work on Wikipedia. Are there specific things that you want changed? It may be better to wait until you are an autoconfirmed user, especially since your edits to the golf and lacrosse articles didn't really look like improvements. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 22:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Elephant material duplicated?

Elephant only includes the Asian elephant and the African elephant. This is one of the easier higher level articles to consider. What should be in the higher level article? What should be repeated three times? Only this article claims the elephant is a herbivore. Fine with me, but that is not consistent with African elephant which goes on about feeding habits common to all elephants, after inserting the single fact on volume, unique to the African. I'm sure that this is a common problem in animal articles. I don't know the answer. But this and subordinate articles need to be looked at for consistency. Or maybe (gulp) merged. Student7 (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Editors may be interested in thread at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Animals#Organization_of_several_articles_about_similar_animals. (Taxonomy articles are beyond my scope of knowledge). Student7 (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2014

In the section of the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant#Conservation_issues, in the first paragraph "status", please change from "About 214,000 elephants were estimated to live in the rainforests, less than had previously been thought" to "About 214,000 elephants were estimated to live in the rainforests, fewer than had previously been thought". "Less" is incorrect grammar, "fewer" is correct. Jonathanjfriend (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done - by another - Arjayay (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Onset of Oestrus in females

The article doesn't state the age of onset of oestrus in females, only how long it lasts. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Evolution Suggestions

This article is very good. After reviewing several scientific articles, I noted some things that could be added to this article under Evolution and Extinct Relatives. The dwarf elephant Palaeoloxodon antiquus falconeri found on the island of Tilos in Greece is part of a Palaeoloxodon-Elephas clade (with paleontology divergence evidence of about four million years ago), as Palaeoloxodon is more related to Mammuthus or Loxodonta. <Mylonas, Moysis, Nikos Poulakakis, and et. al. (2002). Molecular Phylogeny of the Extinct Pleistocene Dwarf Elephant Palaeoloxodon antiquus falconeri from Tilos Island, Dodekanisa, Greece. Journal of Molecular Evolution, 55 (3), 364-374. DOI: 10.1007/s00239-002-2337-x>. More information on Elephantidae lineages divergences could be provided, such as the American Mastodon (Mammut americanum) divergence time of 24-28 million years ago, African elephant divergence about 7.6 million years ago, and Mammoth and Asian elephant divergence around 6.7 million years ago (using mitochondrial genome sequence of an American Mastodon sample). <Hofreiter, Michael, Anna-Sapfo Malaspinas, and et. al. (2007). Proboscidean Mitogenomics: Chronology and Mode of Elephant Evolution Using Mastodon as Outgroup. PLoS Biology, 5 (8), 1663-1671. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0050207> Finally, mention of the family Deinotheres and others in the order Proboscidea, and their relation to elephants, would be beneficial to the article. Doyle.280 (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2014

I feel this is vital information to understanding evolutionary relationships of elephants. I would like to add to the end paragraph of Evolution and Extinct Relatives - There has been some debate over the relationship of Mammuthus to Loxodonta or Elephas. Some DNA studies suggest Mammuthus is more closely related to the former,[42][43] while others point to the latter.[9] However, analysis of the complete mitochondrial genome profile of the woolly mammoth (sequenced in 2005) supports Mammuthus being more closely related to Elephas.[20][24][44] Morphological evidence supports Mammuthus and Elephas as sister taxa, while comparisons of protein albumin and collagen have concluded that all three genera are equally related to each other.[45] Some scientists believe a cloned mammoth embryo could one day be implanted in an Asian elephant's womb.[46] - the statement, "Later studies, using the American Mastodon Mammut americanum as an outgroup in phylogeny and mitochondrial genome studies has led to the determined 24-28 million years ago divergence of Mastodons from other Elephantidae, African elephant Loxodonta africa divergence of about 7.6 million years ago, and Mammoth Mammuthus primigenius and Asian elephant Elephas maximus divergence of about 6.7 million years ago." Doyle.280 (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doyle.280 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 2 October 2014‎

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 05:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2014

Please link C3 and C4 plants in "Evolution and extinct relatives". 155.138.239.209 (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Done.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. 155.138.239.209 (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Elaboration on Evolution

Please add in the last paragraph before ===Dwarf species=== under ===Evolution and extinct relatives=== These claims are also based off the sequence analyses of cytochrome b and 12S ribosomal RNA of the species’ mitochondrial DNA. The Loxodonta-Mammuthus clade was supported by a 92% bootstrap value in the phylogenetic tree constructed. . The large bootstrap value is indicative of high relatedness of mammoth and African elephant based on these clades in hypothetical phylogenies reappearing in experimental studies. Contrarily, other scientists have argued that the Woolly Mammoth and the Asian elephant are more closely related, and therefore had a more recent evolutionary divergence time, based on similar dentition, hair, and immunology. . Based on using the American mastodon, Mammut americanum, as a phylogenetic outgroup (representing a more distant relative in a phylogenetic tree), an Elephas-Mammuthus clade would be more largely supported. . The partial sequences of mitochondrial DNA of fossils and living species were analyzed and compared, suggesting a divergence time between the American Mastodon and other Elephantidae of 24-28 million years ago, with African elephants diverging from Mammoths and the Asian elephant about 6.7 million years ago. . Additionally, using the Mastodon as an outgroup, the nuclear genomes suggested that African savannah and African forest elephants are different species, and had a divergence time of approximately 4.0 million years ago. If this were so, Elephantidae has experienced allopatric speciation based on changing African geography over time. Please add in second paragraph of ===Dwarf species=== after Dwarf elephants of uncertain descent lived in Crete, Cyclades and Dodecanese, while dwarf mammoths are known to have lived in Sardinia.[49]: The Dwarf Elephant (Paleoloxodon antiquus falconeri) that existed during the Pleistocene and found on Mediterranean islands was determined to be more closely related to Elephas than Loxodonta or Mammuthus. Please add in ending of third paragraph under ===Evolution and extinct relatives=== Research has suggested that in Southern Levant, several proboscidean taxa related to Elephas in the late Early to Middle Pleistocene existed with a chronological overlap. Elephas hysudricus co-occurs in record with the Stegodon and the straight-tusked Palaeoloxodon, precedent for the idea that Asian elephants expanded to the near East in the Holocene and giving rise to their present-day existence in Southeast Asia. .

Doyle.280 (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2015

Pls change the text in the lede as detailed below. Mammoths are in the same family, Elephantidae. I have replaced with Gomphotheriidae as second example.

• Elephantidae are the only surviving family of the order Proboscidea; other, now extinct, families of the order include mammoths and mastodons.

to

• Elephantidae, which also includes the extinct mammoths, are the only surviving family of the order Proboscidea. Other, now extinct, families of Proboscidea include mastodons and Gomphotheriidae.

Thx, 115.166.13.121 (talk) 07:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The current version seems clearer, and we would need a secondary source for the new text. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 01:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Sarah, it's interesting that you say that a source is required when there is currently no source for the statement that I have requested a change for. Perhaps you can find a reference on either the Mammoth or Elephantidae articles, both of which clearly indicate that mammoths are nested within Elephantidae, that will satisfy your requirements? Please feel free to emend my wording if you feel it is awkward or unclear. 115.166.13.121 (talk) 04:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I agree that the current version is clearer and less wordy. Please establish a consensus for this change before reactivating the request. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 18:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This edit request is not about establishing a consensus for altering the way something is written but about what is currently written being incorrect. Mammoths are not a family separate from elephantidae since they are in elephantidae. Therefore they are not an "other family of the order", extinct or not.

It's up to you whether you want this article to be more or less accurate but I'm not going to waste my time any further. (This kind of time-eating BS is why I gave up my registered account and adminship years ago. It has been quite revealing how the same type of edits that I make as an IP are often treated differently from when I made them under my account). 106.69.187.81 (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Asian elephant closest living relative to Mammoth Comment

Hello LittleJerry, Thank you for any thoughts you may have on my comments below.

Regarding your edit comment statement "A" below is already stated: I am trying to understand. Do you mean article statement B below?

I think the references cited, state the Asian elephant is the closest living relative of the Mammoth, but the article text as written vague to me, because of the use of the words "supports" which to me means provides some evidence for the claim, (but not 100% certain), and "supports" is not the same strength word as "establish" meaning 100% certain. "Closest" is more definitive than "more closely related"(how close??).

Sugggestion: Could the text be revised from/to, to match the referenced claims: from: supports Mammuthus being more closely related to Elephas to: confirms the Elephas(Asian elephant) is the closet living relative to the Mammuthus(Mammoth)

A. A 2015 Elephant DNA review study established the Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) is the closest living relative of the extinct woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius).

B. "However, analysis of the complete mitochondrial genome profile of the woolly mammoth (sequenced in 2005) supports Mammuthus being more closely related to Elephas."

Thank you,--Jcardazzi (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

Possible addition to anatomy section

Wasn't sure whether this was significant enough to add to the article, so thought I'd put it here. Proposed addition, right after The heart of an elephant weighs 12–21 kg (26–46 lb). It has a double-pointed apex, an unusual trait among mammals.:

The bifurcated apex caused Claudius Aelianus to misinterpret the elephant as having two hearts[3].

Someguy1221 (talk) 22:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

A trunk question

I found this section to be a bit confusing: "The nasal septum is composed of tiny muscle units that stretch horizontally between the nostrils. Cartilage divides the nostrils at the base."

Is there a strip of cartilage extending the full length of the trunk to the elephant's head? Or dies it just form at the end of the trunk and, if so, how long is it? Thank you. Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Ortiz Gaytan (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Running speed

This Wikipedia article (in the locomotion section) seems to suggest that the top running speed of elephants is 18 km/h, but this is unlikely, as it is universally accepted that elephants are able to outrun humans. Isn't the maximum speed that elephants can reach actually 48 km/h? Maybe there is a distinction between "fast walking speed" and "running speed"...however, the article is a bit unclear on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.126.135.229 (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Elephant unemployment

Append to the "Working animal" subsection: "In both Myanamar and Thailand, deforestation and other economic factors have resulted in sizable populations of unemployed elephants resulting in health problems for the elephants themselves as well as economic and safety problems for the people amongst whom they live.

References

Done EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Should We Use Protection?

I realise this question has been asked and answered about 500 times, but the last time it was asked appears to be 2012. Since we are now 4 years on from that, is there still a need to semi-protect this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyGod (talk • contribs) 07:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Taking into account that this page has a lot of heavy internet traffic, and the fact that the last time semi-protection was lifted, it was almost then immediately besieged by a bunch of inane Colbert-fan trolls, necessitating semi-protection be immediately reinstated, yes, yes there is still a need to semi-protect this article.--Mr Fink (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I would leave the semi-protection. There are even old "scholarly" articles about how unreliable the Wikipedia is, just because Colbert was able to get people to put nonsense in the elephant page. See M. Masnick, ‘How Truthiness and Wikiality Helped Colbert Take Down Wikipedia,’ Techdirt (August 2006), available at https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060801/0128222.shtml "Take Down"?? Not happening. --WiseWoman (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Did I type "immediately besieged by a bunch of inane Colbert-fan trolls?" I meant to type "immediately rebesieged by a bunch of inane Colbert-fan trolls."--Mr Fink (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)