Talk:Hippopotamus/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Size of Hippo

Is it "second largest animal" as it says in first paragraph or "third largest mammal" according to the fourth paragraph?

SkinheadEscapes (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It is the second largest land animal in size, being larger than a rhino, but the third largest land animal by weight, since the muscular rhino is occasionally slightly heavier than a hippo. —Stephen (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

How is that possible, seeing as how rhinos, especially the white and Indian species, are both taller and longer as well as heavier than hippos? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.250.200.131 (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This is interesting. I have no information on the comparative size of rhinos and hippos, other than that they are both very heavy, but I have noted recently that at least the Black and White rhino species can gallop (4-time assymetrical leg sequence, like a running horse)(I don't have any information on the Indian ones, which don't appear in documentaries so often) but as far as I know hippos can only trot (2-time beat, suspended run), which they do very well and very fast. I do not know if this difference is a function simply of weight, or of leg/body proportions. Rhinos are astonishing nimble. I suspect hippos are too. They also seem to "canter" underwater, but only with their front legs, while the back legs generally trail. I have only various clips to go on so may be misinterpreting the latter observation. I have never found any articles or information about hippo locomotion on land, other than that they can move fast. 212.159.59.41 (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

{{editsemiprotected}} Vandalism from 27 June 2009 was not reverted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hippopotamus&diff=298906129&oldid=298906092 76.197.14.227 added "which includes a large horn and a small wisp of hair projecting out of its right side depending on the gender, " to the Description section. Please remove.

 Done Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Another note, am I the only one that thinks "The hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius), Scott Kane" is someone trying to insult someone named Scott Kane? I've never heard that expression used for a hippo and when I tried to search for the two words together, Wikipedia seems to be the only place it comes up.

Hippos Also Attack Crocodiles

I have a citation: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6918747.ece

For some reason Wikipedia won't allow me to edit this page even though I can edit other pages; I'm assuming this is because the article is featured. I don't think it's my IP, as I can edit other pages. Anyway - the article describes this as a rare clash, but it's the second one I've seen. The first was in a Discovery Channel special. No citation for that one. I guess I'll leave this note here and come back later to see if Wikipedia allows me to update the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.154.250.251 (talk) 08:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hippos Also Lick Crocodiles

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6vJXRwsoSk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.184.133.27 (talk) 10:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Image

Hippo at Philadelphia Zoo

Found a nice closeup image, but article is already overcrowded. Can this replace the one showing the head? Could add commentary about the teeth or whisker/pad to give it relevance. --165.21.155.15 (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a pretty great picture. We should definitely find a spot for it. --JayHenry (talk) 02:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"Blood Sweat" acidic or alkaline?

In this hippopotamus article, the natural sunscreen ("blood sweat") secretion is said to be very acidic, while in the article for pygmy hippopotamus it is listed as strongly alkaline. It does not seem likely that both could be true. References are given for each. Can someone knowledgeable set this straight? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.72.108 (talk) 06:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've found an answer to this. The "sweat" itself, as a mixture, is alkaline (ph: 8.5-10.5). The two pigments that control the color-shifting of the sweat are both acidic (red `hipposudoric acid`, orange `norhipposudoric acid`, phs not available off the top of my head.) Data at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v429/n6990/full/429363a.html.

-- Wingchild (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2008 (EST)

Very last of the anthracotheres

Miocene or Pliocene?--Wetman (talk) 11:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The last anthracothere is thought to have died out in the Pliocene. Good catch! I bet I flubbed that on the pygmy hippo article too. Grr... --JayHenry (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Deadliest?

We read:

Hippos are very aggressive towards humans, and it is often claimed that hippos are the deadliest animal in Africa[REF]http://www.safari-stories.iblog.co.za/2007/12/25/the-most-dangerous-animal-in-africa/[/REF]; however, according to Smithsonian Magazine, while the animal is very dangerous, reliable statistics for this are unavailable.[REF name="HippoHaven"]"Hippo Haven". Smithsonian Magazine. 2006-01-01. Retrieved 2007-01-23.[/REF]

The first "source" is a mere blog entry, vaguely referring to some popular belief. As for the second source, it certainly does say that the hippo is dangerous, but I can't see where it discusses whether it's the deadliest (whatever that might mean).

And another point: the Smithsonian Magazine says nothing in that article. A single writer is writing for the Smithsonian. Tama1988 (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced the blog with three other references instead (Duke University; Washington Post; National Geographic). The Smithsonian magazine does say that "many Africans regard hippos as the continent's most dangerous animal. Although accurate numbers are hard to come by, lore has it that hippos kill more people each year than lions, elephants, leopards, buffaloes and rhinos combined." Harrymph (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hungry Hungry Hippos

I'd like to add a reference to Hungry Hungry Hippos, but this article is semi-protected and I can't edit it in. Oral Thrush (talk) 04:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It's already mentioned at Hippopotamus#Cultural depictions. What else did you want to say? --JayHenry (talk) 06:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

cannibalism?

under the aggression section, the last sentence says - Hippos have been accused of occasional cannibalism but without proof.[45]

however, earlier in the same section there is this statement - The Discovery Channel recently broadcast footage of a hippo eating a wildebeest. The hippo first pushed two crocodiles out of its way with its gigantic snout to get to the wildebeest; the crocodiles put up no resistance at all. A park ranger in Africa recently sprinted over a hundred yards to survive a hippo attack. [46]

surely the fact it ate a wildebeest is PROOF that they are occasional cannibals?! would someone verify and correct, thanks. 77.97.18.22 (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Attacking a wildebeest is very different from engaging in cannibalism, especially since it would require the aforementioned cannibal to attack and eat a member of its own species, and not just a member of its same biological order.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Correction needed

Someone needs to correct the section on infanticide (last part under subsections Aggression). In the article, it is claimed that infanticide occurs in responce to overpopulated or habitat loss, but this is not true. As also clearly stated in the reference for the sentence in the article [1], infanticide by males is believed to be a way of increasing reproductive success (comparable to what can be seen in male lions when they take over a flock, and sometimes kill the young so the females go into oestrous faster). 212.10.82.245 (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

'Urban' Hippos

I'd like a mention in the article about the existence of a small hippo population in Cape Town, South Africa (in the Rondevlei Reserve, situated in the city). Here are a couple of links:[2], [3]

(Drakenwolf (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC))

evolution

The new article in Nature (now ref [10]) contains some revision of the phylogeny that should be mentioned in the "Evolution" section, but I don't have time to review it. I can provide a copy of the article to someone willing to work on it (send me email). Ability to read fairly technical stuff is required. McKay (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This is probably off topic

I noticed that the IP responsible for replacing "Hippopotamus" with "Rosie O'Donnell" has been involved with at least one other case of vandalism. Being a wikipedia n00b I have no idea how to properly recommend that IP for banning. Feel free to delete this section when the proper channels have been followed. (or, alternatively, if it's not actually necessary to band 99.164.11.66) --98.210.101.201 (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hippopotamidae/Hippopotamus evolution

I just noticed that the evolution section on the Hippopotamidae article links to the evolution section on this article. Since Hippopotamidae is the family, and Hippopotamus is a species within that family, I found this to be a curious choice. It would seem to me to be logical to reverse that ordering, but I don't know how this has been handled in general among taxonomic articles (I only really visited these pages because their currently featured), so I figured that I would at least mention it.
— Ω (talk) 09:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hippos in the Niger River, Mali

I am surprised that the Niger River in Mali is not included in the range map in the article nor on the detailed map at the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.

Googling suggests that there are still hippos in the river - see for example:

• http://homepage.mac.com/melissaenderle/mali/pages/timbuktutravel.html
• http://everythingspossible.wordpress.com/2008/08/11/sighting-of-hippopotamus-in-niger-river/

Aa77zz (talk) 09:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Snake

Text needs to be changed to reflect that Hippo is the largest killer of humans by a mammal (except humans) in Africa. If the term Animal is used then there might be lot of other ones such as Snakes, Mosquitoes (mentioned) & other pararsites that may be ahead of Hippo. Photnart (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC).

Go for it. I hadn't caught that line, but obviously more humans are killed by parasites than by hippos. --KP Botany (talk) 05:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I edited it to say "large animals," as this is the general context, hippos are more dangerous than lions and crocodiles and wildebeest, to humans at least. I removed the sentence about mosquitoes as it is a quote from an anonymous zoo keeper, not a researched fact. Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 06:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

To say that the hippos' closest relatives are cetaceans in the same paragraph that we say that they are arteriodacts is stretching it a bit. I'm aware of the evidence, but this point should be clarified.67.182.148.236 (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hippos Can Easily Outrun a Human?

There are two sentences in the article as follows: "Despite its stocky shape and short legs, it can easily outrun a human. Hippos have been clocked at 18 mph (29 km/h) over short distances." The human record is almost 50% faster than that, over short distances, which would seem to indicate that at least some humans are faster than a hippo -- and that there are many, many humans which the hippos cannot EASILY outrun. If no one objects shortly, I'll rewrite these sentences. Larry (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

They are comparable if you compare the average hippo to the fastest humans, over a very short distance (<1 mile). That's a rather restricted comparison. The average hippo is substantially faster than the average human and can easily outrun him. Those sentences are fine as-is. Raul654 (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Cultural Depiction

I would like to add a reference to the hippo being used the as the cultural inspiration for Flying Hippo Web Technologies [4], but the article is semi-protected and I can't add the content. User:Aimeedale (talk) 10:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC) 216.81.180.97 (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hippo extirpated range

I find the range map highly suspicious. The cited source does not mention areas where hippos have lived but do no longer.

Further, I have a hard time believing that hippos could ever have lived in the rocky barren uplands of South Africa or anywhere at all in the Namib Desert. Their lack of presence in these areas clearly does not represent extirpation. Otherwise I guess they've been extirpated from the wild in Kazakhstan too, 'cause there ain't any there neither. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.100.69 (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hippos, other aquatic mammals, and body hair

The sixth paragraph in the "Description" section contained the sentence "Like other aquatic mammals, the hippopotamus has very little hair." This appears to be clearly wrong: according to the Aquatic mammal article, included among the aquatic mammals are the marine mammals, which in turn include the pinnipeds, the sea and marine otters, and the polar bear, all of which are abundantly covered in fur; other fur-bearing aquatic mammals include beavers, the other species of otter, and the platypus. I therefore changed the sentence to read "Like its relatives the cetaceans [the hippo's relation to the cetaceans having been established above], the hippopotamus has very little hair." This could likely be expanded -- the manatee and dugong, for instance, appear to be other nearly hairless aquatic mammals -- but I didn't feel comfortable generalizing further. Please feel free to improve if you can. Danny oldsen (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Me again. Having read through the discussion above, stressing the hippo's relation to the cetaceans seems like it might not be the way to go. It seems like a more relevant/instructive version of this sentence might be "Unlike most other semi-aquatic animals, the hippopotamus has very little hair." (See, e.g., http://www.riverapes.com/AAH/FoF/10Leyhausen.htm.) So I've fixed the fix; again, improvement sought. Danny oldsen (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

It is strange that noone has bothered to write that hippopotamus actually means "river of the horse", not "river horse". The two Greek words that make the name of this animal were stringed together the wrong way and the name stuck.

No, it means "horse (of) the river," in the exact same way "Hoplophoneus" means "Weapon (of) Murder"--Mr Fink (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Non sequitur in first paragraph?

The last sentence in the first paragraph states "After the elephant, the hippotamus is the largest land mammal and the heaviest extant artiodactyl, despite being considerably shorter than the giraffe." The last phrase, "despite being considerably shorter than the giraffe", appears to be completely irrelevant. Or am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wocky (talk • contribs) 10:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Generally, taller things are heavier. On the other hand, every idiot knows that most of a Giraffe's height is not too massive. I suppose the line should be removed. Daniel J. Hakimi (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• OK, I've removed it. Wocky (talk) 07:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Problems

This article has certain problems that may threaten its FA status.

• Cite 10 is a 300+ page book and needs page numbers given for the specific cites.
• Some cites are not converted to cite templates.
• cite 50 is in url form. Its a low qauilty source anyway.

LittleJerry (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Etymology

Why is there a huge chunk of etymology in the lead? It can surely be moved down to later on in the article. This would clean up the lead, making it easier to understand, and still retain the actual information. --NellieBly (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Currently the lead seems to say that hippos came from the greeks. Clever greeks, I never knew they were into genetic engineering. ;-) Hippos have been around a long while before that though.- Wolfkeeper 18:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Currently, Wolf, it's customary in Wikipedia to include etymology etc. in an article's first sentence. It looks like we're on our way to change this habit for the better, but if you storm through articles deleting or relocating this information before a new policy is agreed upon and a clear recommendation is included in Wikipedia's guidelines, you might just cause editing wars and antagonism. Let's wait a little before setting off changing this structure everywhere. Dan ☺ 20:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a long discussion on Wikipedia talk:Lead section#Etymology in the lead? in which User:Wolfkeeper is pursuing his personal belief that etymology should not appear in article leads. After Wolfkeeper removed the full etymology from the lead, I added back to the lead the basic fact that "hippopotamus" it is "ancient greek for river horse", which he removed and I then restored. Hippopotamus has included a discussion of the word's etymology since February 25, 2002, two weeks after the article first appeared on Wikipedia (and on its second edit), and apparently has always thereafter included the etymology in the lead. Apparently innumerable editors have felt that appropriate. Ecphora (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I only said that long etymologies shouldn't be in the first sentence (and possibly the first paragraph) primarily because it impairs readability, and other reasons as well. Point of fact, I'm not that unhappy with the current lead in this article.- Wolfkeeper 01:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Great. I also believe the current version is fine. Maybe we're not so far apart. Ecphora (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please add a close parenthesis to "Magawit (Sebei,"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loupgrru (talk • contribs) 20:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The third heaviest land animal and one of the heaviest quadrapeds?

Isn't this a, rather unstylish, repetition?

If an animal is the third largest land mammal then it is likely to be one of the largest quadrapeds isn't it. Surely that's a given. Also it seems like the description moves from precise: "third heaviest" to pretty vague: "one of the largest". Doesn't look good and seems unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchin Man (talk • contribs) 21:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

So fix it. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I am happy to fix it... I am just looking to those with more biology knowledge if perhaps there is a reason for saying bit about quadrapeds... If there isn't sure, it'll be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchin Man (talk • contribs) 08:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Could be that there's a distinction being made between size (largest) and weight (heaviest)? Scratching head a little. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Range Map

Just a little thing, but shouldn't the range map have a caption explaining what the red and green areas refer to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.185.4 (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup

I did some polishing on the article. The lede contained cites that are not needed as they are done in the body of the article. Some of the paragrahs were too short, so I merged them. The subspecies can be sourced to "The Hippos" book. The sentence on Zambia and Tanzania having the largest populations belong in the body. The lede should not contain information not in the body. I also left a few needed cite tags. LittleJerry (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Range map

What is the significance of the red and green areas on the range map? Also, given the high prevalence of red–green colour blindness, contrasting red and green on the map is not a good choice. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Run

Hippo maximum running speed 18,5 mph = 30 km/h. --Angel310 (talk) 07:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Angel310

We read "despite its stocky shape and short legs, it can easily outrun a human" but in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footspeed we read the fastest human footspeed on record is 44.72 km/h (27.79 mph), seen during a 100 metres sprint (average speed between the 60th and the 80th meter) by Usain Bolt.[4] citing http://berlin.iaaf.org/mm/document/competitions/competition/05/30/83/20090817081546_httppostedfile_wch09_m100_final_13529.pdf.

So, the fastest human to date is faster than the fastest hippo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianpcarr (talk • contribs) 20:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Aggression: hippo bites

I've read somewhere that hippo bites are almost always fatal, due to obvious reasons of the sheer size and force of the bite and also because the hippo will attempt to overpower, shake, dunk, and drown its prey. I think there's been at least one case of a person surviving a hippo bite, though, with the person miraculously surviving because of one of the hippo's lower canines narrowly missed his one of vital organs by inches (I think it was either his liver or one of his kidneys) and the other lower canine went through one of his legs (narrowly missing the femoral artery too). They had it on the Discovery Channel on the last segment of the Weird or What? third season episode, "Amazing Survival", with the person who had survived it and a dramatized re-enactment of the attack while he was in Africa, boating down a river with a guide. I think it should be added this article just to emphasize how fatal a hippo bite is and also how a hippo attacks and kills. 65.87.51.51 (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Learn Your Pluralisations

Don't assume that everything ending in -us is pluralised -i.. Hippopotamus is NOT Latin. It's a Greek compound word made up of Hippo (Horse) and Potamus (River), Potamus being a second declension noun, which is pluralised -oi, hus it would be Hippopotamoi, NOT Hippopotami, if you want to be faithful to its linguistic origins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GuelphGryphon98 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, I'm afraid. The plurals of Greek second declension nouns (ending in -οι) are routinely spelled in Latin script ending in -i. Here's a random selection to get you going: Cacti, Colossi of Memnon, Anthropophagi, Thalami, Acanthi, Aegospotami - all of which derive from Greek second-declension nouns. A quick look at some reputable dictionaries (including the OED) show that both hippopotami and hippopotamuses are perfectly acceptable plural forms. (You are, though, quite correct in saying that not "everything ending in -us is pluralised -i": to take the best-known example, *octopi is a hideous solecism.)

As for the nonsense which someone has written about hippaepotamus being "etymologically correct", this is clearly someone who knows neither Latin nor Greek. Vilĉjo (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. If it was to be plural of horse it should be hippoipotamus, but this is not done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BbGideon (talk • contribs) 16:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

"Hippopotamus" is actually a very strangely formed word. Greek compound terms, like in English, have the main defining part at the end, so "hippo-potamus" should be a type of river, not a type of horse (well, ungulate anyway). (Compare English pocket-money, which is a type of money, with money-pocket, a type of pocket.) I can't think of any other case in Greek of having the two parts this way round, and the result of this anomaly is that it's not at all clear which of the two parts should (logically or etymologically) be pluralised. Whatever the rights and wrongs, however, the plural as it is actually used in Greek is ἱπποπόταμοι, resulting in a standard Latin-script spelling of hippopotami. But it is an oddity. Vilĉjo (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Please help me. What is the plural of pus? Pi? Poi? Puses? Pusses? I - not having classical learning - would favour the last, as not too easily confusible. Autochthony 1940z 2010.12.18. 81.155.133.144 (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi from Greece. In Greek the second declension "male" (In Greek, the nouns are male or female, as in French, and some are neutral) nouns ending in -ος in singular, in plural they end in -οι. Octapus (Οκτάπους in ancient Greek) doesn't end in -ος but in -ους and that's why the plural isn't octapi. The plural of hippopotamus in Greek, as said previously is ιπποπόταμοι. Ι think the word hippopotami sounds better than hippopotamuses in English (although it may still sound a bit weird). The word hippopotamoi seems a bit stranger in English as -οι is pronounced as i in Greek (just like -ει, and the rare -υι) but -oi isn't pronounced as i in English . Also for the plural of the word phenomenon, the word phenomena (which is the plural in Greek) is used, although this doesn't seem to make any sense in English but it sounds better and maintains the connection with the original word.--NNeilAlieNN (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of "phenomena" reminds me of this--Mr Fink (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

LOL.--NNeilAlieNN (talk) 02:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

That is very interesting. I was also taught that "hippopotamus" means "horse of the river", rather than "river-horse" (the difference being purely structural rather than semantic) but knowing no Greek grammar I can't deduce anything from this. If this comes up in teaching, I recommend using any form in any of the major print dictionaries, and if in doubt to stick to the "regular" English formation hippopotamuses. I removed a floating apostrophe from one entry here. They are very easy to pick up :) 212.159.59.41 (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Since English is not an inflected language, it is never considered improper to use the proper English pluralisation of unfamiliar words. If a hippopotamus is attached by Stachybotrys, that's bad enough, but if several hippopotamuses are attacked by Stachybotryses, that's awful. There's no harm in cogitating over the inflection of foreign languages, but the rules of the language of discourse prevail. 208.25.211.33 (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Retromingent

Is anybody still confused as to what retromingent means, because I certainly am. It is not contained in any dictionaries I own, and in the "wiktionary", as in this article, it is defined as simply "to urinate backwards". What the hell does that mean? Did that clarify anything for anyone? I arrived at that definition from the word's derivatives and was still no closer to understanding. How exactly does something piss backwards? Please enlighten me because right now I am picturing internal pissage, and where I come from things urinate to expel waste and excess fluid from the body and I am just wondering how that works or is even possible when you piss "backwards" (seriously, could one possibly use a more vague and misleading term?). Please, just tell me what orifice urine is expelled from in a retromingent. I hope the urine at least leaves the body, because if it is heading backwards (as opposed to projectile pissing), as the article states, then my mind will be boggled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.140.24 (talk) 06:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It means that the animal's genital opening points posteriorly, so that it excretes a stream of urine that points backwards, like the way a cat marks its territory. What's so mindboggling about that?--Mr Fink (talk) 06:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not complicated. The hippo's urine travels in the direction opposite its head. Most mammals, a dog for example, urinate straight downward or even a little bit forward, between the legs. --JayHenry (talk) 06:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the phrasing of the "retormingent" sentence so that the word is defined in the text rather than simply linked to a dictionary. I think it is much less confusing that way.

Skald the Rhymer (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a crummy word to begin with. "retromingent" - caudal, dorsal, or refluent stream? Words that diminish precision and clarity, and are hoidy-toidy like "retromingent," are just jargon.208.25.211.33 (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Paragraph on human consumption of hippos

I have created a paragraph in the article this topic and added clear cites from peer reviewed articles. I single reviewer has repeatedly removed my contributions summarily and without discussion. However, I believe this is paragraph is a valuable enhancement to the article. I am happy to elaborate on the importance of human consumption to the long-term viability and/or destruction of this species. I have asked the review to share thoughts here rather than engage in edit wars. If there are any other supporting or opposing views on this topic, please share your thoughts here. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

This topic has already noted in the conservation section. You are the one making major edits, to an FA no less, and you are the one that needs to establish consensus. LittleJerry (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I found the fact that a bill had been passed which allowed Hippos to be released absolutely fascinating and must be included! I also believe there should be a section on human consumption of hippos, although not too much detail. Ctatkinson, I suggest you re-introduce the material and we then discuss it on the Talk page.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The material must be discussed BEFORE it can be added and objections must be addressed. Here's mine. The bill wasn't passed. It failed and is now part of the dustpan of history. Just because something has been recently reported widely over the internet, doesn't mean it should be given undue weight. I have no objection to it being mentioned but not detailed to the point that it has. The material largely comes from one source, Jon Mooallem. If the "hippo bill" and its significance was discussed by numerous other historians and hippo experts then that would be different. But as of now, the material violates WP:BALASPS. LittleJerry (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, hippo farming is not mentioned in the cited article "South Africa Considers Rhino Farming, Horn-Trading". LittleJerry (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, the bold edit has been made, it has been reverted, it has been discussed, so Ctatkinson, the next stage in the cycle is to make a further bold edit to promote further discussion.__DrChrissy (talk) 08:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Wiki:BOLD states "Making bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article, or stimulating discussion. Therefore, if your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, use the opportunity to begin a discussion with the interested parties to establish consensus." Its being discussed now. The next stage is to address objections and state your case. LittleJerry (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

DrChrissy has suggest that the Hippo Discussion section be brought here for discussion, so below is the text. I added this section on March 10th, and on April 22nd, JerryLittle summarily deleted the text without notice. I feel there is nothing to be gained from an edit war, I encourage your comments and recommendations on this text:

Hippopotamus meat was commonly eaten by the Europeans in South Africa in the 19th Century, and in 1910, Louisiana Congressman Robert Broussard introduced the American Hippo bill, H.R. 23621, to authorize the importation and release hippopotamus into the bayous of Louisiana. Broussard argued that the hippopotamus would eat the invasive and destructive water hyacinth that was clogging the rivers of Louisiana, benefiting shipping, and also produce meat to solve another serious problem at the time, the American meat crisis. The chief collaborators and proponents of Broussard's bill were Major Frederick Russell Burnham, the celebrated American scout who became the inspiration for both Indiana Jones and the Boy Scouts, and Captain Fritz Duquense, a South African scout who later became a notorious spy for Germany and the leader of the Duquesne Spy Ring. Presenting before the U.S. Agricultural Committee, Burnham made the point that none of the animals that Americans ate, chickens, pigs, cows, sheep, lambs, were native to the U.S., all had been imported by European settlers centuries before, so why should Americans hesitate to introduce hippopotamus and other large animals into the American diet? Duquesne, who was born and raised in South Africa, further noted that European settlers on that continent commonly included hippopotamus, ostrich, antelope, and other African wildlife in their diets and suffered no ill effects. Former President Theodore Roosevelt backed the plan, as did the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Washington Post, and the New York Times which praised the taste of hippopotamus as “lake cow bacon”. The American Hippo bill fell just short of passing.

Along with the destruction of habitat, the hippopotamus poaching is causing the population to crash and putting the species at risk of extinction. In modern times, wild hippopotamus meat is consumed for food in the Congo., and hippopotamus has become a delicacy in parts of central Africa. Hippopotamus teeth, which can grow to 60 centimetres or more long, have become a valued substitute for elephant ivory. As with the rhino, there are new proposals to establish hippopotamus ranching in Africa, similar to what was proposed in Congressman Broussard's hippo bill, as a means to save endangered species.

Ctatkinson (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC) 16:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The conservation section had already stated that hippos are killed for meat (I added in the part about delicacy and teeth). The article "South Africa Considers Rhino Farming, Horn-Trading" does not mention hippo farming.

As for the hippo bill, like I said it goes into too much detail on a relatively unimportant topic. For example "The chief collaborators and proponents of Broussard's bill were Major Frederick Russell Burnham, the celebrated American scout who became the inspiration for both Indiana Jones and the Boy Scouts, and Captain Fritz Duquense, a South African scout who later became a notorious spy for Germany and the leader of the Duquesne Spy Ring", and "Presenting before the U.S. Agricultural Committee, Burnham made the point that none of the animals that Americans ate, chickens, pigs, cows, sheep, lambs, were native to the U.S., all had been imported by European settlers centuries before, so why should Americans hesitate to introduce hippopotamus and other large animals into the American diet? Duquesne, who was born and raised in South Africa, further noted that European settlers on that continent commonly included hippopotamus, ostrich, antelope, and other African wildlife in their diets and suffered no ill effects." This information would be better suited for an article on the hippo bill.

I think the way it is now; "Hippopotamus meat was commonly eaten by the Europeans in South Africa during the 19th Century, and in 1910 the US government made a serious effort to farm the hippopotamus for its meat in Louisiana (as well as control the invasive water hyacinth); but the project was abandoned as the "hippo bill" fell short of passing." is all that's needed. Feel feel to suggest a better summarization. If you want to write more about this topic, I recommend starting an article on it. LittleJerry (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with LittleJerry. There's no need to completely remove it, but it should be short, and I think that LittleJerry's summary appears to be about right. Since the bill didn't pass it's more of a "hey-waddya-know" trivia thing, but on the other hand it's probably something that was in the air a bit (bills don't usually come out of nowhere). I personally wouldn't object to a short article on the Hippo Bill, and that might be a good a place to put the extra info, and not throw away all that work. It would make an interesting WP:DYK. I'm not into doing the work, but I encourage others to if they want. Herostratus (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

My suggested edit.

Hippopotamus meat was commonly eaten by the Europeans in South Africa in the 19th Century.

In the U.S. in 1910, Louisiana Congressman Robert Broussard introduced the "American Hippo bill" <<<H.R. 23621, this could be deleted>>> to authorize the importation and release of hippopotamus into the bayous of Louisiana. Broussard argued that the hippopotamus would eat the invasive water hyacinth that was clogging the rivers and also produce meat to help solve the American meat crisis. The chief collaborators and proponents of Broussard's bill were Major Frederick Russell Burnham and Captain Fritz Duquense Burnham made the point that none of the animals consumed by Americans, i.e. chickens, pigs, cows, sheep, lambs, were native to the U.S. - all had been imported centuries before, so why should Americans hesitate to introduce hippopotamus for meat? Former President Theodore Roosevelt backed the plan, as did the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Washington Post, and the New York Times which praised the taste of hippopotamus as “lake cow bacon”. <<< is "lake" a typo of "like">>> The "American Hippo Bill fell" just short of being passed.

Along with habitat destruction, hippopotamus poaching is causing the population to crash and putting the species at risk of extinction. In modern times, wild hippopotamus meat is consumed for food in the Congo and hippopotamus has become a delicacy in parts of central Africa. Hippopotamus teeth, which can grow to longer than 60 cm, have become a valued substitute for elephant ivory. As with the rhino, there are new proposals to establish hippopotamus ranching in Africa, similar to what was proposed in Congressman Broussard's "American Hippo Bill, as a method to save endangered species.

__DrChrissy (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It still gives undue weight to a bill that never passed, was forgotten about and recently brought to light by one historian. Try summarizing it in two or three sentences. Also, as I stated before, the article South Africa considers rhino farming, horn-Trading does not mention hippo farming and the conservation section already mentions poaching for hippo meat. LittleJerry (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

"Undue weight" is your opinion - that of a single editor. Let's wait to hear the opinions of other editors.__DrChrissy (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll accept the "Hippo bill" paragraph expect for the line; "Burnham made the point that none of the animals consumed by Americans, i.e. chickens, pigs, cows, sheep, lambs, were native to the U.S. - all had been imported centuries before, so why should Americans hesitate to introduce hippopotamus for meat?". LittleJerry (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The text recommended by DrCrissy was deemed acceptable to all, except that LittleJerry requested the deletion of one sentense. As a compromise, accepted the deletion of the sentence that both DrChrissy and I deemed acceptable and I edited the Hippo article accordingly. In addition, we all agreed that there was not another "Revert" after the "Discussion". However, LittleJerry again summarily deleted the text without discussion, thus breaking the agreement. Ctatkinson (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I never agreed to the second paragraph. I stated "Okay, I'll accept the "Hippo bill" paragraph expect for the line..." I stated numerous times on this page and in the edit summary why I did not approve of the second. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Your talk page silence on a paragraph agreed to by DrChrissy and myself created ambiguity. Rather than over assert your opinion by deleting a paragraph agree to by other editors, bring your thoughts to this page so we can discuss. If your logic is valid, we will reach a consensus and improve the article accordingly. In the meantime, undo your deletion in the article itself and start the discussion on this page so we may reach a logical consensus. Ctatkinson (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

We already reached a consensus. I agreed to the DrChissy's paragraph on the Hippo bill. I did not agree to the second paragraph. I don't know why you think every edit should be justified on the talk page. Edit summaries are there for a reason and I did not create ambiguity. The second paragraph simply repeats the same information in the "conservation" subsection and I don't need to constantly justify deleting redundant information. LittleJerry (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Pablo Escobar’s hippos: A new population?

I see the BBC Website reports a fascinating story about human induced population spread for the hippo (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27905743). In view of the fact that they are clearly established, could one consider that the range of the hippo has now extended? Freedom1968 (talk) 05:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Dangerous Animals

"The hippopotamus is one of the most aggressive and unpredictable creatures in the world and, as such, ranks among the most dangerous animals in Africa."

The source given for this statement is not a good source, just a collection of "fun facts".

Are there statistics to support this statement? Deaths per year due to hippos, that sort of thing?

CBHA (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hippo Milk?

I've heard some cool things about hippo milk. It's apparently pink, and one pint contains 1600 kcal of energy. The latter is pretty astounding -- and I honestly want to know more about it. Can we work that in somewhere? Who knows things about it? Daniel J. Hakimi (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"Pink hippo milk" is an urban myth. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Hippo Skin Thickness

"The skin is 15 cm (6 in) thick,[32] providing it great protection against conspecifics and predators"

The source , clearly states 6 centimeters, not 6 inches. Other sources online support this. . The page should change the measurement, as it is clearly in error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.39.211.68 (talk) 06:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, why is nobody addressing it!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.40.10 (talk) 09:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Diet -- They eat meat also

diet in nature consists almost entirely of grass, with only minimal consumption of aquatic plants Hippo eat meat if they get the chance. video--Inayity (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Killing people

Doesn't the hippo kill more people in Africa than any other animal does? If so, this is worth mentioning. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

yes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.50.67.125 (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The mosquito kills far more people. Graham87 02:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2015

I think that the first paragraph should be split after the sentence "Male hippos appear to continue growing throughout their lives while females reach maximum weight at around age 25". Its too large as it is and weight could have its own paragraph. Also the skull picture should on the left. It looks better facing the text. 155.138.255.2 (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  00:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I note the statement that hippos cannot swim or float, but please see article written by San Diego Zoo which adds to this "Hippos can even sleep underwater, using a reflex that allows them to bob up, take a breath, and sink back down without waking up" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ftpbcs (talk • contribs) 19:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

2015-04-07 Grammar Fix replace "predated by" with "preyed upon"

Correct grammar of "However, due to their aggression and size, adult hippopotamus are not usually predated by other animals." by replacing "predated by" with "preyed upon".Curzyk (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC) Curzyk (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Done Biblioworm 18:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Head visual similarity to a crocodile's?

Watchign the videos of crocodile interaction with hippos, where hippos even lick corcodiles, the unagressive crocodile behavior towards them brings the question about the psychological attitude of crocodiles towards hippos. Could it be that crocodiles are treating hippos as their own members due to physiological similarity of their heads Both species seem to have flat long heads, with eyes protruding in similar ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inyuki (talk • contribs) 13:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hippo evolution and Ernst Haekel

The wiki article on hippos states under the evolution heading, that "Until 1909, naturalists grouped hippos with pigs, based on molar patterns." This is not quite true - back in the 19th century Ernest Haekel positioned hippos, correctly, as being closest to whales in descent. PLSalmon (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

What was the paper/treatise titled?--Mr Fink (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080912012236/http://www.mountainecology.org/IBEX3/pdf/Art_Capitolo1/note_taxonomy_pleistocene.pdf to http://www.mountainecology.org/IBEX3/pdf/Art_Capitolo1/note_taxonomy_pleistocene.pdf

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Evolution

Incomplete sentence. "One branch (...)", it says, and then there's nothing more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.123.135.255 (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

You mean the sentence that starts with "One branch would evolve into cetaceans, possibly beginning about 52 million years ago" that isn't actually an incomplete sentence?--Mr Fink (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2017

Grammatical error: change "Hippo mostly live in freshwater habitats, however populations in West Africa they mostly inhabit estuarine waters and may even be found at sea" to "Hippo mostly live in freshwater habitats, however populations in West Africa mostly inhabit estuarine waters and may even be found at sea"

I would also suggest: change "Proper habitat requires enough water to submerge in and grass nearby." to something like "Proper habitat requires enough water to submerge in and grass nearby, as well as sufficient space to accommodate these exceptionally large wild animals". The statement, in it's original form, does not even allude to the fact that hippos need more than just a small amount of water and grass to be healthy. 2602:304:CDBB:73B0:1CDA:7316:B44B:E4BC (talk) 08:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100617172906/http://www.framingham.edu/~rbeckwitt/hippo2002.pdf to http://www.framingham.edu/~rbeckwitt/hippo2002.pdf

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6Wt3bRsEU?url=http://citypaper.net/Blogs/WEEKLY-CANDY-Kinder-Happy-Hippos/ to http://citypaper.net/Blogs/WEEKLY-CANDY-Kinder-Happy-Hippos/

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131012035230/http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/critters/hippo.html to https://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/critters/hippo.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130604043252/http://www.today.com/pets/goodbye-donna-worlds-oldest-hippo-captivity-dies-61-922081 to http://www.today.com/pets/goodbye-donna-worlds-oldest-hippo-captivity-dies-61-922081

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724162555/http://www.njgonline.nl/publish/articles/000099/article.pdf to http://www.njgonline.nl/publish/articles/000099/article.pdf

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Hippopotamus maximum weigth

Hippopotamus amphibius can obtain a size of 4500kg, and in the page of this hippo is saying 3200kg at most. There are plenty of sources http://animaldiversity.org/site/accounts/information/Hippopotamus_amphibius.html https://books.google.pt/books?id=hP8jBgAAQBAJ&pg=PT7&dq=hippo+4500kg&hl=pt-PT&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNxN_u5v3YAhUCaRQKHW1VBQsQ6AEIOjAC#v=onepage&q=hippo%204500kg&f=false http://www.worldanimalfoundation.net/f/Hippo.pdf Please someone reply me. I found also this quote: "The value given above of 3200 kg is often quoted for the upper limit of weight for a male hippo. However, larger specimens than this have been documented, one of which weighed almost five tonnes." https://archive.org/stream/EncyclopediaOfBiodiversityEcologyAndEvolution/Encyclopedia%20of%20Biodiversity%2C%20Ecology%20and%20Evolution#page/n173/mode/2up/search/hippopotamus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.48.210.235 (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC) (talk)29 January 2018

"Hippos Poop So Much That Sometimes All the Fish Die"

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/05/hippos-poop-so-much-that-sometimes-all-the-fish-die/560486/

A strange and interesting article by Ed Yong. I think I'll let one of the hippo regulars put it in -- if they dare! --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2018

Please change the word "spontaneous" to "subconscious" because in the context of hippos being able to breathe when they sleep the word "spontaneous" has no correlation. However, "subconscious" lets the reader know that it is an action which is done without the use of direct thought. 71.202.182.27 (talk) 02:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done — IVORK _Discuss 03:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2018

Under "Behaviour and life history", where it says:

Also, aggregations of crocodiles that have been seen to dispatch still living bull hippopotamus that have been previously injured in mating battles with other bulls.

It should read:

Aggregations of crocodiles have also been seen to dispatch still-living bull hippopotamuses that have been previously injured in mating battles with other bulls.

Reasons:

• The current text is not a complete sentence.
• Starting a sentence with the word "also" isn't strictly incorrect, but it is a bit inelegant.
• "Still-living" is a compound modifier which should take a hyphen.
• "Hippopotamus" is being employed as the plural form of the word, but the correct one is "hippopotamuses"—it is used throughout the article and that usage should be consistent. "Hippos" would be fine too. 108.34.186.243 (talk) 06:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 09:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

It's still an incomplete sentence. Here's the key part:

Aggregations of crocodiles that have been

The "that" needs to go. The "also" should stay (just placed after "have") because it's continuing a line of thought about what kinds of animals have been observed to prey on hippos. 108.34.186.243 (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done Gulumeemee (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Current range map

This current range map seems deficient. There is no indication of presence in Rwanda, but I observed them there in the Akagera National Park in May 2016. And there were common there when I lived in Rwanda 1984-89. Ptilinopus (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Hippos in zoos

Should Fiona be mentioned under Hippos in zoos? She is arguably the most famous zoo hippo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiona_(hippopotamus) Maythisbethelastone (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2019

"Cases where large lion prides have successfully preyed on adult hippos have been reported;" I feel like it should be noted that these cases are adult sick hippos and there have been no recorded cases of adult healthy hippos being hunted by lions 50.232.163.154 (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Hippos in zoos

Should Fiona be mentioned under Hippos in zoos? She is arguably the most famous zoo hippo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiona_(hippopotamus) Maythisbethelastone (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Too many pictures

The page contains too many pictures. Regards. --Hp.Baumeler (talk) 12:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Little Relevance of the Proposed introduction to the United States sub-section

There is no point in giving a sub-section to the proposed introduction of the hippo to the United States as it doesn't contribute anything relevant to the article's main point, the hippopotamus. This subsection would best fit in a separate, American-centric, article such as The Great Depression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anfecaro (talk • contribs) 18:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Please remember to sign your comments on talk pages (four tiles: ~~~~) and only mark truly minor edits as minor (WP:MINOR has some general guidelines).

The subsection is about the exact species. Saying that it contributes nothing is POV and looking at the history of the article, it has been there in 6 years. At c. 80 kB, the full article is still well below the recommended split-size for articles at 100 kB, and the "hippos to America" subsection is only five sentences long. However, while I would oppose to someone just removing it entirely, your suggestion of moving it to another more fitting article (if one can be found) is one I would support, as long as one or two sentence linking to that article is kept in this article. I would also support a more concise version (if one can be made without losing the main points) and/or it being moved elsewhere within this article; either with or without its own subsection heading. For example, it could be moved down and become a subsection of "Hippos and humans", or it could be moved up and included inside the main section of "Distribution and status" (e.g. as a paragraph without its own subsection heading, just after the "The hippo population declined [...] for elephant ivory" paragraph, but before the "Colombian introduction" subsection). RN1970 (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Hippo locomotion

The information for the public about whether hippos can canter/gallop out of water, rather than run (trot) very fast, is very thin. Is there any known footage of a hippo galloping, out of water? 212.159.59.41 (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Bloat of Hippos

This article mentions that a group of Hippos is called a Pod, Herd, Dale, or Bloat. However, this statement does not appear to have a citation. I have searched for some substantiation for calling a group of Hippos a Bloat but every web page that mentions it appears to be copying Wikipedia. Could someone in the know provide a reference for this statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.11.250 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Faux Zulu and dubious sources

The part in the and humans hippos and humans section about Zulu perception of hippos was rather dubious. The sources are South African scouting websites which quote or summarize biographies of Baden-Powell which relate an anecdote told by Baden-Powell himself in which someone else explained the meaning of a chant to him. The source for the first statement ("... preferred to be as brave as a hippo, since even lions were not considered to match its courage") doesn't actually say so. The second statement is backed up by the cited source but is unfortunately at least partly wrong, possibly because Baden-Powell misremembered the chant or because the person translating it for him added embellishments to the translation. I don't speak Zulu, but it took just a little fiddling with Google Translate to confirm what's obvious: There's no "better than" in that Zulu text, beyond it using a, shall we say, less than official spelling of Zulu. What did the Zulus actually chant? That's anybody's guess.

Maybe there are indeed scholarly works that discuss the perception of the hippo in Zulu culture; then we should summarize what those works say. This amounted to rumor-mongering and Chinese whispers. Thus I'll drastically shorten it and attribute it to Baden-Powell. Huon (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2021 (2)

Please change "They were deemed too difficult to seize and move after Escobar's death" to "They were deemed too difficult to seize and move after Escobar's death in 1993". One of the sources given for this section, #59, mentions him being killed in 1993. 69.174.156.186 (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 09:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2021

Please shorten the introduction a tiny bit by changing "not including cetaceans" to "excluding cetaceans". 69.174.156.186 (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done  melecie  t - 09:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Hippo milk

JoePhin please do not add trivial, memey information with low quality sources. Snopes.com is not a gone enough source for a biology article and the journal article you cited does not address the myth of pink hippo milk at all. LittleJerry (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "Snopes.com is not a gone enough source for a biology article" (gone enough?), however, I think you'll find that Snopes is, in fact, an acceptable source to use on any Wikipedia page, biological or not, per WP:SNOPES. Further, did you read the Snopes article? They were quoting University of Bristol's David Wynick, the biologist. I reject your assertion that this subject is memey, whatever that means, not that it would matter if it were; this material is totally appropriate for the Cultural depictions section of this page. There are many non-biological sources on the Hippo page (George Hart's 1986 A Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses, or the Newcastle Herald's "Childhood Trauma: Hungry Hungry Hippos", for example), and this material is merely another cultural depiction. If you have an actual policy objection to the inclusion of this information, please feel free to bring it up here.

Also, in the future, kindly refrain from reverting intervening edits which do not pertain to whatever it is you wish to remove. Joe (talk) 01:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

DO NOT not edit war or you will be reported. You are the one making major changes so you are the one who must justify your edit. The fact that Snopes.com can be used as a reliable source does not mean it is good enough for a biology article. We wouldn't rely on the NYtimes for biology claims either. And is not a case of "cultural depictions" but a case of a misconception about the hippo's biology. The quote from David Wynick is not good enough. He's responding to an online "ask a biologist" forum and even cites wikipedia itself. Find a journal article or high-quality book that tries to address the pink milk myth. If you insist then open a Request for comment. LittleJerry (talk) 01:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• If anyone would like to read the proposed addition to the Cultural depictions section, here it is in full:

There is a common misconception that hippo milk is pink. This misconception is derived from the idea that hippo milk is contaminated with hipposudoric acid, a red pigment found in the skin secretions of hippos, and responsible for the so-called "blood sweat" of hippos (thus the name "hipposudoric", referring to "hippo sweat"), though this secretion is neither blood nor sweat. In fact, hippo milk does not contain hipposudoric acid, and neither is it pink, but white or beige in color.

LittleJerry, just so you know, I've sent away for a third opinion on this subject. Please keep WP:3RR in mind. Joe (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

If this information is to be included, then it belongs in the "Characteristics" or "Reproduction" section. It has nothing to do with "culture". The behavior section on wolf states The phases of the moon have no effect on wolf vocalization, and despite popular belief, wolves do not howl at the moon.[99]. Also, this article already mentions the "blood sweat" of hippos. Your paragraph is worded like we don't mentioned it above. LittleJerry (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to this being included in either the Cultural depictions section or the Characteristics and adaptations section. Either is fine. Joe (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I still object to adding it. If it's that notable of a myth then you should have no problem finding a better source that addresses it. LittleJerry (talk) 03:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I maintain that Snopes is a perfectly acceptable source, per WP:SNOPES. Joe (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't make it suitable for a biology article! We don't use the NYTimes either expect for news-related stuff. LittleJerry (talk) 04:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree with LJ. While they are surprisingly good for things they can understand I wouldn't trust them for biological matters which they can't. I think the Snopes link supports the existence of the idea but we will still need another source for the truth or falsity of the matter. Invasive Spices (talk) 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Very good, the more sources the merrier. Check out the revised addition, and the additional RS. Joe (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

A thesis? No. Invasive Spices (talk) 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Idk, if one reliable source says that this is a myth and there are apparently no reliable biological sources saying it's either false or true, the weight of evidence seems to be in favor of it being a myth. Why would a biological source be needed for discussing a cultural myth? ParticipantObserver (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Biology books and papers address myths about organisms all the time. As I stated before, wolf books address the myth that wolves howl at the moon. Invasive Spices what is the policy on citing theses? LittleJerry (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

From WP:SCHOLARSHIP Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature which this has not. I find no citations at all now upon looking. Worse I now note this is not a PhD but an M and an MFA at that. JoePhin does anyone cite this? I can't believe anyone would. ParticipantObserver: I agree that Snopes is sufficient to mention it but not for the biology. Invasive Spices (talk) 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Invs, it shouldn't be mentioned in culture either. A misconception about its biology is not "culture". Maybe if it was depicted in movies/TV shows etc. LittleJerry (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@ParticipantObserver:, @Invasive Spices:, I'd like to point out that user LittleJerry edited the addition to remove all but one of the sources. Apparently, according to his edit summary, he believed that only the thesis by itself was necessary to support this statement, so all the others could go. You may have only seen his edited-down version without the five RS. Please see the full original edit below. Two of these sources, the Snopes one and the Franks one, quote doctors of biology. Two of the sources are zookeepers who have milked hippos. One source is an informational blog. One of the visual sources is a video of a hippo being milked, and you can see the milk as it comes out. At this point, this issue is approaching WP:BLUE, but maybe in this case it should be WP:PINK.

The full revised edit:

The idea that hippo milk is pink is a common misconception derived from the notion that hippo milk is contaminated with hipposudoric acid. In fact, hippo milk does not contain hipposudoric acid, and neither is it pink, but white or beige in color.

This statement is very well sourced. Any paired combination of these RS would be more than sufficient to source the statement; when they're taken all five together, it's a real no-brainer. I'd still be happy to have this either in the Cultural depictions section or the Characteristics and adaptation's section, whatever other editors prefer. Joe (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and P.S., we must also include ParticipantObserver's excellent source on the commonness of the idea, which user LittleJerry also recently deleted, along with the entire entry. Joe (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't know that theses were not considered reliable so I left it there. The other sources you cited are poor quality. Why are you citing YouTube videos? This is a FA you know. I can almost guarantee that none of the other FA biology articles cite youtube (atleast the ones passed in recent years). ParticipantObserver's article is useless by itself, since it merely states that people associate hippos with pink milk. Honestly you need to just drop this. LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

If it is your opinion that visual sources are automatically poor quality, LittleJerry, I recommend you read Wikipedia:Citing sources. Wikipedia uses visual and audio sources, just like it uses books and pdfs and anything else. I know you dislike this topic, LittleJerry, but Wikipedia is built on consensus. If other editors believe this to be a notable subject, and find the sources acceptable (especially after they're allowed to read the full text and see all the sources), it will be up to all of us whether to include this entry or not. Also, I disagree that ParticipantObserver's source was, as you put it, "useless" - it confirms that pink hippo milk is a learned cultural association, and therefore his RS should be included in the final edit. Joe (talk) 01:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

No offense but you clearly have no experience editing biology articles, let alone FA biology articles. Just because using visual sources are okay some of the time doesn't mean they are appropriate all the time. If we are talking about the opinions or sayings of a certain person, then citing what they said in a video or audio is valid. It is NOT valid to use audio and visual media for information on biology, when we should be using professionally written books and papers. If it is not notable enough to be discussed in these sources then it is not notable enough to be discussed here. You haven't got a consensus. If you want a consensus, then set up a Request for comment, not a third opinion. That way more people will comment. LittleJerry (talk) 02:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe this will go to RfC, but I strongly suspect we can create a consensus without such formalities. I do want to know what ParticipantObserver and Invasive Spices think, and of course any other editors who wish to chime in. Please remember that you don't WP:OWN the Hippopotamus article, LittleJerry. I don't want to have to cite WP:OWNBEHAVIOR at you. Actually, scratch that, I will cite WP:OWNBEHAVIOR to you, particularly:

Although the following statements, seen in isolation from any context or other statements, do not indicate ownership behavior or motivation, they may be part of a pattern that indicates ownership behavior. When they occur along with some form of dogged insistence and relentless pushing, without good policy back up, and often including edit warring, they may be an expression of ownership behavior.

"Are you qualified to edit this article?" / "You only have X edits." (pulling rank)

Your "No offense but you clearly have no experience editing biology articles, let alone FA biology articles." comment, in addition to your edit warring, your brush with WP:3RR, and of course your failure to cite any kind of policy to back up your objections to the edit, could all be seen as an example of WP:OWN. Please remember that Wikipedia is built on consensus. Joe (talk) 02:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Invasive Spices has given their opinion. You did not accept it and instead searched for more poor-quality sources. It is also you who stated the edit warring. Wikipedia isn't just about blindly citing policies, there are also informalities that go with it. Do you honestly think that if I wrote an article on an animal species and used a lot of Youtube videos for cites on biology and behavior it would pass FAC? Start the RfC or drop this. LittleJerry (talk) 03:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll wait to see what ParticipantObserver and Invasive Spices think - I'm sure they, and any other interested editors, can speak for themselves. No rush. Joe (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Hog Farm, you are an FAC coordinator and have done source reviews for FACs. Your opinion here would be welcome. LittleJerry (talk) 03:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

JoePhin, I'm only going to speak here solely from a perspective of sources (and yes, like LittleJerry notes, I am familiar with FA sourcing standards). None of the snopes references are good enough for FA sourcing (especially on this topic), the FA criteria have a higher standard for sourcing than just being reliable, and snopes is generally held at WP:FAC to fall below that bar. The Pure and Applied Chemistry is reliable, but is useless for this purpose because it does not mention hippo milk at all. Of the two YouTube videos, we have one from a more obscure channel that probably isn't a reliable source, as well as a local TV news segment that is not an ideal source for biological claims about species of animals. A-Z Animals is a blog and most likely isn't reliable. The Franks thesis is a master's thesis and fails the WP:SCHOLARSHIP test. The "Reply to Ostarek et al. ..." journal article appears to be reliable, but only mentions hippo milk in a fraction of a sentence and in such a way that could be read as stating that either many people believe that hippo milk is pink, or that hippo milk is pink. Joe, I have no predisposed opinion either way of if this should me mentioned or not, but none of these sources are good for supporting its inclusion. Hog Farm _Talk 03:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I would also like to cite WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. LittleJerry (talk) 03:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree with you about the WLTWT source being less than ideal, Hog Farm. When it comes to the statement: 'hippo milk is not pink,' there's no better source than a visual source. Of course, this edit involves two distinct statements. The separate statement that 'the belief that hippo milk is pink is a common misconception' is not a biological claim, but a claim about culture, and one which I would say is more than adequately addressed by the Snopes article alone (never mind all the other sources saying it is a common idea). I'm not familiar with any Wikipedia policy or decision that Snopes is an unacceptable source for featured articles, perhaps you could link to one? I'd say that when it comes to cultural issues, such as common misconceptions, Snopes would be acceptable for a featured article per WP:SNOPES, particularly, "Snopes is certified by the International Fact-Checking Network, and is considered generally reliable."

The fact that this is a cultural matter is why I originally placed it in the Cultural depictions section: no biologist who knew what they were talking about would say hippo milk is pink, but nevertheless it's a common idea in our culture.

Incidentally, I hope we can all agree, as a baseline to this discussion, that hippo milk is not actually pink. Surely, if we can all agree on the fact, then the main question is whether or not it is a notable fact. I argue it is notable, and further, that the sources provided so far more than adequately demonstrate its notability. Joe (talk) 05:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:DUEWEIGHT is in play here, as well. If actual scientific publications don't consider this worthwhile to speak of, I don't think Snopes and a local news piece warrant inclusion. Hog Farm _Talk 05:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Here is a list of some of the sources already used in the Hippopotamus article:

The Philadelphia City Paper, Toonpedia, The Associated Press, The Newcastle Herald, NPR, ToledoZoo.org, The Atlantic Monthly, The Atlantic, The Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Pinetreeweb.com, The Toronto Star, News.nationalgeographic.com, and a number of non-scholarly books, one of which is Pleasurable Kingdom: Animals and the Nature of Feeling Good.

Now, if Snopes is not as good or better than every one of those sources, I'm a monkey's aunt.

As far as I can tell, nobody actually has any objection to the proposed edit based on its content, besides LittleJerry who thinks it is 'memey' for some reason (I'm sure I don't know). The fact that there are half a dozen RS calling pink hippo milk a widespread myth, a common idea, a particularly common misconception, etc., shows it to be WP:DUE. If material on this page can only be warranted for inclusion based on its discussion by scientific sources, then this pink milk thing should be added based on the fact that the sources quote two doctors of biology, and about 25% of this article should be cut out, including almost the entire Cultural depictions section. I'm not advocating for that, of course, I'm happy to include material cited from Toonpedia, NPR, The Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and whatever other RS. I'm merely advocating for consistency in the treatment of sources. Joe (talk) 06:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Most of those sources are being cited for news and culture-related topics not for the biology/ecology sections. NatGeo isn't idle but its far better than snopes. The "Pleasure" book is published by Palgrave Macmillan, a reputable academic publisher. LittleJerry (talk) 12:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

So we all agree that the proposed sources (or at least, the Snopes one, which is quite sufficient on its own) are on par with the sources already used in the Cultural depictions and other culture-related sections. Dandy. That just so happens to be where the addition belongs, since a common misconception is, by definition, a cultural matter. Joe (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the sources are good but not excellent for an FA. Perhaps a good compromise would be using some of the sources with attribution? WP:SNOPES mentions that attribution may be necessary, and I think it is in this case. - Munmula (talk), second account of Alumnum 12:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that. There is a quote from Dr. David Wynick in the Snopes article that we could use: "I think this is an Internet legend that is oft repeated but without any evidence for it that I can find. It is true that hippos secrete a red pigment in their sweat that acts as a natural suntan lotion, but nowhere can I find evidence it is secreted in breast milk and thus turns it pink." Joe (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Fine. Just put a sentence saying something like "A popular internet myth reports that hippos have pink milk." Then qoute Wynick and cite Snopes. LittleJerry (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

This does not approach WP:BLUE. I agree that Snopes and the PNAS letter establish the existence of the misconception and this is a "Cultural" matter. However none of the rest of this is close to RS – the video is appropriate but does not qualify as a source. (I agree that there is an asymmetry here – while confirmed pink milk would be mentioned in the scientific literature the falsity of pink milk is merely a false meme that is quickly discarded by science. However it is what it is. We have no RS confirmation of this.) Therefore I suggest saying that a common misconception exists but nothing else. Invasive Spices (talk) 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm actually happy to go along with what LittleJerry said above, but Invasive Spices, I think part of the entry is WP:BLUE. Not the whole thing, but part of it. I'll try to justify that here:

There are two parts to the addition. Part 1 is 'hippo milk is white or beige in color / hippo milk is not pink.' That is the part which might be WP:BLUE (or if it isn't, it is close). Just like I don't need a citation to say this flamingo is pink, I don't actually need a citation to say that hippo milk isn't pink. If it were some kind of complex claim about the number of chambers of a hippo's heart or something, that would need a paper from a reputable journal, but as a claim about the color of a clearly visible substance, it's WP:BLUE. Except, most people have never seen hippo milk, hence why I didn't treat it as WP:BLUE and why I included this visual source. As long as someone has functioning eyes, nobody can deny this first 'hippo milk isn't pink' part.

The second part of this addition is decidedly not WP:BLUE, and that's the 'pink hippo milk is a common misconception' part. That's the part that needs some serious sources to back it up, but specifically cultural sources like Snopes, or like ParticipantObserver's paper on language, or like this SchiShow story, which I'm just bringing up here for the first time, check it out if you feel like it. These sources are dealing with a cultural issue, namely, whether or not this is a common misconception, and for that purpose, they're quite adequate, as you say. I think we can (and should) include that it is the color of the milk which is the subject of the misconception, as that is what all the RS say, and it is also one of those WP:BLUE-type 'true facts' which no one with functioning eyes can deny after they see actual hippo milk. That's my two cents, anyway. Joe (talk) 03:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Reflist

References

Hippo milk entry, Revision No.2

Dear @LittleJerry:, @Invasive Spices:, @ParticipantObserver:, @Hog Farm:, and @Munmula: There's currently a version of the pink hippo milk thing in the article as I write this, recently added by user LittleJerry. I was planning to wait until we'd gotten everyone to more or less agree on the wording and sources to use for this addition. I'm personally quite happy with LittleJerry's version, and if everyone else is too, we can just leave it at that. I was formulating a proposal that I would hope could make everyone happy, with contributions from LittleJerry, ParticipantObserver, and Munmula. Taking LittleJerry's recent addition into account, please find the proposed addition below.

A popular internet myth reports that hippos have pink milk. Biologist David Wynick states, "I think this is an Internet legend that is oft repeated but without any evidence for it that I can find... Like all mammals, hippos produce white or off-white milk for their young."

There are only two significant differences between this and the version already on the page. First, there's an extension of the Wynick quote. Second, there's a neat-little multi-citation that includes the Snopes article (which is already being used in the version on the page) in addition to ParticipantObserver's paper mentioning the cultural association between hippos and pink milk, the SciShow story, and the visual source directly showing hippo milk.

External videos
Video of a hippo being milked
YouTube video
How to milk a hippo

I originally wanted to include this external media template to direct people to the video. I believe LittleJerry doesn't like this, and if he still doesn't want it included, or if any others don't care for it, I'll be happy to leave it out.

Let me know your thoughts/critiques/suggestions. Thanks for everyone who contributed critiques and suggestions so far. Joe (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I added the quote extension. We don't need links or cites to the videos. LittleJerry (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I think we should have all four. In fact, I'd prefer to include all the sources, neatly tied up in a multi-reference (its not like they take up physical space in a physical almanac), but I knew you'd prefer fewer, LittleJerry, so I tried to narrow it down to four. I'm happy to leave out the external media template if you don't want it. Joe (talk) 05:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

We don't need all these sources with for one little statement. It is particularly not necessary to have to show people a video on milking a hippo to debunk an internet meme. This is all you're getting from me. I think I've compromised enough. LittleJerry (talk) 05:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I do, of course, want to know what everyone thinks. Whatever the consensus is, that's what we'll go with. Joe (talk) 06:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Reflist

References

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2022

On June 28th, 2022 - Mary Holman, Education Coordinator at the Museum of Osteology and Ashley MB Meerschaert, M.S, Director of the Museum of Osteology , counted the number of bones in a Hippopotamus skeleton. The Museum of Osteology in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma currently features one fully articulated adult Hippopotamus containing a total of 219 bones. Previously, it was unknown to the public how many bones a Hippopotamus had. This encouraged the education team to find the answer when no scholarly articles or quick google searches had the answer.

-----Original Message-----

From: "mary@skeletonmuseum.com" <mary@skeletonmuseum.com> Sent: Friday, July 29, 2022 12:26pm To: "ashley@skeletonmuseum.com" <ashley@skeletonmuseum.com> Subject: Hey - make this sound better please!?

On June 28th, 2022 - Mary Holman, Education Coordinator at the Museum of Osteology and Ashley MB Meerschaert, M.S, Director of the Museum of Osteology , counted the number of bones in a Hippopotamus skeleton. The Museum currently features one fully articulated adult Hippopotamus. Currently, it is unknown to the public how many bones a Hippopotamus has. This encouraged the education team to find the answer when no scholarly articles or quick google searches had the answer. So, the education team set out to find the answer to the number of bones a Hippopotamus has. It is now estimated that the average adult Hippopotamus roughly has 219 bones altogether. Bone Educator (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: - @Bone Educator:, firstly, thank you for leading me down the rabbit hole of how this is not a publicly known fact. However, Wikipedia does require a suitable source, almost always secondary.. By its nature, this doesn't yet exist - I did my own look online to see if I could find one, perhaps recently published, and could not. If this is picked up by a source, please let me know and I'll gladly add. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2022

n June 28th, 2022, The Museum of Osteology in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma currently features one fully articulated adult Hippopotamus containing a total of 219 bones. Mary Holman, Education Coordinator at the Museum of Osteology and Ashley MB Meerschaert, M.S, Director of the Museum of Osteology , counted the number of bones in a Hippopotamus skeleton. Recently, it was unknown to the public just how many bones a Hippopotamus had and this encouraged the education team to find out what the average number of bones a Hippopotamus had since no scholarly article or quick Google search had the answer. Bone Educator (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Fact Check: Hippo Enclosures

According to the article, "Modern hippo enclosures also have a complex filtration system for the animal's waste, an underwater viewing platform for the visitors, and glass that may be up to 9 cm (3.5 in) thick and capable of withstanding water pressures of 31 kPa (4.5 psi)."

31kPa is less than a third of standard atmospheric pressure, which implies that 3.5-inch glass would break at sea level. I'm guessing a decimal was misplaced? Someone should doublecheck the source material and correct the datum. 66.91.36.8 (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Explain the mutual relationship between hippopotamus and crocodiles

Hippos are keystone species that they produce excretory products where fish get food from the dung of the hippo and then the fish is hunted by the crocodile 41.222.180.160 (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2022

There is an instance of "during while" in the Reproduction section. Either word would work in that sentence, but not both in sequence. Sosaith (talk) 03:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done switched to "when", which I think might be better than during or while here Cannolis (talk) 03:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2022

CHANGE "The lower canines are sharpen though contact with the smaller upper canines" TO "The lower canines are sharpened though contact with the smaller upper canines"

CHANGE "The testes of the malesdo not fully" TO "The testes of the males do not fully" Iataad (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Also just noticed this, but though should be through Iataad (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 06:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

"Aside from elephants and rhinos, the hippopotamus is the largest land mammal"

What a stupid sentence, just say it's the third largest terrestrial mammal it's like saying "oh the hummingbird is the largest bird aside from every other bird in the world" its stupid 155.4.124.213 (talk) 11:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Herbivore short summary

The short summary says the hippo is mostly an herbivore, but the article makes no such distinction. Could we fix this or add clarifying info suggesting it occasionally partakes in non-herbivore consumption? Leitmotiv (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Plural

The plural of the Greek-rooted word should be "hippopotamodes." It's pedantic but I want to include it. Gamle Kvitrafn (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2023

IfAnimalsCouldTalk (talk) 01:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Conservation Status: LC

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The person who loves reading (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Hippos are the second largest land animals after elephants

Hippopotamuses are according to an animal encyclopedia I read, are the second largest land animals after Elephants. (White rhinoceroses and Giraffes are taller but weigh less. IceKevtheElephant (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

If you can cite the source, then please complete an edit request. If not, we can not accept your word for it. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Wallowing

Don't they use the term wallowing specifically for hippos? It's not mentioned at all in the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.31.95.80 (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2024

Under the section titled "evolution" in the sentence "One branch would evolve into cetaceans, possibly beginning about 52 million years ago, with the protowhale Pakicetus and other early whale ancestors collectively known as Archaeoceti." Only the "52" in "52 million years ago" is highlighted and linked to a timeline. For constancies sake along with more pleasing formatting, change to include all of "52 million years ago" within the link as opposed to just "52". RawryUwU (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The requested change would require a modification to the {{mya}} template. See that template for documentation. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2024

ADD The oldest hippopotamus is captivity is Lu at the Ellie Schiller Homosassa Springs Wildlife State Park who recently celebrated his 64th birthday. Meowmeowrawr (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Not done for now: Where exactly should this be added? Also, I wouldn't advise using "recently" here. Review MOS:RELTIME.
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} 15:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, add the the end of the "Characteristics" section with previous discussions of oldest known individuals Meowmeowrawr (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

May I suggest in the Zoo section? - UtherSRG (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there is no zoo section. This paragraph at the end of "Characteristics" is talking about the oldest hippos in captivity, and as this too has to do with the oldest hippo currently in captivity, it felt like the appropriate place. Meowmeowrawr (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

FYI: Hippopotamus#In_zoos. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done: I agree with Meowmeowrawr here as it is true that this section ends regarding age records for hippopotamuses. Otherwise it would belong in § In zoos.
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} 17:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2024

I sent a request email the Museum of Osteology in Oklahoma, asking how many bones does their skeleton on display have because I couldn’t find that information anywhere online and if theirs was a complete model. I got a replay back from their Director of Museum Operations & Education confirming that yes their’s was complete and that it was counted to have 219 bones. Thought this might be helpful and here is there information to fact check. Museum Operations & Education SKELETONS: Museum of Osteology 10301 S. Sunnylane Rd. Oklahoma City, OK 73160 TrustynHERO (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

That is a useful place to start, but Wikipedia requires information to be available in reliable and independent publicastions. Perhaps you could persuade the Director to publish a scientific note on the skeleton of the Hippopotamus that could then be used here as a source? Regretably a conversation even in writing or email is not sufficient and would count as original research. Thanks  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Change article name to Hippo

I request that the article's name be changed from Hippopotamus to simply just Hippo. 70.50.199.125 (talk) 08:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

No. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Or, at greater length, there is already a redirect of that name so if you search on Hippo you end up at Hippopotamus.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Distribution map is not right

There are hippos in Lake Tana in Ethiopia. But while the lake is visible in this map, there is no hippo range marked on it. 2A02:8011:EB50:0:C4B4:16A7:9A0A:FA6C (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2024

A hippo's milk is pink. Galaismydoggo (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Liu1126 (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2024

Grammar edit, Evolution heading, second sentence.

"first from blood proteins, then from molecular systematics[13] and DNA[14][15] and the fossil record," Should be changed to: "first from blood proteins, then from molecular systematics,[13] DNA,[14][15] and the fossil record," Ballendorf (talk) 23:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)