Talk:Gazelle

Top Speed

"Gazelles are known as swift animals; they can reach speeds of up to 100 km/hour" this is obviously incorrect as greyhounds are sited on wikipedia as reaching 45 mph (72 km/h) and are widely known to be the second fastest land animal (second only to cheetahs who can reach speeds of 110 km/h (70 mph)). Therefore i am removing this reference from the page untill a more acurate speed is found and it's source sited. Diploid 15:31 05 Feb 2005

• This articles is riddled with false information. The greyhound is not "widely considered to be the second fastest animal in the world." The greyhound is the fastest dog breed. The pronghorn is known to be the second fastest land mammal, and the springbok gazelle is the third fastest land mammal. Both pronghorns and springboks are approximately 10 mph faster than the greyhound.*

However it is quite logical that the only thing faster than a gazelle is the predator that hunts them, cheetahs.

Shall I quote from encarta?: "Gazelles are fast on their feet and some species have been credited with top speeds of nearly 100 km/h (60 mph)." Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Whereas encarta mentions nothing of greyhounds being 2nd fastest.

Therefore you should really add that back in.

Sorry if quoting encarta constitutes plagarism but there it is, "source sited" (actually its spelled "cited").

Gotskills22 21:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It is quite appropriate to quote from sources on the Talk page, but maybe better to reword and cite reference in Main articles—GRM 21:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The 70 mph speed of A.jubatus is rather inaccurate. The fastest RECORDED speed is around 64.73 mph, usually rounded off to 65. As for gazelles, their speed range from 43 to 52 mph, depending upon the species. No formal records was done as to their speed, but A.marsupialis(not a true gazelle but related), to be safe, can exceed 49 mph... Thompson's runs at over 45, Grants do not exceed 46. Some sources in the web are inaccurate. wildebeest for example are widely known 50 mph runners, but this is false. They are fast, but not gazelle level fast, usually around 36-41 mph. Ever seen a video where wildebeest are sprinting at top speeds, then suddenly, a gazelle runs through the screen, chased by a cheetah, leaving the Gnu's choking in dust? Lions was never clocked at 50. They run at 34 to 38 mph, hence the reason why a healthy Gnu can outrun them. Pronghorn is, study shows, the 2nd fastest, topping 55 mph. The fastest pronghorn is faster than most cheetahs, as the usual range of speed of the latter is usually around 52 to 56 mph. The 2nd fastest cheetah speed was 61 mph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.170.188 (talk) 09:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Instead of taking out estimations which are worth nothing, put sources.

And I think not that greyhounds are less fast than gazelles, his last ones have more talents; so hurriedly as in jump, in stamina, in beauty and even certain sorts have impressive populations, they have much more records than the cheetah and the greyhounds combined and also they are vegetarians.--Angel310 (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Classification of the real sprints (record) of the various gazelles

Extremely Fast Gazelles:

• Grant's Gazelle : 60 - 80 mph = 100 - 130 km/h
• Dama Gazelle, & Soemmerring's Gazelle: 60 - 70 mph = 90 -110 km/h
• Blackbuck: 70 mph = 80 -110 km/h
• Springbok: 60 mph = 80 - 95 km/h
• Thomson's Gazelle: 50 - 55 mph = 80 - 90 km/h
• Impala: 50 - 55 mph = 80 - 90 km/h

A Cheetah is the only animal to catch them and hunt them down whereas Lions and Leopards feel great difficulty in doing it which shows the superiority of this large cat in speed.

The impala is less fast than the Thomson gazelle, but it is bigger shoulder than her thus he the continuation closely in the meter, however its running and less energetic than those the other gazelles, its vouchers on the other hand are very vast, thanks to his morphology extremely developed the muscle, but it is a handicap hurriedly, because it runs less faster than Springboks and from Grant's gazelles, antelopes of sizes and similar weights nevertheless in his.

For fabulous Grant's Gazelle, it is the fastest the real gazella, but the big males to this sort especially the strength, and have no lat females which can compete with cheetahs and the springboks and to reach spectacular speeds. I have already seen has fault of the animal documentaries on Africa, Gazelles of Grants to dash off at top speed, they are as quick as lightning and magnificent physical measurements which have anything has to envy cheetahs.

The references are rare made because you live in the world manage by Satan, when J-C will have create the Paradise in a few years, you will have more references, the justice will finally be put and the idiots will go to live under the ground in Hell.--Angel310 (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)--Angel310 (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Acrobatic Performances, gazelles powerfull jumps (height and length)

• Springboks can reach 4 meters into the air and 15 meters in length
• Impalas can reach 3 meters into the air and 11 meters in length

• Grant's Gazelle & Thomson's Gazelle... can reach 2 meters in high and 7 meters in length

Springboks have muscles springs in the 2 thighs rear and impalas have thighs extremely developed the muscle, such as their jumps can be dangerous for the man. Generally Springboks and Impalas skip as high as 1.5 meters, but Mother Nature their gave the power to make air jumps when the envy take them.--85.170.228.86 (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thomson's Gazelle (spelling)

For the record, the animal pictured is the Thomson's gazelle, without a "p" in its name. I made the change in the photo caption. Funnyhat 19:13, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dik-diks?

What about the species of miniature Gazelles known as the Dik-Dik?

• Dik-diks are not considered as gazelles—GRM 21:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Dik-diks are apparently considered to be antelopes - not tht I know anything about these things . . is this a common mistake? thinking of did-diks as gazelles rather than antelopes? (If so should this article point this out to the reader?) - SquisherDa (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

roots

why is this under arabic roots?

They eat what?

"They tend to live in herds and will eat less coarse, easily digestible plants and leaves and the occasional animal carcass."

I want a citation before I'll believe they are carnivorous. David Witchell (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Herbivores occasionally consume small amounts of animal matter (particularly bones); but I can't seem to verify this for the gazelles, so I took it out for the moment. The problem is that any search term that includes gazelle and carcass takes you to articles on gazelle predators! If someone can cite it it can go back in. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Restored Arab root

According to WP:LEAD, non-roman roots and their roman transcriptions included for etymology of a word are placed in brackets in the first sentence after the bolded word that is the subject of the article. To Blathcat who argues that this would mean changing thousands of other articles, I would argue that this practice is used in thousands of other articles. Those that don't, should. And to Epson, who added the French, I would note that only the root from which the word is originally servied is included, not all languages through which it passed to reach English. Tiamut^talk 14:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a look at WP:Lead and for some reason I can't seem to find any indication of what you mentioned above... only a brief directive concerning how to properly format Roman roots. I wasn't able to find anything that suggested that non-Roman roots should be included as the etymology in the lead. Would you mind pointing out the reference on that page more specifically please? Furthermore, since we have an etymology section, I think that this, taken from the same page, applies:

"Alternatively, if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead "(Foreign language: Local name; other names exist)"." Breein1007 (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand the need for such a quick revert Breein (and I find it hard to believe that you could thoroughly read WP:LEAD in three minutes). If you look up WP:LEAD, the section on "Foreign language," it says,

Do not boldface foreign names not normally used in English, or variations included only to show etymology. Foreign names (including transcriptions) that use the Roman alphabet should be italicized if they are not bolded; those written in other alphabets (such as Cyrillic) should not.
Chernivtsi Oblast (Ukrainian: Чернівецька область, Chernivets’ka oblast’) is an oblast (province) in western Ukraine, bordering on Romania and Moldova.
Inuit (plural; the singular Inuk means "man" or "person") is a general term for a group of culturally similar indigenous peoples inhabiting the Arctic regions . . .

Furthermore, while there are many ways to transcribe any given word (there are thousands of languages), the only ones that should be included in brackets after the bolded word are 1) the one from which it is ultimately derived; in this case the Arabic ghazal 2) in the case of cities, those used by the inhabitants of the city (which in the case of a mutlingual city would involve more than one).

I would appreciate you restoring the Arabic. I never understood why it was deleted in the first place. And the French should not be included, since it is not the root, but merely one of many possible translations of the word today. Tiamut^talk 14:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, I did read that paragraph. But it doesn't quite suggest what you described. It shows the proper format for foreign translations, but doesn't say when its appropriate to include them. The paragraph that I quoted above does on the other hand hint that when there are a few translations, they should be included in an "Etymology" section, and when this section is included, there shouldn't be translations in the lead. As for my reading speed, I guess it's a special skill of mine. Comes in handy for researching. Breein1007 (talk) 22:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I also do not interpret the meaning of that passage to apply at all. Gazelle is an English word, not a foreign language word. And while you seem (from your edit summary) to have observed many similar articles with etymology entries in the lead, I have not. Those which do tend to be recent or uncommon loanwords, proper nouns, etc. This makes sense for Khat, and Leo Tolstoy but not cat or even gazelle. - BalthCat (talk) 08:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess we differ in our interpretation of the guidelines. I see no statute of limitations governing the incorporation of a word into a given language and find information regarding its root, highlighted up front, to be interesting and useful to the reader. I'll consider the matter settled at this page for now, given that both of you oppose its inclusion. Though I may drop a line to the MoS talk page to get some feedback on the way the guidelines are meant to implemented more generally. Thanks for your comments. Tiamut^talk 10:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You said "non-roman roots and their roman transcription included for etymology appear in brackets beside the bolded word that is the subject of the article." However, nothing in that section says that it is a standard addition, merely that is the location and format to be used when etymology is included. "When the subject is best known by an English title, its alternative names may be included; however, the editor needs to balance the desire to maximize the information available to the reader with the need to maintain readability." indicates that aesthetics and readability are important, and including the etymology to a 400 year old English word in the lead is unnecessary. Additionally the examples given in the MOS page are poor because both refer to terms which refer to people or places inhabited by people who have a non-English language (Inuit and Chernivtsi Oblast). If gazelles spoke Arabic and/or French, I would agree completely with its inclusion in the lead paragraph. - BalthCat (talk) 08:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Edible?

I'm just curious, are gazelles edible? I tried googling, but I got nothing. (99.229.252.229 (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC))

one source says they were hunted by arabian people. anyway, all of these types of animals are edible, thats not notable in itself.(mercurywoodrose)50.193.19.66 (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Arabic roots

Is the name "gazelle" classified as a word with arabic roots? I thought it was Indo-European, you can easily see this by looking at several Indo-European languages Swedish: Gasell English: Gazelle (also german) Kurdish: Xezal (pronounced Ghazal) Dari: Similiar to the above Tajiks and persians also use a similiar word for Gazelles. The people in the Balkans are also included.

How did one came up with the conclusion that it has got arabic roots? What if the arabs took it from the persians/indians/kurds/someone in their neigbourhood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.23.157 (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there anyone who can answer this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.23.157 (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2011

Mongolian gazelle

Why is the Mongolian gazelle listed under the prehistoric extinct gazelles? Caeruleancentaur (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Because there are two species with that name, and whoever put in the link (and made the redirect, for that matter) didn't know that. The living one is Procapra gutturosa, and the extinct one is Gazella mongolica, subgenus Vetagazella. Some sources say they're synonyms, though. More input is required. Sumanuil (talk) 06:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

This article is actually a "stub."

This article seems like a "stub" to me. It has a lot of nice pictures but in my opinion it's remarkably short, in reality, compared to what one would expect for a Wikipedia article about Gazelles. When one gets past all the b.s., all it really says is,

Gazelles are antelopes which run fast; they live in Africa and the Indian Subcontinent; there's many different species, here's some photos hope you enjoy them.

That's it; there's nothing else there.

69.127.82.225 (talk) 12:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree the article is brief, but the criteria for C-class is:

• Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study.
• Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems.

The criteria for stub on the other hand is:

• Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition.
• Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority.

To me, the main problem is the lack of reliable references. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I edited some misinformation

I edited in the etymology section where it says "Gazelle" means deer in Arabic", which is wrong, Ayl(أيل) is the Arabic word for deer. Gazelle(غزال) refers to gazelles only.

The other change was in poetry section, where it says "One of the traditional themes of Persian love poetry involves comparing the gazelle with the beloved, and linguists theorize ghazal, the word for love poetry in Persian", Which is also incorrect, Pre-Islamic, classical and modern Arabic poetry are the ones that mention such thing, not Persian poetry. Also 'ghazal' (not gazelle, it's pronounced slightly different) is Arabic for flirtation and ghazal poetry is the poetry that deals with love topics in Arabic poetry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_poetry#Poetic_themes

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Gazella erlangeri.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Split Proposal

This article is a bit of a mess, it is simultaneously the page for the genus Gazella and also a page for gazelles as whole. Both Eudorcas and Nanger have seperate pages but are also mentioned here (even Procapra has a seperate article and is mentioned in the lead). Since gazelles as a group are iconic mammals I think having a general page would be worthwhile but the genus Gazella ought to have its own seperate page as well for consistency. Maykii (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)