Talk:Giraffe

Archives
May 2004 to November 2011

Arising during November 2011 copy edit

Overlink

The article links to well-known countries, contrary to WP:OVERLINK. I have left it so (but will remove any duplicated links) recognising that it may help readers who don't know exactly where all the African countries are, but be aware that this may be challenged at FAC. --Stfg (talk) 12:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

This isn't contrary to WP:OVERLINK at all, I'm not at all understanding how you extracted 'well-known countries'. The examples given specifically encourage the usage consistent with this article. Has your opinion on this changed? 166.137.242.55 (talk) 08:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Dated statements

In the Subspecies section, I've placed one {{As of?}} tag, but could probably have placed 20. All statments about estimated populations in the wild, and zoo populations, need to be qualified as to when. This would definitely be picked up at FAC. --Stfg (talk)

What if "it is estimated" is removed and the text simply states that those are there population numbers. LittleJerry (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You might be shot at dawn :-) The point is that animal populations change, both in the wild and in zoos, therefore they are information that will date. Let me finish the rest of the edit first, then I'll see if I can think of a way to avoid having 20 {{As of}}s. The sources for the population estimates are mostly the same for all the subspecies, so it should be possible. --Stfg (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I've changed "Currently nine subspecies are recognized" to "Up to nine subspecies are recognized", because the sources vary (e.g. MSW3 only lists six). This is less likely to date overnight, and better reflects the uncertainties described in the previous sentences. Immediately afterwards I've added a parenthesis about the populations, using {{as of}}, stating 2010 because that is the access date currently given for the references used. I didn't check whether the 2011 ISIS has different figures. For Al Ain zoo, since 2003 is quite old, I've inserted an extra ref to their web site, confirming that they still have some Nubian giraffes. I hope this covers it. --Stfg (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Notation T1, T2, C7 etc

I've removed incorrect wikilinks. In the present context, these notations refer to thoracic/cervical vertebrae, not spinal nerves. --Stfg (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Please check statement

In the neck section, we have "This advantage is real as giraffes can and do feed up to 5 m, while most of their competitors, kudu, can only feed up to about 2 meters (6 ft 7 in).^[35]". I can only get the abstract for ref 35, and it doesn't clarify this, but I don't believe that kudu are "most" of giraffes' competitors. Perhaps not even their closest competitors - gerenuk can reach higher, can't they? - and what about elephants? Ref 35 is only considering three of the competitors: kudu, steenbok (tiny!) and impala. Please could someone check out what ref 35 is really saying, and clarify it? --Stfg (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I found the full article here. It also mentions elephants. Will you add it in or should I? LittleJerry (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Well found. Because the paper discusses so few species, and draws such tentative conclusions, I don't feel it's justified to cite it to support statements about "most" of their competitors. But perhaps common sense would let us change "most of ther competitors, kudu" (which doesn't quite make sense anyway) into "even quite large competitors, such as kudu". What do you think? If you're OK with this, I'm happy to do it. --Stfg (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead. LittleJerry (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for putting the URL in the cite. --Stfg (talk) 11:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Please check (2)

In the section on circulatory system, we have: "The jugular veins also contain several (most commonly seven) valves to minimise blood flowing back into the head and assist it getting to the inferior vena cava and right atrium in the same situation.^[41]". By the way, the link under the title for ref 41 gets a certificate error warning; the DOI link is fine. I don't understand the statement "in the same situation" here, and am not quite sure that the text here in WP is saying exactly what the ref is saying. Please could an expert review this and clarify if necessary? --Stfg (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Found it here. Same question. LittleJerry (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Again well found. I believe I now understand this, and it is just the words "in the same situation" that confused me (basically: same as what?). I'm going to bed now (I'm in UK), but I can fix this up in the morning.

By the way, I'm a little puzzled that the URL is an IP address. It seems to belong to the University of Pretoria. Do you know what gives here? --Stfg (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't know what that's about. LittleJerry (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for putting the URL in the cite. --Stfg (talk) 11:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Page nembers needed ...

... for ref 55 (ref name="Prothero 2003"). (In the Cultural significance section, 2nd para, I wanted to check whether "Arab travelers" means travelers who were Arabs, or travelers (of unspecified nationality) in Arabia, but page numbers are needed for all four uses). --Stfg (talk) 11:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

(My silly oversight.) --Stfg (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

† — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.119.106 (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Query

Are we to presume this is either a young, or sickly giraffe? It's hard to tell from the video. Could someone please post the exact text from the source that says adult giraffes are relatively safe from predation, while the young and sickly may be preyed upon by lions? I'm also wondering if Sasata (talk · contribs) has reviewed this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The article and the source state that adult giraffes are mostly invulnerable to predators but lions may be able to kill them if they can get them to fall over. The article also states that giraffes of any age are commonly preyed on by lions in Kruger. The lion article also states that lions usually avoid adult giraffe but regulary hunt them in Kruger.

Anyway. the exact qoute from Estes is: Great size, superior vision (day and night), speed and formidable hooves make grown giraffes largely invulnerable to predators–although lions are able to kill even bull if they can get them down and secure a throat or nose hold. LittleJerry (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, for anybody who doesn't have the books, Estes and Prothero are can be viewed online. LittleJerry (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Right. There has been professional footage (broadcast on Nat Geo Wild, IIRC) of lions killing a healthy adult male giraffe, but that -- and this video -- are anecdotal. I doubt we can deduce anything useful from this video. Even the fact that the giraffe appears to go down too easily may be misleading, e.g. if there are breaks in the shooting. --Stfg (talk) 09:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 February 2012

There's a typo:

says "movie" when it should be "move"

142.167.187.169 (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for pointing it out--Jac16888 ^Talk 20:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Source spotchecking

Right, as per the last FAC, concerns were raised over the closeness of wording to the sources. What we need to do is check off each source. Once checked, the source can be noted here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I already re-paraphased the sources I have available, but I have a problem with the last two cites for [12]. LittleJerry (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess you mean "de-paraphrased (?)" - "European hunters hunted them" is way different to "With the coming of the white man many more giraffe were killed" (unless I am missing something). I am trying to find the second last cite bit of info.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, I meant the second-to-last two. Where it talks about how the giraffe parts where used. The info is not that far above the white men hunting giraffes. LittleJerry (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

OK FN 12 is now FN 13...but which one of the inlines was to check for paraphrasing? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

This line Flyswatters, braclets, necklaces and thread were made from the tail hair;[10]:337[14] shields, sandals and drums from the skin and the strings of musical instruments from the tendons. LittleJerry (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• FN 1 - as per this version, is MSW - I am not sure why it is referencing the taxobox. As far as the second inline, it is somewhat misleading where it is as it references a sentence with a clause abut subpsecies being distinguished by markings. I'd move it...actually I am not sure where I'd use it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request on 21 April 2012

The second paragraph in the intro contains the following sentence: "Adult giraffes do not have strong social bonds, though they do gather in loose aggregations if they happen to be moving same general direction." Please insert "in the" between "moving same" Secret Snelk (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! Nageh (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Giraffe Camouflage ?

I wonder. Roy Behrens, in his "Art of Dazzle Camouflage", quotes a 1939 Time magazine article:

Stripes and blotches were supposed to do for ships and tanks what stripes and blotches are supposed to do for giraffes and tigers.

Supposed to: but is there any actual evidence that the enormous "blotches" of giraffes actually make them less conspicuous? If so, why are the 9 subspecies all patterned differently? Could it be, perhaps, that these are signalling patterns (sexual selection, maybe, or a message to predators that here is a big, healthy, dangerous animal not worth attacking, to name just two possibilities), and not camouflage at all? I don't find a citation to another encyclopedia specially convincing here. How did that encyclopedia article's author know why giraffes are reticulated? well, I don't, and I can't find any scientific papers which provide evidence. Do you know of any actual evidence? Or are we just repeating an urban legend? Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The role of the fur pattern and its phylogeny has been studied extensively, and there is strong indication that it serves as camouflage, particularly for calves. Mitchell & Skinner, which is available as reference 8 in the article, includes a discussion and refers to other study papers. There are several encyclopedias mentioning the role of the pattern, including R. Estes, J. Kingdon, and Skinner & Chimimba, so I'm a bit surprised about your statement that no other encyclopedia would state such. Nageh (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very useful. Perhaps the bit about cam for calves (but not necessarily, or so strongly, for adults) needs to be made in the article.

BTW I didn't say no encyclo stated such, I was referring to the citation to another encyclo in the article which as I said DID state such and doubting whether it was based on primary sources. My point is that the story has been repeated endlessly in textbooks, popular natural histories and encyclopedias with little sign of where it all came from. Encouraging that calves are cammed up. The obvious suggestion is then that the adults are using colour for signalling as well as cam, or perhaps instead of it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

range?

Article would be nice with a map showing the old range (I guess pre guns) and the current one. Show the shrinkage. Not just the subspecies.

64.134.168.97 (talk) 06:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

P.s. congrats on promoting such an important topic. 170,000 per month! WOW!

There is (or was in 1973) a small herd further west in Mali. They had their own Government employed guardian. In 2008 I was told by a buyer from BAT that BAT were sponsoring the Guardian. Bebofpenge (talk) 03:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Total numbers?

So, how many giraffes are there in the wild in total, approximately? This doesn't appear in the article.. it seems like a pretty basic thing that one would hope a featured article might have. Also, it would be nice to compare it to the approximate number of elephants. Thank you. 24.84.4.202 (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It states it in the very last sentence. LittleJerry (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Giraffe Mikumi National Park.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Giraffe Mikumi National Park.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 27, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-01-27. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 17:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis, ssp. tippelskirchi shown here) is the tallest living terrestrial animal and the largest ruminant. There are nine subspecies, which are distinguished by their coat patterns. Fully grown giraffes stand 5–6 m (16–20 ft) tall, with males taller than and weighing nearly twice as much as females. The giraffe's scattered range extends from Chad in the north to South Africa in the south, and from Niger in the west to Somalia in the east. Giraffes usually inhabit savannas, grasslands, and open woodlands. Their primary food source is acacia leaves, which they can browse at heights which most other herbivores cannot reach.Photo: Muhammad Mahdi Karim

Edit request: Male body mass

The average male body mass is listed is 1600 kg in the current wikipedia page. This is definitely not average - it is a rather heavy bull. J.D. Skinner and C.T. Chimimba lists the average male mass as 1192 kg (range 973-1395 kg), and the average female mass as 828 kg (range 703.0-950 kg) (2005. Mammals of the Southern African Subregion, Third Edition. Cambridge University Press, Cape Town South Africa). Accordingly, Mitchell, van Sittert and Skinner (2009. Sexual selection is not the origin of the long neck in giraffes. Journal of Zoology vol 278 pp 281-286) list their giraffe male sample as ranging from 188-1512 kg. In the sample of Van Sittert, Skinner and Mitchell (2010. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B. 134B pp 469 - 479) the masses were given as ranging from 184 to 1413 kg. Therefore, I would agree with Skinner and Chimimba's statements about the average mass of male (1191.8 kg) and female (828 kg) giraffes.

Burnmeister (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 October 2013

In Taxonomy\Subspecies, one finds the following entry for the Rhodesian giraffe:

"The Rhodesian giraffe, G. c. thornicrofti, named for Harry Scott Thornicroft, is also called the Rhodesian giraffe; it is restricted to the Luangwa Valley in eastern Zambia. No more than 1,500 remain in the wild, with none kept in zoos."

In the stub on the Rhodesian giraffe, one finds that the subspecies is also called the Thornicroft giraffe; I'd suggest that the entry here be changed to remove the bolded redundancy and possibly also reflect the fact that the subspecies has multiple common names. I'd change such trivia myself, but, you know, semi-protection lock-down being what it is... 130.132.173.179 (talk) 04:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done, thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Approval Request - "Giraffe Fighting"

Can someone take a look at this sandbox article and see how it can be improved? Is the quality of the article sufficient enough for it to be a sub-page of the main giraffe article? —Preceding undated comment added 15:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

No. 174.124.247.225 (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

phonetics?

I'm surprised there's no pronunciation at the start of this article, not sure if it's pronounced "djiraff" or "djiraff-ee" in english, in french the e at the end (une girafe) is not pronounced but I'm pretty sure I've heard it in english — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.221.58.138 (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2014

In the "History and cultural significance" section, at the end of the paragraph on presence in modern culture, it may be worth adding that the "Imguraffe" is the mascot of the popular image hosting website imgur.com. See for reference http://imgur.com/blog/2012/03/31/introducing-the-imguraffe/. Starvegal (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: too trivial - we don't want to start a list of every use of a giraffe in a company logo. - Arjayay (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit request Necks

Also, there needs to be some elaboration on the hypothesis regarding the "Necks-for-Sex" hypothesis (and this popular hypothesis name should be explicitly stated in this section). It should be stated that the longer and heavier the neck of the giraffe the more likely the male giraffe is to be dominant in a giraffe population and that long necks are actually selected for by female giraffes during mating season (similar to how peahens select for peacocks with elaborate feathers). Hanna.225 (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

"See Also" section

The see also section at the bottom of the article mentions safety with power wires. Is this a joke, or something that was mentioned in the article that I might have missed? Just curious about it...

Edit request: Neck

I think that it is important to further explore these two hypotheses regarding the adaptation that is the neck of the giraffe. It is important to add a counter argument to the "competing browsers" hypothesis by stating the following: There are a number of strong arguments against the competing browsers hypothesis in that giraffe spend fifty percent or more of their time feeding at or below shoulder height. The heavy majority of the time that males are seen foraging with a fully extended neck is when they are in a dominant role among a group of females." Hanna.225 (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

88.105.199.153 (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)Sam

Very strange. The only thing I can think of why these two topics would be related would possibly be that giraffes may have an increased risk of running into power lines.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2015

Mention of the legal status of the giraffe in Tanzania ("and is protected by law.[74] Unathorised killing can result in imprisonment.[75]") should be moved from "History and cultural significance" to "Exploitation and conservation status".

155.138.243.110 (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Done Thank you. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

fur pattern

I made an image with the fur patterns of the nine subspecies. Any use for that in the article? Amada44  ^{talk to me} 07:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Source check

The article contains a claim about the giraffe having a rete mirabile that defends it from blood pressure changes when the head is lowered and raised. According to this question/answer on quora this may not be what's happening. Can someone verify that this source is reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitzanms (talk • contribs) 07:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Distribution map

What dou you think, this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Giraffa_camelopardalis_distribution.svg distribution map would need an update based on this one: http://www.giraffeconservation.org/giraffe_facts.php?pgid=40 http://www.giraffespotter.org/Learn/DistrubutionMaps ? User:Spinofan0731 10:33, 13 december 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2016

I request the addition of a brief summary of the giraffe genome sequence published May 17, 2016 in Nature Communications. I am the corresponding author. I recommend that this be added to the end of the section on "Taxonomy and Evolution". The recommended text to add is as follows:

The Masai giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis tippelskirchi) genome is 2.9Gb in length [ref#] whereas its closest extant relative, Okapi (Okapia johnstoni) genome length is 3.3Gb [ref#]. Giraffe and okapi genes are highly similar overall with 19.4% of proteins being identical [ref#]. Giraffe and okapi genes are equally distantly related to cattle, suggesting that giraffe’s unique characteristics are not due to an overall faster rate of evolution. The divergence of time of giraffe and okapi from a common ancestor is estimated to be 11.5 mya [ref#]. Comparative genomic analysis identified a small group of regulatory genes in giraffe that may be responsible for giraffe's stature and associated cardiovascular adaptations [ref#]. Reference:

<ref> Agaba M, Ishengoma E, Miller WC, McGrath BC, Hudson CN, Bedoya Reina OC, Ratan A, Burhans R, Chikhi R, Medvedev P, Praul CA, Wu-Cavener L, Wood B, Robertson H, Penfold L, Cavener DR. (2016) "Giraffe genome sequence reveals clues to its unique morphology and physiology." Nat Commun. 2016 May 17;7:11519. doi: 10.1038/ncomms11519. PMID: 27187213 <ref> 71.58.72.154 (talk) 01:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and Done, with minor tweaks to improve readability for a general audience. Always a pleasure to see a practising scientist take the time to contribute to Wikipedia. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 09:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

African words for "giraffe"

LittleJerry has reverted my deletion of the catalogue of African names for the giraffe under "Etymology", saying "Native names important." Pursuant to WP:BRD, I invite her or him (and anybody else who's interested) to discuss that decision here. Why is an undifferentiated catalogue of foreign names for an animal important for English Wikipedia? What is it but a collection of trivia? Does the article, Deer, include an assortment of European, Asian, and Amerindian words for deer? Should it?

If such a catalogue should exist at all, which I think unlikely, why should it be given under "Etymology", when none of those names has any historical connection with the word, giraffe? J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 21:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

If the people building the deer article what to include non-English names for deer then they are free to do so. There are plenty of articles that include native names for animals, including Koala. LittleJerry (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

LittleJerry fails to answer any of my questions, as well as to support his or her assertion that the native words for giraffe are "important". Other than to speakers of those languages, why are those words important? Specifically, why are they important to readers of English Wikipedia? Compare Lion, Bear, Bison, Gazelle. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 23:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Why are these words important? Hmm... maybe because they come from the languages of the people who live with them? LittleJerry (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Which would matter if this were Kihehe Wikipedia, but it's not. It's English Wikipedia. Providing the Luo word for giraffe doesn't add to our understanding of the history of the English word (or of the Latin and Greek words used by English-speaking scientists to classify giraffes). It is not etymology: it's trivia. If it were important to list the words for giraffe in the languages of the people who live with them, it would surely be important to include the Khoikhoi word, but you haven't. What about the Setswana word? The Afan Oromoo word? On what basis do you discriminate? J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

None of those words are available. LittleJerry (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Those words certainly are available to anybody who can be bothered to go to a good library! Let's be inclusive and not Western-centric, but only if we don't have to get up from our computers! J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Listing non-English words for an animal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is it useful or appropriate for an article about an animal to give a list of words for that animal in various non-English languages? Specifically, should the Etymology section of "Giraffe" include a list of words for giraffe in various African languages? J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• No: simply listing names in other languages is what dictionaries do, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Only those names that have contributed to the etymology of the English word "giraffe" should be mentioned. Discussion on the archaic name "Camelopard" may be encyclopedic as well. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
• Yes: Etymology sections deal with the naming of the animal in general and giving native names enriches the article and makes it less Western-centric. LittleJerry (talk) 03:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
• No, a plain "list of words" is not suitable for Wikipedia. I have to agree with Finnusertop, Wikipedia is not a dictionary nor is it Google translate (or any other translator in that sort) and therefore a list of translations for Giraffe is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Davidbuddy9 Talk  04:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: I observed that a few FAs like Hippopotamus and Giant otter do mention a few native names. The point is that there does not seem to have been any opposition or encouragement for the inclusion of native names in articles. Nor is the MOS clear about this. While I agree with LittleJerry's views, it does seem the list is a bit too long. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 09:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
• No: See my arguments in the preceding section. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
• No. This is not 'Etymology', if any of these names had any connection to the name, or if the animal had any connection to these 'peoples', it might make sense, but this is random info.Pincrete (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• Yes in moderation As Sainsf notes, a fully fledged and polished species article does benefit from mentioning a few non-English names for full coverage. But I suggest this is in the manner of a finishing touch and shouldn't be overdone. Three of four names when nearing GA - yes, long lists and/or when there's much other information missing - no.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 04:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Id be willing to concede to this. LittleJerry (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

We can't arbitrarily decide which languages to include and which not, neither can we be sure we have covered all such local names. I think the best we can do to retain a "local touch", or a non-Western perspective as LittleJerry suggests, is to retain a few names, perhaps by choosing the most widely used languages from the list. I believe this will help a large number of native readers, and that is what our aim is. The table here [1] and a few Google searches show that Swahili and Zulu are clearly the most widely spoken of the list of languages we have here. A point to be noted is that Portuguese is a widely spoken language in Africa, but it is not included here. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I respectfully but strongly disagree. A handful of African words for giraffe would not "help . . . native readers". Nobody is going to look on English Wikipedia to discover the Luo word for giraffe, or look for the Luo word for giraffe on English Wikipedia in order to find out what the English word is. English is also widely spoken in Africa, yet there are millions of Africans who speak neither English nor Swahili nor Zulu nor Portuguese. If we want to help African readers, we might learn their languages and help translate Wikipedia. (Though there are probably more meaningful ways to help.) I consider it most disrespectful and condescending to use a few token "native" words, which will be utterly meaningless to the vast majority of readers of English Wikipedia, as a cheap way to be "less Western-centric", i.e., to help white people feel virtuous. Forgive my harshness, but it just burns me up. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem, Jdcrutch. I am not a proponent of including these either, and I respect your views. The proposal I gave was if we must agree on some compromise, but the RfC is yet to be over. :) Sainsf (talk · contribs) 04:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Briefly examining some articles on non-african animals I don't see this practice. If this were to be common practice, how would you pick the languages to list the word for the animal from? For example for "Wolf" there might be a word for this animal in hundreds of languages. Which ones do you list? Also, this has nothing to do with Etymology of the name. Listing names from languages not related to English (in an English article) should be in another section, not Etymology because that is mislabelling the information. Thinking about adding another section to an article to hold this information seems like it would reduce the coherence of most articles. Klaun (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• No: A list of foreign words for "giraffe" does not contribute to the reader's understanding of the topic and in any case is misplaced under the heading "etymology". If someone wants to contribute to a non-western perspective, seems like the section, "relationship with humans" would be the place to start.Glendoremus (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• No: I just looked at the article and immediately glazed over at the sight of the African names. These are not helpful in an English WP article. I note there are similar lists of African names on the Hippopotamus and Elephant article. If consensus is that these should remain, they should be in their own section - they certainly do not belong in "Etymology". DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Yes with reservations. The list as it stands is less than half a page; consequently it doesn't interfere with the article's usefulness to anyone who doesn't care about the nomenclature. (I do not say "etymology" because as it stands the list contributes precious little to the etymology.) The principle about avoiding lists etc doesn't really apply, because this is a very small list and is in context; we have plenty of unobjectionable articles with longer lists and tables. At the same time, most of the items in the list have little clear function in the context of the article; there is no discussion of the items in the list, and in fact vernacular names in minority languages are notoriously unreliable and unstable and there is little evidence that the list given has been properly checked for reliability and stability, let alone points of interest, so I wouldn't object to some fairly severe pruning. JonRichfield (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
• No - listing a word in several different languages is irrelevant. That is what dictionaries and translators are for. If we did that for this article then we would have to justify not doing it for every other article on Wikipedia. It is not important information, and this is the English version of Wikipedia. There are Wikipedia's in different languages for this kind of stuff. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
• It depends – For an article on a species in the English Wikipedia, I think it is appropriate to discuss the contemporary and historical names for that species in English (including its various different national/regional varieties), any present and former scientific names, and the etymology of the preceeding. Non-English names generally shouldn't be mentioned unless they are relevant to the etymology of a current or former name in English, or the etymology of the scientific name (or a former scientific name). Info on other non-English names belongs in Wiktionary, Wikidata, Wikispecies, other language Wikipedias, etc. For giraffe specifically, I understand the etymology comes via Italian and Arabic, with the spelling influenced by French, so it would make sense to discuss those languages; but African languages should only be mentioned if there is a suggestion that language contributed to the etymology, such as by being the source of the Arabic zarafa–that seems to justify mentioning its name in Somali (a possible source of the Arabic word), but not Swahili or Zulu. (I think mention of Afrikaans is borderline–it isn't very relevant, but could be justified as an example of an obsolete English name having a surviving cognate in another language, and also as an example of a language in which the present common name is etymologically related to the scientific name.) So in this case, I'd drop the mention of Swahili and Zulu, and I'm 50-50 on dropping the mention of Afrikaans, but I'd keep the mention of Italian/Arabic/French/Latin/Greek/Somali. SJK (talk) 07:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Under the present circumstances, then, isn't this editor's comment in fact "No"? I don't think anybody objects to the article's discussing foreign words that bear on the actual etymology of the English words (including the Graeco-Latin scientific names used by English-speakers). The RfC is directed to a list of non-English words for the animal.

Note that the Afrikaans kameelperd derives, not from English camelopard, but (like the English word) from Latin camelopardus. See "Kameelperd", Handwoordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal (Pearson Education South Africa, 2010). It therefore, in my view, does not belong in this article. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Objection: I respectfully call the forum's attention to the fact that, a few days ago, LittleJerry, whose reversion of my edit prompted this RfC, altered the list of African words, removing all but the Afrikaans, Zulu, and Swahili words. I consider it improper for an editor to alter the text in question while a RfC is pending, so I have reverted LittleJerry's edit and restored the status quo ante. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• It depends - I don't think a list of foreign language terms is warranted in this case, but it isn't necessarily inappropriate. The best mammal example I can come up with at the moment is tanuki (the transliterated Japanese name for Japanese raccoon dog). It's culturally important in Japan, and probably better known in English as tanuki than by the etymologically English name, there being more English speakers interested in Japanese video games/manga/anime where tanukis often appear than there are English speakers interested in the native fauna of Japan.

I suppose it comes down to whether a name from another language is regularly used in English language texts, keeping in mind different national varieties of English. It's trivially easy to find examples of this for species that are used as food. "Bangus" is the Tagalog name for milkfish, but bangus is also the name in Philippine English. There are tons of English language recipe results if you Google bangus+recipe. Kumara is the Maori derived New Zealand English term for sweet potato, and you can also find plenty of English sweet potato recipes using the Spanish "camote". Brinjal is Indian English for eggplant/aubergine. It does become a problem figuring out where to stop including foreign names adopted into English spoken in the Global South. The Philippines, Malaysia and India have millions of English speakers who will use their native term in English conversations when talking about the fish and vegetables they're going to cook for dinner. No problem including Tagalog and Malaysian names, but once India enters the picture it gets difficult. Include Hindi? Absolutely. All of the other 21 official languages of India? No. But where to make the cut off?

If people speaking South African English or Tanzanian English use etymologically Afrikaans/Zulu/Swahili names for an animal, these names should be included up to a point. Plantdrew (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Only If Relevant - As Plantdrew said, if there is a special significance to a particular animal in another language, this can be mentioned. For this article, the long list of different African languages is not relevant or helpful. I would make the sole exception (in this article) be the Afrikaans "Kameelperd", due to its similarity to the latin. Fieari (talk) 06:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Request for Closure: This RfC has expired, and Legobot has deleted the RfC template, but the discussion has not been formally closed; and although I think it's clear which way consensus is tending, that's not obvious and unequivocal; so I've requested formal closure by an administrator. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hard to see?

While adult giraffes standing among trees and bushes are hard to see at even a few metres' distance, that can't possibly be right for an animal of such size.--2A00:1028:83D6:8E56:3DB6:3B3:569B:713 (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

"Four distinct species" (I'm sticking my neck out here)

2016-09-08: Fancy writing all this up?

Giraffe genetic secret: Four species of tallest mammal identified

It is a famous, gentle giant of the African savanna, but the giraffe's genetics have just revealed that there is not one species, but four. Giraffes have previously been recognised to be a single species divided into several sub-species. But this latest study of their DNA suggests that four groups of giraffes have not cross-bred and exchanged genetic material for millions of years. This is a clear indication that they have evolved into distinct species. The study published in the journal Current Biology has rewritten the biology of Earth's tallest mammal.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37311716