Talk:Elephant

On 1 August, 3 August, 18 October 2006 and 24 May 2007, the article page associated with this talk page was the target of vandalism encouraged by The Colbert Report, a popular television show. See the Elephant page's edit history, and Talk:Elephant/Colbert.

Fair use rationale for Image:Steve Hirano.jpg

Image:Steve Hirano.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Elephants of Nepal

The a species of Elephants in Nepal is not mentioned, which shows unique features. http://www.ntvmsnbc.com/news/277113.jpg one bull is named Raja Gaj. Research is still being done on them.--Standforder (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Quick-failed Good Article nomination

According to the quick-fail criteria, any article that has cleanup or expansion banners (such as the ones currently in National parks and Family classification) must be failed immediately and does not require an in-depth review. Please remedy any issues brought up by such banners and remove them before choosing to renominate the article. Despite not requiring a detailed review, I will take this time to point out that the article far from meets the GA criteria in terms of the use of in-line citations. There are many large sections that lack even a single citation, and this is unacceptable. For good basic verification, facts must be attributed to particular sources, even if it's just a single cite at the end of each paragraph. If you have any more questions, feel free to contact me. If you feel this review was in error, you may seek a reassessment. Thank you for your work so far, VanTucky 22:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violations

The sections "Reproduction" and "Motherhood and calf rearing" are copyright violations that were added in this edit almost three years ago. The evidence: the Wayback Machine shows that the Toledo Zoo had this on their page from at least April 2003. howcheng {chat} 17:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you've removed the offending text. Is the copyvio tag still necessary? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess not. If someone wants to rewrite those sections to avoid the copyright problem, then feel free to remove the notice. howcheng {chat} 21:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty confusing as it stands now. There is no copyrighted text but the note says the article will be deleted within one week. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's because the template was built for whole-article copyvios. I don't think we have a section-only template. howcheng {chat} 04:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That's because Wikipedia has historically not bothered to tag sections for copyvios. There's no reason to; you simply remove the offending text. It's different when the entire article is a copyvio, since some explanation is needed for a blank page. 63.249.97.90 (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The {{copyvio}} tag is for whole articles, and the entire article should be blanked if it's used because we want the copyright holder to know we're investigating and we take their copyright seriously. {{Copypaste}} is appropriate for sections and would have been a better choice here, but it's fine. Usually we revert to an earlier, non-infringing version of the article if it's just a section or a paragraph that's been added. If there's no untainted version of the article, though, we can delete the article and then undelete the versions that do not contain copyrighted text. That's not going to be necessary here - just rewrite it. Thanks. KrakatoaKatie 12:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Expansion on intelligence: art (painting, drawing in the wild)

Hi,

I stumbled on a remarkable video of an elephant painting another elephant walking and holding a flower [1]. After reading a comment from someone asserting that elephants in fact do draw pictures in the sand of themselves in the wild, I came here to find out more, with no success. I'd be interested to see this expanded on a bit.

(Brandon Arnold (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC))

I would be interested too.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.212.202 (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

So would I. This same subject came up in the human article when it was asserted that only humans are capable of creating art. Since there was no documentation to claim that elephants (or apes) could create art, the mention of the animals got pulled. Part of the reasoning was that they weren't actually creating art but were trained or pleasing their captors by doing art-like activities. Someone must have written about this art-in-the-wild, so some references must be out there. Bob98133 (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've seen that amazing video as well, but still I'm pretty sure that elephants do not produce art in the wild. It is, of course, unprovable that they've never done it, but a single counter-example would prove that they have, and if one existed, I would most likely have heard of it. However, the video appears to prove that they are easily intelligent enough to do it if it is rewarded. Hgmichna 08:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Not only do they not do it in the wild they almost don't do it at all. It requires a month of training and even then they can only replicate simple outlines http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/elephantpainting.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by ILikeFish (talk • contribs) 18:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Classification issues

Are Anancus and Cuvieronius elephantids or gomphotheriids? This page claims that the two genera belong to the Elephantidae, but the page on the Gomphotheriidae claim that they belong there. Obviously they can't belong to both simultaneously. 75.211.124.26 (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

They're gomphotheres. I'll go check and make corrections.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

So, I removed Subfamily Lophodontinae, as I doublechecked, and all those genera are indeed gomphotheres.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Category

Anyone know why the redlink category Category:South Africa-centric shows up on this article? I don't see it in the text of the article anywhere. Deli nk (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's being generated by the {{Globalizecountry|South Africa}} template at the top of the national parks section. Dave6 ^talk 08:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Propose a new link

Elephants is a lovely book published by the British Museum, illustrated using images drawn from the museum's vast collections. It provides a good insight into how humans across the globe have attempted to pay homage to and understand the elephant for many centuries, bringing together an array of written and visual material from diverse sources, and should definitely be included in the further reading section! Jemmam (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Mary the Elephant - Against All Odds is the charming and informative story of an orphan baby elephant (it's mother killed by poachers in Kenya) who was raised by humans at the Mt. Kenya Wildlife Conservancy and eventually successfully released into the wild. It seems to me a highly appropriate link - but I am biased as I am the webmaster at the web site in question so I leave to somebody else's good judgment whether or not to proceed. Thank you. Chuck @ UPDmedia.com (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

When should this article be unlocked?

Colbert's elephant bit is fading from our memories and episodes are not re-aired, so is it time to quietly unlock this page and see how it goes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.25.240.225 (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you think we could put a mention to the Colbert incident in the pop culture references section? I think that it is just a bit odd that there is still no mention of it in the actual article. Jljfuego (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I am opposed to that suggestion. This article is about the animal, not about the silliness caused by Colbert's joke. -- Donald Albury 01:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It is an example of elephants in popular culture though. I don't see why it shouldn't be mentioned at all. And Colbert's "joke" was actually quite clever. He pointed out a flaw in Wikipedia's design while poking fun at all the people who take things too seriously.

Colbert making this statement also brought visibility to the poaching and potential extinction of the Elephant. That makes what he did very relevant. Yes it was funny, but think about the number of people that had no idea that Elephants were endangered before the Colbert bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.8.49 (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Jljfuego (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think many editors will argue with your characterization that Colbert pointed out a 'flaw' in Wikipedia's design (try proposing tighter controls on who can edit). -- Donald Albury 02:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should be unlocked.... in all truth I came here to see if it was still locked, and to edit it if it wasn't to Colbert's joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.147.177 (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest to keep it locked, episodes are in fact re-aired, not that much, but during breaks when Colbert doesnt air new episodes. Plus I'm sure his page is viewed alot so people will find it there, and then come here to edit it. Disturbedfan24 (talk) 04:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

keep it locked, keep stephen colbert out of it. Stephen colbert doesnt have any significance to elephants, elephants DO have significance to colbert; this is why its explained on stephen colberts page, not this one. thuglas^T|C 13:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend keeping it locked. We watch the Wikiality video in our Research Writing class at IUP, so the idea to deface this article is still alive and well. The video can be found here: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/72347/july-31-2006/the-word---wikiality —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblesort (talk • contribs) 14:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Predators

The intro has this sentence, "Adult elephants have no natural predators." I know that it was recently moved from lower in the article, but I don't think we say that. It has been reported that, in at least one location, lions successfully hunt elephants, including adult elephants. See [2], [3] and [4]. That last link is to a blog, and so can't be used. We really need for someone to access the Dereck Joubert article (listed here). I have seen the Planet Earth episode, and it is quite dramatic, but it is not clear how old the elephant that the lions take down is. -- Donald Albury 23:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC).

Ok, I read the article by Joubert (2006) in African journal in ecology. Out of 187 attacks observed on adult elephants, 1 resulted in the death of an adult (>15years old). This was a severely injured elephant (from a fight with another male) who was eventually killed by lions. I may change the intro to "Healthy adult elephants have no natural predators." --Seb951 (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)seb951

Humans aren't natural predators? Just curious because in nearly every corner of the planet we are the apex predator now and people still poach elephants. Just curious on the definition of 'natural' there.--Senor Freebie (talk) 08:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought that some adult females had been taken by lions, as well as the one adult male who had been seriously injured in a fight with another male. I also read that lions have been observed attacking healthy adult male elephants, but those attacks were unsuccessful. However, the Joubert article is the only reliable source I've heard of, and I haven't read it. -- Donald Albury 18:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is the result section from Joubert 2006. Lots of attacks, only one adult killed. If there is reliable info from other sources stating otherwise, you can gladly change the intro. --Seb951 (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Results

Over the 4 years, we observed a total of 74 elephants killed by lions, including eleven elephants in 1993, seventeen in 1994, nineteen in 1995, and 27 in 1996, suggesting an increasing hunting success rate. All the elephants killed, with one exception, were from breeding herds (females and young). The exception was an adult bull, previously wounded by another bull, who remained alive for several days before eventually being killed by the lions. The great majority of the young elephants killed were males, and two-thirds of the kills were of elephants in the age range 4–15 years, with highest hunting success achieved for elephants aged 4–9 years (Table 1). The animals killed were commonly on the periphery of, or straggling behind, the breeding herds, with nearly half killed more than 50 m away from the main herd. Hunts were less commonly attempted on calves which were under the age of 4 years, which remained more closely associated with their mothers. Hunting success for elephants older than 4 years apparently doubled from 33% (n = 9) in 1993 to 62% (n = 61) in 1996. Many attempts to kill adults bulls were made in 1996, when we saw lions attacking elephant bulls almost nightly although only one hunt was successful. All except one of the kills were made at night, and hunts occurred more commonly on dark moon nights than when the moon was bright.

 Table 1  Hunting attempts and success rates of lions on elephants (attempt means unsuccessful kills)

Sex of elephant Age class of elephant (years) Male Female unknown <1 1–2 2–4 4–9 9–15 >15 Adult

1993

 Attempts	6	5	1	2	2	0	1	4	1	2
 Kills	3	4	1	1	3	1	1	2	0	0
 Total	9	9	2	3	5	1	2	6	1	2

1994

 Attempts	11	2	1	1	1	0	3	1	1	7
 Kills	3	3	1	1	2	0	4	0	0	0
 Total	14	5	2	2	3	0	7	1	1	7

1995

 Attempts	29	1	10	2	2	1	0	9	5	21
 Kills	4	6	3	0	0	2	8	3	0	0
 Total	33	7	13	2	2	3	8	12	5	21

1996

 Attempts	149	4	30	2	1	1	0	5	18	156
 Kills	31	13	2	1	2	4	18	14	6	1
 Total	180	17	32	3	3	5	18	19	24	157

Total

 Attempts	195	12	42	7	6	2	4	19	25	186
 Kills	41	26	7	3	7	7	31	19	6	1
 Total	236	38	49	10	13	9	35	38	31	187
 Success rate (%)	18	68	16	30	53	63	88	50	19	0.5

Quick-failed Good Article nomination

According to the quick-fail criteria, any article that has cleanup or expansion banners (such as the ones currently in National parks and Family classification) must be failed immediately and does not require an in-depth review. Please remedy any issues brought up by such banners and remove them before choosing to renominate the article. Despite not requiring a detailed review, I will take this time to point out that the article far from meets the GA criteria in terms of the use of in-line citations. There are many large sections that lack even a single citation, and this is unacceptable. For good basic verification, facts must be attributed to particular sources, even if it's just a single cite at the end of each paragraph. If you have any more questions, feel free to contact me. If you feel this review was in error, you may seek a reassessment. Thank you for your work so far, VanTucky 22:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Pop Culture Section

I think we should add one. Other articles that are about animals have pop culture sections, so why not this one? In this section, it can discuss Colbert. This may or may not help with the elephant tripling problem, but that's not the point. It would talk about elephants in pop culture and it would give Colbert's followers what they want. Footballfan190 (talk) 08:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No. See WP:ASR. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a short one at least. This what the section elephant in culture was about! but it got cut completely! I agree it needs trimming work and improvement in style, but just cutting it to avoid the problem is not a good solution either. Please bring it back and improve it! --Seb951 (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is better off without a pop culture section. -- Donald Albury 23:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

What about a culture section? They don't have to be bad, look at Bird#Religion, folklore and culture. It is possible to write these sections well and make them relevant. I was expecting a reference to Ganesha, Shooting an Elephant, White Elephants and yes, even Dumbo. Once it has been written you need to keep an eye on it to stop things like "There was an elephant in an episode of Kim Possible" creeping in, but that shouldn't stop there from being a section in the first place. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Irrespective of this discussion, removing the whole Elephants in culture section was definitely not the right solution to deal with the problem. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 09:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why the section was removed again since it does not contain any information about elephants in popular culture, so the argument most sentiments expressed on the talk page were against this is not valid. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! Argument most sentiments expressed on the talk page were against this is not valid since based on the talk page its a 4 against 2 decisions to have an elephant in culture section. So please bring it back and improve it! --Seb951 (talk) 12:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I am opposed to having a pop culture section in this article. What part of "most" didn't make sense to you? if the vote is 4-2, then twice as many editors did NOT want the pop culture section as wanted it. This is "most". There is so much pop culture about elephants that it can easily swamp this article. Why not create a separate article? Bob98133 (talk) 13:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, it's not a vote. Secondly, the confusion here is that two sections were removed; "Elephants in culture", and "Elephants in popular culture". The latter is just worthless cruft and we're best rid of it. The former may, with some rewriting, be a valuable part of the article. But really, that whole section of the article needs reworked significantly. What could happen is that the cultural elements which were removed could be integrated with other sections; for instance, the veneration of war elephants could be moved into the war elephants section. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

69.208.68.105

This is why Colbert made this edit [[5]]. If you watch the clip from his show, you will clearly notice that he pulled out a laptop and edited Oregon and called it Idaho's Portugal. He even admitted to it. This was the only edit made in late July or early August of 2006 that made the statement that Oregon is Idaho's Portugal. Here is a clip to watch for proof [here]. 216.93.231.149 (talk) 05:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Super, now why are you mentioning it here? There's not going to be a section for "Elephants in pop culture" just because Colbert made a joke on his tv show. It was funny, but we dont need to mention it here, that would just make more people want to edit it like Colbert said. Disturbedfan24 (talk) 04:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If you wanna know way he did it ' he say in conan obrain show "I did't to see if i can" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.22.21.199 (talk) 12:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Size contradictions

This passage has contradictory statements about the size of elephants.

Under the new two species classification, Loxodonta africana refers specifically to the Savanna Elephant, the largest of all elephants. In fact, it is the largest land animal in the world, standing 3.1 metres (10 ft) to 4 metres (13 ft) at the shoulder and weighing approximately 7,000 kilograms (15,000 lb). The average male stands about 3 metres (10 ft) tall at the shoulder and weighs about 5500 (12000 lb) to 6,000 kilograms (13,000 lb), the female being much smaller. Most often, Savanna Elephants are found in open grasslands, marshes, and lakeshores. They range over much of the savanna zone south of the Sahara. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.238.149 (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I found a couple of reliable sources and fixed it. -- Donald Albury 20:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The number of elephants has tripled in the last 6 months though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.2.168.230 (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Article biased by animal activists

Reading through the Zoo and circus section, and pressing on edit, it seems someone wants Petas websites to get a higher page rank becuase of links from wikipedia.

The links are cleverly made in commented htlm and can therefore not be seen but its written like this:

<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><ref>[http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:zy-rTMG8dRgJ:www.elephantvoices.org/tools/documents/Poole_bullhooks_boston_jan2007.pdf+elephant+rocking+behavior&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a]</ref><ref>[http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:kdYDBPzWaXwJ:www.elephantvoices.org/tools/documents/Statement_regarding_Arna_March_2002.pdf+elephant+rocking+behavior&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a]</ref><ref>[http://www.elephants.com/media/yahoo_11_18_05.htm The Elephant Sanctuary, Hohenwald, Tennessee<!-- Bot generated title -->

Theres also a lot of speculations, classical views from animal rights activists, which have no scientific value, and the only value here is to maanipulate the reader to dislike circuses, and its doubtful whether Wikipedi should take the role of manipulating peoples opinions?

Dan Koehl (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

By all means, correct any incorrect or unreferenced material and feel free to add new referenced material to improve the article. There has been a lot of discussion trying to keep the article fair and balanced. Sorry, I can't figure out what that link is that you've posted, but it doesn't look like it goes to a PETA website, unless it is an undercover web site or something. Whether the animal rights views are scientific or not is a separate question, but as long as the info is presented as their POV it doesn't really have to be scientific, just relevant and properly referenced. Bob98133 (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Like this: "Thought to be symptomatic of stress disorders, rocking behavior may be a precursor to aggressive behavior in captive elephants"

Thats just speculations, may be, is word which could be used for just about any crazy theory, like:

...Informing people about the latest news, or bad wethers may create such traumatic feelings that the reporter may take suicide...

This is just unproofed thoughts, without any reliable scientific source backing it up, but still it leaves the reader that this is some sort of "facts".

dealing with organisations like PETA, who has a strong agenda, is very risky, when they are aloud to write facts articles about elephants in captivity, when everyone knows that they are fundamentally against zoos.

Dan Koehl (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked at that text and checked the refs. 2 of them didn't work, so I deleted them. I see the other two refs are from organizations opposed to elephant captivity, so they definitely have a POV, however the text does say "thought to..." so it leaves open that this is opinion, not fact. I added a real ref about a barren environment possibly leading to an increase in rocking, but I agree that to be balanced this article should cite better sources than advocacy groups. If there are better sources that indicate the reasons for rocking and what it means, they should be used. I think the way that it is put, it doesn't claim to be absolute fact, but it does suggest that. Bob98133 (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Elephant birth captured on film | Video | Reuters.com

• Elephant birth captured on film | Video | Reuters.com -- Wavelength (talk) 08:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

heads up

citation 62 is a dead link. 75.72.213.199 (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

All better. -- Vary Talk 03:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Rocking behavior image

Devi (little princess), a 30-year-old Asian Elephant raised in captivity at the San Diego Zoo exhibiting "rocking behavior", a rhythmic and repetitive swaying which is unreported in free ranging wild elephants. Thought to be symptomatic of stress disorders, and probably made worse by a barren environment, rocking behavior may be a precursor to aggressive behavior in captive elephants.

restored Image:Devi AsianElephant SanDiegoZoo 20071230 RockingBehaviour.gif and caption : Devi (little princess), a 30-year-old Asian Elephant raised in captivity at the San Diego Zoo exhibiting "rocking behavior", a rhythmic and repetitive swaying which is unreported in free ranging wild elephants. Thought to be symptomatic of stress disorders, and probably made worse by a barren environment, rocking behavior may be a precursor to aggressive behavior in captive elephants.

This image has been here 11 months, is a good, low-res, low-framerate, small size, short, less-than-3mb image, which adds to the article's quality, and is illustrative of the subject matter in a way that a still image cannot be. There has been no consensus expressed on Talk:Elephant to remove it. User:Pedant (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

A 56K modem is faster, even in 2008, than what is available in many developing countries (including the United States, which has low broadband penetration) and worse still for mobile users. Without this image, page load and render time is over 3 minutes at 56K, with a total amount of downloaded data close to 800K. Three minutes is already bordering on unacceptable page load times. This 3MB image will push page load and render times upwards of ten minutes for a single page view. If you want to include animated GIFs as acceptable you'll need to change Wikipedia's operating guidelines (Wikipedia:IMGSIZE#Animated_images) and target audiences. Miami33139 (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

A good compromise would be to make a static image and a link to the animated one. But I think at the moment the image should probably be restored until someone with the required technical knowledge can do this. We should err on the side of having more content, rather than less in this case. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

At 3MB, this page is unusable for low-bandwidth users. We should defer to the page being readable, not more cowbell. That means the image should stay out. Windows Paint will make a static image from an animated gif. You are welcome to do that. Miami33139 (talk) 05:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should do it, as you are the one currently lobbying for the removal of the image. Seem reasonable? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the static version of the image. I'm not sure what the best way to link it is. I leave it for someone else to decide. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a great compromise decision. Nice work, everyone! --Kralizec! (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Where's the 2007 talk page comments?

I just looked at the archives and this articles history, and there arean't any comments from 2007. Any clue what happened to them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Found them I think. There may be another archive of Colbert, though, I don't know. Plus the December 31 GA Quick Fail isn't in the archive. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

An elephant never forgets

I would be great if this article could address the stereotype of elephants having colossal memory. Maikel (talk) 10:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC) Elephants are far more thoughtful mammals than their popular circus entertainer personas imply. In the wild, they follow formalized family structures with older females, or matriarchs, at the top. Daughter elephants always stick close with their mothers, forming families. Male offspring leave the family at around 14 years of age, or whenever they reach sexual maturity, described as being in musth. From there, males join groups of other male elephants, which they'll periodically leave for mating purposes. During droughts, multiple elephant families consisting of the females and their calves may congregate to form bond groups and share resources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Seditives (talk • contribs) 16:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Seriously

This article claims that "In Africa, groups of young teenage elephants attack human villages in what is thought to be revenge for the destruction of their society by massive cullings done in the 1970s and 80s". Are we to believe that the elephants sat down and decided that 'hey, those humans were pretty mean 30 years ago, let's get back at them!'? I've removed this as I can't see an argument being made for elephants not only being able to have feelings such as revenge, but even to pass on that feeling to a younger generation. JdeJ (talk) 13:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I reverted your edit prior to seeing this talk item. I added a reference to similar material from the New York Times (Oct 2008). Apparently, this theory of the reason for the elephants' actions is being studied and is considered credible. Since the statement includes "what is thought to be..." I think that it is reasonable to include it in the article. The New Scientist and the NYT are good sources. Bob98133 (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I read the NYT article and it said nothing at all about elephants being out for "revenge". There's not the slightest proof to suggest than animals can have such feelings, not to mention pass them on. I won't start a revert war, but I hope others give their views as well. This idea makes this article, and Wikipedia, look ridiculous. JdeJ (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I've now read both sources and they are not sufficient. One of them, the NYT article, doesn't say a word about the elephants taking "revenge", it talks about other causes, such as disorientation among young elephants not raised by older elephants. As for New Scientist, it's not included in the sources, all we have is a secondary report about what the New Scientist may have said from the Sydney Morning Herald, and we don't know what the scientific article says and what the interpretation by some journalist is. I will wait untill tomorrow for a link showing that New Scientist indeed talks about elephants being after "revenge". If not, I will remove the claim as it cannot be substantiated by the sources in the article. JdeJ (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm OK with you removing the "revenge" part, since there is not going to be any reliable proof of that. Perhaps you could leave in the part about them appearing to be disoriented because of absent elders - although that is probably speculation, as well. Elephant rampages and attacks appear to be more frequent - that can be documented - so that could stay in - and the speculation could be noted as such or simply said that the reason is unknown. Try your rewrite or edit and I'll get back to you on this page if I don't agree, rather than reverting or changing. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

--Mr Seditives (talk) 10:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

An elephant can predict tsunami

This is a cool, new fact i discovered. Many reports from southeast asian countries from tourists reported the elephants dashed to higher ground with the hitchhikers on their back shortly before the great boxing day asian tsunami took place. Even the documentary "The most extreme" had mentioned it before.

Is it really true? Any facts or stuff to prove this is true? I'm pretty curious in this. If so, maybe this can add value greatly to the giants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.93.30 (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like the regular level of post-disaster "you wouldn't believe it, but..." type of stuff. That said, I do remember seeing a general report (on Discovery Channel, I believe) about how sometimes animals will react to a coming earthquake before it's readily apparent. This could be akin to that sort of phenomenon, but that's a bit of a stretch to make (and we'd need to have some hard evidence before we could even think about mentioning it in the article itself). EVula // talk // ☯ // 08:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the article is already claiming that the elephants not only have such feelings as revenge but also a language/means of communication advanced enough to pass on such feelings to new generations, I wouldn't be surprised to see this article say that groups of concerned elephants had petitioned governments before the tsunami to warn them... JdeJ (talk) 08:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

This is amazing!!! from 203.126.93.30 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.93.30 (talk) 08:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, JdeJ, I don't agree that including the referenced item about elephants seeking revenge logically leads to them petitioning governments about tsumanis. While I have heard that elephants reacted to the Asian tsunami, that information is not nearly sufficiently documented to include as fact, since it is merely speculation. I suspect that research may be going on about this, so perhaps there will be a scientific answer someday. The revenge/rampage articles I read indicated that the phenomenon had been studied for a long time, and backed up with statistics. The only leap is ascribing this new behavior to "revenge", but that was done by scientists, not Wiki editors. Bob98133 (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. At least we don't know if it was. The article you're refering to is an article by the Sydney Morning Herald, not the New Scientist. JdeJ (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Everyone has heard about the Indian Parliament recognising a delegation of Asian elephants, and allowing them to establish a consulate in India, right? But maybe we should let the elephants add that material themselves. User:Pedant (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you know how long it takes to type with those feet? ZS 18:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Everyone has also heard that the population of elephants in Africa has tripled in the last six months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.213.220.205 (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

elephants are more than they appear

'elephants are known to feel death, sorrow, or hurting, whether it be from another elephant or' its self. Elephants are beloved animals and should have been a national animal for a country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.164.58 (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Goat sized elephant?

• I was watching the BBC Documentary Earth-The Power of The Planet (oceans episode) and the narrator talked about Sicilian elephants that were the size of a goat. I think that should be included in this article.

Reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B23F2P_9xo8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.189.46 (talk) 06:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Dwarf elephant

  This article should be hyper linked in the part of the article that talks about dwarfism. 06:51, 7 March 2009 User:146.245.249.238

"An elephant never forgets"

Do elephants have very good memory? Well, we often here the idea "An elephant never forgets." Whatever this is, it should be explained in the article. 210.4.121.212 (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The article notes that they have good memories. I think that it might be difficult to present any references for long-term memory in elephants just because the research has not been done. There are dozens of anecdotal stories to support this, but they are not scientifically supported, so don't make great references. If you can find something, please add it. Bob98133 (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Links to PubMed

Hi guys,

proposing link:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=DetailsSearch&Term=%22Elephants%22%5BMajr%5D+AND+%22loattrfree+full+text%22%5Bsb%5D

Major topic "Elephants": free full-text articles in National Library of Medicine

It will help to gather more reliable material on the animalsBa dust (talk) 01:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Elephant Speed

This article states that "elephants can reach speeds up to 40 km/h (25 mph)" with a citation that links to an article entitled "Are fast moving elephants really running?"

However the main conclusion of this article is that the history study of elephant locomotion is muddled, and full of innaccurate speed measurements. There is no measurement which the article lends any credit to, and in fact it throws significant doubt on a figure as high as 40km/h. I wonder therefore why this figure, which happens to be approximately the highest of many mentioned in this article, and all of which are described as being unreliable, has been picked and reported as if it were accepted scientific fact for this encyclopedic article?

I think at the very least a note on the lack of reliable speed measurements of elephants should be included, and perhaps the quoted figure should be removed as it is patently unreliable.

Kevoreilly (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This item from Stanford University mentions an article in Nature giving a top speed of 15 mph for elephants. It would be nice if someone can look at the issue of Nature in question and cite it if appropriate. -- Donald Albury 18:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This article says: "To investigate the gait used by elephants at top speeds, we used video analysis to study 42 healthy, active Asian elephants throughout Thailand "

And in the middle they give the following results: "Of the elephants, 32 reached top speeds of over 4.0 m /s, 20 exceeded 5.0 m/sec, and three attained speeds greater than 6.0 m/sec." They also ask this question: "The fastest gait used by elephants has been variously described as a walk, amble, trot, pace, rack or a running walk1, 2, 3, 4, 5, but — given that these speeds are relatively fast — how well does this gait of the fastest elephants fit the definitions of running?" This question has little to do with the top speed question. Ba dust (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

African elephant population

I reverted this edit to the African elephant section because it was unsourced. Since I am not a regular editor to this article I am inviting other editors to review my edit and make any correction necessary. Regards Tiderolls 00:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not only unsourced, it's Stephen Colbert meatpuppet crap (similar to Warren G. Harding vandalism). Block on sight. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action, Jamie Tiderolls 00:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Bolding of Elephantidae in lede

Sabine's Sunbird (talk · contribs) and I disagree over whether the family name Elephantidae should be bolded in the lede of the article (see User talk:Donald Albury#edit to elephant for our discussion). As this is a dispute over the interpretation of the guidance at Wikipedia:Lead section#Format of the first sentence and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Boldface and could apply at other articles, I am requesting input from other editors to resolve the disagreement. I will post notice of this discussion on Wikipedia talk:Lead section, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life. -- Donald Albury 09:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I find the interpretation of the MoS to be rather unambiguous in the manner. This is an article about Elephantidae and Elephantidae should be bolded upon first usage. The article would be completely valid having a title of Elephantidae, but elephant is the common usage. It is also the convention for ToL articles. --Aranae (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Since Elephantidae redirects here, it seems clear to me that the term should be bolded in the lede.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the above. I don't find the use of multiple bolded items in the lead distracting or awkward. It informs the reader that this is another valid name. And as far as I know, this is common practice for ToL projects (Plants moreso than Animals, I believe, as there are a few folks there who agree with you - see an existing archived discussion on this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life/Archive25#To bold or not to bold the scientific name of a species?). Rkitko ^(talk) 14:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If elephant is a strict synonym with Elephantidae, then yes. I've never exactly considered a mammoth, for instance, to be an elephant, but I'm not an expert on elephantids. However, in the case of Lepidoptera, butterfly and moth are not strict synonyms, as they only refer to some lepidopterans, so I wouldn't recommend bolding them. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

As I browse List of elephant species, it appears the taxonomical synonym for elephant is Elephantini, not Elephantidae. Belodons, stegodons, and lophodons certainly weren't elephants. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

As a frequent debater on matters of common names in WP:BIRD, I feel I should point out that common names have a variety of meanings and that there is rarely an exact one to one synonymy. For example petrel can mean all the Procellariiformes, all the Procellariiformes except the albatrosses and all the Procellariidae except the shearwaters. I've certainly heard of mammoths and stegodons referred to as elephants before. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Can't argue with that...we do assign several definitions to the same word quite frequently. Therefore, can the word elephant be used to describe all members of Elephantidae, extinct and extant? Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The literature seems to be inconsistent. A search of stegodon+elephant generates a bunch of hits on Google scholar that describe stegodons as elephants, and I can also find papers that take a more narrow definition. I'm no expert, but I have some colleagues who work on elephants, I'll ask them today at work. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to the answer. If they're Wikipedians, they might deserve a {{Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar}} for their helpful answer which could resolve this debate... Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The question this all pertains to is whether Elephantidae should redirect to Elephant. If it shoudn't, that should be fixed and the term unbolded. If it should, the term should remain bold. To me, it's as simple as that.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's that simple. We often redirect names without an article to a related article. A redirect does not require synonymy. There may be a question of whether all species in Elephantidae are commonly called 'elephants', which I am not qualified to judge. I am more interested in clarification of what should be bolded in the lede of an article, and I don't think that should hinge on whether or not a term is redirected to the article. -- Donald Albury 15:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

How else does a reader redirected from Elephantidae know why they ended up where they did?--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow. I suspect most readers are not aware that bolding per se means synonymy. It is obvious when bolded synonyms immediately follow the article title in the lead sentence. I think the relationship is less obvious when a synonym (or near synonym) is bolded in a later sentence. Nevertheless, I think the issue here is finding a consensus on how the guidelines apply to this issue, which (barring a sudden influx of editors agreeing with me) looks to be for bolding Elephantidae. -- Donald Albury 11:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia convention that bold in the lede indicates alternate titles aka printworthy redirects. Readers who reach the article via one of these redirect are helped by this small sign that they are in the right place. Curtis is correct, the real question is should Elephantidae redirect to Elephant. --Una Smith (talk) 13:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Because the redirect would need changed if we find elephant not to be synonymous with Elephantidae, the real question is their synonymy, not the redirect. Indeed, once the debate is over, we will need to update the redirect accordingly if any change is made, and possibly create a separate article on Elephantidae.

Sunbird, did you ask your colleagues yet? Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

They weren't in, and now they are away for a conference for a week. With regards to the whole redirect/ thing - the focus of this entire article is very much on the extant three species. Little effort is made to put them in the wider elephant context. The article clearly uses the more narrow definition -so it may very well be worth having Elephantidae not as a redirect but as an article that covers the entire family. At which point we need to actually decide where the family boundaries lie! Proboscidea has Elephantidae as one of several elephant families, List of elephant species lumps them all into one. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The reader is taken by the lead;

• Elephant (disambiguation) — An elephant is a large, grey mammal (from Africa and southern Asia), whose population has tripled in the last 5 years.

Eh?

• Elephant — Elephants are large land mammals of the order Proboscidea and the family Elephantidae. Three species of elephant are living today: ...

Plural, then an unlicensed premise, but closer. How about something like...

• Elephant is a common name for a large mammal with tusks and a trunk, especially the African Elephants and Asian or Indian Elephants, and for many extinct members of Proboscidea and Elephantidae.

It may refer to some ranks within the 'elephant family', the species, subspecies and types are distinguished, sometimes ambiguously, by geographic, ecological or morphological modifiers to the name, eg. Indian Elephant, African Forest Elephant, Dwarf elephant!?

It generally refers to whichever member of Loxodonta and Elephas someone is: pointing at, running from, shooting, eating, describing, mounting for war, mounting for the drawing-room, mentally dressing in pyjamas, or cursing for eating their crop.

It may refer to several animals deeply implanted in the culture and history of many peoples, when translated into English, and has a wider application in a figurative sense.

It refers to a large animal with tusks and a trunk, although our lead does not.

It has been retroactively applied to extinct taxa.

It is a source of ivory and umbrella stands.

It is the largest terrestial mammal.

It is merely a common name, the article wedded to it is a large, grey lump of pachyderm facts. This is the elephant in the room, the elephantine obstacle to a reader seeking facts from, or an editor seeking to improve, the miasma of related articles.

• Elephant#Taxonomy_and_evolution -> Elephant classification -> List of elephant species

Fouling the nest, obviously, with a mammoth-sized ***.

BTW, the list currently places african elephants in Loxodon, a genus of sharks.

• Merge: List of elephant species and relevant cited or verifiable content, here and elsewhere, to Elephantidae. — cygnis insignis 06:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to cygnis insignis for pointing these out. I reverted the Colbertism from Elephant (disambiguation) (where it had sat since June 16). I see that Proboscidea places the Mammoths and Mastodons in Mammutidae, a family parallel to Elephantidae. Arghh! Looks like we need a little project to clean this stuff up. -- Donald Albury 11:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

After looking at Proboscidea again, I saw I had misread it. So, are mastodons 'elephants' (Elephantidae) or not (Mammutidae)? -- Donald Albury 12:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Mastadons are always their own family, it is just that one list has the stegodons as a separate family and the other as a subfamily. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I know, I stated that wrong. So, trying to be more clear, are mammoths elephants? are mastodons? I know there is a common tendency to mix up mammoths and mastodons. I've also seen archaeologists using "mammoth" and "mastodon" interchangeably with "elephant". I'm looking right now at an index with the entry, "Elephant. See Elephas columbi (elephant); Mammoth; Mastodon."(Purdy, Barbara A. (2008) Florida's People During the Last Ice Age. University of Florida Press.) -- Donald Albury 21:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you define "elephant" as being any member of the family Elephantidae, then, no, mastodons are not elephants. If you define "elephant as being any member of the order Proboscidea, then yes, mastodons are elephants, though, personally, I'd prefer to refer to mastodons as proboscideans.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Elephants are effectively hairless and their natural ranges are tropical, while mastodons and mammoths were heavily pelted. Diet must have been very different too. To me, "elephant" refers to just the three extant species and perhaps the very closest fossil or sub fossil relatives. "Elephant family" equals Elephantidae, not Elephant. Here is an idea; move Elephant (disambiguation) to Elephant and on the dab page list the individual elephant articles. --Una Smith (talk) 01:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No need to go that far. Despite the fact that elephant can mean any of the family Elephantidae, the usage in the article, restricted to the three extant species, is what people would be expecting - it is the primary usage. I think that a separate page for Elephantidae is highly desirable though. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't have the privilege of defining "elephant". Either we find a reliable source or we find decent evidence of what common usage is. As for sources, many on-line dictionaries include (in various wordings) extinct animals related to elephants as a secondary meaning of "elephant", which isn't much use to us. It seems to me that "elephant" is a rather fuzzy term, hard to pin down in a strict sense. I think Sabine's Sunbird is right, the Article Elephant should be about the living species, but we need better coverage of other "elephants". -- Donald Albury 11:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I have posted the requested move of List of elephant species to Elephantidae, here. --Una Smith (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any justification to label a taxon above family level as "Elephants". That's viable in publications which cover only extant taxa but otherwise it should be reserved for Elephantidae or a lower taxon. McKenna & Bell (1997) apply "Elephants" to their Elephantini which includes Primelephas, Loxodonta, Mammuthus and Elephas. It is the crown group of the two extant genera. -- Torben Schink (talk) 07:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I've always thought of Elephantini as the elephant taxon, but this may be just a common name that doesn't really match up with any particular taxon, sort of like vegetable...how do you know if a plant is a vegetable? And even better...I love how the True oyster basically defines a "true oyster" as anything that we call an oyster. Socrates would have a cow. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

We have the exactly the same problem with so many Wikipedia articles about taxonomic groups of animals where the page name is a vernacular name and no consensus has been reached re what that vernacular name refers to: family, genus, species, or domesticated members of the species. Cow, Cattle, Horse, and Wild horse are just a few examples that come to mind. These articles tend to be, as Bob says, grab bags of anything and everything that might be called "foo". --Una Smith (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

At least we don't have 40 "common" names in English for Loxodonta and Elephas, like we do for Puma, oops, now at Cougar. Here is an old discussion on the problems of matching common names to scientific taxonomies. -- Donald Albury 10:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Elephantidae no longer redirects to this article. --Una Smith (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Distinguishing african/asian elephants: tip of trunk

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

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

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

Elephant graveyards

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

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

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

info inconsistency

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

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

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

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

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

interwikis issue

Hello,

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

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

Regards

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

Additional elephant information sidebar?

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

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

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

elephants step over humans?

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

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

Range distribution

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

Taxobox

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

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

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

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

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

Can elephants really climb trees?

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

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

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

Source for lower tusks claim

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

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

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

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

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

ZooPro, you used the exact reference (page 430) that he provided you. You failed to attribute this work to Bayshorer as he'd requested, writing only "per talk", and you failed to cite the author, posting only a link.[6]24.22.141.61 (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

How many muscles in the trunk?

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

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

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

A letter to Nature says "... the elephant's trunk (which is a most complex organ that consits of about 6,000 individual muscles...)". This isn't sufficiently reliable, but it's closer. —Dominus (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)