Talk:Elephant/Archive 3

File:BrokenWindowsVandalism.jpg

On 1 August and 3 August 2006, the article page associated with this talk page was the target of vandalism encouraged by The Colbert Report, a popular television show. All prior and subsequent edits are noted in the revision history.

As of 1 August 2006, the article page associated with this talk page was linked from Fark.com, a high-traffic Internet site. All prior and subsequent edits are noted in the revision history.

Archives
1 Colbert 2

Clipped Text?

This sentence is a little incoherent. It seems like a piece of text must have been clipped.

"Elephants are increasingly threatened by human intrusion, with the African elephant population plummeting from 3 million in 1970 to roughly 600,000 in 1989, to 272,000 in 2000 and then to between 400,000 and 660,000 in 2003 [2] kill 150 elephants and up to 100 people per year in Asia."

usefull resorce page

can we add please? www.geocities.com/RainForest/8298

African elephant population: actual figures (not tripling)

The total African elephant population appears to have been more or less stable for more than a decade (down tenfold from a half century ago). Some regions of Africa are dealing with local elephant overpopulations, most regions are not. When reporting 2002 estimates of 460,000 (probable) to 560,000 (possible) African elephants, researchers noted that this represented an increase over their 1998 figures (360,000 probable, 500,000 possible) suggestive of modest population growth. However this apparent increase could have been an artifact of the much larger area represented in the 2002 survey – or "many other factors unrelated to overall elephant numbers" (From IUCN's African Elephant Status Report 2002, page 17: http://iucn.org/themes/ssc/sgs/afesg/aed/pdfs/aesr2002.pdf). The papers presented in Pachyderm magazine (journal of the African Elephant, African Rhino and Asian Rhino Specialist Groups) through June 2006 do not give any indication of a recent boom in elephant population (http://iucn.org/themes/ssc/sgs/afesg/pachy/pachy40.html). A "comprehensive African Elephant Status Report (AESR) is … expected to be published some time in 2006" based on their current data.

• See http://iucn.org/themes/ssc/sgs/afesg/aed/index.html

... Verifiable reliable peer-reviewed published scientific research by The World Conservation Union that has not yet been cited in the talk or the article. --67.10.163.122 10:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to what is stated above, a formal statistical analysis of changes in elephant numbers, using only comparable survey data, was published in Pachyderm 38 (p.19-28). The analysis concluded that the elephant population in Southern Africa (which currently holds the largest regional population) and perhaps also in Eastern Africa, have been increasing considerably in recent years, at about 4.5% per annum for both regions combined. Nowhere near as fast as suggested by Colbert, admittedly, but at pretty high overall rates nonetheless. Perhaps more importantly though, the estimates that now remain on the Wikipedia elephant page (3,000,000 in 1970, 300,000 today) are as inaccurate and fictitious as those suggested by Colbert. There are believed to be about half a million African elephants today (give or take 100,000 or so). We do not know, and cannot reliably estimate, the figures in the 1970s; the first widely publicised continental estimate, 1.3 million in 1979, was made by Iain Douglas Hamilton in The African Elephant Action Plan (IUCN/WWF/NYZS - unpublished). The whole irony of the Colbert story, is that the widely publicised decline in elephant numbers between the late 1970s and the early 1990s came to be widely accepted through a very similar process of sheer repetition. The Douglas-Hamilton estimate included a very large proportion of guesses - extrapolations of assumed elephant densities over vast areas of assumed range. Such guesses, which made up over half of the continental estimate, were removed from subsequent continental estimates due to their lack of basis and unreliability. Many erroneously interpreted this as sign of substantial declines in overall elephant numbers. Numbers have undoubtedly declined drastically in many areas through poaching and habitat loss, but at the same time elephant numbers have been increasing in others - particularly in Southern Africa, where populations have been recovering after reaching their lowest point about 100 years ago. We simply do not the extent to which declines in some areas may have been offset by increases in others, and hence remain ignorant of the shape of the net trend at the continental level in the last 30 years or so. --Pitix 12:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The actual Elephants page states wolrdwide figures of both 300,000 and 600,000 African elephants. Which is it? Adversive 17:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

In regards to poaching and illegal hunting

See this sentence:

One decade later, only around 600,000 remain. This decline is attributed primarily to poaching, or illegal hunting, and habitat loss.

Is there a difference between poaching and illegal hunting? Aren't those the same thing? If the intent of "or illegal hunting" was to provide a definition of poaching, isn't the fact that poaching is wikilinked enough to warrant the removal of the definition? --Stephane Charette 09:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Since it's conceivable that even native English speakers who are not familiar with hunting will be unsure what poaching is, it's a perfectly valid way to put it. The fact that something is linked doesn't mean that there should be absolutely no information about it included in the text. Zocky | picture popups 11:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not simple.wikipedia.org. Poaching is not a technical, or "hard," word, especially in a page about wildlife, or animals in nature, and I find the clause, or words separated by commas, somewhat insulting, or hurting to my feelings. Those who don't understand it can click, and those that do will find this clumsy and unnecessary. NTK 13:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

600,000 vs 300,000

Sorry to be a bit off topic here and talk about elephants, but isn't there a glaring discrepancy between the introduction and the first section?

Introduction: "Elephants are increasingly threatened by human intrusion, with the African elephant population plummeting from 3 million in 1970 to roughly 300,000 today..."

Zoology, African Elephant: "Today there are approximately 600,000 African elephants in the world."

Or have they been breeding like rabbits?

Straussian 13:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The rampant vandalism regarding elephant population probably threw off editors a bit. I suggest looking back at the history of the Elephant article pre-Colbert-vandalism to see what the actual numbers were. Better yet, look it up in a proper source. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 14:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It would appear to be an estimate of 300,000 to 600,000 according to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) [1] "There are 300,000 to 600,000 African (in 37 range countries) and 35,000 to 50,000 Asian elephants (in 13 range countries) left in the wild."[2]

CNN list the Population at 580,000 in 1998 [3] Sirex98 16:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Check the African Elephant Database for the official (and most detailed) figures: the most recent data (2002) indicate a continental population of between 400,000 and 660,000. The figures now shown on the elephant page (3,000,000 million in 1970 and 300,000 today have NOT been taken from WWF as cited in the article, but from the Daphne Sheldrick Wildife Trus - an organization concerned with animal welfare lobby and not an authority on elephant population numbers. The WWF page cited gives figures of 1.3 million (not 3 million) in 1970 and 600,000 in 1989 (nothing for today). Somebody please correct the figures - else this is just as fictitious as the figures of the Colbert debacle. --Pitix 11:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk page archived

I have ruthlessly removed anything to do with the Colbert Report to /Colbert. I thought the segment was funny as hell, and good publicity for us, but this talk page should be about elephants again. I will continue to ruthlessly archive in this manner. -- SCZenz 17:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, so long as we haven't just created a Colbert chat room/messageboard. I'd support simply declaring it an archive, locking the page, and diverting any other comments about the matter to the talk pages of individual users. (But my, does this place look a lot cleaner.) Either way, it's a positive step. JDoorjam Talk 17:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

None of us have to read that page, so it's a lot more pleasant having comments there (since people will comment somewhere). After a week or so, hopefully, it will effectively be an archive. I'll keep an eye on it to make sure it doesn't become a chat room in any case. -- SCZenz 17:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Penis Section

I just indented this section to prevent it from showing up as a category. To be honest, it seems like a load of nonsense, but I'm not a biologist and I don't want to remove it without feedback from others. Anyone? alphaChimp ^laudare 20:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the section. It was entirely unsourced, and seems simply to be in response to Thursday's Colberrorism. Elephants are large. As large animals, they have large animal parts. I'll bet they have gigantic kidneys and monstrously large livers, too. They've got big feet and long tongues. And yes, the males have large penises (which, incidentally, is the plural -- that, or penes). All of the other elephant body part sections deal with unique or unusual aspects of the elephant, not issues related directly to the size of the creature: tusks, skin, ears, trunk. We don't need one on the penis. JDoorjam Talk 20:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You may want to check these references [4] [5] Sysrpl 20:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Penis already has a discussion of elephant penises, and has for a long time—I suspect it's why Colbert brought them up, actually. I really think that it's more relevant there than here. -- SCZenz 20:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur. JDoorjam Talk 21:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Just zis Guy you know? 21:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now this seems to be going a wee bit overboard. We're claiming the the actual, factual physiology of an animal is not worth mentioning in its own article because of a potential giggle factor and/or mention on a comedy show? Tell me we haven't reached this point. I remember, many years ago (1993, before the internet invented itself), having an extended conversation about the size of wangs in the animal kingdom (I had a fun HS english teacher, what can I say), the... um... generous size of the pachyderm's pecker actually did come up. I vividly remember because some girl blurted out "that's taller than I am" --one remembers these things over chemistry equations (go figure). Anyway, let's not be dreadfully serious, this is Wikipedia, not Britannica (and I say that in the best way possible). --Bobak 00:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It is neither a critical fact about the elephant, nor a fact that I believe our readers who type "elephant" into the search box are looking for. It is not more notable than the elephant's spleen size, which we do not go into detail on either. If you think the difference between Wikipedia and Britannica is that we focus on factoids to make girls giggle, you've got the wrong encyclopedia.

As I said above, the information in question is in penis; I imagine someone looking up that subject is much more likely to be interested. -- SCZenz 08:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I haven't been following this debate, but what about a "see also" link directly to the elephant section on the penis article? Seems like a nice compromise to me. Konman72 08:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I've heard no argument that merits compromise. If you would like to present one, I'm happy to discuss. -- SCZenz 08:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, got no opinion either way. Just thought I'd try to help. Konman72 08:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that; striving for compromise is a good thing in general. But I think compromises really only make sense if all parties are arguing based on the goals and policies of Wikipedia. It doesn't seem to me the pro-penis (heh) arguments above fit that description. -- SCZenz 08:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Elephants have the largest penises of land mammals. How is that not notable? I mean, we have an article on John Holmes and Dirk Diggler, and I didn't even need to check ahead to see if they were there. Does the article about blue whales say they are the largest mammals? Does the article about hummingbids say they are the smallest birds and flap their wings the fastest of birds? There's a reason why some think an elephant article shouldn't include its breadbasket, and it's Victorian-era puritanism: bleeding into the "serious" editors saying a penis has no place in an article about an animal that has one. That has nothing to do with what is "right" for an encyclopedia, it has everything to do with "well, we don't want to offend people". Get real. --Bobak 19:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

They are large animals. Everything about them is large. We don't need to add peniscruft to reinforce this rather obvious fact. Just zis Guy you know? 20:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I'd be more supportive of this if they had extremely tiny penises, or four of them, or they shot flames or something. As it is it's just not unusual enough to merit its own section. I would tolerate a single referenced sentence or half-sentence near the beginning stating that their various organs are also all correspondingly above average if people really think that's not an obvious foregone conclusion that big animals have big animal parts, but I'm not sure even that is necessary. JDoorjam Talk 20:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Pssshh... by your exacting standards no penis would be worthy. (this is starting to read like a bad episode of Sex is the City... Nerds in the City Online?) Frankly, I don't know anyone, outside of the over-serious world of Wikipedia who wasn't amused by the revelation of pachyderm penis size. We're not prudes. --Bobak 23:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

IMHO comparative anatomy is useful and interesting information, having a table of median brain, spleen, heart, femur, other bones and organs, and (even) penis sizes for some major or representative species might be a "good thing"(tm) if it was semi-systematic and not overdone; representative, major, and interesting parts (we don't need "median weight of 3rd lumbar vertebra" just yet). Wikipedia's really not a datadump, of course, but comparative anatamy is important and one way to illustrate it is with the actual sizes of things. And of course, if we're talking about comparisons among species, we would need to include the endpoints of the range.... I'll shut up now... Bye... --studerby 20:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This sounds silly. Of course elephant anatomy and phisiology should be discuseed in the article about elephants. The penis article should include comparative anatomy of penises, not details about individual species. Zocky | picture popups 12:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

So, how'd we do?

Check out before and after: how the Elephant article has changed since July 31. Do we have a better article as a result of all that traffic? Did we lose anything in the shuffle? --M@rēino 15:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Overall it is much better. However, there is a major problem now: the article says 600,000 elephants are left, and then later says 300,000 are left. This issue needs to be resolved quite quickly... or maybe the number of elephants has doubled in the past 6 days? — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 16:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I changed "roughly 300,000 today" -> "to roughly 600,000 in 1989, down to 272,000 in 2000" -- that is what the references next to it say. I don't know what the current population is... BCorr|Брайен 16:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice work. I touched up the grammar in the second sentence, but other than that it looks great. Thanks! -Harmil 19:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The population references still need to be cleaned up. According to the article, the population of African elephants has doubled in the past 6 years. The intro says there were 272,000 in 2000, while the next section says there are 600,000 today. 24.16.40.101 03:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Add a resorce link which is quite popular www.geocities/RainForest?8298

Elephant Intelligence

With regard to this page, besides barring against any further acts of the aforementioned heinous wiki-crime, perhaps this page should have a section devoted to the purported intelligence of elephants, which seems in many ways to reflect the intelligence of other large mammals such as whales, dolphins, and primates such as chimpanzees and gorillas. The intelligence-type of parrots and crows does not seem to be as analogous, as it is more based on mimickry and a type of survivalist/strategic thought-pattern, although it is also noted. Matthew A.J.י.B. 01:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I was also surprised that there isn't such a section. That would definitely be a worthwhile addition. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 14:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Elephant Population

So what of this information that states that the elephant populstion has tripled in the past 6 months? I think its credible and should be included.

Its a damn joke. You all do realize that Colbert is not the person he plays on TV. He is mocking people that do everything O'reily tells them. Just look at last nights episode, he ordered people to do at least 3 things. He's mocking people who do what people on TV tell them. Its okay if you're joking but once you start taking Colbert seriously it just reveals how sheep-like some people are.Gdo01 19:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Once you feed the trolls one time, you'll never get them to leave you alone. They're like stray cats (not Stray Cats) that way. – ClockworkSoul 21:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. I fed Brian Setzer once and he won't come out of my basement.Elbow 08:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Asian Elephant population error

The Elephant#Asian Elephant section states that there are "approximately 40,000" Asian Elephants total, comprised of "3,000-4,500" Sri Lankan Asian Elephants, "approximately 36,000" Mainland Asian Elephants and "33,000 to 53,000" Sumatran Asian Elephants. (Sidenote, I note the Asian Elephant article has no pop. figures at all) TeeEmCee 09:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Try checking the external links that the population figures are cited to, and then correcting the figures from there. Its quite possible the figures are from different dates: that was the problem with the conflicting African Elephant figures. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 09:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing sprotection

It's been two weeks now; I'm taking off the semi-protection. We'll probably still get pinged by a few people who thought it was OMG SO HILARIOUS, but it's time for us to move on. JDoorjam Talk 20:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Adding Colbert Reference to "Popular Culture" Section

To meet its quality standards I can understand Wikipedia very simply correcting facts. But surely we can add something to the effect of "On the night of [insert date here] Stephen Colbert of the 'Colbert Report' told his viewers to edit this page by inserting the "fact" that 'the number of elephants has tripled.'" That's not too much to ask. This especially comes to mind because one would assume that the number of hits on the Elephant page more than tripled!

The issue is that the elephant article is about elephants; the Colbert incident was about the article about elephants (and, more generally, Wikipedia), not about the pachyderms themselves. It may seem a subtle distinction, perhaps, but I think its enough of one to justify not including it in the article. JDoorjam Talk 21:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

First, your "distinction" is not "subtle." It's overly linear, unnecessarily reductionist and sadly myopic. The Colbert incident was about "the article about elephants" AND Wikipedia AND elephants. It was not about "the article about elephants" to the EXCLUSION of elephants themselves. He didn't just mention the article, he also discussed elephant population. You should be aware that sometimes a pop reference can work simultaneously on several levels. See irony, puns, double entendre and poetry for examples of this amazing concept of layered meaning.

Second, the Colbert reference to bear populations is FAR more significant an event in pop culture's intersection with bears than the Tuft's mascot or the UofA mascot or a Thai elephant band or their role in Pratchett's Discworld. These 4 examples I just gave from the pop culture section of the Elephants article are quite frankly, laughlably trivial. And it's ridiculous that they be included but not the Colbert reference.

Third, the editors of the Bears articles in Wikipedia have seen fit to include the Colbert reference. It comes as inconsistent for Colbert references to be welcomed in one animal article, but not another.

Fourth, if you do not include the Colbert reference into the pop culture section, this article will most probably remain under protection for the next 5 to 20 years because I assure you, the Colbert fans are legion, and they will not rest until His Word is incorporated into this article of pachydermal goodness. This is not a threat. Just a fact. So please, you guys, drop the ego and bow before the Truthiness that is Colbert. Magonaritus 17:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's very silly not to include a short sentence about the Colbert reference. But then again I see very little on Wikepedia that makes very much sense, as far as logic.

What does the Colbert Report episode Wikiality have to do with Elephants? Nothing whatsoever. The episode does have to do with Wikipedia. This means that the trivia should go under one of the articles on Wikipedia or The Colbert Report, not Elephant. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 21:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

What does the Simpson radio competition episode involving elephants have to do with Elephants? Nothing whatsoever. The episode does have to do with radio competitions. This means that the trivia should go under one of the articles on radio competitions or Simpsons, not Elephant.Magonaritus 21:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Not really. The episode focused on the elephant and the inconveniences of having an elephant. The radio show was simply a plot point to allow the family to get an elephant. Apply this to the Colbert report: Colbert could have asked viewers to vandalize any article and it would have made his point just as well. He chose elephant: but what does this have to do with elephants themselves? Nothing. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 21:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ya really. The Colbert report segment focused on elephants and the population changes of elephants. Yes, it was about wikiality, but it was ALSO about elephants. Why is this such a hard concept to understand? Did you know references can have SIMULTANEOUS layers of meaning? Again, I refer you to irony, puns, double entendre and poetry as examples of this wonderful concept. Please prove to us how the Colbert segment about elephant populations is talking about Wiki TO THE EXCLUSION of elephants?

And your Simpsons reasoning is grossly flawed. Allow me to paraphrase your language to illustrate: The Simpsons episode could have mentioned any circus animal and it would have made the same point as well. The Simpsons writers chose elephants: but what does this have to do with elephants themselves? Nothing. And yet, it's mentioned in the pop culture section of this article. And the Colbert reference is not?Magonaritus 22:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Stephen Colbert made a joke about elephants is not something which needs to be in the article about elephants. Specifically, we are supposed to avoid self-reference. It would fit in an article about wikipedia's article about elephants, but that's just silly. john k 21:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The thought of putting it into this article stirred by self-referencing, which should be rightfully discouraged. Kevin_b_er 21:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Your example is highly flawed and easily disproven. Please check out the Wiki article on John Seigenthaler, Sr. which states: In May 2005, an anonymous user (who was later identified as Brian Chase) created a five-sentence Wikipedia article about Seigenthaler which contained defamatory content. The article remained largely unchanged for four months, until it was brought to Seigenthaler's attention. Seigenthaler contacted Wikipedia in September, and the content was deleted. He later wrote an op-ed on the experience for USA Today on November 29, in which he wrote "Wikipedia is a flawed and irresponsible research tool."[22] The op-ed prompted many commentators to write about the issue and the reliability of open editing models in the following weeks.

The Wiki self-reference policy is meant to prevent 1 Wiki article quoting itself or another Wiki article as a source. It does NOT prevent a Wiki article from quoting a news source that mentions Wiki.Magonaritus 21:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I respect your opinions, and I'd like to thank you for taking the time to discuss them. That said, if we run around meticulously listing every single time any random person mentions Wikipedia, it doesn't reflect well on us. It becomes a question of notability, more or less. If Colbert's joke has made a lasting impression on pop culture, I say we may as well put it in somewhere, although personally I think the joke was more about Wikipedia than it was about elephants, and should go into a more Wikipedia-related article. The question for me, more specifically, would be: is this something people will remember for a few weeks, or something that'll be fresh in their minds for years? Luna Santin 22:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You make a great point that it's not worth including pop culture references that aren't going to make a lasting impression. Like the lasting impression on pop culture by the Tufts mascot. Or the UofA mascot. Or a Thailand musical band of elephants. These 3 examples, currently in the Elephants article, are surely going to make a more lasting impression on pop culture than the Colbert Report's segment mentioning elephants. After all, what is this Colbert Report anyways? It only has 1.2 million viewership per episode. It only won 4 Emmy nominations in 2006. And Stephen Colbert gave the main presentation at some obscure 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. And Colbert was only named as one of Time magazine's 100 Most Influential People for 2006. Or that trivial Peabody Award he garnered in 2004. I vigorously agree that this mentioning of elephants on his show that no one watches and no one cares about surely pales in comparison to the lasting impression on elephants in pop culture left by Tufts, UofA or some random Thai elephant band. Good point. Magonaritus 22:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

So Colbert's won awards and made news -- so what? That doesn't indicate that everything he says or does is notable. If his segments only claim to fame was "It was on the Colbert show, and Colbert is famous," then the segment is pretty much demonstrably non-notable. On the other hand, if there's evidence that anyone outside of Wikipedia's and Colbert's respective fan bases is even aware of this segment, or likely to remember it, it may be worth including. Have the mass media mentioned the segment? Repeatedly? Does it keep showing up, all over the place, on other shows, wherever? "Colbert elephant" gets 14 hits, at Google News [6]; on Google itself, "Colbert elephant" gets 329,000 hits [7], out of a full 74 million hits for "elephant" [8] -- it's quite possible that I'm wrong, but I have a strong impression that it didn't make any lasting dent on pop culture at large. Luna Santin 23:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• "On the other hand, if there's evidence that anyone outside of Wikipedia's and Colbert's respective fan bases is even aware of this segment, or likely to remember it, it may be worth including. Have the mass media mentioned the segment? Repeatedly? Does it keep showing up, all over the place, on other shows, wherever?"

• There are 11 online news references to Colbert's mentioning of elephants including: Dallas Morning News (http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/nwsltr/religion/stories/081006dnrelnewsletter.1ee3fbb.html), the Toronto Star (Canada's largest circulation newspaper) (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1155161413303&call_pageid=970599119419), CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/08/blogophile/main1873436.shtml), Search Engine Roundtable (http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/004322.html), MTV (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1537865/20060803/index.jhtml?headlines=true), Web Pro News (http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/topnews/wpn-60-20060802WikipediaCantHandletheTruthiness.html), Power Page (http://www.powerpage.org/archives/2006/08/stephen_colbert_v_wikipedia.html), Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060801-7396.html), Gothamist (http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2006/08/01/citizen_encyclo_2.php), CNET (http://news.com.com/2061-10802_3-6100754.html). I'd say being covered by CBS News, MTV, CNET and Toronto Star is pretty impressive. And that's just online news coverage. Who knows what the reach of this event was offline.
• On Google News, there are no stories covering the Simpsons episode involving circus elephants. And there probably never were. So why is the Simpsons episode in this Wiki article?
• On Google News, there are no stories covering the Tufts mascot being an elephant. So why is the Tufts mascot in this Wiki article?
• On Google News, there are no stories covering the UofA mascot being an elephant. So why is the UofA mascot in this Wiki article?
• On Google News, there are no stories covering the Thai Elephant Orchestra. So why is the Thai Elephant Orchestra in this Wiki article?

• "on Google itself, "Colbert elephant" gets 329,000 hits...but I have a strong impression that it didn't make any lasting dent on pop culture at large."

• You're making up a new Wiki editorial policy on "lasting impression" ex nihilo. Please acknowledge that you're making stuff up now or show me where you're getting this policy from and the objective Wiki-approved manner to measure "lasting impression".
• "Tufts mascot elephants" gets 977 hits. That's 0.29% of the Colbert Elephant hits. So why is the Tufts mascot in this Wiki article?
• "university alabama mascot elephant" gets 40,100 hits. That's 12% of the Colbert Elephant hits. So why is the UofA mascot in this Wiki article?
• "simpsons episode circus elephants" gets 92,000 hits. That's 28% of the Colbert Elephant hits. So why is the simpsons episode in this Wiki article?
• "thai elephant orchestra" gets 106,000 hits. That's 32% of the Colbert Elephant hits. So why is the Thai Elephant Orchestra in this Wiki article?

• If you have any other Wiki editorial policies like you'd make up or any data you'd like to present in a very lopsided way, let us know. Magonaritus 14:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

And more importantly, Colbert's pranks teach us (and our readers) absolutely nothing about elephants, and they therefore don't belong in an article on elephants. Stick it in a list of pranks in Colbert's article. - Nunh-huh 23:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please, do tell, what does the Tufts mascot, UofA mascot or Thai elephant band teach us about elephants? Nothing. So why are THEY in the article but not the Colbert reference? What hypocrisy!
• Please point me to the Wiki editorial policy requiring that pop references to a topic must teach readers about that topic. I think I missed that one. You're not just making things up are you? That'd be sad. Magonaritus 15:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I was looking at the Colbert Nation messageboard. In the first post of a topic on elephants (http://www.colbertnation.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?t=3383), there's a link to http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2004/september/elephant.htm discussing the problems association with elephant overpopulation in Africa. This only reinforces the point that the Colbert segment DOES have relevancy to the topic of elephants (ASIDE from the incontravertible fact that the segment DOES deal with elephants because it MENTIONS elephants). The comments on the message board? "Seems there is some truth the the increase in elephants story" "So that means wikipedia was blocking the more than the truthiness, the were blocking the truth!"Magonaritus 22:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

At which point it becomes clear that they probably never bothered to read WP:V, one of the core policies of Wikipedia -- the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability. It's no surprise at all that they were reverted, under the circumstances -- that's why we need to cite reliable sources and avoid original research at all times. :) Luna Santin 22:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but you missed the point. Please reread. If you still don't get it, let me know and I'll elaborate. Magonaritus 22:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think I did. :) The site you've linked mentions a 7% increase; that's pretty far from "tripled." A large number of incoming edits were obviously related to the show, and were obviously unsourced, so it's entirely predictable that they'd be reverted. If people have sources, they need to cite them -- if they need help with that, there's always talk pages. See this diff, for example. Luna Santin 23:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Eco mumbo jumbo

Well, not really, it would be far too harsh to call it that. But still, this fragment is bad:

Usefulness to the environment

Elephants' foraging activities help to maintain the areas in which they live:

Can we find a way of formulating it that doesn't assume that preserving the current environment is good by definition? Zocky | picture popups 13:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It does not say that preserving the environment is good: it says that preserving the environment is useful to the environment. It makes no claim of "goodness," at least in the part you quoted. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 00:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Their Knees

According to some quick googling, elephants are the only animals with 4 foward pointing knees. IANA biologist, but Backwards pointed knees appear to go along with powerful "spring" tendons. Anybody know about the effect on running, or ability to climb hills? (There was a recent study on elephants hill-climing habits, can't find it at the moment)

Removal of Simpsons Reference

I've removed the Simpson's reference on this page, as a one-time reference by a popular television show obviously has no place on this encyclopedic article. If we intend to keep Wikipedia controlled and patrolled, we must abide by our own rules vis a vis the Colbert incident. If his one-time mention is not worth mention, The Simpsons' one-time mention is not either. Scribbling 04:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

ClockworkSoul apparently feels he is above using the Talk pages, and has reverted my initial removal of The Simpsons' reference. I didn't realize Wikipedia was a fascist organization. Scribbling 04:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

If any of you could logically explain why a one time pop culture reference should stay on the elephants page, please speak up. Scribbling 04:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Use of the term 'species'

The entry claims that "It has long been known that the African and Asian elephants are separate species." The term "species" is ambiguous and there is not consensus in its definition. From one of the most accepted it's deducted that two living beings don't belong to the same species when they cannot reproduce together. So from the current wording it can be deducted that there can't be hybrids of Asian and African elephants. Is that the case? Shouldn't all this be clarified in the article? MJGR 10:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)