|Okapi has been listed as a Natural sciences good article under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do, and if it no longer meets these criteria, it can be reassessed.
Review: April 28, 2015. ( ).
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Wikipedia CD Selection|
- 1 Plagiarism in Okapi article
- 2 Tongue Picture
- 3 large scale revert and edit
- 4 How about a list of zoos that have Okapis?
- 5 Sleep
- 6 Article mention in New Scientist
- 7 Tongue
- 8 Hitchhikers Reference
- 9 Pronunciation
- 10 Drinking
- 11 Color
- 12 Anyone watching this page? News Story: 'Mythical' animal finally poses for camera
- 13 Nocturnal/Diurnal
- 14 Pop culture section
- 15 Article on okapi birth at Bronx Zoo
- 16 hululiu
- 17 Numbers of okapis worlwide
- 18 Planned edit
- 19 Why does my information keep getting deleted?
- 20 GA Review
- 21 Diets
Plagiarism in Okapi article
large parts of the reproduction section in this article seem to be plagiarized from the Animal Diversity Web: <http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Okapia_johnstoni.html>
I second this opinion. The entire article there is based on observation of animal in captivity, which this page doesn't state... uuuǝıɹ̃~
Hi all, I've added a second picture to illustrate the magnificent Okapi tongue, since IMO the current one is too dark. Is two too many tongue pictures, and if so, which one should go? Best regards, Yummifruitbat 20:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
- The gallery is ideal for this sort of situation. Both pics can stay in. →Raul654 20:14, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Can't say fairer than that :) Yummifruitbat 01:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
- The -only- animal that can lick its own ears? I severely doubt that. What about rabbits?
- Or those cows from Asia, Brahmins I think they're called. 18.104.22.168 05:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
large scale revert and edit
Hey guys, I made a number of changes to this page, removing comments that looked as though they could have been vandalism, including reverting to quite an older version. I apologise if I've removed any information of value. Thanks. Stuhacking 12:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- many thanks for your hard work, Stuhacking. It's much appreciated.Lisapollison 19:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
How about a list of zoos that have Okapis?
I know that the Los Angeles Zoo has one but it might be nice to inlude a short list of Zoos and/or wild animal parks that have Okapis on display so that curious readers can go and see one near them. What do you think? Lisapollison 19:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Only if you promise to stick around for the next ten years and keep it accurate. :-) Seriously, I think this is somewhat ephemeral information that would be hard to maintain worldwide (zoos frequently buying, selling, and trading animals around), unless you had a good reference site, in which case it would be easier just to link to that site. WP is better as the source of information that is stable and unchanging; you'll notice that very few articles give street addresses or phone numbers, for the same reason. Stan 00:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. There's also the issue of how many zoos we're talking about; a list with several hundred entries would just unnecessarily swamp the article. Postdlf 15:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, both San Diego Zoo and San Diego Zoo's Wild Animal Park have suberb exhibits of okapis. Dora Nichov 03:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I removed unreferenced claim that Okapis are unusual in only sleeping 5mins per 24 hours. This university textbook suggests that Okapis have similar sleep duration times to horses, and greater duration times than giraffes. Bwithh 00:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, they mention that sleep stuff on the San Diego Zoo website, I think. Or at least some zoo website. Let's see what I can remember (so that, if somebody would clarify that, it would be great--I gotta go to bed)... A. Okapis don't release droppings for a certain period of time after birth. [b]B. Okapis can sleep for around 5 minutes and still be alert.[/b] C. An okapi can move its ears independently, much like a chameleon can do with its eyes. I hope that "B" cleared up the whole sleeping stuff. I'm sure okapis don't naturally sleep that shortly all the time. Hope that helps.--Dreyfus 03:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Do you have a source? Also, "Okapis can sleep for around 5 minutes and still be alert" is pretty ambiguous; it doesn't really say they only need 5min/24hr, it even sounds more like they can be asleep for 5 minutes and still be conscious of what's around them. --Utaneus (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Article mention in New Scientist
I will be the first to admit that this is of absolutely no importance whatsoever, and will do nothing to further the understanding about the okapi. However, as a bit of fun, you may wish to have a look in the current (10th February) issue of New Scientist, and read the Feedback section for a mention of this article. Or, have a look at this link: http://www.newscientist.com/backpage.ns?id=mg19325902.600 StephenBuxton 00:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
We have established that it can lick its own ears, but can it lick its own elbows?RSido 04:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Meh, probably just poetic license on Douglas Adams' part, since okapis are herbivores. Oh well. Doesn't matter. Clem (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I think we're missing a pronunciation thing, I don't know how to do that stuff, nor do I know how to read the pronunciation stuff myself, but on many other articles I have seen then. Plus, I also need to know to prove to my teacher about them. Thecutnut (talk) 09:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
"Only the giraffe (and its rain forest relative, the Okapi) have necks that are so short relative to their legs and chest that they must splay or bend their legs [in order to drink]".
Is this true? is it interesting?
The new picture that was taken recently obviously shows that they are not all dark colored on th eback. It is a light tawny color, not unlike a deer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Anyone watching this page? News Story: 'Mythical' animal finally poses for camera
- I know it's what all the news links say, that this was the first time that an Okapi had ever been photographed in the wild, but I'm really doubting that is literally true. I'm currently watching a NGC documentary on the Ituri Forest that has very clear film footage of Okapi in the wild. Further, I doubt the Okapi Wildlife Reserve has been operating without anyone actually seeing any Okapi for decades, and the capture of Okapis for breeding in zoos, as that article mentions, obviously means someone has been encountering them in the wild. I'm thinking that the pictures were instead the first time the Okapi had ever been photographed in the wild in Virunga National Park, but reporters have carelessly failed to qualify that, going for the more sensational story instead. How can we establish that? Postdlf (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
This article claims that okapis are diurnal, but many other sites are claiming that they are nocturnal, for example:
http://www.reference.com/browse/okapi http://www.nhm.org/site/explore-exhibits/permanent-exhibits/african-mammals/okapi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Pop culture section
I added a Pop Culture section after all the scientific information with the reference. This animal seems to be a favorite and used and noted by many actor', writers, and other notable people. I was watching a VH1 I love the 90s show last night at 4am and saw actor comedian Michael Biggins state he thinks he created it (in a comedic manor) and I also know science fiction writer Douglas Adams has said said something similar and the animal is in his Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series. I'm not an expert on wikipedia but I did read up on all the guidelines before contributing but if I did something wrong or anyone wants to clean up the wording or section feel free. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I removed your addition as vandalism, this isn't that. But I still think the addition might be problematic. I just don't know that one actor's opinion about an animal is relevant enough to be mentioned in that animal's encyclopedia entry. It is often quite hard to find out exactly what is appropriate to put in a "in popular culture"-section on wikipedia (See WP:IPC about this). But I don't think this is appropriate. Also, a forum post does not qualify as a reliable source for references in Wikipedia. Because of this, I am I have to remove your addition, but thanks for trying, and please keep on editing Wikipedia.TheFreeloader (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- while I appreciate your kind and thoughtful tone, I am wondering if you are being sarcastic. It is hardly encouraging to contribute something and spend a good deal of time trying to word it right, to just find your entire contribution deleted. You said "you still think the addition might be problematic." Well why don't you help me along to better write, edit, and site it rather than just delete the whole thing? Why do you get to do that? How do you get to be the authority on the Okapi and if it should have a section on popular culture references or not? Now don't get me wrong - I am not trying to be confrontational but it is a bit befuddling to me. I think it's very relevant, and I think to a lot of people it would be very relevant. I was watching VH1 and a comedian (Blackout) who is listed here as Michael Biggins was talking about this animal and they showed it. I did not even know before that that it was a real animal, but I had heard the 'name' okapi from the douglas Adam's books the Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy series. So apparently using the 'okapi' is an in joke amongs eccentric writers and comedians.. I wanted to put a section together on tis and that was the start.
- Perhaps I gave too much space to the comedian, but that is because I found that. How would I site the page from the Douglas Adams books? Can you please put it back in and YOU help me site it or shorten it so it communicates this interesting fact It's a "funny" animal. I really didn't think it was real, so I searched for it and here I am. I think that many others probably would find this information fascinating and useful, and relevant. I wanted to reference the VH1 show but it is copyrighted I don't know how I would do that, so I referenced what was shown on the show which was that web page. Perhaps more space to Douglas Adams? or just a short note about each of them? Surely he is a world wide famous author of beloved books - of which i thought he had 'made up' the Okapi as a monster until I saw Blackout talking about it. I have the hard cover books I could find the exact page if you need but there are various editions. Help me do something with this instead of being destructive and wiping out a curious part of the story of a curious funny animal. Also I have no idea how to get a name on here it doesn't seem to work i am trying to do that. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- I just don't know how I could help you make that Blackout reference relevant. No matter how short you made the mention of it, I still think it would come across to most people as irrelevant and out of place in this article. I bet the okapi has had innumerable mentions in popular culture if you really start digging through it, I remember it mentioned in an episode of Six Feet Under, but I don't think starting a list of all those would be helpful to this article. About the hypothesis that it is a generally "funny animal", it would be synthesis to make some conclusion about that from just a collecting of examples where it is used as such in popular culture. To say that the okapi is a "funny animal" you would need to find some reliable source which says just that. About the reference by Douglas Adams, if it is more than just a passing mention of the animal it might be relevant (please see WP:IPC to judge this). The way to reference the book is quite simple, you just make a reference note and write the name of the book, the author and the pages it can be found on. While there are more things which can be included if you want the reference to be perfect (see WP:CITE for this), name, author and page should do to begin with.TheFreeloader (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, I spent a lot of time researching and rewrote the entire thing in a more neutral tone and only included three major artists with references and I think I cited them correctly I read up on citing and only included what was said / is documented by a writer, a comedian, and a band - just to show the wide fan base of the animal from artists. I could not link to the VH1 video because it is copyrighted, but I did my best and kept it short yet accurate. I have read up on registering so I will try and come back here with a username rather than random numbers. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Still, it does not pass the WP:IPC requirements for including passing mentions from popular culture, that is: "However, passing mentions in books, television or film dialogue, or song lyrics should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources." There are no secondary sources included as reference for what you are trying to add, and I have not been able to find any myself. Until such can be found, I don't think it is appropriate to include those pop culture references.TheFreeloader (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- My goodness man, you wikipedians are insane tough cookies... Isn't a show that is not his show referencing him talking about an Okapi a secondary source? And with the Douglas Adam's material - that IS secondary material, that is an INTERVIEW with one of his co writers on the radio show so that IS secondary as well and goes into detail about his favorite line being the nibbled to death by an okapi.... and with the band - surely that is fairly notable - that they had a vinyl record skip on the track in an infinite loop. I'm sure I can find ore sources and i can see that someone already re-wrote my re-write better and I guess put it in the order of notability. I will find more secondary sources please mr authority on all things wikipedia and okapi give a humble okapi lover a chance to contribute. I'll find some more secondary sources of secondary sources... this whole thing is making me have a headache I think it reads really well now, it is at the end, and contributes to the overall article. But let me sleep tonight I will work on this tomorow. My god do you get paid for this are you wikipedia staff or something? I thought this was supposed to be an open contribution community it seems like a closed system with impossible guidelines! 18.104.22.168 (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- I just reverted the destructive edit which removed TheFreeloader's VERY acceptable rewrite of your additions, and I agree and support your additions and will help you find fore sources. The last person who just DELETED everything - well I agree with you that is total vandalism to me. I delt with a lot of that as well I am a fan of both Douglas Adams and Blackout and while I have never heard of the band you mentioned, to say "Douglas Adams" is not notable is the most ridiculous thing in the world, he's only one of the world's most famous authors. That's not notable? Give it a rest. The section reads well and contributes to the article. I know there is an actual printed magazine reference somewhere where Blackout talks about the okapi thing..and it is in a movie as well 2009 "FILM CONTEST?" I'll try and find it and help you out 22.214.171.124 - PS: It's very simple to register and make a name and far preferable to using your ip address. Simple...... click "log in / register" at the top right corner of the screen and do the process and verify your e-mail. Don't let these wikipedia nazis who think they run this place that you sometimes find get you down... they have no right to go wiping out whole sections without discussion you have just as much value in your contribution as the scientific parts do, you just need a few more sources perhaps. I'll help you later today when I'm off work. ManofThoth (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The things, while Douglas Adams may himself be notable, not every detail of about what he has ever said or written is notable. There needs to be some secondary source which has picked up on the reference (according to WP:IPC) for it to be notable. While the thing about the record might in some sense constitute such a secondary source, a reference is still needed to verify that it is actually true. I am not sure at all the Blackout reference, while he might be doing a lot of promotion himself of his love for okapis, I still think there would need to be someone else to pick up on it for it to be notable under WP:IPC. To 126.96.36.199, I am sorry if editing Wikipedia seems harder than it should be, but "in popular culture"-sections are just a quite hard place to edit. People here have become quite vigilant about popular culture and trivia sections as experience has shown that if people aren't wary about keeping them down to what is strictly notable, they will soon come dominate most articles. I think if you start editing outside these kinds of sections you will find that Wikipedia can be a quite a bit more laid-back place.TheFreeloader (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think recognition in secondary sources is always necessary for cultural references; I wouldn't necessarily remove, for example, a notable kid's picture book that is about an okapi, or a notable film in which okapis play a major role (please, Hollywood, get on this), though including links to articles on those works under "see also" might be an even better solution than a "pop culture section". But here, I completely agree with TheFreeloader: these references are nothing but mentions that are insignificant to this topic and add nothing to the reader's understanding. They're like reverse annotations in a way: if someone reading the Douglas Adams book wanted to know what an okapi was, they'd want to read this article, but not many people already reading this article would want to know every book that had merely used the word "okapi". So I also support removal of the section.
If okapis are significant to another topic, but that topic is not significant to okapis, then that other article can explain its usage and link to this article, and that article will then show up in "what links here" for those who want to look up even the most tangential references to okapis. But okapis apparently aren't even significant to Michael Biggins, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, or the other subjects mentioned, because it's not mentioned in any of those articles, which further supports the conclusion that it is trivial at best and contributes nothing of substance here. postdlf (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- [Edit conflict] Man of Thoth, please see your talk page for my comment on your use of "vandalism" and worse. I won't discuss it further here.
- Of course the great Douglas Adams is notable! No-one is suggesting he is not. However, not everything written by any writer, however great, is notable, and I am struggling to see the relevance to this article of one brief mention by him, let alone the similarly minor mentions by far lesser people.
- Editors may find it helpful to read this WP guidance note: WP:TRIVIA.
- To keep the material in this section, we need to be sure that it contributes to the subject covered by the article. I can't see that it does: Freeloader's comments above eloquently explain why. I'd add that secondary sources do have to be WP:RS themselves, not just passing mentions in some blog or magazine article.
- Having said all that, I am intrigued by the mention in this edit of okapis being an "inside joke". Freeloader deleted this as original research, and if it is OR, no matter. However, if sources can be found for it, then we really do have something notable, and the other mentions would serve as examples. Richard New Forest (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- It is attitudes like this "The great Douglas Adams......" but then you go and call the other two "far LESSER people," that is an absolute shameful and pompous sort of wikipedia elitism. Now, I agree that to me, and obviously to you, it appears that Douglas Adams is a GREAT writer, yet that is only 'opinion' no matter how many people say it, I'm sure their is someone who will come in here and call anything or anyone "lesser" or "unworthy" or "not popular enough" and his 'sales figures' or the fact that you like him and perhaps don't know of other writers who have sold as many books or have never heard of the band because they were not as famous as Elvis should not establish that the other two references are "lesser". I have no idea about the band or the record either but it certainly seems that to a very many people they were or are "GREAT" since they are still performing. It also seems extremely notable that of all the things in the world, they choose THAT line to skip on their record. I am trying to find out more about the band and the record and I will site it if I do. I have heard the okapi story many times on Blackout's show, yet you are correct it is not mentioned in his WIKIPEDIA article, but it is all over other material on him several years back and some current. Wikipedia doesn't cover every thing every person has ever said as some sort of life document or court record. All the articles are written by groups and sections appear and disappear because editors consider some things 'lesser' . I would think that we could all agree that the okapi is an odd looking animal at best, but I don't know if that is original research or not. I do see that there are Egyptian references. If it was just, "made up" by the writer then I have been nibbling down the OKAPI hole myself and I have found some occult references and sources and it looks as if Aleister Crowley was in on this okapi thing as well and it goes back to Egyptian magic... but let me sort this out and find usable sources. It may be that this is like something similar to the wilhelm scream but throughout a far longer time scale, but I am writing that here in the discussion, not in the actual article. ManofThoth (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not really ashamed of thinking highly of Douglas Adams. The others are lesser, to me, mainly because for some reason I'd never heard of them. However, it's not my opinions that are important: the point I was making is that however great a writer is (in whoever's opinion), not everything they write is notable. You say that things are included on WP or not because of the opinions of editors. Unfortunately this sort of bias does happen, and this is exactly why we use reliable sources to decide what is notable, not our own opinions. I have no objection to the inclusion of the material we've been discussing, but only if we have evidence from reliable sources that it is notable. Richard New Forest (talk) 11:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Undid the massive pop culture section delete by Freeloader. I am warning you Freeloader - continuous deleting of sections YOU deem non notable is unacceptable and borders on article vandalism. Notability has already BEEN established - that is not the argument. Have you READ this entire discussion? Some more sourcing for the SECOND reference on the record is needed. Sourcing that is other than wikipedia I am thinking. If you do an entire section wipe again without a consensus (playing wikipedia God on your own - which you have no authority to do) then I am going to call for some higher ups to get involved. In the mean time I am continueing on my search to find a site for the 2nd reference to the record. The other two have established notability in film, tv, radio,and literature. ManofThoth (talk) 10:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- There really is no reason to get all dramatic about this. I removed the section because discussion had died out, which I took to mean that you had either conceded that this shouldn't be included, or that you had lost interest. I now see that that wasn't the case, so you reverted my edit and it is all back as before. No harm no foul. That's how Wikipedia is supposed to work (see WP:BRD). People make edits, other people revert it and then it gets discussed. About the actual content, then I still haven't seen any secondary sources which establish the notability of these mentions. So I am not sure what you mean when you say notability has been established. Could you please clarify on that?TheFreeloader (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- My interpretation was that a consensus had been reached to delete the section. Two people had offered reasons why it should not be included and one (Man of Thoth) had insisted it should be included, but had not really explained why. I am still not persuaded that it should be retained. What is notable about this material? Richard New Forest (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Key words: "your interpretation". This is not a numbers game of 2 against one and that makes it so. I did not even write the original section only helped clean it up a bit and helped support the original poster who everyone discouraged pretty harshly (188.8.131.52), so then it's two for it to be included and two against if we are playing schoolyard okapi numbers battle. Original contributor (184.108.40.206) - did you do any more work or make an account? I am going to source more when I have some time, but I have this thing you might have heard of, it's called a job, so I became busy and haven't been able to finish researching the tricky okapi inside joke tale but it's certainly there. That doesn't mean delete. I am trying to locate some secondary sources and also a copy of the record because I find this whole thing very curious. I will return with strong secondary sources. The band was huge at the time and played with some of the greats, so I think the skipping Okapi record is very notable, and also makes the Douglas Adams inclusion even more notable, being that it was from his recording that they used the sample. Freeloader - sorry, nothing personal I just really hate delete edits and find them destructive. I don't think the pop culture section is excessive or advertising for any parties, and it does provide some quirky information on this quirky animal which is obviously taken heart in pop culture. If I can find an online source I would like to add one more since I have found that Aleister Crowley references the animal in a poem, and it is quite funny something to the effect of thou magical beast.. I'm not exactly sure but I believe either the Book of Lies or something similar. I have made some photocopies. I can't find the online reference I'm an old school card catalog library type of guy, but I'll find it. Please give some time as I do have a full time job. ManofThoth (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I actually like to think of myself as a bit of an inclusionist myself too. But one has to appreciate that it is in nobody's interest to make articles into long indiscriminate lists of random mentions in popular culture of a certain topic. And the standard being set by these examples leaves this article open to become a very long list of mentions indeed. And then just imagine if the same standards were transfered over to subject like, say, Tiger or President of the United States, there would be almost no end to how many pop culture reference could be added then. But there really is no reason to get all protective about this; the content will not disappear just because it is temporarily kept out of the articles until the needed sources are found. The content can easily be added back in as soon as that happens. About online sources, a source doesn't have to be online to be acceptable for Wikipedia. Books, magazines, even film are often used as reference for Wikipedia articles. They just have to reliable sources and possible for others to find.TheFreeloader (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's not a matter of how many on each "side", but the value of the arguments. We haven't yet seen any reliable sources which show how these mentions are notable, just sources showing that the mentions exist, which is of course not the same thing. If we did have sources for notability, then yes, great, let's include the material. Until then I can't see how it adds much to the article. Remember that WP works by reliable sources, not the personal views or interpretations of editors. Richard New Forest (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- I would agree that endless pop culture references could get out of hand - but their is a connecting thread to these references and that is that they are odd eccentric notable people who recognize the odd eccentric nature of this creature and use it as a joke. Not just "x" person likes the okapi. "Nibbled to death by an Okapi" is obviously a joke because they are such gentle timid creatures and usually run from people from what I can see in online YouTube vidoes. It also connects to the article which mentions it was given as a gift carving in Egypt. Because of the extreme weird appearance of the animal it was considered sacred or magical in Egypt (I have found this in writing I have to source it), enough so to be given as a gift in stone carvings - and there is an occult connection because all occultism stems from Egypt, So these are not random 'John doe really likes the Okapi' references but short quick ones from very notable odd people about a popular joke usage by eccentric artists and occultists, including Adams, the band, and the comedian Blackout. I am no occultist or magic (or is it magik?) practitioner but I have some interest in the subject and the Okapi (and it appears to always be spelled with a capital O by occultists) is referenced in teachings and writings by occult authors Crowley as well as Peter Carol (CHAOS MAGIC, LIBER CHAOS). I as well saw the VH1 I love the 90s episode that the original contributor of the section was referring to and tried to link to. Wouldn't that be considered a reliable secondary notable source? In that one - comedian Michael Biggins (Blackout) was obviously poking fun at both the animal and occult magic. He did a chant and a rhyme mocking some of the supposed secret hand signs of secret societies and slapped his face three times yelling "all hail the mighty gizebrahorsraf (I am most likely misspelling that) - all hail the thrice great okapi, creator of this universe and my lord and master." It is the quirkiness and oddity of these people's use of the okapi over say - "John Doe likes the duck billed platypus" that makes the inclusion notable, from notable people, worth while for inclusion, and a fun, useful strange interesting addition to the article of a strange interesting odd animal indeed. Please explain to me the proper way to source material that is not online but in books or periodicals - or point me to the page that explains the proper way to do this, and I will gather up some more notable secondary sources that back this up. ManofThoth (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think the VH1 program will work as a secondary source because as I understand it was just showing the comedian doing some of his routine, which is essentially still primary. The occultism claim as well as the inside joke claim are both interesting theories, but they will need to be supported by references to reliable sources to be included here. I think you can find most you will need about how to cite any kind of source in WP:CITE.TheFreeloader (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC
- Well the thing is - everyone who uses the Okapi is doing some of 'his routine'. That is what I am finding. I found some good stuff, occult references but they do not SERIOUSLY refer to the Okapi as a magical animal.. at least.. how would one tell it is serious.. ALL of them appear to be making light of themselves by reffering to the okapi as either a a>god b>mystical animal c> master of some sorts d> creator of the universe.. which I guess is the same is referring to it as God. I found some good books that I am photocopying from the library and then I am reading up on the siting section you pointed to. Thank you. I am not putting this in the article but Blackout's current web page and review of a Prince concert has several 'okapi' / occult references that I am ASSUMING are obviously a joke: look at his current page: http://blackout.com and it changes every week so in case it changes the graphic I believe is here: http://blackout.com/blackout/pagetops/thrice-great-okapi-blurpinkle.jpg ManofThoth (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm all FOR keeping the "In popular culture" section. It doesn't detract from the "zoological" discussion. It adds a bit of flavor to the entry. And there are "respectable" reasons to include it: for example, if I was researching the animal to consider it for possible use in a marketing campaign, or to use an image of it in a children's book, I might want to know of "pop culture" references so I don't inadvertently imply something off-color or inappropriate. Please remove the "warning banner", and leave the section. Dharasty (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Please see WP:TRIVIA, which discourages such sections. We can keep it if we can provide reliable refs for the relevance of the material, as discussed above. I'm looking forward to seeing such refs... Richard New Forest (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- These sources are all proven notable by wikipedia standards and simply need the correct notation. The last addition was not. I won't tolerate deletion. I started the original section and it has been edited to neutral acceptable language and to say these are not notable and delete is complete and utter opinion. Manofthought is working on the citation as far is know give him the time and stop deleting. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 04:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Just a procedural note. (I have no interest in the content of the article.) A core policy states that "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." If the material is not controversial and other editors have indicated they are actively working to find reliable sources, it would probably be the most courteous approach to give them a chance to do so before removing it—but that's not required. When sources are found, the material easily can be restored; the article won't self-destruct in the meantime. Rivertorch (talk) 05:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- The section has just been reinstated by IP 18.104.22.168, who has explained this in edit summary and above by saying "these sources are proven". I'm a bit puzzled by this reinstatement, as discussion is still ongoing, and as Rivertorch says, it's for the restorer to show that the material is notable. Never mind, we can delete it later if it's not. (Also, I'm not really sure that the statement "I won't tolerate deletion" is quite in the spirit of a consensus discussion...)
- I'm puzzled too by the statement "these sources are proven". I can't see where. We have refs showing that okapis have been mentioned in various books, but this is very far from showing that such mentions are notable or relevant. What we need (as discussed above) is refs which actually discuss the relevance of the okapi in popular culture at more than a superficial level: these need to be independent, reliable sources, preferably academic. Such sources would be papers or books called something like The okapi as a symbol of the unusual in Western European culture, or The cult of the okapi in twentieth century literature.
- If such papers or books do not exist, then there is no evidence that the material is relevant and we cannot include it. We cannot decide for ourselves what is important. If we look at a long list of okapi quotes and say "well, obviously the okapi is important in literature", that is no more than our own opinion, and so it is original research and we cannot include it.
- WP:IPC states that there has to be secondary sources mentioning the reference for it to be considered notable. None of the mentions in the section has that. The reason why I removed the section now is that the section keeps attracting other mentions which can not be proven to be relevant, by the logic of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And it really is hard to give a good reason why the new unnotable mentions have to be removed, when the old ones get to stay, other than bad reason like they got there first, or the people who added the firsts ones want them in more. So for this article not to turn into a long list of pop culture mentions yet to be proven notable, I think it would be most reasonable to keep all pop culture mentions with unproven notability out the article.TheFreeloader (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Disagree completely. The added section had no sources whatsoever while there are literally dozens of sources of notability on Douglas Adams and his referencing okapis. Also many secondary sources on Michael Biggins / Blackout in video and on national tv, and while sparce, there are sources on the band and their use of it as a looping track. I apologize in my delay in understanding how to properly source material on the internet. I have been extremely busy at work and the okapi has not been my top priority,, but the section should stand, and I will get further references cited correctly. The other reference that was deleted had NO source. I am all in agreement in not cluttering. ManofThoth (talk) 04:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- EDIT addition I meant I apologize in my delay in understanding how to properly source / site sources that are NOT on the internet or that might have copyright issues. There is a DEFINITE traceable theme of the Okapi referred to as a magical occult and holy animal in Egyptian literature, sculpture, and modern literature as well as other mediums. This is not an opinion - this is there throughout history and still going on in modern media. ManofThoth (talk) 04:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- In the occult world there is reference by practicing magicians (not in the stage magician type) of the Okapi as an animal representing certain magical qualities and okapi 'totems' are used in ceremonies to represent and bring out certain wanted qualities.. this is not the greatest source but here is a page referring to what I am finding in some old print books but not much of online. http://www.linsdomain.com/totems/pages/okapi.htm Okapi 'totems' have been worshiped and given as gifts and used in ceremonial magic from ancient times to modern new age / wiccan / pagan groups. I'm collecting some fascinating stuff that could probably add a whole other section to this but seeing the resistance to just the pop culture references I am not going to even bother trying, but it should at least back up the inside occult joke or reference. ManofThoth (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- ah the delete happy Richard. Deleting is foolish. Your life is not notable to me... I think I'll delete you... even though someone might have found some value. The material ads and does not clutter the Okapi section. I sited what notable internet sources I could, I'm still not quite sure how to site non internet material but there is plenty of it to support not only notability but a fascinating history of this animal over many others in culture. How culture relates to an animal or species over time is surely relevant, and this section has not run a muck like so many wikinuts worried it would. ManofThoth (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Article on okapi birth at Bronx Zoo
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/08/science/birth-of-bronx-zoos-mbura-overcomes-okapi-odds.html?hpw=&pagewanted=all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Umm ... there's a weird word at the start of the article but it doesn't appear when I try to Edit it away. I don't think I'm retarded ... is it that someone hacked the zoology tag at the top?Crasshopper (talk) 06:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC) screenshot of what I'm seeing: http://imgur.com/IKUYu
- Fixed, leftover vandalism stuck onto the bottom of the taxobox.--Mr Fink (talk) 06:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- There's still some vandalism stuck before Entymology (and Entymology is missing off the article) DabblerX (talk 2013/03/27 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see any vandalism. Could you please specify what it is? (Incidentally, I think you mean etymology.) Rivertorch (talk) 05:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Numbers of okapis worlwide
The introduction states that "about 10,000–20,000 (okapis) remain in the wild and as of 2011", while the chapter "Wild status" states: "The world population is estimated at 10,000–35,000". That should be harmonized according to the most serious estimation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caïus Gracchus (talk • contribs) 14:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
This is what I plan to add to the topic: Okapi
I Calves A. Single calf is born B. Able to stand after half an hour C. Stay in the nest for 2 months for safety D. They suckle for up to a year
A. Very shy animals and sneaky B. Have a secret language C. Mom can check in with baby without predators knowing D. Females have silent noise when about to breed
A. Human Hunters 1.Poaching a)illegal b)Kill to sell fur B.Predators 1.Leopard a)Can’t hear them b)Prowl and crawl up for surprise attack C. Deforestation 1.Biggest loss of Okapi’s
- What sources are you using? postdlf (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Do you have sources for these claims?--Mr Fink (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Why does my information keep getting deleted?
I am new to Wikipedia and I keep trying to add new information about okapi calves. All my stuff keeps getting deleted and I don't know why. I am very confused.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaney coyne (talk • contribs)
- Well, for starters, what you have is poorly written, and you do not provide any reliable sources to verify your information. The only source you did give was a mirror website that copied Wikipedia's article.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- The San Diego Zoo site is okay (scientific papers/books would be even better). The problem is that the majority of your material is coming from a-z-animals, which (like Wikipedia) allows anyone to edit, thus not a reliable source. If you want a calf section, then you have to write it using only the facts that you can verify using reliable sources and properly reference the material. Cheers, Kirin13 (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Okapi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
- This looks cool, I'll take it! FunkMonk (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Any reason why the binomial is (self) linked under taxonomy?
- A mistake, done.
- I've often read that the existence of this animal was first thought a hoax in the west, if so, perhaps warrants a mention?
- Couldn't find many reliable sources for adequate information about this, actually the sources I have seen say that the animal was initially confused with the horse, but is there any hoax there?
- "Harry Johnston is linked several times.
- "However, the species has been placed in its own subfamily Okapiinae" When and by who?
- I once heard that a specimen in Copenhagen Zoo died of shock due to loud music being played near it, and that okapis are apparently sensitive in captivity. Anything to this?
- I found out about this incident, a report is available here. But there were three okapi present, and the music proved fatal for only one female. Moreover, I could not discover much about the okapi's sensitivity, at least not from reliable sources.
- None of the photos appear to show specimens with horns, could one be added? Perhaps a close up of a head?
- This photo may be nice as it shows both the horns and the striped rump well:
- Added this photo, it's great!
- Perhaps the sexes of the shown specimens should be mentioned in the captions?
- The sexes have not been specified in the file descriptions of the images, but since all of them lack clear horns, may be they are females?
- "While both sexes in the giraffe possess horns, only males bear" Sentence seems incomplete.
- " and shares more similarities with the deer and bovids than with the giraffe." May this statement not be a bit extreme? I'm sure that people looking at skeletal morphology and genes would disagree. Maybe reword to "more external similarities with" or some such? FunkMonk (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- "who walk by moving alternate legs" Is it appropriate to refer to animals as "who"?
- Changed to "that".
- Perhaps this image of the tongue is more interesting than the one currently under ecology?
- But the tongue has not been mentioned under ecology.
- Well, you could argue that it should be mentioned under diet? How does it use its tongue? And well, feeding comes under ecology. Anyway, the point is that the current image is kind of boring in comparison, the article already has many pictures like it. FunkMonk (talk) 08:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- "The okapi is sometimes referred to as an example of a living fossil." Isn't this more relevant under taxonomy? And could there be more info on its evolution maybe? When did it split off from the giraffe line?
- Researched a bit. I have added a new section including the relevant info. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 07:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- There is inconsistency in whether you say "okapis" or "okapi" in plural.
- I don't add "s" in the plural, and have tried to use "okapi" throughout the article. I hope there are no deviations from this.
- "They often rub against trees and leave a brown exudate." From where?
- Could Flehmen response be explained very briefly?
- "Rut in males and estrus in females" Links?
- "have false eyelashes" What is this?
- Not so clear in the source, but most probably pseudo or apparent in nature.
- "They are endemic to the tropical forests of Zaire." Why use the obsolete name Zaire?
- Now that country is "overlinked" twice too much it seems.
- Now that country is "overlinked" twice too much it seems.
- Perhaps some of this info about the first western depiction is worthy of inclusion: https://archive.org/stream/proceedingsofzoo19012zool#page/n51/mode/2up
- Thanks, it's awesome help! Done my best with this.
- Isn't that the same image (see plate 1 in the source) we have on the article? But it is not clear whether it is Harry Johnston or Sclater who painted it. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 02:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Sources: I think sources 11 and 13 are unreliable. In particular, 11 can be replaced with the actual Hunt and Skinner sources. The Skinner source can be found here. LittleJerry (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- 13 seems somewhat unreliable, though not 11. If you can find the original sources, it would be a great job. I tried to access this link but it seemed dead. Perhaps you could assist with the citation? Sainsf <^>Talk all words 02:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Changes look good, I'm ready to pass when the source issue is somehow resolved. Anything to add, LittleJerry? FunkMonk (talk) 09:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Both 11 and 14 (my mistake not 13) are anti-evolution papers, so I think they should be replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- I have removed both the indicated sources; they were indeed creationist productions of debatable standing. As for the content based on the cites, I found the original journal source for the 2nd half (Skinner - okapi interpreted as Palaeotragus) and added that reference; couldn't find the source for the former half though (Hunt - Giraffa / Okapia) and have thus removed that bit for the time being.-- Elmidae (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Reading is tech - LittleJerry provided the Skinner link already, natch. If someone can rustle up the Hunt reference, we are good (all I'm getting is an old TalkOrigins post w/o specific refs).-- Elmidae (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- TalkOrigins is it, added. All good now FunkMonk. LittleJerry (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Both 11 and 14 (my mistake not 13) are anti-evolution papers, so I think they should be replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Besides roots and grass the okapi can be a cannibalism of it's own kind. Mothers and fathers of claves take care of thier calves and eat others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nthiim001 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)