Talk:African elephant

Too small?

I think the article is too small and should be extended with more sections. --67.162.31.74 00:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree very bad article and not mentioning the colbert situation is a very poor decision. It matters, beleive it. Manbearpiggy 23:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not too small, see Loxodonta africana and Loxodonta cyclotis for more information about each kind of African Elephant. Also the Colbert stuff is mentioned in articles about Colbert, this wasn't even the article he was talking about anyway. Jackaranga 23:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

African elephants have quadrupaled in the past 5 years- colbert fan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.180.7 (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Isn't it time that this page be unprotected and get a Trivia section, including Babar and the Colbert Situation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Sporadic Update (talk • contribs) .

No. There's no need for listing Colbert in this article. It is approprite to list the Wiki Colbert spam incident only on his articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least Babar should be mentioned, even so. (and sorry i didn't sign my comment; i forgot to click the thing)--The Sporadic Update 20:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, so... why exactly is a mention of the Colbert story inappropriate on this page? 'Cause, uh, Bears gets one... In fact, most major animal articles have "___ in Popular Culture" as a section (Tigers, Squirrels, Cows and many others). Personally, I don't think it's fair to deny the African Elephant it's spot in popular culture as createdby the Colbert Report. Crazynorvegian 22:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Because WP:ASR. Demiurge 22:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, point taken. And of course, as if to further spite me, this specific example just HAS to be cited in the WP:ASR article itself... Crazynorvegian 23:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning Colbert would inspire more vandalism. Also, it is silly to mention Babar and other cartoon elephants here: if everything as insignificant to african elephants as Babar were included, what would this article be?

(sign your comments!) Um, more than a stub? This thing's miniscule. Putting a reference to Colbert into it will pacify a lot of the compulsion to vandalize, give them a sense of satisfaction, allow us to unlock the article, and add content to a currently dinky article. Seriously, I've seen Wikipedia articles on exotic candles that are longer than this.68.102.179.135 00:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No. We will not give in to the vandalism. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Come on, someone out there needs to seriously "take the bull by the horns" (or perhaps "take the elephant by the tusts") and add some good content here! :-) —GRM 19:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism of this page is getting seriously out of hand. Why not impose full protection and ask for volunteers to write some decent text via this page?—GRM 17:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The only difference between revision and vandalism is whether you agree with it. Wikipedia is full of shit no matter which one you favor. At least Colbert could admit that. http://www.penny-arcade.com/2005/12/16 --76.217.90.99 16:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

God you douchebags, you're trying so hard to protect this article from vandalism as though you're soooo dedicated to it but the African Elephants section of Elephants is full of information to add and I can't add it because the article's protected. I say just get rid of the damn article because it's got less information on African elephants than the Elephants article.--DavidFuzznut 15:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

First, WP:CIVIL. Second, if there is info you want to add to the article, make your edit here on the talk page and I or another admin will be happy to add it to the article. I for one am tired or repeatedly reverting the childish vandlism spurred by Colbert. (And I'm a fan of his show otherwise.) - UtherSRG (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It should never be unlocked. All propsed changes and new sections should be hammered out in the discussion section, then, an admin can stick it in the article. And for petesake leave out that Babar crap. WP is already polluted with everyone's pop culture pet causes; unconcise articles full of minutia just turn people off.

Look people, the Colbert incident is significant in popular culture. You can't deny that. The Mona Lisa article lists parodies in it. This article should mention the Colbert incident.(Frazz 18:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC))

Agreed. And perhaps if there is mention of the Colbert incident, people will stop adding the false information into the actual article. Pnkrockr 21:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagreed. You're comparing the Colbert Report with the Mona Lisa. come back in a few hundred years if the Colbert Report is still known. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Uther: I'm comparing the Mona Lisa article to the African Elephant article. Similarly, I'm comparing the Colbert incident with Mona Lisa's parodies. Further, the Colbert Incident is concurrent, as is wikipedia. WikipediaHI HI HI HI HI HI HI is not here to record merely age old incidents, but current ones as well. You are trying to deny this incident its place because you disapprove of it. This is NOT in the spirit of wikipedia. Can somebody start a poll, because I'm pretty sure popular opinion is against UtherSRG. (71.109.157.155 21:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC))

About a pole remember Wikipedia is not a democracy (Wp:not#Wikipedia is not a democracy). Also Colbert is not a leading figure on African elephants, nor on anything remotely related to them. The content proposed by Colbert is vandalism, and vandalism is not accepted even if a majority would like it to be (which is not proven here), see the link above about what wikipedia is not. The so called "Colbert Incident" is mentioned in the article about the show here, and you can read a really long discussion about this here. I strongly oppose adding invitations to vandalise into an article; If this were added to the article, it would have to stay protected for ever, or be under constant scrutiny. People will be coming across this page in say 5 years time still and if they see something saying that Colbert said to add nonsense, then they will. Whereas if Colbert stuff is left out then, people will forget about this eventually. Please read the links I gave, there is a huge amount of information and points of view about this in those pages already, especially here. --Jackaranga 08:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I checked out what you gave me. I now realize the role polls in wikipedia, thankyou. I do realize it is referenced elsewhere in it's ideal section. I did not read all the archived discussions. I skimmed a few that seemed relevant. From what I can tell, a lot of people agree with me, that this should be referenced in pop culture

I bring you this example: "The perception of Albuquerque as an exotic place with a strange name has led to some humorous references to the city. A running gag in the Warner Brothers Looney Tunes cartoons was that Bugs Bunny would turn up somewhere unexpected and say "I should've made that left turn at Albuquerque."" from: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Albuquerque#In_popular_culture If a running gag by bugs bunny gets into the pop culture section of an actual city, I think a major incident caused by a show of similar caliber deserves it's spot in the appropriate article. This is what the section is designed for. As for your argument on the long term protection release, I can tell you it will never happen. Millions of people saw that episode, and many of them will come back later in years time to edit this article just for the heck of it. Also, I don't think many people genuinely interested in african elephants who happen to read this will actually vandalize the article. In conclusion, as long as there are people who don't take wikipedia seriously, this will be an ongoing problem. (Frazz 04:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC))

Again, "test of time". Bugs Bunny's gag has survived for decades. Will Colbert's survive as long? From my perspective, it's just a bit of vandalism and will not survive the test of time. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright then, here's some more.

1. Employee of the Month (2006 film) was filmed in Albuquerque.
2. Wild Hogs (2007) was filmed in Albuquerque.
3. In the Quebecois TV show "Une grenade avec ça?" ("a grenade with that?"), the Burgbog's museum is in Albuquerque.
4. Beerfest (2006) was filmed in Albuquerque, with many scenes filmed at the historic Press Club.

Those are just the last four on the list. These have stood the "test of time" no more well than the Colbert incident. Yet, there they are. If what happened in the Colbert Incident is not popular culture, than these, and indeed most of the references listed on that page, are certainly not.(Frazz 21:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC))

I agree. None of these are relevant. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You do not get my point. Wikipedia has standards. These are to be followed. This sort of pop culture reference list is everywhere. It IS wikipedia's standard. If you do not agree with it, that's your problem.

So unless anyone else disagrees, I'll move on to list this is in the pop culture reference area. However, this would be the only one, so perhaps it is better to make an entire section for it at the end. (Frazz 20:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC))

No, just because it is wrong someplace else but done anyway, doesn't make it right to do here. If you insist, make a separate page for "African elephants in popular culture". - UtherSRG (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, but you can not go around changing wikipedia however you like. Just because you don't think it's right, doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. This is how wikipedia works, take it or leave it. Frazz 18:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken. that's *exactly* what I can do. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that someone said to vandalise the page does not make African elephant enter public culture. Perhaps you could argue it is a element of public culture affecting wikipedia. If there is an article called wikipedia in public culture, then you could probably add Colbert there. This concept is often very hard for people to understand, often people confuse the container with the content. Please take some time to think about this, hopefully you will come to see that the article must be about the subject in the title, not about the article in itself. The Colbert incident affected the article on wikipedia only, Colbert never claimed the elephant population had tripled, he said to lie and add that to wikipedia. Hence his comment was not about elephants, but about wikipedia, hence it has no place in an article discussing elephants. Jackaranga 10:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, thankyou for presenting a reasonable argument, Jackaranga. I appreciate your sensibility very much. Anyway, it seems to me that the Colbert Incident has created a unique situation. I don't believe anything of this sort has really ever happened before. It is my opinion that the incident should be referenced, while you think otherwise. Do you have any references backing up your opinions? Any rules or anything? Frazz 18:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You can read the discussion here, there was much discussion about it and there seems to be a consensus to exclude the Colbert report from a trivia section. I think this really is beating around a dead bush now, I understand why you want to add it, but there has already been extensive debate about, exceeding the length of the article itself! Colbert's comment was aimed at wikipedia, not elephants, whereas this article is about elephants not about wikipedia. Jackaranga 13:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Wikiality and Other Tripling Elephants. The topic has already been examined from all possible angles and some believed to be impossible! I think the is already enough about the whole Colbert/elephant thing on wikipedia now. Perhaps you can edit the article about elephants on uncyclopedia if there is one. Jackaranga 13:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in uncyclopedia. If a consensus has already been reached, very well. It seems to me that the reasoning behind the decision is flawed, but since I'm not going to read that entire discussion, I'll just leave it be. Frazz 03:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}Cripes. "...by 2006 the number had dwindled to about 10,000. In the following decade, the species has tripled in size, however." Is this a variation of Colbert vandalism? In any case, it's not yet 2016, so the sentence "In the following decade, the species has tripled in size, however." should be removed or corrected.

Sentence removed. --Clark89 (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Who really named it Loxodonta ??

From the introduction: Although it is commonly believed that the genus was named by Georges Cuvier in 1825, Cuvier spelled it Loxodonte. An anonymous author romanized the spelling to Loxodonta and the ICZN recognizes this as the proper authority
The references I can find online record (Blumenbach, 1797) as the author of this name eg [1] It appears to me that Cuvier may have mispelt it, but that would explain the anonymous correction back to Laxodonta. And does ICZN recognizes this as the proper authority mean they recognise Cuvier or that they recognise Loxodonta (is there an online copy of the ICNZ authority for this). This ref seems to say ICNZ doesn't accept Cuvier [2] ??? --AGoon 22:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Corrct. Cuvier made a mistake, and the ICZN accepts the anonymous authority over Cuvier. The MSW reference you cite is both out of date and note saying what you think it is saying. It says Cubier, and that Blumenbach is the authority for the type species. MSW3 correct this and properly credits Anonymous, and explains this all much as in our article. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

My confusiion was not being familiar with the way things are described on the MSW pages. I saw that Blumenbach named it in 1797 and didn't understand why he wasn't given credit. I now see he named it Elephas africanus not Loxodonta. --AGoon 21:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You are still confused. Each genus has a type species. Before Loxodonta, all elephant speces were in Elephas. Cuvier came around ad said, "What ho! These elephants from Africa are significantly different than those elephants in Asia. I hold up this species Elephas africanus as typifying of the African species." Blumenbach had already named that species, which is now Loxodonta africana. But, as we said before, Cuvier gt the naming wrong, and he was anonymously corrected. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit my posts to a discussion forum even when I'm wrong!, of course you are welcome to post followup corrections :-). Thankyou, my confusion stems from comparing infoboxes for the African Elephant to similar wikipedia pages in other languages. I've finally realised that my problem is that I've been comparing this African Elephant genus page with those for the African_Bush_Elephant species on other language wikipedia pages. Perhaps we need a photo illustrating the two species on this page. Oh well, I've learned something :-) --AGoon 01:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I outcommented this because Nomenclator Zoologicus has Cuvier 1827 (Zool. Journ., 3: 140) emended in Gray 1843 (List Mamm. Coll. Brit. Mus.: 184). Can anyone source the ICZN decision to make it the (possible but rather unusual) "Anonymous"? It would have (probably) been post-1939? Or does that matter at all, because ICZN 50.4. says: Authorship of justified emendations. A justified emendation is attributed to the author of the name in its original incorrect spelling and not to the person making the emendation Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

From MSW3: Following Article 11 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1999), the format of "Loxodonta Anonymous, 1827" is accepted. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Current Events

Removed tag about current events as there is no information currently in the article about a current event. Once information that will be rapidly changes is added, I'll put the tag back Pnkrockr 15:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Conservation

Meaning was lost due to poor sentence structure. Fixed grammar and sentence structure. Ms. Landau 15:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

sorry, semi-protection broke the bot...

could you please remove one of the double {{Link FA|fi}} thanks - Mandavi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.191.47.162 (talk • contribs) .

Done. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Re-semiprotected

I've re-semiprotected the article, after it was vandalized 12 times in the last day. -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Language

No, I'm not referring to the suggested Finnish origin of the text!
I'm talking about that used in the article itself, e.g. "developed into the modern African elephant" — shouldn't this rather say "presumed antecendent of modern species"? — GRM 17:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of the Info Needs Adding

This info can be found in the "African Elephants" section of Elephants I didn't thoroughly read through it but as short as the article currently is I know it doesn't include a lot. Even though the stuff about Forest Elephants and Savanna Elephants is probably in those respective articles, it really does belong here.--DavidFuzznut 05:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

African elephants are distinguished from Asian elephants in several ways. The most noticeable difference is the ears. Africans' ears are much larger and are shaped like the continent of their origin. The African elephant is typically larger than the Asian and has a concave back. Both males and females have external tusks and are usually less hairy than their Asian cousins.

African elephants have traditionally been classified as a single species composed of two distinct subspecies, namely the savanna elephant (Loxodonta africana africana) and the forest elephant (Loxodonta africana cyclotis), but recent DNA analysis suggests that these may actually constitute distinct species.[4] While this split is not universally accepted by experts[5] a third species of African elephant has also been proposed.[6]

Under the two species classification, Loxodonta africana refers specifically to the Savanna Elephant, the largest of all the elephants. In fact, it is the largest land animal in the world, standing up to 13 ft (4 m) at the shoulder and weighing approximately 15,400 lb (7,000 kg). The average male stands about 3 m (10 ft) high at the shoulder and weighs about 5500–6000 kg, 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.

The other postulated species is the Forest Elephant (Loxodonta cyclotis). Compared with the Savanna Elephant, its ears are usually smaller and rounder, and its tusks are also thinner and straighter and are not directed outwards so much. The Forest Elephant can weigh up to 10,000 lb (4,500 kg) and stand about 10 ft (3 m) tall. Much less is known about these animals than their savanna cousins because environmental and political obstacles make them very difficult to study. Normally they inhabit the dense African rain forests of central and western Africa, though occasionally they do inhabit the edges of forests and overlap territories and hybridize with bush elephants.

In 1979, Iain Douglas-Hamilton estimated the continental population of African elephants at around 1.3 million animals.[7] Although the estimate was controversial due to the large dose of guesswork it contained,[8] it is very widely cited and has become a de facto baseline that continues to be incorrectly used to quantify downward population trends in the species. Through the 1980s, Loxodonta received worldwide attention due to the dwindling numbers of major populations in East Africa, largely as a result of poaching. Today, according to IUCN’s African Elephant Status Report 2002[9] there are approximately between 400,000 and 650,000 African elephants in the wild. Although this estimate only covers approximately half of the total elephant range, experts do not believe the true figure to be much higher, as it is unlikely that large populations remain to be discovered.[10] By far the largest populations are now found in Southern and Eastern Africa, which together account for the majority of the continental population. According to a recent analysis by IUCN experts, most major populations in Eastern and Southern Africa are stable or have been steadily increasing since the mid-1990s, at an average rate of 4.5% per annum.[11]

Elephant populations in West Africa, on the other hand, are generally small and fragmented, and only account for a small proportion of the continental total.[12] Much uncertainty remains as to the size of the elephant population in Central Africa, where the prevalence of forest makes population surveys logistically difficult, but poaching for ivory and bushmeat is believed to be intense through much of the region[13]

Adding false information

Please, unregistered users, stop adding things about the number of elephants having tripled in a year. The page will just end up being protected again and then you won't be able to add anything at all, and nobody will be better off, especially you. --Jackaranga 06:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

All the information was added because of Stephen Colbert's call on his show to do so. Lizrael 15:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, for the sake of balance, mention must be made of the rapid growth in elephant populations when sufficient protection is provided. There is general ignorance of the success of Botswana in providing comprehensive protection from poaching. Recent estimates state a figure around 120,000, mostly concentrated in the Chobe-Linyanti-Zambezi ecosystem. Failing to make people aware of this has two consequences. Firstly, if the peoples of African countries are not given positive recognition of their work, they may feel less inclined to continue in the future. Secondly, the very real issue of how a balanced ecosystem may be maintained while elephant numbers expand will not be understood as a significant element in the conservation equation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roboyobo (talk • contribs) 20:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding a gallery

I own a large number of very good pics of African elephants that might make a nice gallery for this page (I loaded one as bull elephant for you to look at). I feel the present picture of a zoo animal does not do the species justice and it would be nice, I feel, to add a gallery of bulls, cows, juveniles, large tusks, small tusks, tuskless etc. Any thoughts? Profberger 06:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I like image galleries, sometimes some people don't though. There are also the articles African Bush Elephant and African Forest Elephant you might like to add to, the first has quite a lot of pictures already though, African Forest Elephant could do with some more pictures though, if you took any pictures of those. Jackaranga 12:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

There are also many images on the commons (follow this link). Just in case you hadn't seen them. Jackaranga 12:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleting External Links

I think that some external links should be deleted and/or renamed. I did this to some links. I just don't have the time to do this to all of the links.

If there are any replies directed to me, please reply on my Talk page instead of here. Chimchar monferno (talk) 02:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Speciation

I've just stumbled across Elephant classification, which probably needs an expert eye to sorting out the Loxodonta species and subspecies - anyone care to take a look at it? I've split L. cyclotis off into a species not a subspecies, but I'm not sure how the various subspecies are divided between the two species.. Shimgray | talk | 14:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There are no subspecies, only synonyms. From MSW3:

• africana: angolensis Frade, 1928; berbericus Seurat, 1930 [nomen nudum]; capensis (G. Cuvier, 1798); cavendishi (Lydekker, 1907); cornaliae (Aradas, 1870); hannibali Deraniyagala, 1953 [nomen nudum]; knochenhaueri (Matschie, 1900); mocambicus (Frade, 1924); orleansi (Lydekker, 1907); oxyotis Matschie, 1900; peeli (Lydekker, 1907); pharaohensis Deraniyagala, 1948; rothschildi (Lydekker, 1907); selousi (Lydekker, 1907); toxotis (Lydekker, 1907); typicus Blumenbach, 1797; zukowskyi Strand, 1924
• cyclotis: albertensis (Lydekker, 1907); cottoni (Lydekker, 1908); fransseni (Schouteden, 1914); pumilio (Noack, 1906)

I'll take a look and see what I can make of it. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Laxodonta

Besides Loxodonta I have also often read Laxodonta. What does "laxo" or "loxo" mean?--80.141.231.61 (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Issues With Taxonomy

There is many catergories of taxonomy missing for the Taxonomy of the African Elephants in which they belong to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnowledgeRequire (talk • contribs) 17:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Gallery - Necessary?

I don't think the Gallery in the African Elephant article is really necessary. I plan to create subpage for this gallery section. I just want some opinons if this should be done or not. KnowledgeRequire (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Die elephants

i think they should all die there disgusting and crap a lot. + if they died thered be no more fat ugly asses laying around africa