Talk:Elephant

Sri Lankan elephant

• From Sri Lankan elephant: Only 7% of males bear tusks.(ref= Jayewardene, J. (1994) The elephant in Sri Lanka. Wildlife Heritage Trust of Sri Lanka, Colombo) However, according to the elephant census conducted in 2011 by the Wildlife Conservation Department of Sri Lanka, only 2% of the total population are tuskers.
• From Asian elephant Some males may also lack tusks... and are especially common among the Sri Lankan elephant population... (ref= Clutton-Brock, J. (1987). A Natural History of Domesticated Mammals. London: British Museum (Natural History). p. 208. ISBN 0-521-34697-5.)
• BBC
• Sunday Times

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elephant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110921045800/http://www.harpweek.com/09Cartoon/BrowseByDateCartoon.asp?Year=2003&Month=November&Date=7 to http://www.harpweek.com/09Cartoon/BrowseByDateCartoon.asp?Year=2003&Month=November&Date=7

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Should recognized "Tuskers" be included?

Around the world there are a couple of individual elephants known (and respected) for the exceptional size of the tusks. In nature reserves specifically these individuals are extremely popular, and actively sought out for photographs. Could/should these be listed in a new section? Sakkie Coetzee (talk) 10:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. This page is not + should not become a guide for tusker 'hunters', be it tourists or photographers. – BhagyaMani (talk) 11:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Issues with "Evolution and extinct relatives" section

I have some issues with this section:

• Platybelodon and other members of the family Amebelodontidae are now generally not considered "gomphotheres" (as messy as that term is taxonomically).
• The estimate placing Palaeoloxodon namadicus as the largest amimal of all time, it to put lightly, extremely speculative. As the paper itself notes, it's based on a single unlocated partial femur mentioned in an early 19th century publication as 20% larger than a measured femur. The paper itself notes that the estimate should be taken with a grain of salt.
• Continues to refer to Palaeoloxodon recki as Elephas recki, which is inconsistent with the Wikipedia article on the animal, as well as recent scientific literaure on Palaeoloxodon

Overall, the section seems somewhat poorly organised for a featured article (though I appreciate it's not the main focus by any means). I'll probably get around to improving it in the coming days. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I missed this. Hemiauchenia, do you still plan on working on this? LittleJerry (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I think I'm mostly finished with this section. Sorry for stepping on your toes a bit while reworking the section. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Good job! LittleJerry (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, does the 2021 article have a cladogram? LittleJerry (talk) 00:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

No, but there's a half-decent cladogram in this paper, but it has a number of problems, most notably that Stegodon is recovered within modern elephants, which is not found in basically any other phylogenetic analysis and I think is likely to be erroneous, so I'm not sure it would be usable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

It might be okay if Elephantoidea is collapsed to a single node. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, having thought about it more, I think the cladogram in figure 5 from this paper is probably better. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't the other paper broadly support this cladogram? LittleJerry (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Proboscidea early proboscideans, e.g. Moeritherium Deinotheriidae Elephantiformes Mammutidae Gomphotheriidae Stegodontidae Elephantidae Loxodonta Mammuthus Elephas

Proboscidea phylogeny based on upper molars.

Yeah, that cladogram looks good to me. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you think we should add a few more clades like Amebelodontidae? LittleJerry (talk) 01:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I think adding Amebelodontidae would be a good idea. One current issue with the cladogram is is that "Gomphotheriidae" is widely agreed to be paraphyletic, so it might be worth representing them with two nodes (one closer to elephantids and stegodontids than the other node) with a combined label, as is done for example for the label of Maxiliopoda in the phylogeny section of the Arthropoda article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay well, I'm not good at making or changing cladograms. Maybe Chiswick Chap can help? LittleJerry (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I've managed to find another half-decent cladogram [1], doesn't include the amebelodontids unfortunately, but does include most of the other taxa, and avoids WP:SYNTH problems. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, do you think the evolution section could be trimmed some and have more details at the Proboscidea? Perhaps the first paragraph could give an overview of Proboscidea pre-Elephantimorph. The second paragraph could start with Elephantimorphs and lead into Elephantidae and then talk about extinction. LittleJerry (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that the broad evolutionary history narrative in the first few paragraphs is as concise as it can reasonably be without losing coherence. I think the morphological evolution and dwarf elephant sections could be cut down though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I removed those. LittleJerry (talk) 10:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

No issue with those removals, I think they are much better placed in Proboscidea. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Elephants vs Elephantidae

I don’t understand why this article excludes extinct elephantids.

Pretty much every other article for a group of animals goes over some of its extinct and prehistoric members. I understand wanting to prioritize extant animals but you can do that without completely ignoring the taxon they belong to. Maxwatermelon (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

It is handled at the family (Elephantidae) and superfamily level (Elephantoidea) because in this case, that works out better. The family includes such species as the mammoths, which are not called elephants. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2023

In the Internal systems section, change "It's apex has two pointed ends," to "Its apex has two pointed ends," MLL1973 (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Some inline citations are still incomplete

This article cites multiple works by J. Shoshani, but it still includes many inline citations that include only the author's name and a page number, without the title of the work that was cited. Should these citations include the titles in addition to the author's name? Jarble (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

No. The work is still clearly identifiable, though I would strongly prefer it include a year (this would prevent potential confusion with Shoshani 1998 and Shoshani 2005, even if they are cited using a different format). :3 F4U (they/it) 17:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit requestyes on 15 August 2023

2603:8001:D00:E3F2:8B:E8B3:26EF:5919 (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. UtherSRG (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Use of File:African Bush Elephant.jpg violates GNU FDL license

The license to the original image is very restrictive. Currently, the article does not credit the author, which is required:

Attribution of this image to the author (Muhammad Mahdi Karim) is required in a prominent location near to the image.

This even led to a question being asked on Law Stack Exchange about this issue.

I will be replacing the main image with an equivalent one, which is CC-BY-SA-2.0. -- Hugo Spinelli (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Muhammad Mahdi Karim? LittleJerry (talk) 00:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

We certainly can ask if the author would multi-license their work.... — xaosflux ^Talk 01:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

FAL added as well. Thanks for asking :-) --Muhammad(talk) 10:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Hugo Spinelli FYI, this image now has additional licensing, compatible with CCBYSA4. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Feel free to revert it if you prefer the original image. Either one is fine with me. -- Hugo Spinelli (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Temporal glands and mammary glands are not sex organs

Why are the temporal and mammary glands described in this section about sex organs? Jarble (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

They are related to sexual behavior. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

But they are secondary sex characteristics, not sex organs. 17:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Changed title. LittleJerry (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2024

elephants come from africa and they have very specific lifestyles compared to other animals and wildlife Phoebe1322 (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC) elephants are a protected species and are from africa, they have a very specific life style compared to other animals and wildlife

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

My edits

My edits ([2]) were reverted wholesale as unhelpful, unsourced and with barereflinks, which I don't believe is accurate.

I did remove this portion -- "This is due to them being largely immune to predators, which would otherwise kill off many of the individuals with significant parasite loads" as it makes no sense and should be reviewed and reworded, in my opinion. Yours. Thanks. Zenon.Lach (talk) 04:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

You have added unsourced content, and many of us regularly remove newly added unsourced content. The content you removed does make sense to me, and had a citation. If you think that the cited source does not support that statement, explain that here. You deleted that content and it has been restored, so the next step is to discuss on this talk page why you think that content does not belong in the article. Donald Albury 13:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, the diff I provided ([3]) re my two edits does not show any unsourced additions, IMO. Several new reflinks from reliable sources were added. I did some rewording for clarity, yes. And, "This is due to them being largely immune to predators, which would otherwise kill off many of the individuals with significant parasite loads" is quite confusing, regardless of citation. I respectfully submit that less arcane wording would make this portion more comprehensible to the majority of readers. Also, the plural ("rhinoceroses") of rhinoceros should be used. Yours, Zenon.Lach (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

My apologies, I thought I saw unsourced content added, but I was wrong. I do have trouble following the changes you have made in some places, where I think it looks like you have moved content from in front of one citation to in front of another citation. I still think is best to discuss the changes you want to make on this talk page. Donald Albury 14:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

* "This is due to them being largely immune to predators, which would otherwise kill off many of the individuals with significant parasite loads" -- should be reworded -- difficult to understand for us non-zoologists as written

* "rhinoceroses" (plural) not "rhinoceros"

* "They appear to have self-awareness, and possibly show concern for dying and dead individuals of their kind" -- remove "possibly". They are very aware of death and usually show concern for fellow pachyderms: mothers carry dead calfs, "bury" dead mates with sticks, herds sometimes seek vengeance, attracted to bones of their own kind, etc (see [4]).

* "Gestation in elephants typically lasts between one and a half and two years" -- should be "African elephants have the longest gestation period in the animal kingdom, at 22 months. Asian female elephants carry pregnancy between 18 and 22 months" (see [5])

No. CNN and BBC are not reliable sources for facts like those mentioned above, especially in an FA. Pinging LittleJerry to deal with this. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 18:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

:::::CNN, BBC not reliable sources? Zenon.Lach (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Fully agree : this page has been subject to a lengthy peer-review process + does certainly not need newspaper articles as references. – BhagyaMani (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

OK: How about these sources ([6], [7]) for this change:

* "They appear to have self-awareness, and possibly show concern for dying and dead individuals of their kind" -- remove "possibly". (They are very aware of death and usually show concern for fellow pachyderms: mothers carry dead calfs, "bury" dead mates with sticks, herds sometimes seek vengeance, attracted to bones of their own kind, etc.) Zenon.Lach (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

As the hidden message states "Please do not add any more examples to this section. This subject already has its own article". We have the Elephant cognition article. You can add more to there. LittleJerry (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

NOT ADDING ANYTHING -- I only proposed (twice) removing the clearly incorrect adverb "possibly". Zenon.Lach (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

No need to get aggressive. It would be best to move on to less high-quality articles. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 06:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, you should be citing the original scientific articles instead of the press articles talking about them. The article is here. LittleJerry (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

"Elephant population" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Elephant population has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 30 § Elephant population until a consensus is reached. jp×g🗯️ 03:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2024

Someone has vandalized the introduction to this article and the information is unable to be restored due to the semi-protected status. Adamqp (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC) Adamqp (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

 Already done as per revision 1245856314. MadGuy7023 (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

What kind

What kind of elephant did Hanibal use when he was on his way to Rome? Peter Horn User talk 20:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

This page is for discussing improvements to the article. Questions such as yours are best asked at the reference desk. I will give you a clue. If you read through Hannibal, you will find a link to the subspecies of elephant that the Carthaginians used. Donald Albury 23:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Peter Horn User talk 21:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk: what is an elephant?

The page as it is mainly describes only the three living elephant species. As far is I know, and according to the wiki page, Paleoloxodon species can beyond a doubt be called elephants, yet even these are barely touched upon. Any other elephantids are not discussed at all, except as the relatives of elephants. However, that is not the main issue here. The issue I raise is that we need to do some research to find out where to formally draw the boundary between ‘elephant’ and other terms for elephantids and proboscidean species. For istance in some cases, elephantid relatives are referred to as ‘elephants’, but they should not be considered so. CoastRedwood (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Elephant may refer to:

1: Any members of the family Elephantidae, discounting mammoths

2: (informal usage) Any close relatives of Elephantidae

3: Some narrower vague boundary I haven’t figured out. CoastRedwood (talk) 03:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

This is a Featured Article, i.e. it has undergone multiple reviews to attain this status. It certainly does not need refs to websites in the lead nor refs to blogs. I recommend you read some WP guidelines like WP:LEAD and WP:BLOGS before you make any more changes. BhagyaMani (talk) 09:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I have removed both any lead references and blog references CoastRedwood (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. We have articles for elephantids and proboscideans. When someone says elephant, 99.9% of the time they will be referring to one of the three living species of elephants, not any of the extinct species. The point of an encyclopedia article is to be useful to the reader, not to form a nice phylogenetically accurate tree, which is why our articles on reptiles, amphibians, and fish don't spend time explaining the characteristics of birds, amniotes, and tetrapods. AryKun (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The article is about elephants, so it has to describe them. If nothing else, Palaeoloxodon species need inclusion, as they are beyond a doubt elephants. CoastRedwood (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

It has to describe what most people would use the word elephants to define. Most people would use it to define the three living species of elephants. Including Palaeoloxodon is pedantry, and a particularly asinine form of it. We acknowledge that a niche group of people use the word elephant in its phylogenetic sense, which is why there is a hatnote right on top of the article leading to the article about that phylogenetic group. AryKun (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

It is not pedantry. The idea of an elephant is vague, but modelled in the appearance of the living species. People want to learn about elephants, including extinct species. Palaeoloxodon is almost identical to modern elephants, no more different from living species than the African and Asian elephants are to one another, is genetically close to modern elephants, and is referred to as an elephant species every time anyone describes it, scientist or layperson. So yeah, safe to say it’s an elephant CoastRedwood (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The point isn't whether they're elephants. This article isn't about elephants, it's about living elephants. We have an article about all elephants, it's named Elephantidae and is literally the first thing linked on the page if anyone is interested in learning about it. We can only use the name elephant for one of these articles because of how our links work, and we use it for this article (the one about living elephants) because that is what 99% of people are referring to when they say elephant. We could call it Living elephants, but that is a stupid title and does not follow WP:COMMONNAME. If you have an issue with WP:Article titles, feel free to take it to the village pump. AryKun (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

That’s redundant, because each species has their own article. Might as well lump Palaeoloxodon into the article, because the article is generalising CoastRedwood (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Otherwise just get rid of the article CoastRedwood (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

That's as stupid as saying moth should be deleted because all the lepidopteran superfamilies excluding Papilionoidea already have their own articles. This article isn't about the word elephant. It's about a thing, the thing being the set of the three living species of elephantids. If you want to have an article with information about all elephantids, Elephantidae is right there, please stop being stubbornly annoying about the name this article has. AryKun (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

My point is, this article is meant to generalise elephants and be a single point of information about all of them, but if this article is just going to exclude Palaeoloxodon despite their definitive status as elephants, then it’s failing at generalising all elephant species (which all have their own articles). So that makes the article somewhat redundant CoastRedwood (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

More importantly, I never said this article should be deleted, I only ever sought to make the above point CoastRedwood (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not meant to generalize all elephant species, it's meant to generalize all living elephant species, because that's what most people mean when they say elephant. Please stop unilaterally editing the article in a way that worsens the prose for no tangible benefit that I can see. The current wording already states that the article restricts its scope to the three living species that are the only extant members of the Elephantidae and also offers a link to Elephantidae for anyone who wants to read about elephants sensu lato. AryKun (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Somebody has added an entry about Palaeoloxodon’s size in the anatomy section (not me) CoastRedwood (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Where does it make clear that? CoastRedwood (talk) 23:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

"Three living species are currently recognised...They are the only surviving members of the family Elephantidae and the order Proboscidea; extinct relatives include mammoths and mastodons." AryKun (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

In that case the article contradicts itself because Palaeoloxdon is in ‘groups included’ along with Loxodonta and Elephas and I didn’t put it there

The article thinks Palaeoloxodon is an elephant CoastRedwood (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

At this point we should focus on finding a consensus between us about what the article should be about CoastRedwood (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

This article should be about what people refer to when they say elephant, i.e. the three living species. This topic would need an article in any case, because it is a distinct group of species (albeit paraphyletic) which shares many characteristics and which a massive amount of people want to read about. This is the same reason we have articles on moths, birds of prey, and any number of paraphyletic taxa that are culturally important. You have an issue with this article being called elephant and not dealing with all members of Elephantidae. I keep telling you that that's because a. people always use the term elephant to refer to these three species and b. 99% of time, when someone says elephant, they are using the word to refer to one of these three species. From a, b, and WP:COMMONNAME, you will get the reasoning for why this article is called elephant. It's the same reason why bird leads to crown group Aves instead of Avialae or Avemetatarsalia, because that is not what readers are looking for when they search for birds. If you still have a problem with the article title, start an RM. AryKun (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I only ever meant that as this article is about elephants in general it should include them.

A layperson (our audience) might not consider Stegotetrabelodon an elephant, so we might not include that here. But the same layperson would definitely see Palaeoloxodon as an elephant, in the everyday sense.

If some obscure insect can be confidently and definitively called a moth, then that would warrant inclusion in a moth article.

Also I meant consensus between all editors, and that will take time. CoastRedwood (talk) 06:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I have no problem with the article title, the issue is more the exclusion.

Your arguments for it are as follows

A: This article is for specifically only the 3 living elephant species.

B: 99.9% of people think of one of 3 living elephant species when reading this article, so there is no point in including other species.

My arguments against them:

A: other editors seem not to agree with your viewpoint, because Palaeoloxodon is included as an elephant, according to this article, and minor details about it exist.

B: The extinct Palaeoloxodon, at least, is not obscure. As for the other elephantids, they probably are, aside from mammoths.

Also, independently from that, the concept of an ‘elephant’ stems from comparisons with the living elephantids, which is why gompotheres and Stegontids can end up being called elephants. You claim that people do not come here to read about extinct elephantids. Many have come here to read about elephants, specifically any species that fit what one imagines an elephant to be. This includes extinct taxa. Some extinct elephantids (at least Palaeoloxodon) were enough like today’s surviving elephantids to be called elephants.

The fact that this ‘elephant’ article goes so in depth about living elephants but treats extinct ones as non existent is actually slightly irritating. CoastRedwood (talk) 09:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

That vague boundary is considered by the article itself. At the top of the article, as a header, there is ‘for close extinct relatives, see Elephantidae’, thus implying some Elephantidae species can be excluded from the definition of elephants. This could just be because of mammoths (elephantids that are not usually called elephants), or there could be others. CoastRedwood (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The exclusion is because the article is trying to be useful to the reader, the overwhelming majority of whom click onto here to read about living elephants. This is an encyclopedia article, not a linguistic debate about which animals should be called elephants. AryKun (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

CoastRedwood, you've also used poor or inaccessible sources. For example, how are we suppose to access "van der Made, Jan (January 2014). La Cuna de la Humanidad. Museo Arquelógico Regional", particularly since its a different language. You don't give a page number for "Origin and Evolution of the Elephantidae" which contains the information supporting the text. In addition, you cite New World Encyclopedia which appears to copy information from Wikipedia. LittleJerry (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

That is a seperate issue, but the first citation’s title is in a different language, and I don’t understand it either. But there was English text I could read, so I cited it. For the second one, the page number is 5, and I made a mistake not including it. As for the New World Encyclopedia citation, there are differences between it and Wikipedia, but feel free to remove it at your leisure, as it’s not vital anyway. CoastRedwood (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

For the first one, another editor cited it as:

but I decided to cite the book. CoastRedwood (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Consensus on topic of article/User:AryKun’s odd opinions

Whether this article should be about living elephants, or about any elephantids that can confidently be called elephants, there seems to be no consensus on. User:AryKun seems to believe the former, but it seems many other editors, noticing the exclusion of extinct elephantids, have decided to include information about them and treat Palaeoloxodon as elephants. It would seem User:AryKun is in the minority. If all elephantids are to be considered elephants, then this article would merge with Elephantidae, but possibly there should be discretion as to what elephant is taxa would fit the idea of what an ‘elephant’ is, so that elephants are treated separately from elephantids. Without a doubt, Palaeoloxdon should be included, and indeed is already listed as one of the taxa that are called elephants (in the info box). We need to establish consensus on these issues, and if necessary carry out research on the topic of what definition of ‘elephant’ should be used for the article. CoastRedwood (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

It is hardly justifiable to exclude Palaeoloxdon species, because they are certainly elephants in the common sense. Also, the article seems to treat these species as elephants too CoastRedwood (talk) 03:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Despite that, I’ve reverted the edits that treat Palaeoloxodon and mammoths, as well as other extinct elephantids, as elephants. I don’t want this either, it seems to just be User:AryKun’s perspective that would wish this. CoastRedwood (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

• I mean personally, I've never understood the borders of the word "elephant". If you show a random person a picture of Deinotherium, they'd tell you it's a kind of elephant. If you ask someone what a mammoth is, they'll tell you it's a kind of elephant. Who is defining "elephant"? According to this article, it's not a taxon, it's some arbitrarily drawn thing, justified by something not specified Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 08:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

  In a stricter sense, ‘elephant’ can mean all elephantids, barring (as far as I know) mammoths. But things like Stegotetrabelodon (an elephantid) or Gompotherium might not exactly register as elephants, they superficially resemble them, but they would just look like a weird version of elephants. So there might be a stricter boundary that excludes some elephantids other than mammoths. CoastRedwood (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm outside and can't type paragraphs of reasoning, but stop being an asshat. Butchering an article to prove your stupid point after a discussion that involved three people is borderline vandalism. If you think you have a point, go notify WP:MAMMAL of the discussion instead of being a whiny idiot. AryKun (talk) 09:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

How can you say I was ‘butchering’ an article when are the one whose idea it was to say ‘only the 3 living elephants are elephants for the purposes of the article’? According to your opinion regarding the subject of the article, my edits were desirable. I’m confused why you reverted the edits since they match your belief that the article’s scope should be restricted to the 3 living elephant species.

Besides that, what you said really contributes nothing to this discussion. We (as a whole) still have no consensus on where to put the line of the term ‘elephant’ for the article’s purposes. I wouldn’t go to WP:MAMMAL at this point in time, as this issue specifically relates to this one article, though I might later on. CoastRedwood (talk) 09:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, at this point it seems many editors would agree with me in that this article’s scope includes Palaeoloxodon, judging by the versions I reverted. But as I said, there’s no real consensus yet. So, I’ll just leave this up until consensus can be established CoastRedwood (talk) 09:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

CoastRedwood, please stop making unconstructive edits to this FA article. Multiple users have already reverted your edits. Its time to back away. LittleJerry (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Issuei in etymology section

I added the following passage to the etymology section:

The word elephant can be used to refer to any members of the family Elephantidae, the so-called "true elephants". This is the proper usage of the term, and this usage can extend to its most primitive member, Stegotetrabelodon. In the case of Stegodibelodon, some people do not consider it a "true elephant" despite its placement within Elephantidae. Members of the elephantid genus Mammuthus are referred to as mammoths, including the iconic woolly mammoth, but sometimes these are grouped with the other elephantid species as ‘elephants’. The term is sometimes used to describe animals related to elephantids (such as gomphotheres and stegodontids) but that are outside the family Elephantidae.

However, for reasons that I’ve no idea of, User:Hemiauchenia has reverted them. I cannot see why this passage would be irrelevant to the article, as it deals with the usage of the word elephant. CoastRedwood (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

You've already been told multiple times not to make these edits until you get a consensus. The developing consensus at WikiMammal is that this article is about living elephants. And why are you still citing New World? It copies Wikipedia LittleJerry (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I really don’t see what that consensus has to do with this specific passage. Whether or not extinct Elephantidae get included, whatever editors think about that, the article should speak about the different meanings of the word ‘elephant’, shouldn’t it? This is consistent with other articles like the elephant one where terminology is a bit informal.CoastRedwood (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

No. That's your answer. The article now states above. "This article is primarily about living elephants, for their close extinct relatives, see Elephantidae". So discussions on use of the term 'elephant', is not important. LittleJerry (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)