Talk:Charismatic megafauna

Untitled

Created this page from information deleted from Megafauna some time ago. It didn't make sense for this to redirect to a non-existent section, and I think this is a sufficiently different concept as to deserve its own article. The way, the truth, and the light 23:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

OR

The second paragraph is simply speculation by an editor. Unless it can be sourced up it is OR. BlueValour 01:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

But it can be sourced. I just isn't yet. Hesperian 01:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The first indent of the criteria in WP:OR says "It introduces a theory or method of solution". How can you argue that the second para is not OR when it does just that. Sorry, but the OR tag should go back until this is sourced. BlueValour 01:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't do just that. The key word in your quote is "introduces". The point of OR is that it is unverifiable, because Wikipedia is the first to publish it. If it is merely unverified, then an {{unreferenced}} tag is appropriate but an {{OR}} tag is not.

To put it another way, you should only use an {{OR}} tag if you genuinely believe that Wikipedia is the first to publish this material. If you still think that, even after I have added a further reading section listing articles such as "Assessing Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavior toward Charismatic Megafauna", then go ahead an add the tag back in.

Hesperian 01:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Neat point; OK I'll go along with that. BlueValour 01:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Hesperian 02:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This is from the introduction to "Assessing Knowledge, Attitudes and Behavior toward Charismatic Megafauna. I think it supports most of the key points in the article:

Environmental educators and advocates of all stripes have long recognized the value of particularly appealing animal (and plant) species as a mechanism for capturing the imagination and directing public attention toward conservation and preservation of the natural environment. Popular board games, Web sites, newspaper and magazine articles, television shows, films, and even food products (Feldhamer, Whittaker, Monty, & Weickert, 2002) all feature a variety of these "charismatic megafauna." Examples of common species include the bald eagle, giant panda, red wolf, blue whale, eastern grey kangaroo, and the koala. Many of these species are indeed threatened or endangered, whereas others serve the useful purpose of focusing concern and awareness on otherwise less visible but more subtle and far-reaching problems of ecosystem degradation. Informal education programs at many zoos, aquaria, museums, nature centers, botanic gardens and arboreta, national and state parks, and ecotourist attractions feature these organisms....

Hesperian 02:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Origin of the term?

From where and when did the term "Charismatic megafauna" arise? I recall one of my profs using the phrase back in the early '90s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.139.102 (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hear Hear about where does the name come from

Yeah, I wouldn't exactly call penguins or bald eagles "megafauna". They're little. But they're being called megafauna because of the size of their charisma, not the size of their body, because the conversation of species in general needs to be marketed and this is a marketing technique? I think this is an important elephant (lol) in the room to address. I hovered my mouse over this article link from another Wiki page and saw that they were calling bald eagles megafauna over here. I was bewildered. I wanna know more about this.

YelloJello33

Responding to: But they're being called megafauna because of the size of their charisma, not the size of their body. Megafauna does not refer to the size of species' charisma. A recent article by Moleón et al. (2020) clarifies what megafauna are . Body size is a crucial criteria, though not always sufficient. They suggest a functional definition of megafauna: "the subset of animals among the largest in size that have consistently strong effects on the structure or functioning of a community or an ecosystem." In that definition, penguins or bald eagles can be megafauna because they are among the largest animals within the local animal community, and they disproportionately affect their environment.85.191.78.45 (talk) 09:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

RE:

Ok so I added that information into the article. This that you said: "In that definition, penguins or bald eagles can be megafauna because they are among the largest animals within the local animal community, and they disproportionately affect their environment." YelloJello33 6_29_2021 9:13 PM EST

References

What about other lions and tigers?

Examples include Bengal tigers, African lions, …

Are other tigers and other lions less charismatic? Is the general public (which, I imagine, defines "charismatic") even aware of a distinction? —Tamfang (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: Move to Charismatic species

Charismatic species is a well established term, and in the article space, redirects to this article. In practice, the terms "Charismatic megafauna" and "Charismatic species" are often used interchangeably. However, I think the article title "Charismatic species" is better for two reasons: 1) It parallels similar conservation biology terms like flagship species, umbrella species, keystone species, indicator species, etc, and; 2) is more inclusive of species other than large animals that are referred to as "charismatic". In mycology, there are a number of written sources that talk about the disproportionate attention to "charismatic megafungi" (relatively large and colorful, and often edible, mushrooms) and in botany, a similar discussion of "charismatic plants" (for example, orchids). There are numerous citable examples of this in scientific literature and this article should include some discussion of this. Peter G Werner (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)