Talk:Donkey/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Animal Farm Reference Error

Since the page is currently protected, I am unable to correct the erroneous publication date of George Orwell's Animal Farm. The entry cites 1951 as the publication date. In fact, Animal Farm was published in 1945 in England. It was first published in the U.S. in 1946 by Harcourt, Brace and Company, New York. (source original book and Wikipedia "Animal Farm" entry). Hopefully someone will make the correction.

'mockery' broken link

I have no idea how to fix this, but under 'Communication' the word 'mockery' is hyperlinked nd it directs to another article about a silent movie from 1927 about the Russian Revolution. Not exactly, I don't imagine, relevant to braying sounds made by donkeys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.151.246 (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to fix it if you can. Montanabw^(talk) 03:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Domestic donkey breeds

There exists a reliable list of approved donkey breeds (prior those of Europien Union) at German Wiki (easy to read without translation): Liste der Eselrassen Is there any animosity to edit Domestic donkey breeds - I have no edit rights yet. Szamar (talk) 10:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Irish proverb for addition

Another proverb would be "Ní dhéanfadh an saol capall ráis d'asal" Irish (Gaelic) for - life cannot make a race horse out of an ass I don't know why I cannot just edit the page myself though, must be new wiki rules :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donalldubh (talk • contribs) 05:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Protected pages need you to be a wikipedian with a user name for a set number of days. Try again in a few days...Montanabw^(talk) 21:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey JLAN--

If you want to use them, some sources on feeding donkeys used at Equine_nutrition#Special_feeding_issues_for_mules_and_donkeys: UK site FAO info and cool article from Africa Montanabw^(talk) 18:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Ty, will look. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Named refs?

Does anyone have any objection to changing the referencing system of this article to named refs, so that they can be collected in the reflist at the foot instead of spread throughout the text? If not, I will make the change in a few days. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

As long as I don't have to help! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 16:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

First of all, a bit of a technicality on the terminology. "Named references" can be used with either in-text referencing or at-the-end of the article referencing. It simply refers to the fact that the reference is "named" so that a reference can be easily duplicated. The type of referencing that you're talking about (at the end of the article) is actually called "list defined references". I personally don't like list defined references, as I find them to be hard to edit when I'm trying to fix a specific part of an article (if I want to tweak a particular bit of text with a new reference, for example, I have to edit two different places). However, since you are doing a significant amount of cleanup, you're essentially the lead author on this, and so if you want to change the references, then go for it. Dana boomer (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, list-defined is what I meant of course, brain firing on only three cylinders as usual. It's no big deal, and I don't want to make a change that's unpopular. I myself like to have all the refs in a list so that I can pick them up and use them elsewhere without having to search the whole article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Both approaches have merit. I have to use the find command no matter which way it goes, so no opinion here. I think JLAN did just become lead editor, though. Unless someone else has a project in the sandbox somewhere...  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 21:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

North American donkey

A good deal of material about North American donkeys was boldly added to the article recently, overwriting a certain amount of valid but unreferenced material that was already there. It seemed to me that between the two there was enough to make a stub for the North American donkey, which had no article. So instead of just reverting and discussing, I started the article and moved the stuff there. The process is not complete (some stuff on mammoth donkeys still to be moved), and the article is no more than a tiny start. Two editors to date have attempted to reinsert the material I moved. Apart from being rather poor manners (the cycle is supposed to be Bold–revert–discuss, not Bold–revert–start warring), it is kind of unproductive as the same stuff (expanded, with improved references etc., though still far from perfect) is now in the American donkey article. In case anyone thinks I've missed anything that should have been kept, here's what I removed of was recently added:

These were used to breed mules for expeditions to mainland America, with males preferred for pack animals and the females for riding. The first shipment of mules, including three jacks and twelve jennies, arrived in Mexico from Cuba ten years after the conquest of the Aztecs. Mules were used in silver mines, and each Spanish outpost in the empire bred its own mules from its own jack. Donkeys arrived in large numbers in the western United States during the nineteenth century gold rushes, as pack animals and for use in mines and ore-grinding mills. The major use of donkeys came to an end with the end of the mining boom and the introduction of railroads in the West. With little value, many animals were turned loose to become the populations of free-roaming donkeys that inhabit the West today. Miniature donkeys originally developed on Sicily and Sardinia in the Mediterranean, but are now almost extinct on those islands. Breeders in the United States have spent decades breeding what they term the Miniature Mediterranean Donkey, a mix of Sicilian and Sardinian strains, following the establishment of a breed registry in 1958.

and the older stuff removed by Dana Boomer:

It is from this bloodline that many of the mules which the Conquistadors used while they explored the Americas were produced. Shortly after the United States became independent, President George Washington imported the first mammoth jack stock into the country. Because the existing Jack donkeys in the New World at the time lacked the size and strength he sought to produce quality work mules, he imported donkeys from Spain and France, some standing over 1.63 m tall. One of the donkeys Washington received from the Marquis de Lafayette, named "Knight of Malta", stood 1.43 m and thus was regarded as a great disappointment. Viewing this donkey as unfit for producing mules, Washington instead bred Knight of Malta to his jennys and, in doing so, created an American line of Mammoth Jacks (a breed name that includes both males and females). Despite these early appearances of donkeys in America, the donkey did not find widespread distribution in America until it was found useful as a pack animal by miners, particularly the gold prospectors, of the mid-19th century. Miners preferred this animal due to its ability to carry tools, supplies, and ore. Their sociable disposition and adaptation to human companionship allowed many miners to lead their donkeys without ropes. They simply followed behind their owner. As mining became less an occupation of the individual prospector and more of an industrial underground operation, the miners' donkeys lost their jobs, and many were simply turned loose into the American deserts. Descendants of these donkeys, now feral, can still be seen roaming the Southwest today.

By the early 20th century, donkeys began to be used less as working animals and instead kept as pets in the United States and other wealthier nations, while remaining an important work animal in many poorer regions. The increased popularity of the donkey as a pet in the USA was seen in the appearance of the miniature donkey in 1929. Robert Green imported miniature donkeys to the United States and was a lifetime advocate of the breed and said of it, "Miniature donkeys possess the affectionate nature of a Newfoundland, the resignation of a cow, the durability of a mule, the courage of a tiger, and the intellectual capability only slightly inferior to man's."

I have not yet had time to even glance at the history of the Mammoth Jack, so that stuff about Washington and so on is in limbo atm. I'll try to deal with it soon (unless someone else wants to?)

Hmm, I now realise that more than this has been removed from the article - there was a section on donkeys in warfare, now gone, it seems. OK, the bit about the British food writer was patently tripe, but was the rest of it removed for good reason? I had a sort of idea that removing referenced material was frowned on? What else has been removed, I wonder? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Please stop removing the referenced info that I added without discussion. First, a summary about 500 years of history on 2 continents that is a (short) paragraph long is not undue weight, especially not compared to what was already there. My (fully referenced) history section included the majority of the referenced information already in the article, and removed an undue weight on the US that was present. I also referenced a good deal of the non-US info that was already there, although I rewrote it somewhat, so it wasn't completely "overwritten". If you want to readd some of the above information (with sources) I don't really have any problem with it, but I couldn't find where this information came from, and it was completely unreferenced, so I removed it. The information is only duplicated because you made it so, and there is no reason that a short summary (i.e. one paragraph) should be in this article with a link pointing to the main article - actually, that's the entire point of WP:Summary style. The same goes for the miniature and mammoth donkeys - they are viable subtypes, and giving brief (one-two sentence) summaries of their history is not undue weight. Just because the information can be found in another article doesn't mean that a summary shouldn't also be found here. The donkeys in warfare section was partially unreferenced and partially referenced. The referenced portion was included (although slightly rewritten and with additional/different references) in the last paragraph of the history section. If there is further information from this section that you wish included, again, I have no problem if you can find a reference for it, and it would be nice to have a better ref for the Italian mountain division stuff - a British food writer is not a particularly reliable source for military history. It was also partially too detailed - the entire first paragraph of the section focused on the use of one donkey in World War I - way too much weight on one donkey in a history of millions. Dana boomer (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think that it matters that you added it without discussion, though it might have been helpful to post the stuff you overwrote here for others to review. You boldly added it, I've removed it, now let's discuss it, and indeed hope that some others are interested in doing so too. As for references, the part I've posted above has two; one is a dead link to the International Museum of the Horse (the link should be this one, I think, and since a book is quoted there it should be properly cited) and the other is ... wait for it ... OSU again! A question: was it a bad idea to make an article for the North American donkey? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

JLAN, please keep the material in question in the article. It is far from WP:UNDUE, and the solution is to discuss adding more useful, quality info on other parts of the world, not to make an article poorer and shorter by removing US material It was tacky to remove it to create a fairly useless one-paragraph stub article, though you certainly can create all the new articles you want if you do so per wikipedia guidelines, but there is no reason to remove the material here. Dana is a respected editor and is not edit-warring with you; she is making helpful suggestions about what to do to have your suggested edits work. She has a willingness to work with many editors all across wikipedia and it is YOUR responsibility to stop reverting things back to your own version over and over again. Discuss means discuss, and the guidelines clearly state that sourced material is not to be randomly removed when there is a dispute. It needs to stay for now. Montanabw^(talk) 23:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec with Montana) Yes, IMH changes their website on an almost weekly basis - the link worked when I posted it here. As for OSU, is there something wrong with the information? Are you challenging it? I thought the issue was what content should go in this article and what should go in other articles? As for the North American donkey article: no, I don't think it was a bad idea. There is a lot of information out there on donkeys in North America, and I'm definitely not arguing that it should all go in this article. I do think, however, that we need a summary of the history of donkeys in North (and South) America here, and two sentences on when they arrived there doesn't cut it. A paragraph (like the one that I wrote and would like to see in the article) is a good start; however, the way the article was before, with half of the history section focused on just the US, is definitely undue weight. The North American donkey article is a good idea, however, as I said before, just because the information is over there doesn't mean that we should cut all mention of it out of here - we need a decent summary of it here, and a decent summary of over 500 years of history on two continents is more than two sentences long. I don't argue that other areas of the history section need to be expanded - I just don't have the source material in front of me. The answer here, IMO, is not to cut out the N. and S. America info, it's to expand the info on their history in Asia, Europe, Africa and Australia. Dana boomer (talk) 23:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

JLAN, can you tell me what you see when you click on the link that is currently ref #36? I get a message that says "Errore nel caricamento della TavolaDati non caricati correttamente o territorio non valido per l'anno selezionato", which I think is some sort of an error message and is definitely not anything that resembles a source. Dana boomer (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean now, thank you for pointing it out. Clicking the link gives an error. Pasting it into the browser address (which is how I tested it earlier) loads the page for me. Please confirm that it does for you too. It is entitled Tavola AMR13 - Bestiame macellato a carni rosse - (Gennaio - Dicembre) - Anno 2010. It appears that Wikipedia is for reasons of its own stripping out the {{!}} from the link and thus breaking it. I will ask at the village pump. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yup, it works now. Thanks for fixing. Dana boomer (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I've modified it, perhaps fixed it. Could you kindly confirm it still works for you? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it still works. Thanks for your help. Dana boomer (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit summary

An edit summary reads (in part): "Edits not in line with original sources, a couple claims, while correct, not cited or not in source cited. Can't find evidence for "jennet" other than in Canada."

With regard to the first point, it would be helpful if you'd point out which facts you find to be unreferenced or not in the cited source, perhaps by adding the appropriate tags. If the sources are those that were previously in this section, it'd be especially helpful if you'd quote what they actually do say, as I'm not able to access all of them, and have therefore kept the cite with the fact that preceded it. Jennet is in Webster etc.

Hidden text read : "this is an introductory overview statement for the section" and "kept direct quote, as ponies are easier keepers than horses, the nuance is significant to the author"

With regard to the first point, when did we start to have a lead section for each section? It merely duplicated material that was presented again further down the page. On the second point, this may be right, IDK. Would you kindly quote the whole passage (to which I do not have access) to facilitate discussion? Thanks. It's quite possible, however, that there is no nuance beyond ponies being generally of comparable size to donkeys and horses being larger. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I read the original material and upgraded this section a while back. You changed around a bunch of stuff and screwed up all the refs, you also paraphrased in ways that changed the nuance (the bit on ponies being specifically mentioned was in the original source, Please confine yourself to things you understand, not what you don't. Montanabw^(talk) 00:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Straw hay?

Can anyone tell me what is meant by "straw hay" here? In British usage they are different things, almost opposites. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Reads to me like it was written by someone who didn't understand equine terminology, I think it should have read "straw instead of hay". We don't say "straw hay" in the USA. Basically, the concern is that straw has empty calories and that feeding it would cause malnutrition in the donkey. Americans in general think straw should not be fed to animals, it's just bedding. (Some people even think it causes animals to bloat or get colic and are afraid to bed horses on straw for that reason) I personally think differently on this and have seen evidence from European management of certain types of straw being useful as a supplement to bulk out a calorie-restricted diet, but old habits die hard. Montanabw^(talk) 00:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. It made no sense to me. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a problem we see in a lot of articles that aren't written by people who actually know horse nomenclature. We have enough problems with legitimate regional colloquialisms, adding in some bureaucrat in a cubicle... sigh. Montanabw^(talk) 19:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Jennet

An edit summary reads "A jennet is an extinct horse breed, the term used with donkeys is less common, jenny preferred." This statement is incorrect and, since it is an edit summary, perforce unreferenced. The misconception appears to have been first introduced into the article with this edit, and to represent the personal opinion of one editor. Rather than continue to add references for jennet in the article, I'm suggesting that in this case the American Livestock Breeds Conservancy be accepted as an "expert witness" and as definitive on this matter. And that a comment such as "Please confine yourself to things you understand, not what you don't" can sometimes WP:Boomerang. Oh, and by the way, the jennet horse is not extinct at all, although that name is no longer used for it. We have an article on the living breed in this wiki; but of course you knew that, right? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

A list including both words in alphabetical order is not "proof." If we were to use that list, we'd be renaming this article "Ass" as the primary term. (And I've never heard anyone say "horse mule" in my life!!) The ancient jennet has descendants in breeds such as the criollos, pasos, etc., but a medieval "type" is not the same as a modern breed as purebred breeds are understood today. The point is the ancient jennet is not to be confused with a donkey. There are a bunch of people in the USA who are claiming some spotted crossbred should be the "Spanish Jennet Horse," but that isn't more than yet another commercial venture. Both jenny and jennet are in use, but there is a difference between a popular colloquialism and a proper term, it's a lot like how some people still say "horse" when they mean "stallion." Not entirely incorrect, but due to its imprecision, best to be avoided. Montanabw^(talk) 19:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Foals

An edit summary reads "Just like 'filly foal' and 'colt foal' unnecessary colloquialisms, need more than Canadian source for this use here" as a justification for removal of the phrase "either a jack foal or a jennet foal", which I added here to replace the previous quite incorrect text "a foal (male: colt, female filly)", which was added without references with this edit in 2007. I agree that so obvious a fact need not necessarily be mentioned, but suggest that after more than four years of misinformation, it should be left in the article for a while at least. I can't think why the government of Alberta should not be considered a reliable source for an everyday fact so unlikely to be challenged; but if you insist I will add another eight or ten references from Australia, Great Britain and the USA from this search, though I don't see how such insistence could really help to build an encyclopaedia. None of the terms "filly foal", "colt foal", "jack foal" and ""jennet foal" is a colloquialism; they are the standard formal terms. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

"jack foal", like "colt foal" or (my favorite) "horse colt" are common colloquialisms in some places but not others. We are just after the term for a baby. If "foal" is the word, then that's all we need. The Alberta site is pretty good, but it isn't perfect, (I mean really, you think a government is always right? LOL!) and on terminology, it isn't necessarily what the whole world says or does (I live within a few hours' drive from the Alberta border and visit periodically. I can assure you that there are many local colloquialisms up there.) I am not sure what you mean by "four years of misinformation" as the article is older than that and has only recently had any serious work done on it, mostly by Dana (I remember giving is a cursory runthrough and basic cleanup a few years back, but didn't do a lot of in-depth work). Montanabw^(talk) 19:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What I mean by "four years of misinformation" is that on 21 November 2007 erroneous information was added to the article, specifically: that young male donkeys are called "colts" (they aren't); that young female donkeys are called "fillies" (they aren't); and that "jennet" is a "less correct" term for a female donkey than "jenny" (it isn't). The editor who introduced those errors was User:Montanabw. That erroneous information has sat here for four years uncorrected. While normally I would agree that it is quite unnecessary to specify that a young male donkey is a "jack foal" etc., as it is totally obvious, I suggest that in view of those uncorrected errors, and the fact that Wikipedia articles are often cited elsewhere, the accepted terminology should stay in the article at least for now. I also suggest that if an editor believes that the word "jennet" is not the correct term for a female donkey, despite the evidence of the sources cited, then reliable sources should be adduced that confirm that belief. One editor's personal opinion may be interesting, or indeed not, but either way it has no weight or relevance here; compared to it, yes, the Government of Alberta is "always right", because it is a reliable source. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You fail to understand that a reliable source is not "always right" -- you know you are twisting the wikipedia guidelines. It IS correct for Alberta, presumably, and probably many other places. MY POINT is that "Jenny" is also correct, and probably more common. As for colt and filly, that far back, my first edit to that article corrected the error that all "baby" donkeys were called "colts" -- I fixed it to foal and explained the colt/filly distinction (and this terminology IS used in some places) a lot of my work was cursory cleanup on dozens of articles, usually just reworking language there at the time, I undoubtably had a source, but simply didn't cite it, as at that time we didn't do as much work on citation on wiki as we do now. As for the terms "donkey filly" is certainly about as common as "jennet foal" both closely followed by jenny filly I suspect regional variation on this, as a jack or jenny is an adult animal, and even you must agree that we don't say "stallion foal" or "mare foal" -- if there are no sources that provide a juvenile term for donkey foals, so be it. But for now, the issue can be decided by just saying "foal" -- it avoids the controversy altogether. Montanabw^(talk) 23:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Dubious, relevance

A dubious tag has been placed on the statement "Little is known scientifically of the minimum food and water requirements of working donkeys", which is referenced to Elisabeth Svendsen. Is there any reason to doubt her expertise? Is there a substantial corpus of academic work on minimum food and water requirements for working donkeys that refutes her claim?

A relevance tag has been placed on the Feral donkeys and wild asses section. What in particular seems to be irrelevant? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Dubious because the source is flat-out wrong. How about 752 scientific articles that include the phrase "feeding donkeys". I also ran across several hundred with the phrase "donkey nutrition" but some of those referenced eating donkeys, not donkeys eating. There is plenty of material out there. It's quite clear what the animal needs, even if there are fewer studies on donkeys than for horses. Also, as none of the rest of us can access your source (unless you can link it from Google books?) the comment could even be taken out of context. I think that one sentence could be tossed. The "relevance" tag was the wrong one, I thought it would just be a small tag, whoops --I removed it and replaced it with another "dubious" tag, which is the better fit. My point on the straw thing is hay has biotin too, as do a lot of other things, so it seems irrelevant to say that straw in the diet provides biotin, and it's dubious that straw is even a good source of biotin. See this article on biotin Montanabw^(talk) 19:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's see, who is more likely to be right on this particular matter, an internationally known expert who spent more than 40 years working on the welfare of donkeys, particularly in under-developed countries, or User:Montanabw, I wonder? But just for a moment, let's assume it's the latter. To refute Svendsen's statement, you'd need to cite a good number of reliable sources that deal specifically with the minimum food and water requirements of working donkeys; obviously, if there are many such sources, Svendsen is "flat-out wrong", and I'll happily remove the sentence; but you can't reasonably suggest that she is wrong until you've done the research - unless, of course, it is just a personal opinion, which has no weight whatsoever here. I look forward to reading the list.

On biotin, you'd really need to take this up with the Government of Alberta; but if you want to prove here that that statement is incorrect, then please supply a list of references to reliable sources that state unequivocally that straw in the diet does not aid the production of biotin in donkeys. The article you recommend contains no mention of straw, hay, or donkeys. What is its relevance? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Svendsen's work is 13 or 14 years old, I provided you with a whole list of research articles on Donkey nutrition, most within the last ten years. Maybe when she started 40 years ago, no one knew squat, but things have improved. And either way, the statement is irrelevant here, we need to state what IS known. On biotin, I just did provide references on this also, above. I'm not saying that straw doesn't contain biotin, and I'm not saying that biotin is good for hooves and hair, both statements are true, I object to the implication that straw is a good source for biotin, because it is not, as evidenced by the Ker.com source above. And to the extent the Alberta extension office says it is, they ARE wrong. (forages in general are not a very concentrated source of biotin, which is why it is added as a feed supplement) Really, if you weren't on this "everything American is wrong" vendetta to prove that I am not as intelligent as yourself, (you clearly think you know everything) you'd get off your ass (pun intended) and find out the full picture, not just look for evidence to promote your version of it. Montanabw^(talk) 23:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Locomotion

Couldn't find this in the article or at the Equus (genus) page: do donkeys trot, canter and gallop like horses (and zebras)? Steinbach (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Good question, and yes. I think some may also pace, but I am not sure of this.

Donkey- don qui xote

In Spain some english learning teachers explain that word Donkey came from an abbreviation to the name "Don Quijote" in a contemporary english translation of Don Quijote book, where there is a famous and charming donkey named Dapple in english version.85.251.106.11 (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

See folk etymology. Lots of people come up with all sorts of nonsense explanation of things. They are not encyclopedic. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 20:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Donkeys and asses

The introductory section is quite confusing on the question of whether "donkey" and "ass" refer to the same animal. Some sentences speak of "donkeys or asses", some about donkeys, some about asses, and some about "asses and donkeys":

"As beasts of burden and companions, asses and donkeys have worked together with humans for millennia."

For clarity's sake, I suggest that as long as the title of the article is Donkeys', that the first sentence be changed to:

"The donkey (or as it is otherwise known, the ass), Equus africanus asinus,[1][2] is a domesticated member of the Equidae or horse family."

instead of:

"The donkey or ass, Equus africanus asinus,[1][2] is a domesticated member of the Equidae or horse family."

And thereafter that the word "donkey" be used exclusively, when referring to the present-day animal.

(Of course it's appropriate to refer to "ass" when referring to "the wild ancestor of the donkey" and when discussing the history of the usage of the two terms "donkey" and "ass".)Daqu (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Correct spelling of Shakespere to Shakespeare

I cannot correct this since the page is semiprotected, and my account is too young.

Whesse (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you can edit in four days, hang in there, two to go! Montanabw^(talk) 17:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixed it. Metsfreak2121 (talk) 12:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Stubbornness and the reason for it

"Donkeys have a notorious reputation for stubbornness, but this has been attributed to a much stronger sense of "self preservation" than exhibited by horses." Well, isn't that just part of the story? Donkeys are

• slower than horses, which means they can't outrun their predators;
• solitary, unlike horses; a pack of wolves or lynxes is no major threat for a herd of healthy horses, while a band of lions can easily take a single donkey.

These things mean that a donkey has more reasons not to venture into something they think is dangerous. The only defense it has is kicking its predator.

No I am still a layman, as you can see from my question above, but I thought these were the main reasons for a donkey's stubborn behaviour. Please tell me if I'm wrong. Steinbach (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Donkeys and Democratic Party

The article states, "The donkey is a common symbol of the Democratic Party of the United States, originating in a cartoon by Thomas Nast of Harper's Weekly in the nineteenth century."

It backs this up with a reference. However, the reference clearly indicates the symbol was in use some 40 years before the cartoon existed. Perhaps it would be better to replace the term "originating" with "popularized". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.96.230 (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4