Jump to content

Talk:Donkey/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Repetition

"The time lapse involved in rebreeding, and the length of a jenny's gestation, means that a jenny will have fewer than one foal per year. Breeders plan for three foals in four years. Because of this and the longer gestation period, donkey breeders do not expect to obtain a foal every year, as horse breeders often do, but may plan for three foals in four years."

Some repetition going on here ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.67.229 (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I fixed it. Lou Sander (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Homophones?

"By the end of the 17th century, changes in pronunciation of both ass and arse had caused them to become homophones."

Which variety of English is this referring to? It is certainly not the case that the two are pronounced the same by all modern English speakers. Was it once the case, or is this statement inadvertently US-centric?

I just spotted this and agree - if the article wasn't locked I'd edit it. Can someone with editing priveleges please either remove the sentence or introduce the clarification 'in American English...'? and support it with an authoritative reference? 148.64.29.157 (talk) 09:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I've added an extra citation to the source (which was already cited in the following sentence). It refers specifically to usage in Britain. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Re-merging Burro; reworking Present status

There has been a long history of Burro being in and out of this article. A few years ago there were several discussions about re-merging it, all of them failing because of lack of consensus. Now an editor has boldly re-merged it, without even seeking consensus. IMHO the re-merging was done a bit too boldly, with little effort made to fit the addition in with the rest of the article. I've cleaned up the addition, but it still, IMHO, isn't well-integrated with the rest of the article. Nevertheless, boldness is often a pretty good thing, and I think that's the case here.

Unless there is significant opposition, I propose to do the following: 1) move all pre-2016 talk to an archive; this should "reset the table" regarding the status of Burro, Jenny, etc.  Done, 2) rework the "Present status" section. This will include covering the notion that there are recognized breeds of donkey/ass (which is only indirectly acknowledged at present, by referring to the list of breeds), and moving the Burro material either into this section or to another place where it fits. Maybe other changes are called for, but that's what I have in mind right now. Lou Sander (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I did a little more cleanup. I agree with archiving talk. The merge was probably needed. Burros are not really a breed. There are donkey breeds, but "burro" is kind of like "pony"; a size/use classification. As for improvement of the article, someone tried to take this article to GA a few years back, but there was a big brouhaha (I was involved but can't even remember what everyone was upset about) and the effort fizzled. Montanabw(talk) 02:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
@Montanabw: I'm no expert, but I'm confused by the claim, made several times above and in the archived material, that Burro is not a breed. The first reference in the Burro section HERE is what seems to be an authoritative list of ass breeds, organized by country. The list is very long, and includes links to what seem to be experts who follow the breeds in each country. Burro is listed as a breed in Mexico, Nicaragua and the United States. There are similar breeds in several other countries, e.g. Burro criollo in Bolivia and El Salvador. Lou Sander (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm pinging Justlettersandnumbers on this question, as we have discussed it in the past. IMHO, the DAD-IS list is often a questionable source for what constitutes a "breed" (in the USA, for instance, they don't mention dozens of real breeds but list a slang term for a mustang as a separate breed...). "Burro" is a generic catchall word for small donkeys, specified with a height standard in some places, but not others. North American donkeys in particular really have few true standardized "breeds", other than, arguably, the Mammoth Jack and even that one seems questionable. I'm always open to article improvement, we just have to be sure it's actually an improvement. Montanabw(talk) 18:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, I moved away from this area of the project – and indeed the project as a whole – partly because of precisely this matter. My take now is still roughly what it was then, though I've forgotten much of the detail. I think a burro is three things:
  1. a word used to mean "donkey" in some (western?) parts of the United States; this should be covered here with a brief mention, like other alternative names
  2. a feral donkey population in more or less the same area; this is reported to to the FAO as a breed, but there are no donkey breeds as such in the United States and Canada, where donkeys are classified by their size alone – the offspring of a mammoth pair will only be mammoths if they are tall enough, for example, otherwise they will be large standard. Most feral burros are standard, I understand. I think the best place for the content about these – and there should be plenty to write – is at North American donkey (which should also be moved back to that title, as that is its intended scope – it's not about donkeys in North America, imported donkey breeds from elsewhere are not, and should not be, covered there)
  3. a series of closely similar donkey breeds, notably smaller than the US burro population, in many Central and South American countries. I started trying to make an article about the largest of these populations, the Mexican burro, but it got over-run by the two meanings above, so I stopped; but we should certainly have one or more articles about these. "Burro Criollo" might be a suitable title for a blanket article about all of them to avoid a repeat of the over-run effect. Some countries also have a Burro Kentucky, larger than the local breed; that probably does not not need a separate page, but should be mentioned somewhere.
Burro would then presumably be a disambiguation page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
In the USA, I have come to the conclusion that there is absolutely no official definition anywhere, though, roughly, it seems to be used to distinguish bigger donkeys from smaller ones, similar to the (very fuzzy) difference between horse and pony. That said, the feral critters are definitely classed as burros, though the Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 has no definition of "burro" only "wild burro" [1]. For that population, I'm working on the monster that is List of BLM Herd Management Areas and that article has sourced info on 2013 burro populations in the wild. I'm not entirely sure that the Latin American burros are "breeds" any more than the USA ones, other than to the extent they are all landraces. The idea of criollo burro (or vice-versa, whatever works) is a possible solution. The Mexican burro, if a distinct breeding group different from Central and South America might stand alone, because, frankly, most feral burros in the USA are in Arizona and New Mexico anyway, so there could be cross-border populations. The reality is that the poor donkey gets little respect, and little donkey even less. (And no worries if someone wants to move articles around, I have truly ceased to GAF on some of these old disputes, myself. Montanabw(talk) 21:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
As a non-expert in donkeydom, I'm thinking that the "Current status" section should include something about the controversial(?) and consensus-lacking(?) nature of donkey "breeds" among the experts. It has a table that counts numbers of breeds, but this seems (according to discussions above) not to be really solid information, despite the cachet of the FAO. Lou Sander (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
What constitutes a breed is one of those perpetual questions. The FAO takes a view along the lines of "if the people who raise it think it's a breed, then it is". Donkey breeds in some countries (Spain, France, Italy) are clearly characterised and differentiated, while other countries just report "local donkey"; the North American case is an unusual one. The information is what is reported to DAD-IS, and is clearly attributed to the source. I think it's OK as it stands. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
What you say makes a lot of sense. Is it available in any reliable source? The oft-repeated "there are no U.S. donkey breeds" is at odds with the table and with the apparent listing of five separate U.S. breeds in the List of donkey breeds. I may be just a stubborn jackass, but it continues to bother me that burro is shown in the breed lists but not acknowledged as a breed. IMHO we should have at least a few words about this, or at least a reference to the DAD-IS article if it is explained there. People are familiar with "breeds" from the situation around dogs and maybe horses. If it's different for donkeys, that's important, and we should mention it. Lou Sander (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
The concept of a breed in general, we are finding, gets quite heated on wikipedia (see landrace). Essentially, as I understand things, the people who study rare breeds distinguish three stages of breed development, feral breeds, landraces and standardized breeds (the latter being what most people think of - a breed registry, written pedigrees and all). I've come to the conclusion that the donkey, a lot of people simply don't care, which is actually rather sad, as they are still huge contributors to the economic well-being of a lot of people in more remote parts of the world. Montanabw(talk) 08:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2016


118.210.89.68 (talk) 02:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

 Not done as you have not requested a specific change to this article. Altamel (talk) 04:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Donkey. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Brighty of the Grand Canyon

I just added information on the novel and film Brighty of the Grand Canyon to the literature and See Also sections. I was surprised that I have the necessary membership level to do so, on a semi-protected article! I am not confident in the level of my writing in this instance. Did I try to squeeze too much information parenthetically and in the wrong order into one sentence, for the sake of fitting within the existing paragraph structure? Am I allowed to use another Wikipedia article as my only source? Did I quote too much from that article without specific attribution? If someone who knows more than I about standard practices wants to look at and possibly improve this, I'll appreciate it. Gms3591 (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Ass

The opening sentence says, "donkey or ass". As I understand it, all donkeys are asses, but not all asses are donkeys. I realize that the two are often used interchangeably, but perhaps it would be good to distinguish that "ass" is only a synonym in the colloquial sense. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

True. ( See asinus) I'm open to some sources that we can cite to clarify this? Care to see what you can find? Montanabw(talk) 22:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I didn't think it was that complicated. I was just thinking of an explanatory footnote. I can certainly try, but I honestly wouldn't know where to begin looking. While it's quite an honor to have you ask for my help, I wouldn't presume to have anywhere near the level of knowledge that you do about horse-related topics. (Yesterday's Preakness should illustrate that point quite well; my horse barely outran the ambulance. Like Joe E. Lewis, I follow horses that follow horses!) Joefromrandb (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Don't feel bad, racehorses often make asses of us all! LOL! But seriously, I'm kind of buried elsewhere at the moment, so if you find some source materials, at least pop them here at talk and we can look at them! Montanabw(talk) 05:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

"Wild burros"

The description of free roaming North American burros as "wild" isn't quite accurate. They're all descendants of domesticated donkeys brought to the Americas by European colonists, and thus would be better described as feral. Their situation is comparable to that of feral donkeys in Australia or feral camels in Australia.

I'm going to change the label on this image to "feral": File:Wild_Burros.jpg —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 22:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

"Wild" is the common American usage, though. Same goes for mustangs - mustangs are more numerous and more famous than burros, but mustangs are to horses as burros are donkeys. They are near universally referred to as 'wild'. This is partially because of historical misconception - when white Americans first encountered the Plains Indians, the Indians already had horses, which they had acquired some several hundred years earlier via trade with other Indian tribes. The ultimate origin of the horses was Europe, but at the time that was not known, and the assumption was that the horses were native to North America and had been tamed by the Indians independently of Old World horses.
As ought to be abundantly clear by now, Anglo folk don't tend to care if their initial assumptions are wrong or not, when it comes to terminology. Therefore I think it should refer to them as "wild burros" in quotation marks, and note that they are called such but are truly feral rather than wild. Firejuggler86 (talk) 08:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Citation needed for height and weight

In the beginning of section Donkey#Characteristics height and weight is given. However, these cannot be found in reference [15] (The Donkey Society of New South Wales). Furthermore, the link to that reference appears to be dead, so I had to check this archived version.--85.181.51.78 (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

P.S. There are various sources of information in the web stating different heights and weights. Not sure, which one is reliable. E.g. animaldiversity.org write: height of 92 to 143cm and weight of less than 180kg up to about 430kg, which is different from the Wikipedia article (79 to 160cm and 80 to 480kg).--85.181.51.78 (talk) 01:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Donkey. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Donkeys may become extinct in Africa and other localities.

There are a few sentences in the article about donkey skins being sold to China to be made into a gelatinous traditional medicine. The reality is a crisis that seems to be more serious than the mild coverage here. Several of the articles below suggest that donkeys will become extinct in Africa and other localities due to heavy poaching to meet the sharply rising demand for the Chinese remedy.

I heard an NPR story on the car radio some months ago about the situation. It focused on one poor family in Africa whose donkey was stolen. The body was found rotting in the sun with it's hide removed. Not only was it a loss of a valued pet, it helped the family transport their goods to market. With the donkey now dead, they had to rent a donkey and was barely scrapping by. Unfortunately, I can't find that episode tonight, but have found a number of articles that address this crisis. Below are some, but there are many more on the internet.

All the best, Wordreader (talk) 07:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

No donkey in the New Testament story of Jesus's nativity

Will somebody who has editing power over the article please delete the reference in the 'Literature and film' section to the New Testament nativity story: there is no mention of a donkey (it comes from popular imagination). HuPi (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Mexico

Under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey#Present_status the population numbers exclude Mexico, which has about 3.2 million donkeys bringing North America from 0.1% up to about 8% of world donkey population. If the intention was to exclude Mexico, it is far from clear. See e.g. http://www.atnesa.org/donkeys/donkeys-starkey-populations.pdf for more info. This issue also exists at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkeys_in_North_America — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.77.212.129 (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Good point; I have updated that row to say "United States and Canada". As for Donkeys in North America, perhaps that page should be renamed Donkeys in the United States. Danstronger (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Democratic party symbol

The donkey (properly "jackass") as the symbol of the US Democratic symbol didn't originate from the Nast Harper's Weekly cartoon (January 15, 1870). As the source already cited states, it originated during the presidency of (Democrat) Andrew Jackson (1830s) -- as a derogatory reference: Andrew "Jackass" Jackson. The source states that Nast "amplified" it, which could be interpreted as meaning he popularized the association of the jackass with the Democratic party; but, he did not originate it. — 2606:A000:1126:28D:6070:2546:BBB9:1A9E (talk) 05:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2019

In Donkey#Politics, please change X to Y, whereas:

X = 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.
Y = The donkey is a common symbol of the Democratic Party of the United States, originating in the 1830s and became popularized from a cartoon by Thomas Nast of Harper's Weekly in 1870.
  • Per source already cited (feel free to substitute alternate paraphrase from source).

2606:A000:1126:28D:9CD8:92D7:287F:C8F1 (talk) 03:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: I'm not actually seeing any reliable sources for that. ToThAc (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Please see source already cited: [2]

The donkey first appeared as a symbol for the Democratic Party in the 1830s when the Democrat Andrew Jackson was President. The donkey continued in American political commentary as a symbol for the Democratic Party thereafter. Thomas Nast built upon this legacy and used his extraordinary skill to amplify it. For a time, the rooster also served as the symbol of the Democratic Party, but gradually the donkey replaced it in popular usage after the 1880s. Nast first used the donkey as a symbol for the Democratic Party in "A Live Jackass Kicking a Dead Lion" published January 15, 1870, in Harper's Weekly to comment on Northern Democrats (nicknamed Copperheads) dealings with Edwin M. Stanton, Lincoln's Secretary of War.

  • See also: "Andrew Jackson § Accomplishments : New Political Party". Biography. A&E Television Networks.

The negative reaction to the House's decision resulted in Jackson's re-nomination for the presidency in 1825, three years before the next election. It also split the Democratic-Republican Party in two. The grassroots supporters of “Old Hickory” called themselves Democrats and would eventually form the Democratic Party. Jackson's opponents nicknamed him "jackass," a moniker that the candidate took a liking to — so much so that he decided to use the symbol of a donkey to represent himself. That symbol would later become the emblem of the new Democratic Party.


—2606:A000:1126:28D:3873:46A8:372F:FD65 (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 Done Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 08:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed article split

I'm thinking of splitting all the "donkeys in folklore and culture" stuff out of this page into a new one, perhaps Cultural references to donkeys. I recognise that a lot of work has gone into this material, but even so it still tells us exactly nothing about the donkey. Parts of it may be about British politics, Christian scripture, Jewish culture, whatever, but not one word of it is about the donkey itself, only its use as a symbol or example of something else. I'll probably go ahead with this in a few days' time unless there is any sort of objection voiced here – in which case of course I won't, but will instead seek a wider consensus. The page is quite cumbersome as it stands, and a split might encourage some on-topic contributions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Now  Done. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2021

Under the Scientific and Common Names section, the phrase "may be of Welsh or Gypsy origin" should be changed to "[...]Romani origin". "Gypsy" is usually considered derogatory and should be avoided when possible. Thank you! 72.15.126.186 (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Seems reasonable. Jtrevor99 (talk) 02:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Trad. chinese medicine is a big threat to donkeys worldwide

There are many reports about this in recent years. And should be mentioned. --Mats33 (talk) 23:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to add them if you have reliable sources... Jtrevor99 (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2021

It has several misspelled words. Behavior is misspelled "behaviour" several times. 50.32.197.200 (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: "Behaviour" is not a misspelling. Are there any others you're concerned about? (please Reply to icon mention me on reply) Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 03:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Conflating "donkey" and "ass"

Based on reading here in the Archives and elsewhere, it appears the term "ass" can apply to Equus africanus, hermionus, or hermionous hermionous (the African wild ass, Asiatic wild ass aka onager, and Mongolian wild ass respectively). That is, they are not necessarily domesticated, and additionally, donkeys are the domesticated descendants of the first species only. Because of that, I think the lead sentence should be reworded to something like "The donkey (Equus africanus asinus) is a domesticated subspecies of ass and member of the horse family, Equidae." (Or, maybe I'm too worried about semantics.) Thoughts? Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Any comments? If no one opposes or thinks I’m wrong here, I will take a shot at this. Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
User:Justlettersandnumbers, please discuss the lead changes you want to make here. Some may be fine but the first couple of sentences completely ignored this point, reverting to inferior wording. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, Jtrevor99, there's no consensus here for the changes you've made, though I appreciate the attempt. There's no consensus for the changes I made either. Here are some reasons for them:
  • 'Donkey' and 'ass' both mean the same thing, either wild or domestic, though 'donkey' is a more modern word and is more used of the domestic one; 'ass' is still in common usage – see the listings in DAD-IS], for example, or the first section of Valerie Porter, Lawrence Alderson, Stephen J.G. Hall, D. Phillip Sponenberg (2016). Mason's World Encyclopedia of Livestock Breeds and Breeding (sixth edition) (starting on page 1, "Asses").
  • The domestic donkey is regarded either as a species, Equus asinus, or as a subspecies, Equus africanus asinus, so we can't assert only the latter case. Even then, it is not a "domesticated subspecies", but one that has arisen from complex processes that are imperfectly understood (particularly by me), apparently mostly from the Nubian wild ass, Equus africanus africanus.
Perhaps you'd be good enough to self-revert until and unless there's some consensus for your interpretation of the sources? If you can't bring yourself to do that, perhaps you'd go ahead and restore the parts that "may be fine" (by which I hope you mean the stuff with solid WP:RS, and the removal of duplicated material and some unsourced nonsense such as "domesticated species are increasing in numbers"), and restore the first two sentences to what they read before your original changes: "The donkey or ass is a domestic animal in the horse family. It derives from the African wild ass, Equus africanus, and has been used as a working animal for at least 5000 years." Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Lack of response of any kind in over a year of requesting feedback, followed by lack of response in several weeks after making the changes, implies consensus. (Per WP:RFC, official RFCs are assumed to be closed when they have not received new content after 30 days.) However, with one or two small changes I believe your wording works just fine. I'll take a shot at it. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

"Working donkeys are often associated with those living at or below subsistence levels." is an unsourced opinion, please remove.

Even if it had a source, it would still be an opinion. It doesn't add anything of substance to the article except paint a picture in the mind of the reader, which isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. 93.198.11.65 (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, it is sourced (citation #50), and your opinion that it doesn't add anything of substance and isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia is just that...an opinion. It is, in fact, factually relevant to this article, as it points to (among other things) why donkeys have not been fully supplanted by mechanized labors, how they are used today, where they are used today, and many other such points. Jtrevor99 (talk) 05:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I saw the line and removed it before I looked at this talk page. My problem is that 'associated' doesn't mean anything. The previous sentence contains the stat about "96%" which covers the association between donkey use and poverty while being clear and concrete. I don't see that this sentence adds, except confusion. Ashmoo (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

"What I WOULD like to see is some explanation as to why donkey's are uses by poorer farmers, if any editor has expertise in the matter. I guess, it is because they are cheaper. But what about them makes them cheaper? Is it that they eat cheaper food? Or they are cheaper than mechanised power? Are they also cheaper than horses or oxen? Ashmoo (talk) 11:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

An inadequate page !

Let alone the Catalan donkey, this page ought to be re-written entirely ! The omissions are to many to list, look at the French WikiPedia page https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%82ne for guidance. It's far more informative... I'm no zoologist, so I can't help, alas. Franciscus montmartinensis (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Then please rewrite it. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

BBC article

This BBC article is a good layman's overview of recent developments including the "giant" (15-hand) Roman donkeys at Boinville-en-Woëvre described by Lepetz et al in December 2021 and the >200 genomes which Todd et al used to identify a single domestication event ~7000 years ago. FlagSteward (talk) 05:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Something that should be in the article

I think a fact about the donkey that's worthy of being included in this article is that it is Shrek's favorite animal. The important piece of evidence to support this is the fact that his best friend is a talking donkey. 2600:8803:3406:FC00:C8F1:F10:799B:347 (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

That would be an unsupported pop culture reference. It’s not sufficiently noteworthy - any more than the literally thousands of other references to donkeys or asses in culture - and not supported by notable reliable sources. Jtrevor99 (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2023

In the Donkey > Use section is mentioned that the Italian Army used donkeys: while this may have generally occurred, especially until WW2, the Alpine Corp (Alpini) of the Italian Army used mules in a regular base till the late 1980's. Just check the Italian version of the voice donkey Vs the one of the voice mule and you'll see that while the military use of donkey is not even quoted, the one of mules is. Thank you. 2601:601:400:A1E0:4E8:DCB0:D42A:15 (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Actualcpscm (talk) 08:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2023

Move the "Henderson and the donkey" image down to under the "In warfare" subsection as opposed to having it above it. It's a minor thing, but given it's explicitly an example of donkeys in warfare it would be useful to have the image inside that actual section, and currently in mobile anyone skipping directly to the "In warfare" section will miss the image. 2603:8001:4542:28FB:40BC:F2C8:8C31:6D9D (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The current arrangement is a concession to prevent the subsequent shoeing photos from extending beyond the bottom of that section on larger screens. While I don't have a strong opinion on this topic, I would vote for keeping it as-is for that reason. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 Not done: Wikipedia is meant to be seen on desktop primarily and should be edited for that. Lightoil (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Given that 75% of the world owns smartphones, and that mobile viewing/editing is apparently important enough to the Wikimedia Foundation that they're embarking on a project to revamp such editing at this very moment, I'm going to need a source for "Wikipedia is meant to be seen on desktop" and where it says the mobile view should be a second-class priority because of that alone (no objections to actually-grounded arguments such as Jtrevor's, of course). To put it another way, if an edit improves the mobile encyclopedia, it improves the encyclopedia, and that's kinda what we're all here for, not just desktop. 2603:8001:4542:28FB:40BC:F2C8:8C31:6D9D (talk) 05:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Nomenclature

The article suggests some origins of the usage ‘donkey’, but doesn’t anyone think there is more than a passing resemblance to the name for the area of China which another Wikipedia article places at the centre of the production of ejiao, namely Dong’e County in Shandung? JohnFrancis61 (talk) 07:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, JohnFrancis61, what are the solid reliable sources that support this theory? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Origins

Article: "It was domesticated in Africa some 5000–7000 years ago"

Africa is a big place and this statement is prone to misconceptions. The Donkey was domesticated in Northern Africa and the Horn of Africa. It wasn't introduced to Southern and Eastern Africa until very recently (<500 years ago). 2001:8003:70F5:2400:9107:C71E:CFB9:9AAE (talk) 23:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

If you have reliable scholarly sources that say as much, feel free to add it to the article. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Sitting

Are donkeys able to sit like a dog? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Please remove unnecessary protection

Why is this article protected from editing? There is no history of vandalism as far as I can see. Please remove the protection. Thank you. 86.134.165.23 (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Protection was added in August 2010 due to persistent disruption from unconfirmed users. There's not sufficient reason, in my opinion, to remove it: the Talk page does not show much history of constructive edit requests from unconfirmed users, who were unable to make those edits due to the protection. Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, I am a user and I wish to make a number of edits. 14 years of protection is long enough - those troublemakers must have died by now. Please remove the protection. If there is trouble, you can always re-instate the protection for a week or a month. 86.134.165.23 (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. How do I find the protecting admin? Is it the person who placed the protection in 2010? 86.134.165.23 (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes. And it seems they are inactive, so WP:RFPP is available. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
If I am not mistaken, it was User:Courcelles back in 2010, and she is very much active even today. Correct? 86.134.165.23 (talk) 22:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Not seeing any edits from them in >3 months. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Procedurally, WP:RFUP does require you attempt to contact the protecting admin (the latest of which was Courcelles) on their Talk page first, before proceeding with a general request. You're more likely to get a positive response on RFUP if you do this first. You may want to specify you're only requesting removal of semi-protection, not move protection, as this page has both. Unfortunately, this page has a long history of vandalism from unconfirmed users. It was first protected in January 2007; heavy IP vandalism immediately started again each time admins attempted to remove protection. (See [[3]]). They may be willing to try it again though. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donkey/Archive_4&oldid=1241712508"