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)