Talk:Elephant/Archive 3

File:BrokenWindowsVandalism.jpg

On 1 August and 3 August 2006, the article page associated with this talk page was the target of vandalism encouraged by The Colbert Report, a popular television show. All prior and subsequent edits are noted in the revision history.

As of 1 August 2006, the article page associated with this talk page was linked from Fark.com, a high-traffic Internet site. All prior and subsequent edits are noted in the revision history.

Archives
1 Colbert 2

ELEPHANTS ARE NOT ENDANGERED

They are actually everywhere! Even my back yard. Could some commie make a map showing the Elephant density worldwide. They even live on Antartica and are overpopulating the world. I saw this on the Colbert Repore, and I think he's great for standing up to the liberal media and telling the truth! Cholga 19:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Size

How heavy are elephants? The article lists a newborn's weight and that of the heaviest elephant found, but no average. A weight range for males and one for females would, I think, be imperitive to this article.

Does it make any sense at all to describe the weight of the worlds largest elephant to three significant figures, when the initial measurement was to two significant figures, and was an estimate at that? Guinness reports an elephant shot in 1974 to four figures (12.24 tonnes - http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=51172 ) Danil Suits 06:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Colbert Report

Did anyone else think that this is some funny shit!?Cholga 19:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

usefull resorce page

can we add please? www.geocities.com/RainForest/8298

African elephant population: actual figures (not tripling)

The total African elephant population appears to have been more or less stable for more than a decade (down tenfold from a half century ago). Some regions of Africa are dealing with local elephant overpopulations, most regions are not. When reporting 2002 estimates of 460,000 (probable) to 560,000 (possible) African elephants, researchers noted that this represented an increase over their 1998 figures (360,000 probable, 500,000 possible) suggestive of modest population growth. However this apparent increase could have been an artifact of the much larger area represented in the 2002 survey – or "many other factors unrelated to overall elephant numbers" (From IUCN's African Elephant Status Report 2002, page 17: http://iucn.org/themes/ssc/sgs/afesg/aed/pdfs/aesr2002.pdf). The papers presented in Pachyderm magazine (journal of the African Elephant, African Rhino and Asian Rhino Specialist Groups) through June 2006 do not give any indication of a recent boom in elephant population (http://iucn.org/themes/ssc/sgs/afesg/pachy/pachy40.html). A "comprehensive African Elephant Status Report (AESR) is … expected to be published some time in 2006" based on their current data.

• See http://iucn.org/themes/ssc/sgs/afesg/aed/index.html

... Verifiable reliable peer-reviewed published scientific research by The World Conservation Union that has not yet been cited in the talk or the article. --67.10.163.122 10:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to what is stated above, a formal statistical analysis of changes in elephant numbers, using only comparable survey data, was published in Pachyderm 38 (p.19-28). The analysis concluded that the elephant population in Southern Africa (which currently holds the largest regional population) and perhaps also in Eastern Africa, have been increasing considerably in recent years, at about 4.5% per annum for both regions combined. Nowhere near as fast as suggested by Colbert, admittedly, but at pretty high overall rates nonetheless. Perhaps more importantly though, the estimates that now remain on the Wikipedia elephant page (3,000,000 in 1970, 300,000 today) are as inaccurate and fictitious as those suggested by Colbert. There are believed to be about half a million African elephants today (give or take 100,000 or so). We do not know, and cannot reliably estimate, the figures in the 1970s; the first widely publicised continental estimate, 1.3 million in 1979, was made by Iain Douglas Hamilton in The African Elephant Action Plan (IUCN/WWF/NYZS - unpublished). The whole irony of the Colbert story, is that the widely publicised decline in elephant numbers between the late 1970s and the early 1990s came to be widely accepted through a very similar process of sheer repetition. The Douglas-Hamilton estimate included a very large proportion of guesses - extrapolations of assumed elephant densities over vast areas of assumed range. Such guesses, which made up over half of the continental estimate, were removed from subsequent continental estimates due to their lack of basis and unreliability. Many erroneously interpreted this as sign of substantial declines in overall elephant numbers. Numbers have undoubtedly declined drastically in many areas through poaching and habitat loss, but at the same time elephant numbers have been increasing in others - particularly in Southern Africa, where populations have been recovering after reaching their lowest point about 100 years ago. We simply do not the extent to which declines in some areas may have been offset by increases in others, and hence remain ignorant of the shape of the net trend at the continental level in the last 30 years or so. --Pitix 12:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If you visit this article from American University, you will see that the actual population has increased in many African countries, such as Botswana, which is currently experiencing severe elephant overpopulation. While the population may have not tripled over the past ten years, it certainly has increased. Anyone who reverts my edits, which are actually backed by respectable sources, while yours are not, will be warned for vandalism. Cielomobile 18:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The actual Elephants page states wolrdwide figures of both 300,000 and 600,000 African elephants. Which is it? Adversive 17:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

In regards to poaching and illegal hunting

See this sentence:

One decade later, only around 600,000 remain. This decline is attributed primarily to poaching, or illegal hunting, and habitat loss.

Is there a difference between poaching and illegal hunting? Aren't those the same thing? If the intent of "or illegal hunting" was to provide a definition of poaching, isn't the fact that poaching is wikilinked enough to warrant the removal of the definition? --Stephane Charette 09:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Since it's conceivable that even native English speakers who are not familiar with hunting will be unsure what poaching is, it's a perfectly valid way to put it. The fact that something is linked doesn't mean that there should be absolutely no information about it included in the text. Zocky | picture popups 11:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not simple.wikipedia.org. Poaching is not a technical, or "hard," word, especially in a page about wildlife, or animals in nature, and I find the clause, or words separated by commas, somewhat insulting, or hurting to my feelings. Those who don't understand it can click, and those that do will find this clumsy and unnecessary. NTK 13:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

600,000 vs 300,000

Sorry to be a bit off topic here and talk about elephants, but isn't there a glaring discrepancy between the introduction and the first section?

Introduction: "Elephants are increasingly threatened by human intrusion, with the African elephant population plummeting from 3 million in 1970 to roughly 300,000 today..."

Zoology, African Elephant: "Today there are approximately 600,000 African elephants in the world."

Or have they been breeding like rabbits?

Straussian 13:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The rampant vandalism regarding elephant population probably threw off editors a bit. I suggest looking back at the history of the Elephant article pre-Colbert-vandalism to see what the actual numbers were. Better yet, look it up in a proper source. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 14:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It would appear to be an estimate of 300,000 to 600,000 according to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) [1] "There are 300,000 to 600,000 African (in 37 range countries) and 35,000 to 50,000 Asian elephants (in 13 range countries) left in the wild."[2]

CNN list the Population at 580,000 in 1998 [3] Sirex98 16:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Check the African Elephant Database for the official (and most detailed) figures: the most recent data (2002) indicate a continental population of between 400,000 and 660,000. The figures now shown on the elephant page (3,000,000 million in 1970 and 300,000 today have NOT been taken from WWF as cited in the article, but from the Daphne Sheldrick Wildife Trus - an organization concerned with animal welfare lobby and not an authority on elephant population numbers. The WWF page cited gives figures of 1.3 million (not 3 million) in 1970 and 600,000 in 1989 (nothing for today). Somebody please correct the figures - else this is just as fictitious as the figures of the Colbert debacle. --Pitix 11:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk page archived

I have ruthlessly removed anything to do with the Colbert Report to /Colbert. I thought the segment was funny as hell, and good publicity for us, but this talk page should be about elephants again. I will continue to ruthlessly archive in this manner. -- SCZenz 17:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, so long as we haven't just created a Colbert chat room/messageboard. I'd support simply declaring it an archive, locking the page, and diverting any other comments about the matter to the talk pages of individual users. (But my, does this place look a lot cleaner.) Either way, it's a positive step. JDoorjam Talk 17:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

None of us have to read that page, so it's a lot more pleasant having comments there (since people will comment somewhere). After a week or so, hopefully, it will effectively be an archive. I'll keep an eye on it to make sure it doesn't become a chat room in any case. -- SCZenz 17:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Penis Section

I just indented this section to prevent it from showing up as a category. To be honest, it seems like a load of nonsense, but I'm not a biologist and I don't want to remove it without feedback from others. Anyone? alphaChimp ^laudare 20:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the section. It was entirely unsourced, and seems simply to be in response to Thursday's Colberrorism. Elephants are large. As large animals, they have large animal parts. I'll bet they have gigantic kidneys and monstrously large livers, too. They've got big feet and long tongues. And yes, the males have large penises (which, incidentally, is the plural -- that, or penes). All of the other elephant body part sections deal with unique or unusual aspects of the elephant, not issues related directly to the size of the creature: tusks, skin, ears, trunk. We don't need one on the penis. JDoorjam Talk 20:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You may want to check these references [4] [5] Sysrpl 20:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Penis already has a discussion of elephant penises, and has for a long time—I suspect it's why Colbert brought them up, actually. I really think that it's more relevant there than here. -- SCZenz 20:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur. JDoorjam Talk 21:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Just zis Guy you know? 21:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now this seems to be going a wee bit overboard. We're claiming the the actual, factual physiology of an animal is not worth mentioning in its own article because of a potential giggle factor and/or mention on a comedy show? Tell me we haven't reached this point. I remember, many years ago (1993, before the internet invented itself), having an extended conversation about the size of wangs in the animal kingdom (I had a fun HS english teacher, what can I say), the... um... generous size of the pachyderm's pecker actually did come up. I vividly remember because some girl blurted out "that's taller than I am" --one remembers these things over chemistry equations (go figure). Anyway, let's not be dreadfully serious, this is Wikipedia, not Britannica (and I say that in the best way possible). --Bobak 00:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It is neither a critical fact about the elephant, nor a fact that I believe our readers who type "elephant" into the search box are looking for. It is not more notable than the elephant's spleen size, which we do not go into detail on either. If you think the difference between Wikipedia and Britannica is that we focus on factoids to make girls giggle, you've got the wrong encyclopedia.

As I said above, the information in question is in penis; I imagine someone looking up that subject is much more likely to be interested. -- SCZenz 08:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I haven't been following this debate, but what about a "see also" link directly to the elephant section on the penis article? Seems like a nice compromise to me. Konman72 08:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I've heard no argument that merits compromise. If you would like to present one, I'm happy to discuss. -- SCZenz 08:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, got no opinion either way. Just thought I'd try to help. Konman72 08:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that; striving for compromise is a good thing in general. But I think compromises really only make sense if all parties are arguing based on the goals and policies of Wikipedia. It doesn't seem to me the pro-penis (heh) arguments above fit that description. -- SCZenz 08:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Elephants have the largest penises of land mammals. How is that not notable? I mean, we have an article on John Holmes and Dirk Diggler, and I didn't even need to check ahead to see if they were there. Does the article about blue whales say they are the largest mammals? Does the article about hummingbids say they are the smallest birds and flap their wings the fastest of birds? There's a reason why some think an elephant article shouldn't include its breadbasket, and it's Victorian-era puritanism: bleeding into the "serious" editors saying a penis has no place in an article about an animal that has one. That has nothing to do with what is "right" for an encyclopedia, it has everything to do with "well, we don't want to offend people". Get real. --Bobak 19:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

They are large animals. Everything about them is large. We don't need to add peniscruft to reinforce this rather obvious fact. Just zis Guy you know? 20:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I'd be more supportive of this if they had extremely tiny penises, or four of them, or they shot flames or something. As it is it's just not unusual enough to merit its own section. I would tolerate a single referenced sentence or half-sentence near the beginning stating that their various organs are also all correspondingly above average if people really think that's not an obvious foregone conclusion that big animals have big animal parts, but I'm not sure even that is necessary. JDoorjam Talk 20:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Pssshh... by your exacting standards no penis would be worthy. (this is starting to read like a bad episode of Sex is the City... Nerds in the City Online?) Frankly, I don't know anyone, outside of the over-serious world of Wikipedia who wasn't amused by the revelation of pachyderm penis size. We're not prudes. --Bobak 23:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

IMHO comparative anatomy is useful and interesting information, having a table of median brain, spleen, heart, femur, other bones and organs, and (even) penis sizes for some major or representative species might be a "good thing"(tm) if it was semi-systematic and not overdone; representative, major, and interesting parts (we don't need "median weight of 3rd lumbar vertebra" just yet). Wikipedia's really not a datadump, of course, but comparative anatamy is important and one way to illustrate it is with the actual sizes of things. And of course, if we're talking about comparisons among species, we would need to include the endpoints of the range.... I'll shut up now... Bye... --studerby 20:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This sounds silly. Of course elephant anatomy and phisiology should be discuseed in the article about elephants. The penis article should include comparative anatomy of penises, not details about individual species. Zocky | picture popups 12:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The size of the penis is actually more informative than the size of other organs. Most organs are simply scaled up or down according to the size of the animal, and for these we should not bother to mention. Some organs are changed depending on physiology or social changes, and these should be mentioned. The length of the gut in a number of animals that digest otherwise undigestable foods, the size of the liver in animals that are able to cope with high concentrations of posion. And the size of the penis is used as one of the measures of male-male competition for reproductive success. In species with a single dominant male (such as gorillas) the penis size is small, while in species with a more complex social structure where females may have sex with numerous males (such as chimpanzee) the pensis size is relatively larger. This is therefore included in the article not for giggles, but as highly relevent information on the anatomy of the animal which gives us an insight into social structure. Sad mouse 20:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It's hardly the question of size. Animals differ not just in how they look externally, but primarily in how their organs work. Elephant's penis, just as its hart, lungs, bladder, etc. has peculiar properties which should be described in the article about elephants. Zocky | picture popups 15:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

So, how'd we do?

Check out before and after: how the Elephant article has changed since July 31. Do we have a better article as a result of all that traffic? Did we lose anything in the shuffle? --M@rēino 15:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Overall it is much better. However, there is a major problem now: the article says 600,000 elephants are left, and then later says 300,000 are left. This issue needs to be resolved quite quickly... or maybe the number of elephants has doubled in the past 6 days? — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 16:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I changed "roughly 300,000 today" -> "to roughly 600,000 in 1989, down to 272,000 in 2000" -- that is what the references next to it say. I don't know what the current population is... BCorr|Брайен 16:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice work. I touched up the grammar in the second sentence, but other than that it looks great. Thanks! -Harmil 19:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The population references still need to be cleaned up. According to the article, the population of African elephants has doubled in the past 6 years. The intro says there were 272,000 in 2000, while the next section says there are 600,000 today. 24.16.40.101 03:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Add a resorce link which is quite popular www.geocities/RainForest?8298

Elephant Intelligence

With regard to this page, besides barring against any further acts of the aforementioned heinous wiki-crime, perhaps this page should have a section devoted to the purported intelligence of elephants, which seems in many ways to reflect the intelligence of other large mammals such as whales, dolphins, and primates such as chimpanzees and gorillas. The intelligence-type of parrots and crows does not seem to be as analogous, as it is more based on mimickry and a type of survivalist/strategic thought-pattern, although it is also noted. Matthew A.J.י.B. 01:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I was also surprised that there isn't such a section. That would definitely be a worthwhile addition. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 14:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The intelligence of parrots and crows may actually be more analogous than you think, since intelligence in mammals actually correlates far better with longevity than with size, both parrots are crows are quite long-lived by comparison to other birds, which indicates the analogy may hold up between birds and mammals. Sad mouse 20:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Asian Elephant population error

The Elephant#Asian Elephant section states that there are "approximately 40,000" Asian Elephants total, comprised of "3,000-4,500" Sri Lankan Asian Elephants, "approximately 36,000" Mainland Asian Elephants and "33,000 to 53,000" Sumatran Asian Elephants. (Sidenote, I note the Asian Elephant article has no pop. figures at all) TeeEmCee 09:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Try checking the external links that the population figures are cited to, and then correcting the figures from there. Its quite possible the figures are from different dates: that was the problem with the conflicting African Elephant figures. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 09:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing sprotection

It's been two weeks now; I'm taking off the semi-protection. We'll probably still get pinged by a few people who thought it was OMG SO HILARIOUS, but it's time for us to move on. JDoorjam Talk 20:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Eco mumbo jumbo

Well, not really, it would be far too harsh to call it that. But still, this fragment is bad:

Usefulness to the environment

Elephants' foraging activities help to maintain the areas in which they live:

Can we find a way of formulating it that doesn't assume that preserving the current environment is good by definition? Zocky | picture popups 13:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It does not say that preserving the environment is good: it says that preserving the environment is useful to the environment. It makes no claim of "goodness," at least in the part you quoted. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 00:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought that overgrazing was a serious problem in areas with elephants, because generally they're confined to small nature preserves. john k 18:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

it is true, the elephant maintains savanna, which otherwise becomes wooded and can turn into forest, because the elephants destroy small trees and can graze on large trees. Out of interest, hippos are the opposite, they convert savanna to woodlands because they graze the grass and trample in into mud, but ignore areas where bushes start to grow. Hardly "eco mumbo jumbo", the elephant is a key-stone species. Sad mouse 23:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

They may be key for preserving savanna, but why would that necessarily be good? Zocky | picture popups 10:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Did it say "good"? But it increases ecosystem stability, which most people would agree is a good thing. Sad mouse 16:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Their Knees

According to some quick googling, elephants are the only animals with 4 foward pointing knees. IANA biologist, but Backwards pointed knees appear to go along with powerful "spring" tendons. Anybody know about the effect on running, or ability to climb hills? (There was a recent study on elephants hill-climing habits, can't find it at the moment)

Use of the term 'species'

The entry claims that "It has long been known that the African and Asian elephants are separate species." The term "species" is ambiguous and there is not consensus in its definition. From one of the most accepted it's deducted that two living beings don't belong to the same species when they cannot reproduce together. So from the current wording it can be deducted that there can't be hybrids of Asian and African elephants. Is that the case? Shouldn't all this be clarified in the article? MJGR 10:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There is sometimes not consensus that things are two separate species. But it can certainly be know that two things are separate species. We know, for instance, that dogs and cats are separate species, whatever definition of "species" one may use. The same is true of the two kinds of elephants, which, after all, belong to different genera and are not all that closely related at all. john k 18:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. But my doubt about the possibilities of crossbreeding Asian and African elephants are still there? Is that possible or not? MJGR 07:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

.....I think you, the editors of this site, are missing two key issues in the Colbert satire: 1)the point that Wikipedia can be changed at any time and that that is eerily like what certain politicians seem to want to do to reality; and 2) the elephant population is INDEED decreasing (remember, Colbert is satire), and his use of this as an example was because only someone truly ignorant would argue otherwise. As satire, this is obviously aiming at various politicians (and the current administration's) efforts to solicit science by consensus rather than scientific research.....

Trunks

At one point in the article, it states that the trunk is almost useless on newborn elephants as it has little muscle tone, and then in another it says that they rely on their trunks a lot when they are young, since they are blind. What's the deal with that?RadicalPi 03:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The article currently states that biologists say that there are over 40,000 muscles in the trunk. This should cite a source either way, but I thought I'd mention that Steven Pinker in The Language Insinct (page 340) says there are over 60,000 (citing some other guys). JordanDeLong 03:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality

The section of this article was somewhat intriguing, but it feels out of place by itself, considering that elephants are not the only mammal or animal in general that has this type of behavior; it's been seen in a lot of other animals, and one could assume that any given species can be "gay". I don't think it doesn't belong in the article at all, but at least could be moved to the "reproduction" part. Okay maybe it's not actually "reproduction" but its at least somewhat related.

I don't know, I guess I feel like it's akin to having a section called "breathing". That fact that elephants breath is sort of significant and informative, yet at the same time isolating this information makes it too prominent in the article because the behavior isn't unique to elephants.

Eleo 20:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Seems like a reasonable suggestion. Haiduc 02:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The extent of homosexuality in mammals is not yet known. You assume that homosexuality will be found in any given species. This may be true, but is a massive assumption at the moment, and cases of documented homosexuality in animals are still rare, and thus notable. I would say leave it in for now, and if later down the track a universe theory of flexible sexuality in mammals is determined then take out individual species references then. Moving under reproduction would be okay though. Sad mouse 20:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• This is rather absurd. The source for that section, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, is an entire book about homosexuality in the animal kingdom. The author suggests 450 species of aniamls are involved in homosexual acts. One of which is dogs; do we have a homosexuality section in the dog article (or the other 450 species of animals this man suggests)? We already have List of animals displaying homosexual behavior and a section on this in Animal sexuality. This can't be any more notable than the fact that they have a huge penis... JustOneJake 21:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC) (Signature Added for Clarity)

• • While the heading under which this information appears is debatable, its inclusion is anything but absurd. By your logic we should not have any discussion of elephant reproduction since, after all, all animals reproduce. As for the other four hundred and fifty animals, please realize that for me this is only an avocation - I have a life too, and I simply have not had time to get around to all of them yet. Others can help - this topic is notorious for having long been censored. Haiduc 01:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • Maybe I misunderstand what the page is supposed to be about, and if so that's fine. Here was my thought process on this though: I skimmed some books on elephants. All of the ones that talk about the biological of elephants have a section on reproduction. I don't see any with a section on homosexuality in elephants. When I search for elephants AND biology at Google books, then search the corresponding books for homosexuality none get results. Additionally, search for elephants AND biology AND homosexuality, and all your results will be books that specifically talking about homosexuality in animals or are completely unrelated. There is only 19 resulting books too, and I'd say only half are relevant (compared to 7860 for elephants AND biology). Just because we have one book that might have a reference to this doesn't mean it is a widely held belief. If we put everything someone thought was interesting about elephants in the article it'd be unreadable. I also still think the large penis is a great analogy. It seems to be a consensus that doesn't belong, because all animals have penises and this one just happens to have the largest. Sure, all animals reproduce, and some may have homosexual tendencies, or behaviors that mimic this, but that doesn't make it encyclopedic. It just seems it fits better in an article about the subject of homosexuality in animals. JustOneJake 14:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • • I would draw your attention to a couple of points. First, Bagemihl does not "suggest" nor is he expressing a "belief." He is reporting on the observations of other zoologists. He specifically cites twelve (!) sources that discuss homosexuality in elephants. Even if he were the only one to report such activity, proper encyclopaedia editing would require us to report on his claims, and to adduce counter claims, were there any. As for the lack of mention in the general literature, I do not think anyone here is unaware of the censorship that has attended this topic over the years, and the professional risk of studying and publishing on this subject. Haiduc 23:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • I only read the referenced page on Google Books, and did not realize he cited 12 other sources. At any rate, I agree with most of what you said. Perhaps the section belongs on the page. With that said, I am opposed to moving it under reproduction. Reproduction is "the process by which plants and animals give rise to offspring" (Merriam Webster). There is no possible documented way for homosexuality to directly lead to reproduction, and thus is completely inappropriate in that section. Specifically Bagemihl states past research in the field has often failed to find an explanation "particularly when they try and show how homosexuality might contribute to heterosexual reproduction" (Bagemihl, pg 5). He does not refer to it as reproduction, and specifically states research in attempting to find a connection has failed. The section would need to be titled to sexuality to make sense. JustOneJake 21:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC) (Signature Added for Clarity)

I think it belongs here. If it just said 'elephants can be homosexual' it wouldn't be very interesting. But the section describes homosexual behaviour that is specific to elephants, like the use of the trunks, etc. It therefore belongs on the elephant page. The article is a whole is an admirably long, detailed one that discusses many aspects of elephant behaviour that are specific to elephants. The homosexuality section fits in perfectly with that. And the cited source is a book published by a thoroughly reputable publisher. If it came from a dodgy website or some self-published book, I'd be more doubtful, but it doesn't. The Singing Badger 01:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I say keep it in. First of all, wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia so we can go more in depth than some other sources on the topic, especially when the information is verifiable. This is a topic that many people would find interesting, so why get rid of it? Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 22:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• It does describe some unique behavior, but most of the section describes the sexual behavior that is stated to be analogous to heterosexual sex between elephants. There's nothing especially unexpected about that. The only unique behavior is the apparent social structure that is different from that of heterosexual elephants. And again, it's not that the section is unnecessary, I just think it's out of place. The most informative part of the section is about the social structure, not so much the actual sex.

Since this isn't about reproduction, wouldn't a more appropriate section be "Social behaviour"? Zocky | picture popups 15:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Allomothers

The article has its own subtopic about the "allomother" elephants that help raise baby elephants, but under the reproduction headline, elephant "aunts" are mentioned as doing the same thing. This seems redundant and the section in reproduction should probably be taken out, especially since it really has nothing to do with actual reproduction.

largest elephant recorded

The largest elephant ever recorded is a bull African elephant, which was shot in 1974. It measured 4.16 m (13 ft 7 in) to the shoulder and weighed 12.24 tonnes (26,984 lb).

[Citation: Guinness World Records 2006] Scribenz 06:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Crushing by elephant - comments requested

Would anyone here like to comment at Crushing by elephant? It is currently up for featured article status at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crushing by elephant. In particular, comments on the different species of elephants would be welcomed. Carcharoth 14:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hannibal's elephants

There is only a very brief mention of Hannibal's smaller North African Forest elephants. Can more please be added about this? Carcharoth 14:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Do it yourself. Be Bold. --andreasegde 15:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Classification

At the very start of this article, it says that elephants are of the family "pachyderm", but following that link one discovers that the classification "pachyderm" is obsolete. This creates confusion, at least to me, and should be cleared up.