Talk:Elephant

Elephant is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 5, 2013.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 5, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
September 28, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
October 28, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
December 31, 2007	Good article reassessment	Delisted
February 20, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed
August 11, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed
November 5, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
December 8, 2012	Peer review	Reviewed
January 30, 2013	Featured article candidate	Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Olifant was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 30 October 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Elephant on November 2009. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Africa High‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Circus Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Circus. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.CircusWikipedia:WikiProject CircusTemplate:WikiProject CircusCircus
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Mammals Top‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

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

Running speed

This Wikipedia article (in the locomotion section) seems to suggest that the top running speed of elephants is 18 km/h, but this is unlikely, as it is universally accepted that elephants are able to outrun humans. Isn't the maximum speed that elephants can reach actually 48 km/h? Maybe there is a distinction between "fast walking speed" and "running speed"...however, the article is a bit unclear on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.126.135.229 (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant unemployment

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Append to the "Working animal" subsection: "In both Myanamar and Thailand, deforestation and other economic factors have resulted in sizable populations of unemployed elephants resulting in health problems for the elephants themselves as well as economic and safety problems for the people amongst whom they live.^[1]^[2]

References

^ Thomas Fuller (January 30, 2016). "Unemployed, Myanmar's Elephants Grow Antsy, and Heavier". New York Times. Retrieved 2016-01-31.
^ Roger Lohanan (February 2001). "The elephant situation in Thailand and a plea for co-operation". FAO. Retrieved 2016-01-31.

Done EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should We Use Protection?

I realise this question has been asked and answered about 500 times, but the last time it was asked appears to be 2012. Since we are now 4 years on from that, is there still a need to semi-protect this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyGod (talk • contribs) 07:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taking into account that this page has a lot of heavy internet traffic, and the fact that the last time semi-protection was lifted, it was almost then immediately besieged by a bunch of inane Colbert-fan trolls, necessitating semi-protection be immediately reinstated, yes, yes there is still a need to semi-protect this article.--Mr Fink (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would leave the semi-protection. There are even old "scholarly" articles about how unreliable the Wikipedia is, just because Colbert was able to get people to put nonsense in the elephant page. See M. Masnick, ‘How Truthiness and Wikiality Helped Colbert Take Down Wikipedia,’ Techdirt (August 2006), available at https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060801/0128222.shtml "Take Down"?? Not happening. --WiseWoman (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did I type "immediately besieged by a bunch of inane Colbert-fan trolls?" I meant to type "immediately rebesieged by a bunch of inane Colbert-fan trolls."--Mr Fink (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 10 years since Stephen Colbert issued his call to vandalize this page

In perspective, it takes only 4 days and 10 edits to get autoconfirmed status. Why is this article still under protection? 50.206.178.140 (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm editing from an anonymous account out of principle. 50.206.178.140 (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What principle is that? DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a high-profile page that sees a lot of traffic, and whenever we do lift page protection, as stated in previous threads, the page tends to get immediately rebesieged by inane Colbert fans who insist on carrying out their master's orders no matter how old or inane solely for shits and giggles.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So if only 4 days are required for autoconfirmed, you would think 2006 Colbert viewers would create sleeper or single purpose accounts to vandalize this page. Pursuant to the history, this has not happened in years. 107.77.223.113 (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what harm there'd be in taking down protection and seeing if it's still needed. If the vandals reappear, it can be semi-protected again. It shouldn't be protected forever because of hypothetical vandals. When was the last time it was unprotected? john k (talk) 11:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2012 or 2013 per the log. And per breaking news on the CNN app, there has been a change in the elephant numbers - a drastic drop [Tragic drop in elephant numbers]. 107.77.225.141 (talk) 13:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also relevant. Airplaneman ✈ 14:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After this latest unprotection experiment, it's safe to say that indefinite semi protection suits this article best. It's a high profile article that will attract vandals into the indefinite future. Airplaneman ✈ 03:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Thomas Fuller (January 30, 2016). "Unemployed, Myanmar's Elephants Grow Antsy, and Heavier". New York Times. Retrieved 2016-01-31.

[2] Roger Lohanan (February 2001). "The elephant situation in Thailand and a plea for co-operation". FAO. Retrieved 2016-01-31.

[1]

[2]