Talk:Woolly mammoth

Skeleton or life reconstruction in the taxobox?

I'm a bit uncertain about this. On one hand, no complete frozen adult specimens are known, making all modern reconstructions partially guesswork and probably erroneous to some extend, so the safest and most reliable would be to have a mounted skeleton in the taxobox. On the other hand, due to cave art and these frozen specimens, the life appearance of this species is probably the best known of any extinct prehistoric animal, though the woolly rhino comes close. Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 12:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

If any of the reconstructions currently available in Commons are not enough accurate (bad shape of ears, colour of hair too reddish, wrong orientation of tusks, etc.) or with an appropiate size, the logical solution is leave the image of a skeleton. --Rextron (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems most restorations make the ears too big, as the shape and size of the adult ear was only recently known[1], so I'll just keep the skeleton. The model under description actually isn't too bad, even though it was made in the 1970s. FunkMonk (talk) 03:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Woolly mammoth/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 08:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose: done some ce; Copyright OK; Spelling OK; Grammar OK
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	lead:OK; layout:OK; weasel:OK (there are some reasonable "probably"s); fiction:n/a; lists:n/a
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Please dress all naked "http://" links with relevant citation data.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	OK
	2c. it contains no original research.	OK
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	OK
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	OK
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	OK
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	OK
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	OK
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Well-chosen images.
	7. Overall assessment.	Article is now clear, interesting, and well cited. Good work, everyone who helped.

Questions (from GA reviewer)

• How did a land bridge act as a barrier? Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Removed, it was due to the mesic habitat there, but it does not seem to have affected the mammoths. FunkMonk (talk) 05:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• How do the teeth of "Lyuba" indicate the length of gestation?

I will clarify this. FunkMonk (talk) 04:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

BTW ""Lyuba" is believed to have suffocated by inhaling mud as she struggled while bogged down in deep mud in the bed of a river which its herd was crossing." isn't wrong but it lurches from one clause to another (6 verb clauses, 3 prepositional). Please simplify or split.

Shortened. FunkMonk (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Why are two maps needed?

One shows the distribution of woolly mammoths, the other shows the distribution of specific habitats, including the "mammoth steppe". But I can remove the second one, if necessary. FunkMonk (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

This Manta Ray map is wonderfully clear.

OK, then the 2nd map's caption should say "Distribution of Mammoth steppe (orange [or whatever, I can't see it]) at last Ice Age maximum". The map may well need simplifying - ideally it would be all blank drab continents, white ice, and bright coloured only for Mammoth steppe.

It's "steppe tundra" on the map, but I'm colour blind, so I'm not entirely sure what colour it is. Pink? fuchsia? Grey? May be a good reason to remove it... FunkMonk (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I've just removed the image. This article isn't about that habitat anyway.

FunkMonk (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• How is Hay, 1924 responsible for calling it both Elephas and Mammuthus? Did he perhaps just give the name M. boreus (or vice versa) so (E. boreus) would then be ascribed to him indirectly?

The other way around. But sometimes the author of the new combination is credited instead, but that seems to be elusive information. Both should be valid. FunkMonk (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe that when the generic name changes, the credit changes from "Author, 1900" to "(Author, 1900)" if people are being careful. So given what you say I'm not sure there should be 2 credits to Hay. Doubt if it matters but I'd like to understand.

I'm not sure myself, form the articles here at least, all names are in parenthesis? As for combination credit, I've seen both versions used in many books. FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, not to worry.

• Lister 2007 is cited for numerous early theories (Hannibal's elephants, etc). It would be better if possible to have explicit early references for each of these theories, perhaps with a little more detail (even a section, "Early theories").

Most of these theories are so old (and not part of modern journals) that it will be hard to track down, but I'll see what I can do. FunkMonk (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That would be very nice but it's not a showstopper for this GA.

• In which year did Jefferson use Mammoth as an adjective?

Added, and discovered the cheese itself had an article! FunkMonk (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

;-)

• In what sense is M. rumanus the earliest known type? The earliest European one?

Yes. Will make that clearer, if it isn't. FunkMonk (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• "A 2011 genetic study showed that two examined specimens of the Columbian mammoth were grouped within a subclade of woolly mammoths. This suggests that the two populations interbred..." How does it do that? Maybe a diagram would help show the relationships of all these species and types.

I cannot find a cladogram of how mammoth species are interrelated, and I don't think there are any, because their evolution is pretty linear, and not very branched. I was thinking of adding one that shows how mammoths are related to other elephant genera. Unfortunately, I'm very bad at coding cladograms (I tried on Dodo and Moa, with varying results)... Maybe I can ask somewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 05:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That would be nice. But why does being in a subclade suggest interbreeding? It could suggest a process of separation...

Well, that's what the source says, and I think the Columbian species was present in America before the woolly one, so they would had been separated long before. But it seems further study is needed to clarify this. FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll ask[2] someone to adapt this cladogram[3] from Shoshani and Tassy 2005. FunkMonk (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That would be helpful but it's not a showstopper for this GA.

• "they can be considered either primitive forms of a derived species, or derived forms of a primitive species." Makes the reader's head whirl - I think I know what this means, but again a diagram could make this a lot easier.

Maybe say "advanced" instead of derived? Though I know such terminology is frowned upon by some today.... FunkMonk (talk) 05:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That wouldn't be better; try something like "Such an intermediate form could be considered as part of either species" (please tweak as appropriate, you get the idea).

But the point is that it is not "just" part of either species, but are, depending on who you ask, either advanced steppe mammoths, or primitive woolly mammoths. We can't haver it both ways. If we simplify it, that meaning is lost. FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Not asking for simplification but clarification. Why don't you explain to readers what you've just explained to me...

Alright, I'll give it a shot. FunkMonk (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's great.

• "was even proposed to be a new subspecies" - is this editorialising, or is there reason to doubt the claim?

Later studies have downplayed their distinctness, but named woolly mammoth subspecies are discussed extremely little or at all after they are named, as it seems most researchers don't find them valid. But they never state this unambiguously, for some reason. But I will remove "even". FunkMonk (talk) 04:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. There are some other "even"s in the article - probably all right but please look.

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Suggest use {{convert|...}} for all measurements.

I'll try, at least where the measurements are not converted yet. FunkMonk (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

What to do with something like "2.6-2.9 m in height"? FunkMonk (talk) 04:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Dunno, maybe best to convert by hand there, but I'm sure the language lawyers have a clever trick!

All measurements are converted now, but not necessarily with the template. FunkMonk (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Female Asian elephants lack tusks, but there is no fossil evidence that indicates some woolly mammoths did too." Please clarify.

Which part? Should I write "female mammoths" specifically? FunkMonk (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

"There is no evidence that female mammoths ever had tusks"; or Some female mammoths did have tusks, and we don't know if all of them did"; or what? I can't parse the "no...some..." in the sentence.

There is no indication that any grown mammoths lacked tucks, actually. FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

(has been reworded)

• Ref 6 - missing data (date, journal, url...)

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 7 - needs publisher...

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 11 - needs conf, paper details

What kind of details? FunkMonk (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It's Ref 12 now (Foronova & Zudin) - it just says "International Congress" with no page number or anything. I think it was Proceedings of the 1st International Congress, Rome, 2001. pp 540-543.

Fixed? FunkMonk (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't, but it is now - I've filled in the page range for you.

• Ref 18 - needs date

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Please check all refs for completeness.

I've replaced all bare URLs now. Was a remnant of the old article. I don't like all those press releases myself, and have tried to replace them with actual scientific papers. FunkMonk (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Still something wrong with links 24, 71. 75.

I removed 75, because it was unnecessary, but I'm not sure what's wrong with 24 and 71? FunkMonk (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed 3 refs by hand, one was a DOI cite that didn't expand for me, the other 2 were just naked URLs, see the article's edit log.

• Thanks for the review and copyedits, I'll adresse these issues soon. FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure.

• By the way, do you know why the two last synonyms in the taxobox appear smaller than the rest? They shouldn't. FunkMonk (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

yeah, needed to be </small> not <small/>

• Comment - Apparently the first ref (Lister) is so detailed on one page (192) that that one page alone can be used for over 30 citations. Even if that's the case (which I highly doubt), it should say "p.192", not "pp. 192". --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Mmm. I've left the original ref (near end of article) but have changed all the rest to "Page needed". They need fixing either with other pages from Lister or indeed other sources entirely. I've removed the name=Lister from them so they stand separately. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Should be "pages" in plural. For a potential FAC, I'll add individual pages, because I'm pretty sure it isn't needed for GA. FunkMonk (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Gosh. As far as I can tell from WP:CITE, there is no general need to cite everything, and a ref at the end of a paragraph or section that all comes from one source is acceptable unless something is challenged (which it now has been, by FT). However, it looks as if (and common sense dictates that) the rule is "if there is a citation, it should be correct". It could possibly have been all right just to put Lister in the Bibliography; it is not all right to put "Lister page 192" for facts which did not come from that page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course not, the singular page was an old mistake, and as I said, it should had been plural (192 pages, not page 192). And that's what I meant, that as far as I know, specific pages do not need to be specified for GAs. But I will do that eventually, so might as well do it now. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

What would be acceptable page ranges? For example, if biological issues are covered across fifteen pages, is it enough to list those, or should it be broken further down? FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, done. FunkMonk (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I can't see anything very clear written down either way, and honestly I much prefer to see articles improved, as here, than to spend time arguing. The article is much the better for the accurate page refs. I've no idea how wide a page range can be; I have myself once or twice been picked up for excess ranges, and the cure is obvious. If you've summarized a chapter in a paragraph, it's surely sensible to give a wide range; when it's a matter of BLP or right-wing dictators, the page has to be exact, one at a time, one ref per sentence. BTW I'd wondered long ago if "pages=" meant "number of pages in the book": it seems that it's very rarely understood that way by editors! People use it for page ranges.

• There are 2 citations to the same letter by Breyne, but the refs given are different. Please correct and unify them under one name.

Yup. FunkMonk (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the thorough review and I'm happy that you pushed for some improvements that will benefit an eventual FAC. I'll try to get the remaining issues fixed before such. Your copyedits were also invaluable. FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

That's brilliant. It's a sweat at the time, I know. Glad to have been of service. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

If a wolly mammoth is ever cloned, would it be possible for it to live in one or another of the so-called Pleistocene Parks? I ask because I'm extremely interested in the mammoth, but I'm also aware of the ethical dilemmas involved in bringing one or more back to life.

Dr M Wimsatt2602:306:C409:52D0:225:4BFF:FE86:F858 (talk) 07:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC) Of course I know how to spell "woolly." In my post about the mammoth, I inadvertently typed "wolly." Please excuse!

Dr M Wimsatt2602:306:C409:52D0:225:4BFF:FE86:F858 (talk) 07:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe there is uncertainty if exactly the right milieu exists anywhere on the earth today. FunkMonk (talk) 11:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Any thoughts on whether the "range map" should be in the taxobox or in the article? In most prehistoric animal article, there is none, and it is kind of misleading, since it is only based on fossils... FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Woolly thinking

"The colour of the wool varied through black and brown to pale." Pale what? Pale is a colour intensity qualifier, not a colour in itself. Peridon (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Ta. (I presume a female would be blonde...) ;-) Peridon (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The Woolly mammoth was more Hairy than woolly. Hair, fur, and wool are all related but as the Coat section says, the animal's top and sides had [sparse] coarse hair 1-3 feet in length with some denser inner layer of 3-inch slightly curly under-wool (apparently on its abdomen). "Woolly" seems an unfortunate misnomer that plays into the public's misconception that its hair was a significant defense against arctic cold. Perhaps someone is aware of a usable source that could be referenced to make this point in the article. Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Subjective opinion removed

I've removed a sentence of biased opinion: "He also notes that the time and resources required would be enormous, and that the scientific benefits would be unclear; these resources should instead be used to preserve extant elephant species which are endangered."

Everyone has their own opinion, everyone has their pet projects (sic). Nobody was suggesting recreating mammoths would be cheap or quick. And scientific processes often have tenuous prospects for important successes. Suggesting how the resources "should" be spent is meretricious. The international scientific community has already realized that the world does not have enough resources to save all endangered species, even if it wants, and that decisions must be made about which are desirable and cost-effective. So even if the mammoth argument was something to the effect of "It's easier and cheaper to preserve species that are still living", it isn't necessarily true that the alternative choice would be existing elephants. It might well be that recreating a mammoth has more value than, say, preserving a noxious kind of mosquito. Leptus Froggi (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I can see your point slightly, but this is the opinion of respected scientists (and it is attributed to them, not stated as fact), and it has been approved by several reviewers, and most importantly, it is reliably sourced. So you shouldn't just go around removing stuff before bringing it up. Bad manners. FunkMonk (talk) 05:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Manners? Well, "manners" would have been writing to my talk page, or explaining your edit in in the Edit Summary, instead of making me guess that you might have responded in talk. The fact that someone with a PhD has an unencyclopedic, biased opinion about how public money should be spent is irrelevant. There are millions of such people, and not every one of them has a right to express their opinion in Wikipedia. If he thought the best use of the money was to save African, but not Asian elephants, could you still imagine his opinion was anything else but his attempt to sway the public on the basis of what he, personally, wants money spent on? Your point of view is so biased, you should not even continue. I'm perfectly willing and able to call in arbitration. I have a special interest with people who manipulate Wikipedia to their own WP:BIAS. Leptus Froggi (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Please don't be disruptive just to make a point.[4] You're the one proposing a drastic change of content which has been approved by several other editors during several peer reviews. You bring it up here, and then we talk about it, and if there is support from many others, we can remove it. Not before. You can also make a request for comment or nominate this to be delisted as FA, be my guest. The point is, your own subjective opinion doesn't trump that of many other editors (or the reliable sources), therefore it needs discussion first. FunkMonk (talk) 12:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It's clear from context that this is one opinion. I don't see what the problem is if it's sourced. If somebody publishes a counter-opinion, that can and should be cited too. Done. MMartyniuk (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. Wikipedia isn't a forum or a chatroom on the main page, any more than it is in Talk. People are making an entirely unwarranted public statement about what money SHOULD be spent on. This is completely illegitimate in an encyclopedia, and it really doesn't matter FunkMonk, whether you and a bunch of your friends banded together to intimidate other editors with your opinion. Leptus Froggi (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by consensus and sources. You are working against both. FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• If these removals of sourced content continue, this'll have to be discussed elsewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Restored the content as I see no support for its removal. Vsmith (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Revisiting this

"He also notes that the time and resources required would be enormous, and that the scientific benefits would be unclear; these resources should instead be used to preserve extant elephant species which are endangered." In the sentence as written it is not entirely clear that the final clause is Lister's opinion. It is easily misunderstood as WIKIPEDIA taking a stance on the proposition.--Khajidha (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• "He also notes" makes it pretty clear it is attributed to him. FunkMonk (talk) 12:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The "He also notes" makes it pretty clear that the phrases "the time and resources required would be enormous, and that the scientific benefits would be unclear" are attributed to him. It is not clear that this attribution extends past the semicolon. --Khajidha (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I will add "he suggests these resources". FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. --Khajidha (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong Name

The name of a tool referenced in this article is in error. "Spear thrower" is called an atlatl (at-a-lay), you wouldn't call a Musket a lead thrower. Josh81884 (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Yet that is their common name, as used in the sources. FunkMonk (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Atlatl redirects to spear thrower (I removed leading spaces and added the link in the sentence above)EdwardLane (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

What happened to the taxobox?

Seems someone screwed up the automatic taxobox page? Not sure how to fix it. FunkMonk (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

in what way ? I can't see a change (but I don't know how it looked before or what is incorrect. have you tried looking for the root templates that make up template:speciesbox to see if that is where the change originated? EdwardLane (talk) 02:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

There are no taxa above Mammuthus, and the colour of the template has disappeared. I don't know much about the system. FunkMonk (talk) 02:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• It happened again... FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Fixed; I managed to find where the taxobox was changed by following a redlink added by an apparent vandal. I would not have been able to solve this case without the clue left by the perpetrator on the scene of the crime. The automatic taxobox is not very user friendly, unfortunately. jonkerz ♠talk 20:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks! Yeah, I've given up on using it myself... FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Same thing happened a couple weeks ago with Titanoboa's automatic taxobox. It's too easy for a vandal to screw with them, I'd recommend having them locked or something.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Seems like something's not right with the taxobox again? It doesn't look like those in other articles. FunkMonk (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Somebody deleted the whole Afrotheria taxobox template in an attempt to remove hyaenadonts from Afrotheria. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Reference?

"Local dealers estimate that there are 10 million mammoths still frozen in Siberia" That's a heck of a number to put up there without any reference. Sorry, I don't know how to correctly identify that lack of reference. But, really. You'd think we'd all be tripping over them, large though Siberia may be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.106.190 (talk) 02:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Comparison illustration suggestion

I love this entry, it is beautifully written and laid-out very well. My favorite part is the section on Evolution, a subject that can be difficult for non-scientists like me to fully understand.

I especially liked the second sentence under "Recreating the species": "After several generations of cross-breeding these hybrids, an almost pure woolly mammoth would be produced. The fact that sperm cells of modern mammals are potent for 15 years at most after deep-freezing is a hindrance to this method."

What I wanted to suggest is the addition of a mammoth-human comparison illustration and one between, say, the largest mammoth, the largest mastodon and the larger dinosaurs. I like this illustration comparing a human with several types of sauropods at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauropoda (~20% down the page). Maybe something like that could be done here.

Thank you for such a great entry. Rissa, copy editor (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, would be nice, someone just has to do it... FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

do you mean like this ?EdwardLane (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC) File:Elephantidae-scale.svg

Like that (seems it was uncategorised on Commons for years, so no one found it), yeah, but that one only features the Columbian mammoth, not the woolly one... FunkMonk (talk) 07:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• I added this[5] image, which does show some invalid species (sungari and imperator), but the comparison with the woolly mammoth is alright. But it would be great if someone would make one with more up to date taxonomy... FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I've now removed the synonyms from the image. FunkMonk (talk) 03:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Cloning a mammoth

Regarding the National Geographic story on an attempt by a Korean-Russian team to clone a mammoth, it should be pointed out that all the team has done so far, other than collect some frozen tissue specimens, is to think about how they might proceed. They haven't actually accomplished anything, according to the story. As such, this news story is not encyclopedic and not worthy of mention. Moreover, the approaches they are contemplating are ones that most mainstream scientists would regard as having zero chance of success. WolfmanSF (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it is alright in the article body (not in the lead), which already covers some similar announcements. It can always be removed/cut down if it turns out to go nowhere. Anyone else have thoughts? The diff is here:[6] FunkMonk (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

In general, I would discourage against mention of publicity-seeking scientists who announce grandiose plans without having accomplished much. That deceives less sophisticated readers into viewing their proposals as more plausible than they really are. I suppose exceptions could be made for people who have attained considerable credibility. At this stage of cloning technology, anyone who announces plans to clone a long-extinct species can be safely dismissed as a crackpot or scam artist, even if they receive mention in mainstream media. WolfmanSF (talk) 02:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The "Pleistocene Park" project seems pretty determined. If the animal is to be cloned, it will likely be for commercial purposes, which also seems to drive many other scientific areas. In any case, the paragraph that was added yesterday was too long and hyperbolic. It could be rewritten in more cautious language. FunkMonk (talk) 08:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Determination won't help if the technology isn't there. Given that we currently can't even resurrect species that have died out in the last few years, this idea is just a combination of hot air and wishful thinking. If we are ever able to synthesize complete chromosomes and get them to function, it might become possible. For now, I suppose we could say that people are thinking and talking about resurrecting the species, but we should be careful not to give the impression that this is a practical goal. WolfmanSF (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree with WolfmanSF's comments above. David J Johnson (talk) 11:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't write the paragraph, but I do think elements of it are useful, mostly the fact that a nature reserve has already been put in place for potential reintroduction. I will propose a different paragraph later, with less focus on whoever claims to be close to cloning. FunkMonk (talk) 11:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding cloning a mammoth, that is theoretically possible on the basis of DNA sequence information that we can gather from frozen specimens. The sequencing process for long-dead specimens involves obtaining sequences for many thousands of little fragments, doing it repeatedly so you get lots of overlaps among those fragments, and then computationally assembling the whole genome from that information. Then you could synthesize little segments of the genome and gradually substitute those segments for elephant DNA segments in living elephant cells, and at the end of a very long, laborious and expensive process you might achieve a mammoth clone (although it wouldn't need to be the clone of a single individual). But it is not possible to clone a mammoth from say, frozen mammoth cell nuclei or using frozen mammoth sperm. Freezing at permafrost temperatures does not stop decomposition, it only slows it down. Also, remember that the natural freezing and thawing processes take time and cause more cellular damage. While some seeds and microbes have evolved to be able to survive long periods of dormancy, that is not true of mammalian cells. Any thawed mammoth tissue will consist of dead, non-revivable cells whose DNA, proteins and membranes are fragmented and/or partially degraded in a variety of ways. WolfmanSF (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

My intention was mostly to fuse the related info from 2 separate articles. I agree that obtaining a living, intact, mammoth nucleus for cloning procedures is not possible, and the article could have been more assertive about it. I did not want to delete that section today because I didn't want to upset whoever placed it there. I agree with the deletion of that, in fact, we could would add a paragraph stating why cloning is not an option. In my opinion, it won't be possible in more than a century. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed you also deleted the embryo implantation. Please be aware that CRISPR editing on an embryo is the most likely strategy at the moment. That would be followed by implantation into a female elephant. Being a new technique, we cannot just delete it as "impossible". I suggest we present a paragraph on that. Here is an update from February 2017 on crispr and embryos: [7]. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is still valid as long as the embryo is not presumed to be obtained by nucleus transfer. I've added most of that back as a basis for further edits. WolfmanSF (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure the statement "it is unlikely that the hybrid embryo would be carried through the two-year gestation" makes sense, given that the degree of difficulty in carrying to term would be a function of what fraction of mammoth sequences were added (e.g., 1% of the genome would likely cause much less of a problem than 50%), which we haven't specified. Also, keep in mind that mammoths and Asian elephants are closer than Asian and African elephants. WolfmanSF (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Somewhere in the article it is stated that "10 million mammoths still frozen in Siberia", and elsewhere in this same article it is stated "An estimated 150 million mammoths are buried in the frozen Siberian tundra." It is a vast difference one order in magnitude. Which is it? BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• A massive amount of speculative, POV text was just added without discussion here, so I reverted it. Don't change section titles to make them less inclusive, and don't try to make bringing back the species more feasible than it is. Bring suggestions up here on the talk page one by one so we can discuss them, this is a Featured Article, so it can't just be the dumping ground for stuff about mammoth cloning. This article should just summarise the main points about that, not go into detail. If you want to do that, you should create a new article specifically about it. FunkMonk (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice, you just added back the nonsense about cloning the species by using cell nuclei or sperm from permafrost-frozen tissue that has been dead for thousands of years, decomposing gradually all the while. No one has ever done either of these with an animal that died even a recent natural death in the wild, so either one is absurd. Do you really advocate retaining this material? WolfmanSF (talk) 05:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I noticed, because I wrote it, based on the sources (see article at the time it was featured[8]). Note the text is there to explain why cloning isn't feasible. But looking again, I can see the text has been altered since I wrote it, and is now much more muddled, and less focused. Perhaps it should simply be changed back, so it doesn't go into that much detail about speculative techniques and specific, fruitless efforts. FunkMonk (talk) 06:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I sense possession feelings about this article. The section now includes the work of the main 3 or 4 groups. There is zero POV. In the case of cloning, it is clearly stated it is disfavored by the scientific community. What is ridiculous is writing about mammoth sperm and "recreating" the species. The species is lost, and molecular biology techniques may -or may not- produce a hybrid embryo. See the difference? I'm writing about the various teams objectives, and you want to focus on the negative and in absurd examples. BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm all for changes for the better, but again, if you want to make drastic changes throughout the article, you have to discuss them here first, that's not my opinion, that's Wikipedia guidelines. The onus is on you to argue for the changes before adding them. Whether you believe something is ridiculous or not doesn't matter, all that matters is what the sources say. There are hundreds of sources that discuss downright cloning, so we have to discuss it here as well, and why it may not work. FunkMonk (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

1) I have introduced no POV. 2) I named the Harvard team, their funding source and updated their research. I don't have to ask for your permission to improve those facts. 3) You keep deleting that they are also modifying the hemoglobin genes - I don't have to discuss adding a gene YOU want to omit, and it is not my POV they are working on 4 genes, not 3 as you insist. 4) My version includes the 2 main strategies, and it mentions the roadblocks, especially those for cloning, and I added many references that the scientific consensus is that cloning won't work without a viable cell. 5) I deleted editorials on goats and mice (hint: this is about mammoths). 6) Nothing drastic was changed. 7) If you don't want your edits to be modified, corrected, improved and updated, you are in the wrong encyclopedia project. Now breath deep and verbalize what needs improvement and why. Just reverting me under POV charges is not going to fly. Cheers,BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

That's nice and all, but there is absolutely no reason to change titles into incredibly vague, almost meaningless terms, such as "Legends", or to change the "recreation of the species" section into only being about "hybridisation". That is simply too narrow, and does not reflect everything that has been proposed (the last 20 years, most stories have been about cloning). Likewise, the intro shouldn't be so narrow in scope on this subject. Changing the scope of entire sections, as well as titles, for no proper reason, other than it reflects the supposedly only feasible method of recreating mammoths (POV), is a drastic, unneeded change. We are to explain historical views as well, not just current research. Also, we should not appear as eager proponents of the idea of recreating mammoths by gushing over every single genetic experiment that doesn't even lead to anything anyway. Keep it general until something actually happens, there is absolutely no need to highlight/promote specific teams here, especially since a multitude of teams are working on this in various ways. I have reverted some of your more frivolous changes,but kept the text about genetics, so let's focus on that. The text you deleted from there about other methods simply needs to be restored for historical context. Most layreaders still think cloning is the main method that will be used, so we need to explain, with the text that was already there, why that is difficult.

So to be brief:

1. We don't need to highlight individual teams and every minuscule experiment they do, just give a general idea of what they attempt to do. The current text is a jumbled mess of press-releases.

2. Don't remove explanatory text about historical context that was already there. Don't ignore the fact that other methods for recreating the species have been proposed, and don't make it look like we are the champion of any one method (POV) or team (WP:promotion). Whether through hybridisation or cloning, the goal is the same, to recreate the woolly mammoth.

3. Don't change section titles throughout the article, and remove large chunks of text without explanation (the aforementioned "drastic changes"). FunkMonk (talk) 06:05, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

• Since there has been no further attempt to discuss the issue, I have restored the fully cited text that was deleted, and removed the awful name-dropping fluff that had since accumulated. If you want to add any of it back, condense it, and do not remove any of the existing text in the process for spurious reasons. Again, the current text does not say cloning is possible or the only way creating mammoths/hybrids could be achieved, but simply states this has been considered, and even why it wouldn't work, so don't pull out any straw man-arguments, please. FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Arctic plant diversity and forb prevalence vs. time

While Willerslev et. al (2014) talk about Arctic botanical diversity being low during the last glacial maximum period (the LGM, 25-15 kyr ago), one can see from their Fig. 2a that it was similarly low for most of the preceding 25 kyr, and that it increased rapidly after 15 kyr ago. So, trends in botanical diversity could not have been a factor in megafaunal extinctions occurring (like the woolly mammoth's) after the LGM.

They do not say that forbs "began to disappear 25-15,000 years ago, in favour of grass"; in fact, thy say forbs were dominant during the LGM ("Continued forb dominance during the LGM implies that similar proportions of forbs and graminoids were maintained through this period, despite the significant decline in floristic diversity"). Their data also does not show a significant decline in forbs relative to grass until the period 5-0 kyr ago (Fig. 4a). So, it does not make sense to suggest based on the data presented that decline of forbs caused or contributed to the extinction of mainland woolly mammoths, who were gone by about 10 kyr ago, and the paper does not propose this; it only speculates about a forb-megafauna feedback loop being disrupted by rising temperatures and/or the disappearance of the megafauna. WolfmanSF (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It does suggest this under conclusion. The press releases focus even more on that point. FunkMonk (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you're referring to the Discussion (there isn't any conclusion), where they say, "a feedback loop that maintained nutritious and productive forage and supported large mammalian populations in glacial climate regimes may have been impossible to maintain after deglaciation, as C:N ratios increased with global warming, and the potential breakdown of the megafauna–forb interaction would have been exacerbated by declining mammalian populations". This stops short of actually proposing that decline of forbs caused or contributed to megafaunal extinctions, and in any case, in order to be taken seriously, such a proposal would need to be accompanied by data showing a significant decline in forbs prior to or contemporaneous with the extinctions, and they don't present such data. I haven't seen the press release, but I wouldn't necessarily take that very seriously either, as press releases aren't peer-reviewed, and it may have been written by a PR person. WolfmanSF (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

In that case (I didn't have the paper with me when I wrote the above), I guess the info could be used differently under habitat or diet. Here is a press release with a different focus: http://news.ku.dk/all_news/2014/02/a-smoking-gun-on-the-ice-age-megafauna-extinctions/ FunkMonk (talk) 11:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

That press release is absurd. There was no "major loss of plant diversity" during the LGM (again, look at Fig. 2a), and there is no indication whatever that the megafauna "barely survived" this period, and there is no correlation of either changes in plant diversity or decline of forbs with the extinctions. Also, the press release ignores the fact that the great majority of end-Pleistocene/early Holocene extinctions took place outside of the Arctic; these extinctions were not selective for any particular climate zone or group of climate zones. The press release is pure hot air and should be ignored. WolfmanSF (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Seems we'll have to watch out then, I could imagine people would continue adding this in good faith. FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Native Siberian beliefs about the woolly mammoth

In the Cultural Significance section, it states: Native Siberians believed woolly mammoth remains to be those of giant mole-like animals that lived underground and died when burrowing to the surface. However, I can't find any reference to this in the linked source (http://rstl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/40/445-451/124). Is there a better source for this claim? 85.6.194.90 (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I found a reference to this belief in Our lost explorers : the narrative of the Jeannette Arctic Expedition as related by the survivors, and in the records and last journals of Lieutenant De Long by Raymond Lee Newcomb, p. 96 (https://archive.org/details/ourlostexplorers01newc), and have added it to the article. 85.6.194.90 (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Cool, there is another source in the article that states that, but always good with new ones. You just need to format it in the same way as the other citations. FunkMonk (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Obscure taxonomy stuff

Most modern sources ignore the complicated taxonomic situation concerning this species around the turn of the last century, so I didn't include it when I first wrote the article, as I didn't know where to get an overview and what the issues were. But now that I've gathered some of the sources (mainly[9][10][11][12]), I think it's time to discuss some of this stuff. But it is quite complicated, so will take some time to explain it properly/for me to get it. FunkMonk (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

love the title of this section, not sure I can help but if you want an idiot to say "nope, I don't understand", until your explanation makes sense, let me know. EdwardLane (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Cool, it'll probably be added over some time, while I also edit Columbian mammoth. FunkMonk (talk) 07:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Now the taxonomy section has been expanded and restructured. Is it understandable? FunkMonk (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

American Indian traditions and cryptozoology

I'd like to do a bit of work on the sections explaining American Indian traditions and cryptozoology. I don't think it's a fair assessment to associate Indian traditions, some of which go back over 200 years at least, with modern cryptozoology. There are at least two features that should be discussed: like the Siberians, North Americans had "myths of observation", that is, traditions associated with actual mammoth remains. Additionally, some scholars and others have interpreted certain Native traditions as containing possible folk memory of mammoths. That isn't really cryptozoology on the part of the Indians; in many cases they're authentic traditions that outsiders have read mammoths into. I think the issue could be solved by adding a few lines on North American "myths of observation" and legends that have been interpreted as references to mammoths to the previous section, and then perhaps saying in the cryptozoology section that cryptozoologists have used the Indian traditions. Thoughts?--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• As it is now, the section "cultural significance" is already split in the manner you propose. Text about natives encountering remains and believing they are extant creatures is covered there ("Native Siberians believed woolly mammoth remains to be those of giant mole-like animals that lived underground and died when burrowing to the surface."), not under cryptozoology, and the cryptozoology section already states "Legends from several Native American tribes have also been interpreted by some as indicating folk memory of extinct elephants", which is basically what you requested. Cryptozoology is a pretty broad field, which also includes investigations of folk memory, not only modern search expeditions etc. Also, we should probably not add more text about specific myths, as they could just as well refer to Columbian mammoths or mastodons, not necessary woolly mammoths. To be honest, it wouldn't hurt me if the cryptoozology title was removed and it was just one big section. But we probably need more views on this. FunkMonk (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

What I mean is that the first section should include include North American traditions, specifically that, like the Siberians, they had traditions based on bones and remains, which isn't there now. Additionally, the line that some observers have interpreted American Indian traditions as containing folk memories of mammoths would be more appropriate in that section than under "cryptozoology". What I propose adding would be something like:

The indigenous peoples of North America also used woolly mammoth ivory and bone for tools and art.[13] As in Siberia, North American natives had "myths of observation" regarding the remains of woolly mammoths and other extinct elephants; the Bering Strait Inupiat also believed the bones came from underground burrowing creatures, while other tribes associated them with primordial giants or "great beasts" (Stone, Lankford & Mayor cites). Some observers have interpreted various Native American legends as containing folk memories of extinct elephants (Stone, Lankford & Mayor)." It may also be good to say something like, "though others regard this as speculative".--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, if it can be properly sourced, feel free to add it (and remember to keep the citation style consistent). FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I added it in, and hopefully got the cites right. I couldn't figure out how to get specific page numbers for the Stone cite, but citing the whole thing should be fine; as with the second Lankford cite the relevant material is found throughout it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks good, one small thing, the first name of the authors should just be the initial, as in the other citations. FunkMonk (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Predation

How could a weakened adult be vulnerable to predators like cats and bears? We don't see modern adult elephants being attacked by cats in Africa nor Asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.14.169 (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, sign your contributions; and secondly, place them in the correct order at the foot of the Talk page. Your contribution to the article was pure speculation and has been removed. Wikipedia relies on confirmed sources and not unsourced edits. David J Johnson (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we do see lions attacking adult elephants: [14] FunkMonk (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Minor Error

In the evolution section on the phylogenetic tree there is no cross next to Mammuthus but there are crosses next to other extinct genera in the phylogenetic tree. --184.59.90.136 (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. WolfmanSF (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the instances of X years ago should be changed to X BCE.

8,000 BCE is always the same, but 10,000 years ago is not. --UnindentifiedHuman (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

We do what the sources do. I wonder whether this article will even exist in a thousand years, I'd say your concern is a bit premature. FunkMonk (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Mammoth bone dwellings

Journal reference for the Neanderthal bone dwellings: Demay, Laëtitia; Péan, Stéphane; Patou-Mathis, Marylène (2012). "Mammoths used as food and building resources by Neanderthals: Zooarchaeological study applied to layer 4, Molodova I (Ukraine)". Quaternary International. 276–277: 212–226. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2011.11.019. ISSN 1040-6182. jonkerz ♠talk 21:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, added, no idea why anyone added a horrible about.com link, just noticed and replaced it now... FunkMonk (talk) 09:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Saint Paul Island mammoth

According to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Paul_Island_%28Alaska%29

A dwarf variety of mammoth survived on Saint Paul Island until c. 3,750 BC

but here, we are told that

Isolated populations survived on St. Paul Island until 6,400 years ago

That's a difference of about 630 years. Likewise according to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrangel_Island

the last mammoths on the island c. 1700 BC

but here, we are told that

Wrangel Island until 4,000 years ago

That's a difference of about 300 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:6B0:E:4B42:0:0:0:206 (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, easiest way to determine what is correct is always to check out the sources used. Should be easy for anyone. FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Yukagir mammoth

A summary from the following article should be integrated -- presumably in the 'frozen specimen' section; or at least, a 'See also' section created with link to same: Yukagir mammoth. Also, that article could use some copy/edit, etc. --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:A99B:8185:FE40:CECC (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The specimen is mentioned several times in the article. What else info is important in an article about the species as a whole? FunkMonk (talk) 11:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

It seemed ambiguous at best as to whether or not that specimen was included. Re-reading the 'Frozen specimens' section, I still don't see it; no mention of this "exceptional" specimen discovered in 2002. The 'See also' section is for related articles; Yukagir mammoth would qualify. [op]:107.15.152.93 (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I see, I'll add something tonight. FunkMonk (talk) 08:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I was tempted to do it myself, but didn't want to mess up a 'featured article'.   ;)  [op]:2606:A000:4C0C:E200:A1FA:194E:E841:B585 (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Now added some text. I must admit I thought it was there already, so thanks for the pointer! FunkMonk (talk) 08:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Cryptozoology

Since there is a mention in this article regarding the Woolly Mammoth's importance in cryptozoology, shouldn't it be listed under the WikiProject Cryptozoology?--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

If this article had been written in the early 20th century, then maybe, but no one seriously believe mammoths exist today. Perhaps the title is even misleading, because the sources used don't actually mention cryptozoology. Maybe it should be called "alleged modern sightings" or some such. FunkMonk (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The Thyacline is a Cryprozoology article because there are still sightings of them so should this apply to the mammoth as well?--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

But are there still seriously reported sightings of mammoths? Not as far as I know. There was some video a few years ago which turned out to be a CGI hoax. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Harvard Woolly Mammoth Revival Project

Why no mention of the Harvard Woolly Mammoth Revival Project led by Dr. George Church? MaynardClark (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

There are so many of such purported projects that singling out one of them would be pointless. None of them are even close to achieving it. Cloning already has its own section, and nothing needs to be added there until something is actually accomplished. FunkMonk (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• I've removed a lot of useless and overly specific into from the cloning section. This article is about the woolly mammoth, we don't need to know which month this or that scientific team did something extremely specific that didn't lead to anything, or who funded them. The section reads like bad pop science news, which reflects the (badly formatted) sources that have been added there. FunkMonk (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: The article has a relevant section on cloning, and there is absolutely no valid reason for censorship of the teams involved and their particular progress achieved. Rowan Forest (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "censorship", but with bad writing and WP:summary style, which I suggest you look up. FunkMonk (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Of course, deleting the cited references as "garbage" and "style" only comes from an ignorant with initiative. You years-long campaign deleting information in this article is very cute. Rowan Forest (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the "ignorant" who wrote 90% of this article, and nominated it for featured status. Your personal attacks, including this[15] one, should be enough to report you to the admins. And don't remove entire paragraphs without consensus. FunkMonk (talk) 08:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Woolly mammoth. 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/20150630060405/http://www.heritagedaily.com/2013/11/mammoths-still-walked-the-earth-when-the-great-pyramids-were-being-built/100307 to http://www.heritagedaily.com/2013/11/mammoths-still-walked-the-earth-when-the-great-pyramids-were-being-built/100307
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130201150008/http://rt.com/art-and-culture/news/child-finds-mammoth-639/ to http://rt.com/art-and-culture/news/child-finds-mammoth-639/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118060303/http://www.tacomapubliclibrary.org/morgan/Tukeman.htm to http://www.tacomapubliclibrary.org/morgan/Tukeman.htm

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 10:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Woolly mammoth. 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/20140106233410/http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/a-night-of-exploration/episodes/mammoth-back-from-the-dead/ to http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/a-night-of-exploration/episodes/mammoth-back-from-the-dead/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 08:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Mass deletion of active teams

There is no reason to delete the names and teams working on recreating/hybridizing the species. It is not Lord Voldemort. BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

As stated in the earlier section (where you could simply have replied long ago), it is quite excessive, considering none of these teams have achieved much if anything. In any case, yes, a consensus version could be made (has been made?), which deletes none of the original content. If not, as stated otherwise, it should be restored. FunkMonk (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Citations in intro and single sentence paragraphs

Daniel.Cardenas has for some reason decided without any prior discussion that a single, uncontroversial sentence of the intro should be cited and split off into its own paragraph. This contradicts several MOS guidelines, such as WP:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Citations, and WP:Manual_of_Style/Layout#Headings_and_sections. Furthermore, as a featured article, many experienced users have already looked over this, and if they haven't found the lack of a citation for a single, uncontroversial sentence a problem, it most likely isn't. So such spurious edits should be reverted. Unless this user can convincingly argue why one single sentence arbitrarily needs a citation and to hang alone at the end of the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 05:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

References help people to dig deeper into the subject. The manual of style does not state a preference for or against citations in the lead. It just states for general content that has specific content below a citation may not be necessary. This rule does not apply here. For english we use new paragraphs when changing subject matter. The new sentence has little in common with previous sentence and paragraph. The manual of style correctly states that single sentence paragraphs should be minimized, a wp:lead with just a bunch of disjointed single sentences would be awful. Thanks for your wikipedia editing passion. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 05:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

So as suspected, this was a drive-by edit made on a whim, with no regard at all to prior discussions and reviews, or even an attempt to discuss it first. You have not given any reason why this single sentence out of dozens should arbitrarily be cited, and as for the hanging single sentence paragraph, your personal opinion doesn't really matter in this case when it contradicts the MOS. FunkMonk (talk) 05:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

>You have not given any reason why this single sentence out of dozens should arbitrarily be cited

Let me repeat my first sentence in previous reply.

References help people to dig deeper into the subject.

Does that sound like a reason? Are you reading what I've said or just want to argue?

Your personal opinion doesn't matter because it goes against wp:cite.

Quote: You also help users find additional information on the subject...

I've cited MOS in one case and explained that it doesn't apply in that case. Did you not bother to comprehend that either? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

How does "References help people to dig deeper into the subject" explain why one particular sentence should arbitrarily be cited? By your logic, every sentence should be followed by a citation. The intro is just a summary of the article, where the citations are located. And the source you keep adding is not even used in the article body. And no, we don't make a new paragraph when a subject changes if the resulting paragraph is a single sentence. To paraphrase the MOS, it looks like crap. FunkMonk (talk) 00:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Yuka yields semi-functional nuclei

I expect a few more research papers from the Japanese team following these experiments on nuclear transfer: Signs of biological activities of 28,000-year-old mammoth nuclei in mouse oocytes visualized by live-cell imaging. "In total, 88 nucleus-like structures were collected." After nuclear transfer, it looks like there is limited activity despite extensive DNA damage, which may have held together by histones, and they even detected assembled spindles in 21% of the NT oocytes. The team is now working on "reconstruction of mammoth nuclei upon nuclear transfer to mouse oocytes", as they see evidence that mammoth nuclei potentially stimulate the DNA repair machinery in mouse oocytes. It will take a bit of time to put these findings in perspective for Wikipedia. Rowan Forest (talk) 05:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I think this info would be most fitting in the paragraph that deals with the Yuka mammoth calf. The study doesn't really say anything about the species overall. FunkMonk (talk) 08:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Interesting, but in practical terms it doesn't take us any closer to resurrecting the species. However, it is the sort of announcement that might help them obtain funding. WolfmanSF (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I just added a note of this in the paragraph about Yuka. Genetics are not my strong side, so feel free to modify. FunkMonk (talk) 11:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it merits mentioning. They're not likely to ever to accomplish anything significant with this approach. WolfmanSF (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

No, I don't think it represents any sort of progress towards bringing mammoths back to life or understanding them better. If you believe differently, please explain why. WolfmanSF (talk) 12:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Do not remove info without discussing it first. I already explained this in the edit summary, please read them: "It is significant in relation to the specimen (where the text is placed). As important as it being made into a taxidermy mount, if not more." No one said it is important to mammoth cloning overall, and it is not even in that section. But "biological activity" in mammoth samples is significant in itself regardless of what it will mean for cloning or not, everything doesn't have to be viewed through that lens. If this is very important to you, request or wait for more comments from other editors. Your next revert will be your third, mind you. FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

"Signs of biological activity" is meaningless in and of itself, and not surprising in a living mouse embryo cell to which something was added, except to indicate that the addition did not kill the cell. What they are reporting is the process of spindle formation commenced in association with the injected mammoth chromosomes. Given that the spindle formation machinery is derived from the mouse cells, and that there is no indication of any functional activity of the mammoth chromosomes, it is difficult to claim that the "biological activity" observed has any significance. Rather than go into an explanation of the arcane and not very relevant subject of spindle formation, or leave the reader with a meaningless statement about "biological activity", it makes more sense not to mention this work, which was intended to contribute to mammoth cloning, but which has not achieved any progress towards that almost certainly unattainable goal. WolfmanSF (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Wolfman. The mouse oocyte synthetized the spindle, and it is not surprising it attaches to DNA, any DNA. That is not notable. The point of their preliminary experiments was (no results and no data) to eventually use the oocyte's DNA repair mechanism to reconstruct "some" sections of the dsDNA, BUT that is just a hope; their research will take a very long time to produce any significant results or progress to mention in Wikipedia. The entry in Wikipedia is not useful as it is because it suggests that transcription and translation took place. If not deleted, perhaps it can be reworded to the effect that the mammoth nuclei they obtained from Yuka were the least damaged nuclei ever found, but it is still in very very rough shape (non-functional DNA). Rowan Forest (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

In any case, it is a single sentence directly linked to the specimen in question (Yuka), and yet again, is not even used to say anything at all about cloning or similar (personally, I find cloning the least interesting aspect of this animal). The mere fact that the Yuka specimen was used for such an experiment makes it notable in relation to that specimen, regardless of the implications, just as the fact that it is going to be taxidermied is. FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

The article has 32 (!!) uses of the word also; many of those I checked appeared redundant. See User:Tony1 redundancy reducing exercises. Marking Satisfactory (not watchlisting). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: – tamed from 24 down to three. Tony (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for looking it over! FunkMonk (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

eDNA and extinction

In early February, I added some sections elaborating on recent studies by Wang et al. (2021) and Murchie et al. (2021), both of which found evidence for late-surviving mammoths on the Siberian and North American mainlands via eDNA evidence, with the former study also finding evidence that the mammoth's extinction was linked primarily to environmental factors (in addition, I merged two paragraphs together in the Extinction section that were essentially stating the same thing, although with a bit of unique info for each). These changes were undone by FunkMonk a couple of days later due to this being a featured page, and I was told to bring it to the talk page. So I'm just putting these here. I don't think there was anything really controversial in the info I put, so I think it should be added back as it previously was. Geekgecko (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is already a very long article, so extremely detailed information should be WP:summarised, not written in that much detail, and added to existing relevant sections, instead of making new ones. For example, there is no reason to have two new sections called "Late-surviving mammoths" and "Environmental DNA" when the text in these sections basically deal with the same thing, and fit in existing sections such as "extinction", where these issues are already covered. These new studies warrants a paragraph or so, not entirely new sections. FunkMonk (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, so can I add the info back to the article but summarized? Geekgecko (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, there should be sections already that can adequately contain it. FunkMonk (talk) 09:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Alleged survival unrelated to cultural significance

Why is their alleged survival listed under cultural significance? This seems quite unrelated from a section, and would be better suited under the extinction section. --Rowankoe (talk) 01:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Because it is basically hoaxes and folk tales. FunkMonk (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2023

Please Allow me to change something, I want to state the fact that Woolly Mammoths were slightly smaller than African Elephants and slightly larger than Asian elephants Spinothetherapod09 (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:SOURCE for that claim?--Mr Fink (talk) 06:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The article already states "this is almost as large as extant male African elephants". FunkMonk (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

First direct imaging of mammoth collagen protein

I just wanted to bring this to the attention of the author for this article. The first direct molecular imaging of protein from a woolly mammoth was recently published. It was done using an electron microscope, and shows that the overall 3-D structure of type-1 bone collagen is well preserved within even average, disarticulate permafrost mammoth specimens. It's also compared against a temperate subfossil columbian mammoth, and the preserved protein fibrils can be observed to be far more degraded than the permafrost comaparison. Please see Figure 1 of the following link..and please judge for yourself whether this information is a fit for this webpage:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.9518 184.170.72.76 (talk) 05:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps there could be an article about soft tissue preservation in mammoths, it's almost a subject in itself. This particular article is a bit heavy at the moment, though. FunkMonk (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Extinction

The reason for my recent (and since reverted) changes was, in my opinion, incorrect, unsubstantiated information in the "Extinction" section. The time span of the late Pleistocene extinctions is ultimately difficult to determine precisely. The disproportionate extinction of large carnivores and giant tortoises in Africa began well before 50 kya, and whether we count these as late Quaternary extinctions or not is ultimately a matter of taste. The late Pleistocene extinction article defines the start of the extinctions as 50 kya, and I think to be coherent within Wikipedia we should adopt that definition for this article as well.

A for the part about megafaunal vulnerability, it is a generally recognized fact and a textbook example for Cope's rule that large body size comes with a host of benefits, among them competitive dominance, the improved ability to survive lean times and a reater resilience to drastic climatic changes.[16]

As mentioned above, I felt that these claims were not cited in the body of the article, and I could not find anything in Palkopoulou et al. (the nearest source) that refers to large mammal vulnerability. That may be my mistake, but even if Palkopoulou et al. mention the general susceptibility of large mammals, I think that is a very one-sided view that needs to be balanced. AndersenAnders (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Anders is right that the extinctions are usually taken as having began around 50,000 years ago in most recent publications, but the idea that megafauna were vulnerable due to having slow life histories is something that is widespread in the academic literaure (e.g. [17]) Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Hemiauchenia for replying here. I think you might have misunderstood me there, and I apologize for any ambiguity in my comment above. Obviously, a slow reproduction rate is a disadvantage megafauna face, causing relatively low density, poor genetic adaptability and ultimately a higher risk of extinction due to predation, and you are right in pointing out the scientific concensus on this point.

However, as the paper you cited also points out, large body size was no risk factor in other Cenozoic extinctions, and it has also been pointed out in the literaure that small mammals would be expected to be similarly affected in a purely climatic scenario, which is not the case in Pleistocene extinctions (e.g. [18]) My stance is not that the passage about large mammal vulnerability needs to go necessarily, but that it needs more nuance. If we retain it, we should point out that while megafauna are affected by their fecundity, they are not automatically more vulnerable, e.g. because they are better able to disperse. AndersenAnders (talk) 08:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Well actually, small mammals were affected too in the case of Eurasia. Multiple Mimomys species, Pliomys lenki, and Allocricetus bursae (not to be confused with Allocricetulus) were all small-sized rodents that went extinct within 50,000 years, and multiple Spermophilus went extinct in Europe by the early Holocene due to climate change. PrimalMustelid (talk) 10:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Also remember we can only write what has been specifically formulated in the published literature, not based on our own inferences. We also shouldn't remove cited text if we don't have anything that contradicts it other than our own interpretations, and even if we do have an additional source, both points of view should be included. Even if one view is now outdated, we need to explain in-text that it's outdated and why. FunkMonk (talk) 11:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, the academic literature is explicitly clear in that "body mass was rarely significantly associated with the probability of extinction before the late Pleistocene" and that "climate change did not increase extinction risk for large-bodied mammals before the spread of hominins" [19]. When we mention that large mammals are vulnerable due to low fecundity, we must also mention that this purported intrinsic vulnerability stands under the necessary condition of human presence. AndersenAnders (talk) 12:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps something like: "large mammals are generally vulnerable due to their small population size and low reproduction rates. However, in the Cenozoic prior to the spread of hominins, there was no clear trend that large mammals were more prone to extinction than smaller animals." AndersenAnders (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@PrimalMustelid your knowledge in all honour, but the magnitude of extinction, especially considering that megafauna, in contrast to rodents, have totally disappeared from the northern hemisphere as a functional group, is incomparable, and this reality is also repflected in the literature. On a side note, all of these examples concern small rodents of most pobably steppe habitats, so thy might very well have fallen victim to habitat alterations caused by the megafauna decline, as collateral damage, so to speak. As for Spermophilus, the recent European species are threatened by the abandonment of grazing, and the disappearance of the European suslik from Germany can at least partially be attributed to this fact. I wouldn't be too sure about climate change as the sole reason for Spermophilus citelloides (the species I believe you are referring to) extinction.

But anyhow, small mammals were less strongly affected generally speaking, and this is what counts in this case. -AndersenAnders (talk) 08:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I think you're severely underestimating the major roles of late Pleistocene climatic altercations on Old World mammalian faunas. Many sources have made it clear that extinction causes pretty much vary by continent, and you're probably confusing them as a result. Regardless of human-involved factors, authors have already argued as early as 2004 that even with human coexistence, the now-extinct faunas of western Europe and Siberia could've still survived if it weren't for major climatic changes.

Another source points towards a severe reduction of genetic diversity in the extant genus Dicrostonyx (collared lemmings), which are correlated with climatic and environmental fluctuations within the last 50,000 years (they're virtually extinct in the European range now). Similarly, P. lenki had experienced a severe range contraction in Europe starting from MIS 3 when it was once widespread, eventually going extinct before the Younger Dryas due to climate change and possible competition with other rodents. Even extant rodents like the narrow-headed vole (Lasiopodomys (Stenocranius) gregalis) show high sensitivity in reaction to major climatic events as indicated by mtDNA lineages. The authors of that argue that the turnovers of both small and large mammal lineages in Eurasia have been correlated with abrupt shifts in climate, that human links while possible are weak to negligible for certain faunas. Similarly, many Eurasian megafauna record many of the same population trends where they contract in range in association with major climatic trends from either the Last Glacial Maximum, the Bølling–Allerød warming, the Younger Dryas, or later Holocene trends. The extinctions of multiple species of Spermophilus in Eurasia is not as obvious, but we do know that they largely occupy steppes, semi-deserts, and meadows today. In the case of S. severskensis, it was seemingly specialized towards grazing and had a narrow geographical range, relying on mammoth faunal environments and then going extinct once that largely disappeared due to early Holocene warming followed by mammoth extinctions to no longer maintain them.

I get that you're coming from an ecological stance, but you're overestimating how well faunas can stand major climatic perturbations. If it were that simple, many large animals that were around in the late Miocene should've survived into the Pliocene onward. If you want further insight into megafaunal extinctions in Eurasia, you can check out Chapter 5 of the book "Vanished Giants: The Lost World of the Ice Age," it's a good source for covering the relatively strong paleontological record of the supercontinent.

With that said, I don't see any problem with the extinction section for the woolly mammoth. Its extinction is not nearly as controversial as that of southern North American proboscideans, where a more inadequate North American fossil record hinders our understanding of the extinction processes there. PrimalMustelid (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

It may well be that I am in fact underestimating the effect of climatic changes on mammalian faunas. Unfortunately, we have no way of telling for sure. But I think you are confusing causes and conditions. You see, I quite agree that the severe climatic changes of the Weichselian glaciation were a condition, and perhaps a necessary one, to cause Old World megafauna extinctions. I also believe that, had the glaciation endured, woolly mammoths would probably still be roaming the Eurasian steppe. The strong climatically induced distributional fluctuations that the Eurasian megafauna experienced also go a long way in explaining why in the Old World the northern latitudes lost their megafauna, whereas the southern latitudes retained some of them. To make this clear as well: I think that had the Eemian climate endured, Europe would likely still be home to a functionally complete set of megafauna. But I don't think that any of this was a relevant cause for global extinction.

We know that both the interglacial and the glacial megafauna survived through multiple glacial cycles. To give an example, the straight-tusked elephant (Palaeoloxodon antiquus), generally an apparently warmth-loving species, must have survived through the Elster and Saale glaciations, despite being pushed to the southern extremes of its range. On this basis, we can predict that the straight-tusked elephant should have survived through the Weichselian. Indeed, it made it more than halfway through the Weichselian before suddenly going extinct ~28kya [20], a time when the the climate was neither extraordinarily cold nor particularly unstable (in the context of the whole Weichselian), but at a time when Homo sapiens dispersed into Europe.

I think that we are being insincere by attributing global late Pleistocene extinctions to climate change, when there is so little evidence to suggest that climate alone was decisive. On the other hand, we have plenty of indication that climate alone was not decisive, but that the addition of humans was. And there you have it. I will even concede that the most dramatic population collapses and range contractions in Eurasia were due to climate alone. But if the human impact, however little, was apparently necessary to cause metapopulation-level extinction, then this is the effective cause for me, and climate a, perhaps necessary, condition.

In my opinion, the late Pleistocene global obliteration of megafauna is fundamentally different from earlier faunal turnovers, which were most likely caused by climatic changes. This is because the late Pleistocene extinction is characterised by a complete lack of ecological and functional continuity. Even though I haven't looked at the papers (but will, very interesting material), I don't think that steppe-adapted rodents are good indicators in this case. This is because the steppe is in itself not a self-sustaining ecosystem. In many cases, it needs animals to sustain itself. If these animals vanish, we can expect that small animals adapted to this ecosystem will follow. A recent study suggested that this is what happened to the curlews (Numanius). I would not be surprised if the same mechanisms are at play in rodents, but it is infinitely difficult to determine whether prehistoric population collapses are due to climate change or to the collapse of megafauna populations.

Thank you for the book recommendation, and I want to similarly draw you attention to this article series, which is concerned with the general patterns of megafauna extinctions in Europe and Siberia, and the respective roles of climate and people.

However, none of this is even close to what I want to change in the section on the woolly mammoth extinction. The article attempts to draw a general conclusion about extinction risk for large mammals, for which I have found no basis in the sources cited or in the scientific literature. I suggest making it clearer exactly which source this sentence is based on, and to balance it. AndersenAnders (talk) 10:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The source is Lister 2007's chapter about extinction, and it looks like the citations have been shifted around by various editors who have added text with little regard to how the structure was originally. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I don't have access to that source. But then we can write: Large mammals are generally vulnerable due to their small population size and low reproduction rates (Lister). However, in the Cenozoic prior to the spread of hominins, there was no clear trend that large mammals were more prone to extinction than smaller animals [21]. No? AndersenAnders (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I will copy the citation up in my next round of edits. But note we can't pick and choose various sources to combine, that is WP:synth. You need a source that specifically says what you want in the relation to this species. FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Why? As I understand it, both sentences are generalisations that don't necessarily pertain to the woolly mammoth in particular. If that were the case, we would have to say "Large mammals, such as the woolly mammoth, are generally vulnerable (...)." AndersenAnders (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The Lister source is a book about mammoths specifically, and the statement is made in the context of their extinction. That is very different from shoehorning in an article about general body size trends in mammals that is not about either mammoths or their extinction. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I see. Very unsatisfactory. I will investigate to see if there is such a source. Otherwise we'll have to keep a sentence that contradicts current knowledge. In this case I apologise for sparking an ultimately pointless debate. But we should still change to 50 kya. AndersenAnders (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

What is unsatisfactory? And what source should we base the 50 kya number on? I have moved the Lister citation up and added a newer cladogram, by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I find it unsatisfactory that we cannot change the passage about large mammals being generally more vulnerable, as it is only partially accurate. For the timing we may use this source [22], which is the one the used in the Late Peistocene extinction article. Others have argued that the extinctions started around 120 kya [23], but I don't really understand where the 40 kya even comes from. Of the two sources nearest to the statement, [24] is only concerned with the time (~42 kya) when suitable habitat for the woolly mammoth began to shrink, and [25] only deals with the time when the extinction began in Eurasia, so earlier extinction events in Africa and Australia are inevitably not mentioned. AndersenAnders (talk) 10:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Size image

The current image is misleading as it implies that woolly mammoths were uniformly around 3.5 metres tall when most individuals were considerably smaller than this. If we are going to have a silhouetted size comparison, then I would rather we had one like Steveoc's African bush elephant one, which shows the height difference between males and females as well as the difference between the average size and the largest recorded individual. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Male and female shoulder height estimates are given in this paper, and I would be happy to create a size diagram based on this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Probably easiest to ask the author Slate Weasel to make any modifications then. You mentioned clutter in your edit summary, if it's because the mammoths overlap, they could be spread out more. Either way, I don't think it's an improvement to replace with an image that has less taxa. FunkMonk (talk) 11:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Why do we need an image with multiple mammoth species in this article to begin with, given that this is the woolly mammoth and not the mammoth article? Showing the size variation within the species is more informative to the reader than comparing a single very large (as in, considerably larger than average) woolly mammoth individual to individuals of other mammoth species (some of which are also very large like M. trogontherii). Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Because it shows its size in relation to its relatives, and given how the woolly mammoth is often popularly noted for its size, it's important to show it in context (and showing that other species were larger or smaller, like we do in other articles for taxa noted for their size). I see no good reason why not to show this in a single image, as long as it is visually clear. FunkMonk (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

But the diagram deliberately picks the largest known specimens of several species (notably M. primigenius and M. trogontherii), which provides a misleading impression of the size of these species. It's like taking Shaquille O'Neal as representative of human height. I've made a size diagram comparing the average size of male and female woolly mammoths (based on the estimate in the paper I linked earlier, the Larramendi 2016 paper does not provide a female estimate), which I think is suitable for inclusion in the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

That's why we should discuss the diagram so it can be improved instead of removing it without discussion. And please don't remove any more info without discussing it first, it's disruptive; ask for the citations instead. That some drive-by editors have messed the citations up doesn't mean they can't simply be added again, simply removing the info risks that it will never be added again, so at the very, very least, add a citation needed tag. FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the current diagram is okay as is as long as its clearly specified that the specimen in the diagram is of above-average size and there are other complimentary diagrams showing the average and size variation within the species. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but then the caption and Commons description can just be changed. If we want changes to the image, Slate is active enough that we can wait for it. As for citations, lack of page numbers doesn't justify removing information, we have pages needed and citation needed tags for that, and you've asked for photos of the pages before, so you can just ask again. I'm all for anyone improving the article, but removing info before checking that it can be cited simply isn't improvement. FunkMonk (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for re-providing the citation. The lack of citation structure of the section before I edited it made it very confusing to try to figure out what estimates came from where. If I was 100% sure the estimate was from Lister 2007 I would have been less inclined to remove it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The problem with a popular article like this is that it attracts a lot of drive-by editors who mess around with the text so that citations don't end up where they should be, or the same citations are added again, just with different formatting than what has already been established, as in this case. While I wrote most of the article, it's extremely difficult to keep track of all those changes, but I usually know which sources to consult in case something looks off. FunkMonk (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)