Talk:Giraffe/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Request for Comment: Listing non-English words for an animal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is it useful or appropriate for an article about an animal to give a list of words for that animal in various non-English languages? Specifically, should the Etymology section of "Giraffe" include a list of words for giraffe in various African languages? J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• No: simply listing names in other languages is what dictionaries do, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Only those names that have contributed to the etymology of the English word "giraffe" should be mentioned. Discussion on the archaic name "Camelopard" may be encyclopedic as well. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
• Yes: Etymology sections deal with the naming of the animal in general and giving native names enriches the article and makes it less Western-centric. LittleJerry (talk) 03:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
• No, a plain "list of words" is not suitable for Wikipedia. I have to agree with Finnusertop, Wikipedia is not a dictionary nor is it Google translate (or any other translator in that sort) and therefore a list of translations for Giraffe is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Davidbuddy9 Talk  04:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: I observed that a few FAs like Hippopotamus and Giant otter do mention a few native names. The point is that there does not seem to have been any opposition or encouragement for the inclusion of native names in articles. Nor is the MOS clear about this. While I agree with LittleJerry's views, it does seem the list is a bit too long. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 09:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
• No: See my arguments in the preceding section. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
• No. This is not 'Etymology', if any of these names had any connection to the name, or if the animal had any connection to these 'peoples', it might make sense, but this is random info.Pincrete (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• Yes in moderation As Sainsf notes, a fully fledged and polished species article does benefit from mentioning a few non-English names for full coverage. But I suggest this is in the manner of a finishing touch and shouldn't be overdone. Three of four names when nearing GA - yes, long lists and/or when there's much other information missing - no.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 04:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Id be willing to concede to this. LittleJerry (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

We can't arbitrarily decide which languages to include and which not, neither can we be sure we have covered all such local names. I think the best we can do to retain a "local touch", or a non-Western perspective as LittleJerry suggests, is to retain a few names, perhaps by choosing the most widely used languages from the list. I believe this will help a large number of native readers, and that is what our aim is. The table here [1] and a few Google searches show that Swahili and Zulu are clearly the most widely spoken of the list of languages we have here. A point to be noted is that Portuguese is a widely spoken language in Africa, but it is not included here. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I respectfully but strongly disagree. A handful of African words for giraffe would not "help . . . native readers". Nobody is going to look on English Wikipedia to discover the Luo word for giraffe, or look for the Luo word for giraffe on English Wikipedia in order to find out what the English word is. English is also widely spoken in Africa, yet there are millions of Africans who speak neither English nor Swahili nor Zulu nor Portuguese. If we want to help African readers, we might learn their languages and help translate Wikipedia. (Though there are probably more meaningful ways to help.) I consider it most disrespectful and condescending to use a few token "native" words, which will be utterly meaningless to the vast majority of readers of English Wikipedia, as a cheap way to be "less Western-centric", i.e., to help white people feel virtuous. Forgive my harshness, but it just burns me up. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem, Jdcrutch. I am not a proponent of including these either, and I respect your views. The proposal I gave was if we must agree on some compromise, but the RfC is yet to be over. :) Sainsf (talk · contribs) 04:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Briefly examining some articles on non-african animals I don't see this practice. If this were to be common practice, how would you pick the languages to list the word for the animal from? For example for "Wolf" there might be a word for this animal in hundreds of languages. Which ones do you list? Also, this has nothing to do with Etymology of the name. Listing names from languages not related to English (in an English article) should be in another section, not Etymology because that is mislabelling the information. Thinking about adding another section to an article to hold this information seems like it would reduce the coherence of most articles. Klaun (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• No: A list of foreign words for "giraffe" does not contribute to the reader's understanding of the topic and in any case is misplaced under the heading "etymology". If someone wants to contribute to a non-western perspective, seems like the section, "relationship with humans" would be the place to start.Glendoremus (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• No: I just looked at the article and immediately glazed over at the sight of the African names. These are not helpful in an English WP article. I note there are similar lists of African names on the Hippopotamus and Elephant article. If consensus is that these should remain, they should be in their own section - they certainly do not belong in "Etymology". DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Yes with reservations. The list as it stands is less than half a page; consequently it doesn't interfere with the article's usefulness to anyone who doesn't care about the nomenclature. (I do not say "etymology" because as it stands the list contributes precious little to the etymology.) The principle about avoiding lists etc doesn't really apply, because this is a very small list and is in context; we have plenty of unobjectionable articles with longer lists and tables. At the same time, most of the items in the list have little clear function in the context of the article; there is no discussion of the items in the list, and in fact vernacular names in minority languages are notoriously unreliable and unstable and there is little evidence that the list given has been properly checked for reliability and stability, let alone points of interest, so I wouldn't object to some fairly severe pruning. JonRichfield (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
• No - listing a word in several different languages is irrelevant. That is what dictionaries and translators are for. If we did that for this article then we would have to justify not doing it for every other article on Wikipedia. It is not important information, and this is the English version of Wikipedia. There are Wikipedia's in different languages for this kind of stuff. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
• It depends – For an article on a species in the English Wikipedia, I think it is appropriate to discuss the contemporary and historical names for that species in English (including its various different national/regional varieties), any present and former scientific names, and the etymology of the preceeding. Non-English names generally shouldn't be mentioned unless they are relevant to the etymology of a current or former name in English, or the etymology of the scientific name (or a former scientific name). Info on other non-English names belongs in Wiktionary, Wikidata, Wikispecies, other language Wikipedias, etc. For giraffe specifically, I understand the etymology comes via Italian and Arabic, with the spelling influenced by French, so it would make sense to discuss those languages; but African languages should only be mentioned if there is a suggestion that language contributed to the etymology, such as by being the source of the Arabic zarafa–that seems to justify mentioning its name in Somali (a possible source of the Arabic word), but not Swahili or Zulu. (I think mention of Afrikaans is borderline–it isn't very relevant, but could be justified as an example of an obsolete English name having a surviving cognate in another language, and also as an example of a language in which the present common name is etymologically related to the scientific name.) So in this case, I'd drop the mention of Swahili and Zulu, and I'm 50-50 on dropping the mention of Afrikaans, but I'd keep the mention of Italian/Arabic/French/Latin/Greek/Somali. SJK (talk) 07:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Under the present circumstances, then, isn't this editor's comment in fact "No"? I don't think anybody objects to the article's discussing foreign words that bear on the actual etymology of the English words (including the Graeco-Latin scientific names used by English-speakers). The RfC is directed to a list of non-English words for the animal.

Note that the Afrikaans kameelperd derives, not from English camelopard, but (like the English word) from Latin camelopardus. See "Kameelperd", Handwoordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal (Pearson Education South Africa, 2010). It therefore, in my view, does not belong in this article. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Objection: I respectfully call the forum's attention to the fact that, a few days ago, LittleJerry, whose reversion of my edit prompted this RfC, altered the list of African words, removing all but the Afrikaans, Zulu, and Swahili words. I consider it improper for an editor to alter the text in question while a RfC is pending, so I have reverted LittleJerry's edit and restored the status quo ante. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• It depends - I don't think a list of foreign language terms is warranted in this case, but it isn't necessarily inappropriate. The best mammal example I can come up with at the moment is tanuki (the transliterated Japanese name for Japanese raccoon dog). It's culturally important in Japan, and probably better known in English as tanuki than by the etymologically English name, there being more English speakers interested in Japanese video games/manga/anime where tanukis often appear than there are English speakers interested in the native fauna of Japan.

I suppose it comes down to whether a name from another language is regularly used in English language texts, keeping in mind different national varieties of English. It's trivially easy to find examples of this for species that are used as food. "Bangus" is the Tagalog name for milkfish, but bangus is also the name in Philippine English. There are tons of English language recipe results if you Google bangus+recipe. Kumara is the Maori derived New Zealand English term for sweet potato, and you can also find plenty of English sweet potato recipes using the Spanish "camote". Brinjal is Indian English for eggplant/aubergine. It does become a problem figuring out where to stop including foreign names adopted into English spoken in the Global South. The Philippines, Malaysia and India have millions of English speakers who will use their native term in English conversations when talking about the fish and vegetables they're going to cook for dinner. No problem including Tagalog and Malaysian names, but once India enters the picture it gets difficult. Include Hindi? Absolutely. All of the other 21 official languages of India? No. But where to make the cut off?

If people speaking South African English or Tanzanian English use etymologically Afrikaans/Zulu/Swahili names for an animal, these names should be included up to a point. Plantdrew (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Only If Relevant - As Plantdrew said, if there is a special significance to a particular animal in another language, this can be mentioned. For this article, the long list of different African languages is not relevant or helpful. I would make the sole exception (in this article) be the Afrikaans "Kameelperd", due to its similarity to the latin. Fieari (talk) 06:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Request for Closure: This RfC has expired, and Legobot has deleted the RfC template, but the discussion has not been formally closed; and although I think it's clear which way consensus is tending, that's not obvious and unequivocal; so I've requested formal closure by an administrator. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hard to see?

While adult giraffes standing among trees and bushes are hard to see at even a few metres' distance, that can't possibly be right for an animal of such size.--2A00:1028:83D6:8E56:3DB6:3B3:569B:713 (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Zoo hybrids

Given that not all zoos were/are particularly careful when they thought there was only one species, are there many hybrid specimens in zoos? 99.112.124.20 (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

"the giraffe"

Considering the reclassification of giraffes as four species, the phrase "the giraffe" should be removed from this article. Most usages would change to "giraffes". --Khajidha (talk) 14:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

For example the final paragraph. It's rather important there.—Arpose (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Four species edits, September 2016

"Four distinct species" (I'm sticking my neck out here)

2016-09-08: Fancy writing all this up?

Giraffe genetic secret: Four species of tallest mammal identified

It is a famous, gentle giant of the African savanna, but the giraffe's genetics have just revealed that there is not one species, but four. Giraffes have previously been recognised to be a single species divided into several sub-species. But this latest study of their DNA suggests that four groups of giraffes have not cross-bred and exchanged genetic material for millions of years. This is a clear indication that they have evolved into distinct species. The study published in the journal Current Biology has rewritten the biology of Earth's tallest mammal.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37311716 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.34.33.232 (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I see what you did there.

It looks like some of the established subspecies (but not all) are actually species.

I'm sure we can magic up something.

Nota bene: This may be a play for increased protection: "Lumping all giraffes into one species obscures the reality that some kinds of giraffe are on the brink. Some of these populations number only a few hundred individuals and need immediate protection."

Kortoso (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The research paper that reveals that there are 4 species is at http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)30787-4 . Unfortunately, I need to get ready for a job interview. Jesse Viviano (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

It's too early to make this leap. The authors of the paper even state "we suggest that these should be recognized as discrete species". Dger (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree; the authors put forward a suggestion for reclassification, which now has to be validated by other researchers. A mention of this study would be fine, but it's too early to go the whole hog on changing the taxonomy as stated in the article yet. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I think we do mention a 2007 study to this effect. "A 2007 study on the genetics of six subspecies—the West African, Rothschild's, reticulated, Masai, Angolan, and South African giraffe—suggests they may, in fact, be separate species."

Kortoso (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Directly from the summary "Even after a century of research, the distinctness of each giraffe subspecies remains unclear, and the genetic variation across their distribution range has been incompletely explored. Recent genetic studies on mtDNA have shown reciprocal monophyly of the matrilines among seven of the nine assumed subspecies [ 3, 4 ]. Moreover, until now, genetic analyses have not been applied to biparentally inherited sequence data and did not include data from all nine giraffe subspecies"..."Coalescence-based multi-locus and population genetic analyses identify at least four separate and monophyletic clades, which should be recognized as four distinct giraffe species under the genetic isolation criterion. Analyses of 190 individuals from maternal and biparental markers support these findings and further suggest subsuming Rothschild’s giraffe into the Nubian giraffe, as well as Thornicroft’s giraffe into the Masai giraffe"

This seems pretty definitive to me- if the previous studies were incomplete, with this one the most comprehensive yet, should we not update to the most thorough and recent knowledge on this subject? However, I am interested by Elmidae's comment of "has to be validated by other researchers". As I know you are an ecologist, I respect that your knowledge is probably better than mine on research papers. However, isn't a pool of nine researchers (Julian Fennessy, Tobias Bidon, Friederike Reuss, Vikas Kumar, Paul Elkan, Maria A. Nilsson, Melita Vamberger, Uwe Fritz, Axel Janke) supported by prominent organisations on such a well established journal at least merit the reformation of a selection of wikipedia articles? Derived from a perspective reviewing previous genetic analyses of "Giraffa", suggests this was probably foreseen. In light of this new article, I would propose that we do change the taxonomy of "Giraffa". What I adore of this platform is that it is flexible- should there be rebuking evidence or substantial criticism, then we can change it again. However, amongst the wave of press and substantial material suggesting otherwise, I see no harm in updating this article, amongst others.

SuperTah (talk) 01:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the whole point of the study was to clear this up. And they did clear it up; note that they found four species and one subspecies, not nine species or whatever. Abductive (reasoning) 02:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, it appears that the scientific community hasn't really had much opportunity to respond to these findings yet; the paper is at the pre-print online stage and has only been out for a day. Being authored by a large group of people is not in itself proof against telling criticism. As such, I would be more comfortable if this was given some time to make the rounds and become accepted before we restructure several articles based on it, which has generally been WP's approach. There is, after all, no rush, and at the same time nothing preventing us from mentioning the study in the interim, including prominently in the lede. - OTOH, it's not exactly a controversial topic, and I certainly don't know of any reason for doubting the specific findings, so eh... see what people think :) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Nah, people keep editing. Abductive (reasoning) 06:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

(Mounting guard over good faith edits on 4-6 articles while sitting out based on precautionary principles may also create more antagonism than it's worth) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a matter of directing them to the correct place. Abductive (reasoning) 06:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Hold on Abductive and Neegzistuoja; at the very least, the original Giraffe page, or 'Northern Giraffe' page as of this moment, should still contain the entire 'Giraffa' genus, as the entire article is constructed to provide information on the totality of 'Giraffa'. There is not as much sense for the 'Northern Giraffe' page to contain all this information, when it is in fact required for the genus page, for the sake of the general public and fellow Wikipedians alike. Moreover, the consensus on this page is to hold out on radical reconstructions, and to dismiss a fellow editor such as Elmidae is bad practice. Thus, I ask that you at least reverse your edits on the original 'Giraffa' page (construct your own 'Northern Giraffe' page if you wish) and contribute to reverse the consensus on this talk page by writing rather than editing.

SuperTah (talk) 07:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

SlySven (talk) 01:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

For the record, the four species that the BBC report noted were the Northern, Southern, Reticulated and Masai (presumable this is in the research paper but I have not looked at that).

Abductive, Neegzistuoja,SuperTah,SlySven, Elmidae: I suggest the Giraffa article be augmented with the general information about all giraffes, including the new species delimitations of Brown et al. (2007) and Fennessy et al. (2016), and details specific to seperate species be placed under the species-specific articles. DerekELee (talk) 10:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey all- in light of no response, after five and a half hours, from the majority of you, I believe that I should take leadership of this role. Elmidae, I concur with DerekELee, in believing that a pragmatic solution must be taken, in reforming all related Giraffid articles to align with recent research. I only take this option at this time as I believe that with the surprising amount of editors having already taken action on this subject, that the majority believe we should take this action, and that continuously undoing many editors work on the basis of patience, when the research seems definitive, is counterproductive. I also agree in making species specific articles- however, the 'Northern Giraffe' article should not be pasted upon the original Giraffe species article. Thus, I shall undo all progress on the Northern Giraffe, and place my original recalibration of an article pertaining the overall genus. The 'new' genus page shall be reformed to become the new 'Northern Giraffe' page. I shall give fifteen minutes from the posting of this piece for any comments or queries, as action must be taken, especially since there shall be a significant amount of traffic incoming due to press. SuperTah (talk) 11:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Judging from the amount of edits, the giraffe train has left the station :) I was unable to connect for a day (I swear the SA net infrastructure has a mule train stage somewhere). Good luck with keeping things organized! -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I apologise for the messiness of this rework- I shall endeavour to fix this dead links on this page. SuperTah (talk) 12:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Target articles

Please leave this article for the northern giraffe Giraffa camelopardalis and edit the genus article Giraffa about the split into four species. And the new species are:

• southern giraffe (Giraffa giraffa)
• Masai giraffe (G. tippelskirchi)
• reticulated giraffe (G. reticulata)
• northern giraffe (G. camelopardalis), which includes the Nubian giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis camelopardalis) as the lone subspecies.

I would suggest creating the new articles at the scientific names, since the "common" names are newly minted. I leave it to others to decide what G. c. angolensis, G. c. antiquorum, G. c. rothschildi, G. c. thornicrofti and G. c. peralta are now, if anything. Abductive (reasoning) 02:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I suggest the general giraffe information currently in the northern giraffe article be shifted to Giraffa, and specifics of each species be put under the species-specific articles DerekELee (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Pages for the four species do exist, titled by the common names.

• Northern giraffe
• Reticulated giraffe
• Masai giraffe
• Southern giraffe

Marfinan (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Yes, that study strongly suggests there are four species. But they have not yet been recognized. They may well be, but they have not yet been so recognized. Wulfy95113 (talk) 06:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Move repair needed

Oh my. All these moves have made a real mess of things. There was a page at Giraffa that included 7 extinct species. I don't know where that's gone. The page history for Giraffe is now at Giraffe (Giraffa) (as is this talk page). I really hope all the moves are done. Talk pages need to get realigned with article titles, histories need merging, and I hope somebody can figure out what happened to the page that covered the genus and it's extinct species. Plantdrew (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Done. Jesse Viviano (talk) 16:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Added species column to table

The four species classification requires another column on the table, which I've added. Not sure why Rothschild's and Rhodesian are labeled as "former subspecies." Should we just say nine subspecies? Marfinan (talk) 12:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Reduction in giraffe numbers (or is it just a tall story?)

The International Union for Conservation of Nature have reported on declining numbers: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/giraffes-become-at-risk-of-extinction-as-population-plummets-by-40-conservationists-warn-a3415086.html

If this is new data, perhaps the article should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.219.229 (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The latest is not the best: from four species to one gain

Ping to: Abductive, Dger, SuperTah, Elmidae.
The controversy started: read these papers. In particular, the first summarizes: "Fennessy et al. present a new perspective on giraffe taxonomy, but the conclusions should not be accepted unconditionally". To make it simple, results from the 2016 paper were known with more details since 2007 (Brown et al. study). The 2016 team was just ballzy enough to elevate four names to species rank. These names were already recognized and applied to subspeccies described for centuries, though in interview researchers said stuff like: "We were extremely surprised, because from our observations the morphological and coat pattern differences between giraffe are minor" and "For some reason this megafauna has been overlooked by scientists for a long time". This is a study case of inflating results to make the news. And it worked even here on WP, as the article is divided in four pieces.
The division of the Giraffe in 9 subspecies, or 4 to 6 species with subspecies does not reach consensus: it urges to wait. Though, my modifications appeared not to be consensual either (1 and 2), so it seemed be better to discuss it before editing. Totodu74 (talk) 10:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I actually agree that this recent research result could have done with some more wait-and-see, and that the immediate implementation in all related articles was premature. However, as consensus seems to have fallen that way, I'd suggest we at least make note of the ongoing criticisms. If we swing far enough into recentism to adopt the new classification directly on publication, then we have to keep track of well-sourced dissent as well. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

You say: "However, as consensus seems to have fallen that way". Could you precise please? I read above:

• Dger: "It's too early to make this leap. The authors of the paper even state "we suggest that these should be recognized as discrete species"."
• Yourself, Elmidae: "Agree; the authors put forward a suggestion for reclassification, which now has to be validated by other researchers."
• Kortoso referred to a 2007 study that suggests considering 6 species at least
• Wulfy95113: "Yes, that study strongly suggests there are four species. But they have not yet been recognized. They may well be, but they have not yet been so recognized."

I see no consensus and SuperTah seems to be the only one to adopt unconditionally the 2016 point-of-view. Who else? Moreover, the discussions you refer to are outdated, as precise criticism and call for caution have just been published. We can't say nothing to see here! :) Totodu74 (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. I mostly stopped tracking developments here after everyone got busy updating the separate articles. Looks like it was more of a tacit consensus, i.e. no one felt strongly enough about it to complain. Some further discussion seems warranted.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Most of the criticism seems to stem from poor writing by the Fennessey group. Abductive (reasoning) 16:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Brown group already outlined the well-defined populations mentionned (even 6...). I think it is not about the poor writing. It is marginally about the poorness of the dataset (thex synonymise thornicrofti with tippelskirchi on the basis of 5 specimens!), but mostly about interpretation of results (lack of rigorous species concept, the population geneticists' K is presented as the objective tool dictating species delineation). Totodu74 (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

"This split is not accepted and there are sources now; being the most recent is not being right." I read the PDF file. And I see following Bercovitch et al. interpreting with the idea of 4 separate giraffe subspecies being unacceptable, Fennessy et al. corresponded after. In the PDF file, the whole thing wasn't about confirming that the four-species idea was wrong. I am seeing a conflict between the two of them. One that contradicts the whole idea and the other that still considers the possibility. And I agree with Fennassy group about one thing, none of us are surprised that the four-species idea would have stir up controversies. Since the day the giraffes were listed as Vulnerable in Summer 2016, it was mentioned by the IUCN that it was premature to alter taxonomy. It was after the Fennessy group's analyses on four giraffe kinds. And I agree that it was too soon to change things. But it was too late. Welp, the updates have already been established, in the English Wikipedia and others of different languages. Since there is a conflict between two sources, as there is a four-species claim whilst the IUCN sticks with the view of a single species, we are waiting for giraffe experts to reach a conclusion. So why bothering for further changes if things are already done before we reach a conclusion? We will be willing to restore things back to Giraffa camelopardalis once the division of four giraffe species idea is rejected (that would be kind of hassle after working hard on them...), or we stick to what we currently have here if the Fennessy group's plan is legit. We have four giraffe species here now, so no immediate changes until then. I know you're not okay with what we have here, but once the whole idea gets denied per consensus, we will restore things back to the way they were. Honestly, we wouldn't split any articles to begin with otherwise and the idea of doing so would be unaccepted until we have a consensus. But it's too late. And when you asked if I saw the talk page, Totodu74, I knew most about it way back before the controversy started. Controversies between sources and on Wikipedia were bound to happen, like right now.--FierceJake754 (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Haha, I would have better appreciated this call to statu quo when some proposed giving in to the splitting of articles! ;) We all agree this first move was a gross mistake, it is about a single team's conclusions the scientific community did not accepted. Now that secondary sources exist, they criticize the study and praise for "the conclusions [not to] be accepted unconditionally". The convenience of not doing anything (it is almost laziness) should not override the principles (WP:RECENTISM, WP:UNDUE)... Totodu74 (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

It probably was a mistake to split too early. But I probably said it misunderstanding manner. Pardon me. When I said we wouldn't split, it's not that we wouldn't want to split anything. We would have laid low until then and not split anything too soon. We would have a proposal on whether we should split or not. It does not mean that splits would have never occurred, it's that we probably would have hesitated. It's undeniable that splits would have happened eventually, they were valid sources which did quite made a lot of sense in many ways. So yes, we all contributed to the splits. Acting too soon was not that much of "gross" like you said, it's just not-so-much ideal of a plan because of what-if scenarios. But splits have already happened like it would have happened eventually, so what the heck? Though it would be gross if all of it turn out to be wrong. If it was the case, like I said, we would all return things to back to the way things were. But instead we have two conflicting sources in the same PDF book (one opposing it and one considering it still) and we still have no consensus. I don't think that's laziness. It's that we are better off not doing any further alterations (restoring Giraffa camelopardalis to like it was before like you want to) until the giraffe experts reach a conclusion. Why bother before the consensus? We have none. We have Giraffa giraffa, Giraffa camelopardalis, Giraffa reticulata and Giraffa tippelskirchi. We have what we have here and we deal with what we have here until the consensus.--FierceJake754 (talk) 04:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Now that we do have the four species structure, we should not make the same mistake again and hastily swing back before more of a consensus is reached in the scientific community. Criticism of that classification is discussed quite explicitly in the genus article; I think that covers the bases until that time. I would have preferred if we had stuck to the previous state and done the same, but seesawing back and forth with several other articles in tow does no good to either the readers, WP's credibility, or the editing environment. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

We all agree it was stupid to implement the "4 species structure", but now it is set up we should consider it as undoable. You are saying: we were totally wrong, but if we admit it our credibility will suffer. All of this is incredible. Totodu74 (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

April the giraffe

Page watchers are invited to assist with the expansion of the newly created stub, April (giraffe). Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2017

Minnesota, Kentucky, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Caribbean, Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, South Carolina, Canada, Mexico, Louisiana, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming and Australia 2601:446:8100:B57B:59DE:4C1E:894A:52DC (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Giraffes are found in Africa. Gulumeemee (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Notable individuals

There is a category: Individual giraffes that includes six entries. This is probably not sufficient for a standalone article, but I suggest a section for this article would be appropriate (i.e.: a bullet-list with summary). Comments? --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:AC43:3B49:CF5E:E4EF (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Two of the individual giraffes with articles (Zarafa (giraffe) and the Medici giraffe) are already linked in this article. The other four are flash in the pan internet celebrities (and one of these is up for deletion). There's no need to list every giraffe that has an article; keep it to ones that have some enduring historical notability. Zarafa was one of three giraffes] given to European rulers in 1827; it might be worth mentioning the other two. Plantdrew (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2017

In the 3rd paragraph of the Relationship with humans section there is a hidden link: [[Zarafa (giraffe)|famous giraffe]]. Please change to reveal link. Suggested:

• Please change

Another [[Zarafa (giraffe)|famous giraffe]] was brought ...

-to-

[[Zarafa (giraffe)|Zarafa]] was another famous giraffe, brought ...

(or similar wording at editor's discretion) 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:AC43:3B49:CF5E:E4EF (talk) 04:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Done using a different wording with the same meaning. Gulumeemee (talk) 05:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:AC43:3B49:CF5E:E4EF (talk) 06:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2017

Giraffe is one kind of animal there is only 1 species there are not 12 or 4 but 1 species of Giraffe 208.105.183.219 (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the species issue should be revisited?

Ping to: Abductive, Dger, SuperTah, Elmidae.
I propose the main page be rewritten slightly to include alternative taxonomies. At least present Groves and Grubb 2011 statistical analyses and 9-species taxonomy alongside Fennessey 2016 and add the commentary by Bercovitch 2017. The present situation is giving tacit approval to a 4-species system of taxonomy that is not widely accepted. It should be pretty easy to turn the 'subspecies' pages into 'potential species' pages. Thoughts? DerekELee (talk) 11:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)DerekELee

You are autoconfirmed. Why did you add {{edit semi-protected}}? —MRD2014 📞 contribs 23:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Ammended to a generic {{edit request}} as more suited. — IVORK _Discuss 02:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and make some edits to make the article more balanced and accurate regarding taxonomy.DerekELee (talk) 05:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Good stuff, I like your current phrasing. Seems to cover all the various interpretations but treats them conservatively.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Still, it's quite messy. We could have just waited for a consensus.--FierceJake754 (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

cladogram request

Would anybody be able to add a cladogram on the giraffe's place in the Artiodactyla or ruminant linage and place it in the evolution section? There one in the deer article but it is not formatted to fit in the text. LittleJerry (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Giraffe. 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 {{dead link}} tag to https://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijb/article/download/25567/16607
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040823200801/http://bill.srnr.arizona.edu/classes/182/Giraffe/WinningByANeck.pdf to http://bill.srnr.arizona.edu/classes/182/Giraffe/WinningByANeck.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.resource-ecology.org/publ/2000_Jeugd,Prins_MovementsAndGroupStructureOfGiraffeInLakeManyara.pdf

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) 16:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Giraffe. 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/20120320090832/http://www.uaeinteract.com/docs/Nubian_giraffe_born_in_Al_Ain_zoo/6971.htm to http://www.uaeinteract.com/docs/Nubian_giraffe_born_in_Al_Ain_zoo/6971.htm

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) 23:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Giraffa Scale Chart

I'm currently producing a scale chart for the Giraffe; the current iteration can be seen here: [2]. The idea is to show the maximum recorded heights for males and females. I have read that the maximum height for males is 5.88m measured 'between pegs' which from what I can gather means you stretch out the animal as far as it can go then measure the distance, represented by the grey silhouettes in my chart. According to the Wikipedia article, the tallest recorded female is 5.17m and cites 'Walker's Mammals of the World' and 'The Giraffe its biology.....'. I can't find online copies of these books. Does anyone know if any of these books states how the female was measured? Cheers. Steveoc 86 (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Is the conservation status incorrect?

The conservation status identifies the Giraffe as being critically endangered, however the source referenced lists them as vulnerable: http://oldredlist.iucnredlist.org/details/9194/0

Gazamixed (talk) 12:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

First sentence: grammatically incorrect or poorly worded(?)

Specifically, this clause: the tallest living terrestrial animals and the largest ruminants. If it's referring to giraffes [plural], then it's incorrect, because plural giraffes does not precede it. And if it's referring to "African even-toed ungulate mammals", then it's just awkwardly worded. I think it is intended to refer to giraffes, but since only the singular form precedes it, it should then be: the tallest living terrestrial animal and the largest ruminant., listing the second and third "thing" that a giraffe is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Membender (talk • contribs) 06:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Species or subspecies ?

I was wondering, reading the English Wikipedia article about giraffes, if there is only a single specie in that genus, as it says it in the introduction, or if there is four different species : G. camelopardalis G. giraffa G. tippelskirchi G. reticulata.

Indeed, a significant number a scientific information, also broadcast by the BBC : https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/giraffe-species-dna-genes-most-endangered-a7232566.html, as providing an information where they say that there is 4 species. You can also see that NCBI and ITIS taxonomy are defending that thesis. In the english article, I saw that there is only one specie, but looking further down, I saw in the chapter Taxonomy a table where there is written the four species that I have written above. I want to know which information is correct, or, better, to know if you consider the 4-species theory more likely to be exact by considering the context and the information from many magazines :

https://www.livescience.com/56025-giraffes-are-4-species.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/giraffe-species-dna-genes-most-endangered-a7232566.html ttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/giraffe-species-dna-genes-most-endangered-a7232566.html

--Pontarrêt (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2019

Suggest amending the following sentence to include "comedy", in reference to Dave Gorman's incredibly funny giraffe joke:

"The giraffe has intrigued various cultures, both ancient and modern, for its peculiar appearance, and has often been featured in paintings, books, and cartoons."

Perhaps worded something like this:

"featured in paintings, books, cartoons and, most recently, comedy as the subject of Dave Gorman's hilarious, face-pain inducing, belly-laugh invoking 'best giraffe joke ever'." Caprakan (talk) 11:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Giraffe sounds

I feel like the giraffe sound section should be expanded. It's a myth that giraffes only make sounds that are barely detectable. Giraffes make loud noises more than people think, often when they or their calves are in danger. They growl pretty much like a camel would and hiss. It'd be good if that could be included. Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/zoology/comments/jiessv/giraffes_make_loud_sounds/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abstruse0 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

"Stereotpyic behaviour in giraffes" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Stereotpyic behaviour in giraffes. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 3#Stereotpyic behaviour in giraffes until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Cladogram

DerekELee, how come you removed the cladogram? You didn't give an edit summary. I would also like Jts1882's and Cygnis insignis's thoughts. LittleJerry (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

There are also changes on the reticulated giraffe and Masai giraffe pages reverting them to the old single species giraffe. These changes ignore all the recent discussion. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Especially the one up “thare”. :-)

Seriously, though, presumably you mean #Four species. That reminds me that that is still ongoing. ◅ Sebastian 14:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

As for the cladogram, I undid the unexplained deletion. Regardless what one calls the clades, the cladogram is still worth keeping. We can always edit it later to reflect any naming consensus reached. ◅ Sebastian 14:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Compact list

As an experiment, I created a compacted version of the current table at Species and subspecies – available here. I made it so much narrower that it now has space for three extra columns and fits on a portrait mode monitor while the text sise is still nicely readable. One of the extra columns is for a picture of the pelage. This has only 3 sample images; we could use the individual pictures contained in the image announced seven years ago to fill it up. ◅ Sebastian 12:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Why tabulate the various arrangements at all? The prose can discuss previous descriptions and the current theory, rather than overlaying each against the other ~ cygnis insignis 07:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Interesting question. For me, as presumably for those who started the table in the first place, a table presents the information much more clearly. But it's interesting that others see that differently. I'd love to know what percentage of our readers prefer a table over prose; if we are only a minority then it would be better to use prose. ◅ Sebastian 14:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Four species

A new study has come out further supporting the existence of four species, with seven subspecies: [3] —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 05:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

What do the admins think? There are now multiple sources that support the 4 species model. Should the article be changed to reflect this? Somed00d1997 (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

This question should not just be addressed at admins. But let me answer this: As long as the relevant section Species and subspecies begins with “The [IUCN] currently recognises only one species of giraffe ...” we can't fundamentally change the article to reflect this yet. ◅ Sebastian 12:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Somed00d1997 and GPHemsley:} We had a recent discussion on the status of the giraffe articles and number of species to recognise at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mammals#Giraffa_sp.. This article is now supposed to be about the genus (see the taxobox), although parts were clearly written when it was about the single species. There are separate articles on the Northern giraffe, Southern giraffe, Reticulated giraffe and Masai giraffe, which are inconsistent on which is a species, proposed species, or subspecies.

I should add that admins don't determine the content of articles on Wikipedia (admins are a mix of moderator and technical support). All editors, whether admins, registered or just using an IP address should have equal say and what is accepted for the articles is by consensus. I think there is now a sort of consensus from that discussion to recognise four species following Coimbra et al (2021) (primary source) and ASM-MDD (secondary source). The articles need some cleaning up. What is needed is someone to be WP:BOLD and start making the changes to make the articles consistent with the four species model. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mammals#Giraffa_sp.. Where do you see in that discussion a consensus about what this article “is now supposed to be”? At one point you agree with one other editor on the statement “now is the time to weigh the pros and cons”. But nowhere did such weighing actually take place, let alone that it resulted in any specific agreement. ◅ Sebastian 14:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

My "is now supposed to be" comment refered to the fact that the giraffe article is about the genus (note the taxobox) and whatever number of the species contained within it. It's not entirely written that way as the change from the species to genus wasn't done very thoroughly — Jts1882 15:24, 20 December — continues after insertion below

I thought i could let the taxobox argument slide by, but since you're repeating it, I have to address it: While one particularity in this box points towards the four species hypothesis, the two other relevant particularities point the other way : • “G. c. tippelskirchi”, • “subspecies”. This ratio of 2:1 is approximately the same in the rest of the article. Outside of this article, it's probably the same picture, with e.g. Giraffa camelopardalis redirecting here. That said, none of this matters compared to the objective of verifiable accuracy and citing reliable, authoritative sources. ◅ Sebastian 15:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The "now is the time to weigh the pros and cons" comment was made by HFoxii, who went on to suggest adopting the four species proposal following the recent molecular studies and acceptance by the ASM-MDD. I agreed with the proposal and then cygnis insignis pointed out that Coimbra et al's proposal also aligns with the common names of the existing subspecies and noted the early divergence supporting four species. — Jts1882 15:24, 20 December — continues after insertion below

Normally, when a statement is answered with a general unrestricted agreement, it means agreement with the whole statement. But thanks for clarifying that that isn't what you meant to say. So, I sadly accept that you're distancing yourself from the first sentence of HFoxii's statement. ◅ Sebastian 15:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

No one subsequently objected to the proposal. That's what I meant by a "sort of consensus". A problem with consensus building is that absent a strong objection the discussions often just peter out without people explicitlu expressing support for the proposal. — Jts1882 15:24, 20 December — continues after insertion below

Hmm, “No one subsequently objected to the proposal”? Anyone taking just one glance at the discussion here above, which was subsequent to the proposal, can see that that's blatantly untrue. ◅ Sebastian 15:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I was referring to the outcome of that discussion. What is said here is not part of that discussion so is irrelevant to my statement about that discussion. I'm all in favour of discussing the pros and cons, but all the comments made after HFoxii's statement were supportive of the four species approach (pros) and I took that lack of objections (cons) as a sort of consensus from that discussion. A statement in another discussion in another place doesn't make that "blatantly untrue". —  Jts1882 | talk  16:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

A secondary consideration is that the current state of the articles is contradictory and a bit of a mess with the Wikidata linking. Adopting the four species model offers the easiest way of fixing it, as well as following the latest research that can be backed by primary and secondary sources. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree, we need to clean that up. Please understand that I have no stake in the whether we decide one way or the other; all I want is that we make this decision properly. In the following section, I will therefore start a list of pros and cons that everyone can contribute to, so that we can weigh them, as HFoxii suggested. ◅ Sebastian 15:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

the circumscription of the genus has implications for the conservation status of the populations, the iucn is only one source for that, for other mammals I have used different conservation listings as the citation. ~ cygnis insignis 07:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I already added one secondary and two primary sources (gleaned from HFoxii's post of 04:47, 9 December) to the #Pros and cons subsection. If you're aware of more, can you please add them, too? ◅ Sebastian 15:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Pros and cons

This subsection summarizes the arguments whether this article should based on one species, or on four. The purpose is to enable us to weigh them properly.

Please feel free to insert any points into the list. If you do so, please keep the same format with links (to reliable sources or diffs) so that each item is summarily expressed with few words for easy comparison. In this subsection, I think it is best to avoid any mention of editor's names so as to avoid WP:OWNERSHIP; this should be purely about the merits and demerits of the individual pros and cons. ◅ Sebastian 15:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Article based on one species:

• IUCN still assumes one species. cite_note-:3-20
• some particularities of the current article are based on that hypothesis. [4]
• The IUCN assessment was made in 2016, before publication of any of the three/four species proposal studies below. However, the assessors included representatives from both groups (Fennessy, Hassanin) and the taxonomy section concludes Until an extensive reassessment of the taxonomic status of giraffes is completed, therefore, it is premature to alter the taxonomic status quo. This assessment is based upon an interim consensus that a single species of giraffes is resident on the African continent.

Article based on three species:

• Supported by two papers in 2020 by same group: Petzold & Hassanin, 2020, Petzold et al, 2020.
• The second paper recommends 10 subspecies, including a new extinct Senegalese one and a novel division of the Southern giraffe.
• Secondary sources:
  • Illustrated Checklist of Mammal Species of World (see discussion in Introduction); early versions of the MDD, which has some authors in common (Burgin, Upham), favoured the three species model, before revising it to the four species model
• Suitable map on Commons: File:Giraffa_distribution_map_-_Three_species_concept_Petzold_et_al_2020.png (central Botswana may be misassigned)

Article based on four species:

• Several secondary sources now recognise four species
  • ASM-MDD: mammaldiversity.org (search for ‘Giraffa’); cites Groves & Grubb (2011), Winter et al (2018), Petzold & Hassanin (2020), and Coimbra et al (2021); favours reticulata as fourth species based on recent studies using whole genome data (see camelopardalis)
  • ITIS: itis.gov: Giraffa Brisson, 1762; cites Fennessey et al (2016) and MSW3
  • CoL: search Giraffa; following ITIS
• Supported by three papers over five years by one group: Fennessy et al, 2016, Winter al, 2018, Coimbra et al, 2021
• Suitable map: File:Giraffa distribution map - Four species concept Fenessy et al 2016.png (may need update for Coimbra et al 2021)
• some particularities of the current article are based on that hypothesis. [5]

Poop

What did thare poo look like 2601:147:4001:73B0:F964:E87C:9498:D5B (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

A pile of around ten irregularly shaped droppings distinguishes theirs from deer poo, if you know what that looks like. ~ cygnis insignis 09:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Inspiring mythology

I've read speculation that giraffes might have inspired the medieval Questing Beast and possibly the Chinese Quilin. Should this be added? (Are there any academic sources?) The Questing Beast in particular seemed convincing. Tabbycatlove (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. People frequenting this page are in general probably not so “inspired” by mythology that they would search for reliable sources on this. You might have more success over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology. BTW, you could do your readers a favor by linking to pages that explain what you're talking about, in this case Questing Beast and Qilin (note the spelling). ◅ Sebastian 18:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The article current states "The animal [captive giraffe] was a source of fascination for the Chinese people, who associated it with the mythical Qilin". I don't think we should add anymore. LittleJerry (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Recurrent laryngeal nerve

Under "Appearance and anatomy" there is sub header called "Internal systems". In my opinion this section requires a lot of attention because at the moment it is misleading. I'm not a biologist, but just looking up the references - and even the picture above (in mobile view, in desktop view it is to the side - captioned "Scheme of path of the recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffe") - it is clear that what is stated in the first sentences of the article is not true.

First sentence compares left recurrent laryngeal nerve to the right one. Again I'm not a biologist, so I don't know whether there is a right recurrent laryngeal nerve (there might be none, but since it is so prominently stated in the article I might expect that other sources might have picked up the name after Wikipedia), but relevant comparison would be to the Superior laryngeal nerve. So the detour is expected to be at 4.5 m (not 30 cm). The number 30 in the source referees to 30 m not 30 cm and it is related to whale, not giraffe. Next sentence states that "left nerve is over 2 m". But the correct value is given in sentence four: "nerve cells have a length of nearly 5 m".

In my opinion these issues should be addressed. The same error was copied when translating this page to polish. Noble Oxym (talk) 08:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Axl? LittleJerry (talk) 23:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Noble Oxym. Firstly, there are both left and right recurrent laryngeal nerves. The section in "Giraffe" links to the page "Recurrent laryngeal nerve", which describes the differences between the left and right. (The left nerve loops under the arch of the aorta, while the right nerve loops under the right subclavian artery.)

Our article states "the recurrent laryngeal nerves are... around 5 m (16 ft) long." This is incorrect. The source (Harrison, page 165) states "The left recurrent laryngeal nerve of the giraffe is the longest nerve in the animal kingdom being over 2 m long."

Now I see that LittleJerry has made two recent changes to the section, which has added incorrect information. I am going to roll back the edits. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I have rolled back the article to state the correct information. The left nerve is indeed 30 cm longer than the right. This is referenced to Wedel. The same information is also available in Harrison.

The recurrent laryngeal nerve is defined as starting from the point where it branches away from the vagus nerve. Thus its length in the giraffe is over 2 m, but not 5 m. However the cells within the nerve start in the nucleus ambiguus in the brain and remain intact for 5 m. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Males in parental care

I noticed there used to be a small note saying that males have no roles in raising the calves but still remain friendly, but i could no longer find it, i got curious and decided to look through the revisions and it was removed for some reason (that the editor doesnt explain why) in this revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Giraffe&oldid=1101003882 - if you go back to the previous one and then to parental care, you'll see it mentioned after the calving pool, i can imagine some reasons on why it got removed (its in the middle of the calving pool explanation rather than before or after it, and it was just an "appear to have friendly relations" thing that may not be true) but im not sure, i think it would be nice to mention it again?? 138.255.51.9 (talk) 14:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Subspecies range map wrong

The existing beautiful range map graphic (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Giraffa_camelopardalis_distribution2.png) was made with 2010 IUCN data. However, it turns out nature is messier than that: apparently the subspecies do NOT correspond neatly to the blobs of the extant species range mosaic. A 2014 paper (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-014-0219-7) found that, whereas the central Botswanan population is indeed the Angolan giraffe (G. g. angolensis), as shown in the map, the contiguous population in northern Botswana is actually the South African giraffe (G. g. giraffa). Then a 2018 paper (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egg.2018.03.003) reported that the southern Zimbabwe population, contiguous with the South Africa range blob, is actually G. g. angolensis, not G. g. giraffa.

I can make an attempt to capture that info in the text of the piece, and make a note in the map caption as well. But what should we do about the map itself? After all, that's the main thing people are going to go by. Also, does anyone know of more recent or authoritative sources? Gould363 (talk) 02:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

You should change the map. LittleJerry (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Jerry. I'm afraid it's beyond my graphics skills. Do you know how to do it? It also involves some decisions as to how to capture uncertainty in the location of the boundary. Perhaps a hard, straight line would be best, to avoid 'overclaiming' knowledge of where it falls or how fuzzy it is (i.e., whether there are intergrades). More research is also needed, to see if there's anything more recent than that 2018 paper. Gould363 (talk) 02:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe BhagyaMani can make a new map? LittleJerry (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes can do until tomorrow. Do you want the subspecies to be indicated like in the present map? BhagyaMani (talk) 06:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC) I used the subspecies as in the most recent IUCN RL map, see : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MeRQfFuJhMTliZsB08W3sIjnvS2yxTTD/view?usp=sharing Let me know if there is anything you want me to change – size, colours ? – BhagyaMani (talk) 10:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Gould363? LittleJerry (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much, BhagyaMani! The one thing that needs to be updated is that giraffes in the Bubye Valley Conservancy in southern Zimbabwe are angolensis rather than giraffa, according to the 2018 paper. The IUCN assessment is as of 2016. That would correspond to the horizontal green banana on your map needing to be changed to maroon. See Fig. 2 of https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.4490, or let me know if you need me to share a jpg.

I did a Web of Science citation search, & I don't see any more recent data, so I think we are good to go with this for now. Gould363 (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I saw the jpg and found the banana indeed in a different colour amongst the G. c. giraffa polygon. The IUCN polygon has sublayers with the subspecies included, so I'll need to split this banana from the G. c. giraffa sublayer. May take a while. BhagyaMani (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The map in that article indicates that authors did not have a sample from this conservancy in Zimbabwe. But you are nevertheless 100% sure that their assumption of the banana belonging to angolensis is correct? BhagyaMani (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the data come from the same group's other 2018 paper above (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egg.2018.03.003). Thanks for checking!

See the revised jpg under the same cloud link again. – BhagyaMani (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the updated version of the jpg at the drive link above -- still has green banana. Maybe it's some sort of caching issue? Will check back. Gould363 (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

You are seeing the old file in your computer's cache. So refresh the link to update. – BhagyaMani (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you!! Gould363 (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)