Talk:Elephant/Archive 3

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

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

Measurements

Use of metric/English measurement is inconsistent. I intended to fix it but realized I don't know the standard. If I get a chance, I'll look to see if there is one and if not, consult other similar pages to see what's been done.steve802

Diet section

The diet section includes a single sentence paragraph that is in the wrong place: "Walking at a normal pace an elephant covers about 2 to 4 miles an hour but they can reach 24 miles an hour at full speed." This sentence has nothing to do with diet.

Classification

"a classification of these as separate species, Loxodonta cyclotis". If they are separate species, why is only one species name (L. cyclotis) given - is this the forest or savannah version? Verloren

And what about pygmy elephants? I know there's a lot of doubt as to their existence, but people looking in an encyclopedia will want to know. Ortolan88

There are pygmy mammoths, which is a better name anyway.Nereocystis 23:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

No, there were regular, non-furry pigmy elephants. They (these?) lived on the island of Crete until 5000BC or maybe even 3000BC. Tiny ones, the size of a calf or a big pig! Their scattered skulls were the basis of belief in one-eyed giants mentioned in Homer's Odyssey. Me thinks someone cloning them would be mega-rich in a year, who wouldn't want a pet elephant instead of a dalmatian? Just imagine, a pet elephant, must be so much fun!

Dwarf elephants are discussed on: Dwarf elephant. A link is provided in the "See also" section. Pmaas 21:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Wild Asian elephants

This article makes no mention of wild asian elephants, which still roam in Laos, Myanmar and Yunnan province, China (see Jinghong). -- prat

Natalie Portman

The information about Natalie Portman dressing up as an elephant is completely irrelevant.--XmarkX 10:02, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

never forgetting and mice

I think it might be worthwhile mentioning, perhaps in the pop culture section, about two commonly used portrayals of elephants:

• They never forget
• They are scared of mice

violet/riga (t) 13:23, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OKay, this might be random...

I was reading this Nature article (which could have some info to be put in here) and was struck by the niggling question:

Is a person who studies modern elephants called a Loxodontist?

If not, what then.--ZayZayEM 03:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, only if his (or her) study is restricted to the African flavor

Rouge Elephant?

I do hope that this individual meant "Rogue Elephant" not "Rouge Elephant".

Eagerly awaiting the Wikipedia article on the "Mascara Rhinoceros".

Stay tuned for "Pancake Pachyderm" -Nunh-huh 00:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "rouge elephant". And a "rogue elephant" is a general term for an elephant that has gone rogue; it is not a different species. I am removing the text added by the anon on April 6 [1]. —Lowellian (talk) 21:48, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the Khmer Rouge had something to do with it. I imagine the Khmer Rouge respected elephants, being classless rural beasts of burden that they were. On a tangent, where does the word "heffalump" come from? Peter Pan? -Ashley Pomeroy 14:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

"Heffalump" comes from Winnie the Pooh... Pooh has a dream of "Heffalumps and Woozles" stealing his Honey.

Pacinian corpuscle / finger-like projections at tip of trunk

Regarding the following text: "The tip of an elephant's trunk contains pacinian corpuscles and finger-like projections used to manipulate small objects and to pluck grasses." Does anybody know whether the pacinian corpuscles are actually the finger-like projections on the tip of the trunk. If so, this phrase needs slight editing. Zingi 05:22, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Defending yourself from Elephants

In my section in the article on Elephant Rage, you can see why elephants are killing about 400 humans per year (an average of 3 humans per week according to The National Geographic Channel). I have a question. How do you protect yourself from and elephant without killing it?

First don't panic, second if it chases you don't EVER run straight as these beasts can reach 40 km easily and overtake even an olympic athlete given 15 seconds of time. So try to zig zag and get away from any open terrain and into uneven terrain as elephants can't run easily there. also they are poor sighted and so hiding behind trees is also a temporary stop gap arrangement that'll give you some time.--Idleguy 05:37, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

memory and brain

Can anyone write a section about elephants and their brain? They supposedly have a very big temporal lobe allowing them to remember alot. Maybe mention matriarchs remembering routes guiding the group. I'm not the expert, but I'm thinking somebody is... -- WB 11:28, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Category

Someone attempted to categorize this article under Category:Endangered species (unsuccessfully, since they capitalized it wrong). I was going to fix the capitalization, but then hesitated, since an elephant isn't a species per se, it's a group of them. The category itself seems to apply more specifically, for instance to the Asian Elephant. So should the category here simply be removed? Everyking 08:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Size

"African elephants tend to be larger than the Asian species (up to 4 m high and 7500 kg)" says the article. Which are 4m high & 7.5 t: the Asian or the African? And how about the other variety? And why is this not in the Body characteristics section? Jimp 5Oct05

The largest elephant on record was a male African elephant that was 4 m high (at the shoulder). On average, African elephants are 3-4 m tall, and Asian elephants 2-3 m tall (at the shoulder). - Nunh-huh 07:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Gallon

Please don't use gallons and the like (i.e. English units of volume) without specifying which gallon &c. you mean (U.S. or Imperial). Jimp 5Oct05

Elephant rage

I don't want to anger any elephants out there since they can stomp me to death, but I think the elephant rage section needs work. Various stories are descriped (all from Nat. Geo.?) but the implications are not properly backed-up. Elephants suffer Post-Traumatic stress disorder? Really? This absolutely needs a source (and yes, a step above a National Geographic as respectable as it is).

I have heard of elephant rage and had Indian friends describe it, but always in the context of a sexually-frustrated and/or sexually-aggressive male. This is relagated to the bottom and we have dubious "elephant-psychologizing" in its stead. Marskell 01:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I second this; the whole section reads as if the some chap was watching this on television, and decided on a whim to summarise the programme in Wikipedia. A short sentence or two - "Some zoologists believe that Elephants can attack human beings whilst under the influence of stress, or in some cases alcohol. They cite examples such as (1, 2, 3), although these findings are disputed by (X), who argue that (Y)." - would be enough. As it stands the section harms Wikipedia, because this is the kind of article - as opposed to the offbeat topics which Wikipedia often covers - that traditional encyclopaedias excel at. -Ashley Pomeroy 15:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. How much beer would you need to get an elephant drunk? The section is more than a little surreal. -Philip Ross

Sounds like some new measuring unit that you might find over on Slashdot: "... equal to the amount of beer needed to get thirteen point five elephants drunk."

On a more serious note, any takers on digging up sources / revising this section? Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi 21:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Elephant graveyards?

There are these "elephant graveyards", places full of elephant bones where elephants go to die. I have heard that these do not really exist and are merely a myth. Can someone please add info about this to the article? 83.88.132.80 21:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The above is really me. SpectrumDT 17:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I have read (forgot where, some book about evolutionary psychology I think) that elephant teeth grind down as they age, and eventually they cannot eat. All that remains is to drink and wait for starvation. I'd imagine many elephants would gather around areas with water when in this condition. Thursday Postal 22:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

These 'graveyards' could be the areas of soft vegetation where the old, toothless elephants go to live out their last days. If generations of them have to go to the same area so they can eat in old age, it is likely that there will be a high number of elephant remains, which could start the idea of an elephant graveyard (hopefully) to whoever finds the place.

Image of elephants mating?

Do we really need the image of elephants mating in the article?Do we need to see elephant porno? Does it add much useful info that wouldn't be found there otherwise? The image could be disgusting, but I can't see it so I don't know. from the comments on this site, maybe it's not too bad, but this article *could* be read by children or concerned caregivers. Graham/pianoman87 talk 06:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• May I refer to WP:NOT - Wikipedia is NOT censored for the protection of children--Ewok Slayer 06:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • • In the Image the bull elephant mounts the female from behind. Two other elephants stand by the female. This mating occurs on a wild plain in Africa. You can't actually see the Elephant penis or it is very obscured.

OK, thanks for the description. It should be kept in the article. Graham/pianoman87 talk 07:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

What is this sentence supposed to mean?

This was recently added to the article (I've applied a few typo corrections): "As a function of dwindling numbers, it is hard to understand why so much attention is focused on the African elephant's plight when the Asian population is much more threatened than its more popular relative."

This is meant to be an intro sentence, I know, but is there something less POV that can be used? The new expansions are mostly good ones, but sources need to be cited for some of the claims. Graham/pianoman87 talk 13:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Asian Elephant numbers are inconsistent

The numbers given for Asian elephants are inconsistent. First we are told there is a total of 40000, then we hear of 35000 on Sri Lanka, 36000 on the mainland and 33000 to 53000 on Sumatra. Can someone knowledgable fix this? I'm only knowledgable about some integers, but not about elephants.... --Stephan Schulz 16:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Largest land animals

This article says, "Elephants are the largest land animals and largest land mammals alive today."

This is true, but it should be more specific. According to National Geographic, African elephants are the largest land animals. This article should be revised to reflect this more accurate statement.

Hughes, Catherine D. (nd). Elephants: Animal Information, Pictures, Map. Retrieved December 15, 2005 from http://www.nationalgeographic.com/kids/creature_feature/0103/elephants2.html.

Hollow legs?

In the pop culture section: "There is a factual basis for the legend, however: unique among land mammals, elephants' legs are hollow, affording the opportunity for small creatures such as mice to hide inside without detection."

I read this, and couldn't believe it. So I tried googling a few things, came up with nothing. I would think something as odd as this would be mentioned elsewhere on the Internet, if it's true. Can someone supply a reference, a picture, or both? Hollow legs? What does that mean? Hollow legbones, or do they actually have holes in their feet or something? This just doesn't sound right.--Rablari Dash 05:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's just a childish joke from someone. I have deleted that whole silly paragraph - Adrian Pingstone 19:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It had just been there for over a week, so I wondered if people had just accepted it, or hadn't noticed it. Thanks for fixing it! Still, isn't it worth mentioning that, at least in America, some people believe that elephants are afraid of mice, and are portrayed as such in humor, especially cartoons? Does this perception exist in any other countries, or is it just America? -- Rablari Dash 04:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Article not compliant with NPOV?

A lot of the article, particularly Habitat Loss and Elephant Rage, sounds like a WWF pamphlet. Whether or not the information stated in these sections is true, it should probably be reworded or at least considered for revision with regards to the NPOV policy. I've tagged the article with a POV check. erhudy

• Let me clarify - as some people have expressed above, a lot of it seems directly transcribed from a National Geographic narration. Since the programs do tend to have a pro-environmentalist theme to them, it would probably be beneficial to adjust the wording of the contentious sections.

Yeah, I'm seconding this. It does seem like there is a huge swath of information about the loss of elephant habitats that is perhaps directly about elephants, but perhaps not neccessarily suitable to belong in this encyclopaedia article. I believe the article should be far more focussed about covering key points well and leading people to further resources, as opposed to becoming extremely heavy in one particular area. AdamSebWolf

so, make the habitat stuff a sub-article Elephant Habitat, or some such. no need to delete the material. Derex 05:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that the Habitat loss section should be moved into a separate article. That should make the article much shorter and NPOV.--Raghu 17:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The Blind Men and the Elephant

Which seems to have disappeared from Wikipedia. So, I thought I'd mention it here.

The Blind Men and the Elephant

A fascinating children's story based on a folk tale dating back at least two-thousand years offers direct insight into what happens when an encompassing view is not taken in studying a problem. In this tale there are six men who, though very knowledgeable, are blind. Together they encounter an elephant and each gives his analysis of the creature. Their interpretations are based on the particular part of the elephant they happen to touch.

The first blind man touches the sturdy side and declares the elephant to be very much like a wall.

The second blind man felt the elephant's sharp tusk and declared the elephant to be like a great spear.

The third blind man grasped at the squirming trunk and, with postive authority, announced that elephants are certainly like snakes.

The fourth blind man slid his hands along the elephant's broad knee and said that clearly an elephant can be best described as a tree.

Now the fifth blind man examined the elephant's waving ear, and was convinced that the elephant was some sort of fan.

And the last, the sixth blind man grabing at the elephant's swinging tail declared to all around that an elephant is absolutely like a rope.

Each is partly right since they have made contact with one major part of the whole. However, they are all wrong because in their blindness they failed to comprehend the creature in its entirety. Too often in information systems work, the limited perspectives (particular blindnesses) of the individuals making a study lead to similar failures in perception.

These failures result in developing computer capabilities that do not meet the needs of users. Perhaps an all too common example within a corporation could be exemplified when the vice-president of accounting (often the tail that wags the elephant!) makes the decisions regarding the information systems needed, without serious consideration and vision of the needs of the engineering, manufacturing, sales, and other departments that actually generate the value and revenue of the organization. In an elegant way, this children's story clearly illustrates the need for comprehensive study prior to the implementation of an information system in a company. So, as is often the case with "stories" of enduring interest, they contain the seeds of wisdom acquired by a culture through centuries of practical experience.

If you would like to relive your childhood memory of first hearing this tale, (it was here on Wiki) or share it with your children, a well-illustrated version is John Godfrey Saxe's The Blind Men and the Elephant (McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1963). The children's section of most public libraries will have Saxe's or another version of this valuable insight for the information-systems designer.

Albert Turner — Software engineer 201.250.35.149 14:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It's been moved in its entirety to Wikisource: s:The Blindmen and the Elephant -- Ec5618 01:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Main Picture

Is it just me or does that main picture above all the info for the animal look like it's Computer Generated?

"Prehistoric elephants ate humans"

I just checked the history of the article and the article used to say prehistoric man ate elephants. This seems somewhat more plausible to me, as elephants are now herbivores. I'm not a biology major by any stretch of the imagination, so I'm sorry if I'm wrong, but is that a mistake? CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 06:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• After a closer look at the history, the anon who made that change blatantly vandalized Duck, so I changed it back. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 06:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Baby elephants

Please add more pictures of cute baby elephants.Golfcam 15:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Numerical errors

Note: Numerical errors present. For example, in the first paragraph, it says there are 40,000 Asian elephants alive today, yet in the latter ones it says that the Sumatran elephant alone numbers up to 55,000. Please correct immediately (I don't know how to post this in a box. I apologize for my inability to.). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.132.57.91 (talk • contribs) .

Knees

"The elephant is the only animal to have four knees."

This just sounds so absurd and makes no sense at all. Does it have four knees per leg or four knees all together? It needs some serious explanation. I mean there are millions of four legged animals, yet there's no explanation in it and I know personally I assumed all four legged animals had four knees and I've studied biology, what chance does a lay person have?

I agree, that's why I remove it every now and then. I'll remove it now. The section is not informative. Graham talk 07:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree it should have been removed, since it wasn't well explained, and didn't have a reference. I've been told the same thing by an anatomy lecturer, though, so I'm pretty sure it's true. I don't know enough about it yet to talk authoritatively on the subject, but as I understand it tetrapods generally have different joints in the forelimbs (arms in humans) than in the hindlimbs (legs in humans). Because of their enormous weight, elephants need in all four legs a joint capable of supporting a lot of weight, so they have a "knee", a hind-limb style joint, in their forelegs. I think the difference is something to do with the way that the condyles interact to stabilise the leg when it's straight. --Hughcharlesparker 13:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have done a lot of research on the elephant's knees and there are definitely four of them. I first found this out at the age of 8 from a book I received at Christmas called "The Mega Fact Book". Someone else on here has also agreed that they have been told it is true so I see no reason why the fact cannot stand. If you feel more explanation is needed, please feel free to add it. MankyManning 27 May 2006

I, also, think that it's true to say that an elephant has four knees, but for us to include this in the article we need to be able to me more specific about exactly what we mean by that - was I right about it being something to do with the condyles? Is it something else about the way the bones interact? Does the cruciate ligament system work the same in an elephant's foreleg as in a human knee? Unless we're specific, it's not encyclopedic material. The main problem, though, is verifiability - unless we can quote a source, we can't quote the fact. The WP:Neutral point of view policy explains this well. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 11:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I can not explain it in scientific anantomic english, but if you let an elephant keeper stand on the left of an elephant, and lift the left hindleg, it will like the keepers leg turn backwards, eg. the hindlegg has "knees". I belive only the bears (at least the genus Ursus) has knees on their hind legs. Its a very unique thing among tetrapods. All other bend their hindlegs forward. Dan Koehl 13:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the difference you're talking about is that between those species that are plantigrade, digitigrade and unguligrade. An elephant's hind leg knee is lower than that of a horse, but anatomically analogous. The difference being discussed earlier is about an elephant's foreleg knees. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 15:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: "The difference being discussed earlier is about an elephant's foreleg knees." -I dont think so, unless elephants has four frontlegs. At the beginning of this section is written "The elephant is the only animal to have four knees.", indicating that all four legs has a "knee", e.g. a joint halfway down on the leg, which is bend backwards. On all four legs. Dan Koehl 08:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Strength

What is the strength of an elephant in watts. I couldn't find anything, not even with google. Help!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.109.79.136 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 6 May 2006 UTC (UTC)

I'd ask this at the reference desk if I were you - it's linked from the main page. --Hughcharlesparker 13:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Jumping elephants

I removed a "it should be noted" claim that elephants can't jump. (I don't like the phrase "it should be noted" to begin with, but anyway). I removed it because I remember reading that adult elephants have been seen jumping over a ravine in the wild, and that baby elephants definitely can do it. But after removing the claim I started searching the net and have to admit that most pages I can find on the subject do state that elephants can't jump. So maybe I'm wrong, or rather the article I read (some time ago) was wrong. Or maybe not. If any elephant experts here know that elephants can't jump, feel free to put the claim back, preferably with a citation. And preferably without phrasing it as a "It should be noted"... Shanes 04:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction...

The "Musth" section gives two different etymologies for the origin of the word, Hindi and Urdu/Farsi, with no connection or explanation. 68.39.174.238 16:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

First, the Hindi reference is not an etymology, but a stright-line translation. This is a subtle point; I nissed it the first two times I read it as well.

Second,

"Hindi (is) the official language of the Republic of India ... and in Pakistan is called Urdu. Hindi and Urdu differ especially in learned vocabulary, for Hindi based learned terms oon Sanskrit, Urdu on Arabic and Persian." _Historical Linguistics, an Introduction_, Second Edition, 1973, Winfred P. Lehmann, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Not so much of a contradiction here; perhaps more of an unwarranted assumption that everyone would know the tight relationship between the two. If I had to make a choice, I'd go with

[Urdu mast, from Persian, drunk, from Middle Persian.] per The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2004, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Geoffrey Pruitt 17:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

--

There, all fixed CumbiaDude 18:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC) --

The Hindi Musth and Urdu Mast are the same IMHO. Hindi derives most of the word from Sanskrit no doubt, but it should also be noted that Urdu was the official Language of India before its independence (and consequent division). Hindi derives many words from Urdu, both languages being two different results from introduction of Farsi into older languages.

--Anupam Srivastava 18:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Full Protection?

Wouldn't semi-protection have been enough? -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Definately justified. Did you just see the Colbert Report? For those that don't know what is going on Steven Colbert on "The Word" of the Colbert Report told his viewers to come on this article and state as fact that the number of Elephants in the world has tripled. Just a warning to people watching this page to know why there might be a sudden horde of IPs claiming an increase in the world Elephant population. On a side note, Colbert is really a genius, the first guy I heard of to use his mass populace to sponsor a spam attack on Wikipedia!--Jersey Devil 04:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I did watch the show, but new users who just saw the show and decided to go vandalize the article on a whim would still not be able to edit the article under semi-protection. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• SP should work, as I doubt full-fledged Wikipedia members would be swayed, no matter how funny he is. Heh. Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Agreed. How many of his listeners will (a) already have Wikipedia accounts, and (b) be inclined to follow his jocular instructions? And is this number greater than our normal vandalism protection mechanisms can handle? (And on the other hand, how many people hearing of the controversy and visiting this page might be inspired to make a constructive contribution, but be stymied by full protection?) —Steve Summit (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It only takes one. Ratbert42 20:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't come here to vandalize, but I did want to see if anybody had actually taken his advice. I have some...less mature friends that I know have established accounts that called me just to say that they couldn't edit the page. Just...Trust me on this: You have no idea how many intelligent individuals have no maturity.--Eagleguy125 04:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'm pleased as punch. Wikipedia has landed. This show featured discussion of a major political race; a movie star that said some very controversial things; and Wikipedia. It would have been nice if he'd asked his fans to go read the article on neutral point of view and improve the site, but he's a comedian and we can't expect miracles. Still, pat yourselves on the back. You're part of a cultural phenomenon. -Harmil 04:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd think that at least a few would have accounts here. They don't have to be "full-fledged" just have accounts here that they created and have been inactive. I think we should wait at least a little while before going down to semi-protection.--Jersey Devil 04:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Population Information

I recently heard that I'm a jackass. I would add this, but for some (unlisted) reason, the page is locked. --Tedivm 04:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hehehe, nice try, everyone knows about Colbert :) Anyway, despite what outsiders might think we actually have processes here to deal with false information.--Jersey Devil 04:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is now famous because of Stephen. I bet it will be one of the most hit articles for a few days now. I know you guys protected it, but wouldn't it be appropriate to put a reference to the triple-ing of the elephent population within the article? Perhaps as a sub-title under the "Elephants in Culture" heading? Or as a smaller heading on the bottom of the page?

Colbert made an excellent point when he remarked that the Wikipedia entry on truthiness is longer than the one on Lutheranism. Mentioning the Colbert/Wikipedia segment within elephant-related articles would be shameless navel-gazing. It would probably be a good idea to improve our actual references to elephant population data, though. This article doesn't cite too many sources. Rhobite 04:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good thing that truthiness is longer than Lutheranism. I hate Lutherans. Xizer 17:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Featured on Colbert Report. Get ready!

Anybody who edits this page to reflect the "fact" that "the population of elephants has tripled" is a tool. That's it. You're a tool. Can't even be original when you vandalise something. That's just sad.

This article was featured on the Colbert Report. Get ready for alot of spam. dposse 04:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this page is about to become swamped by Colbert Report fans... --Aemilia 03:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Colbert rules. Can you at least put what Colbert said with Wikiality in brackets?

That would be more appropriate on the page for his show. It actually has nothing to do with Elephants. Ask yourself these two questions: 1) would anyone looking for info on "Wikiality" come to the Elephant article first? 2) would anyone looking for info on elephants find that information useful? -Harmil 04:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

What about the Simpsons reference? Would anyone come to the Elephant article looking for The Simpsons? Would anyone looking for information on Elephants find the information about the elephant in one episode of the Simpsons useful, or what about the White Stripes? If you're using that logic to decide what goes here and what doesn't, delete some of the other Pop Culture references too.

Actually, I'd fully expect an article here on Elephants to have a pop culture section that lists the times elephants were mentioned on The Simpsons. It seems like half the articles on Wikipedia have those. Ratbert42 20:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

What about a seperate article called "Colbert's Elephant Article" or something?

It still has nothing to do with elephants and linking to it from the elephant's article seems futile, other than to get a few laughs. Talking about it in the Colbert Report page makes more sense.

It's mentioned under Stephen Colbert. If they search for wikiality, they'll find it there. If the check the users are in-on the joke, they can see this discussion about it, on this talk page. If not, then including it is self-referential, which Wikipedia tries to avoid- That is, it's wiki policy to write articles about things that stand alone, and don't have to be on wikipedia.

I've lowered the protection level of the talk page so that established editors can comment here. JDoorjam Talk 07:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It's sort of silly that only admins can edit this page. Most established users have no desire to vandalize this page. I'd actually love the chance to try to improve it, but I can't. Thanks Stephen Colbert. alphaChimp ^laudare 07:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm dropping the article to sprotected. Tomorrow the "bored at work" crowd may stop by, but the sprotect should deal with most of that. I guess it depends how much interest the blogs and Slashdot take in this. If there are a significant number of sleeper accounts that come to life on this, we may bump the protection up again, but I think we'll be ok. JDoorjam Talk 08:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That really does seem a lot more sensible. alphaChimp ^laudare 08:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It's only false if we choose not to accept it ;) This is pretty funny. Colbert would be proud--Xc4l1br 12:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

He'll probably mention that the "liberals who own this site" are trying to "withhold his truthiness" on the show. I love that show, he's so much funnier than what's-his-face-Stewart.--Blastoiseiii 13:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll be surprised if he mentions it all. It's unusual for him to follow up on standard "The Word" segments. Rhobite 15:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't try to predict him, he may just surprise people, but generally, I agree. You don't go back to past segments, because it isn't fresh or new and doesn't drive ratings. --Mystalic 15:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was impressive. I went onto this page as soon as he mentioned it, and it was already vandalized, and was too busy to revert. Plus I kept getting errors. It may also have been my internet connection. Axeman89 15:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone actually considered whether Cobert is correct? I mean the elephant population could be increasing OR decreasing so there is a 50/50 chance that he could be correct. We should examine both sides of the controversy. --Thax 16:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If you can cite some sources to that effect (e.g. anyone other than Colbert), then we can examine it. The nature of elephants is that gestation takes an extremely long time. It's doubtful that such a change could have occured. alphaChimp ^laudare 16:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Could there just be a section that claims- Stephen Colbert recently suggested that elephant population has tripled in the last ten years, however this is not true. Maybe under a trivia sort of thing. DoomsDay349 16:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

At best, it should be one sentence in Elephants in pop culture. Trouble is, whoever adds it is going to get reverted =D (or blocked). alphaChimp ^laudare 16:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I am glad you asked for a source that isn't Colbert, here is one from wikipedia, a very reliable source of information: [2] "Elephants are increasingly threatened by human intrusion, with the African elephant population tripling in the last 3 months." --Thax 17:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you can cite this article in writing this article. That change was reverted, anyway, so it's obvious that it's not accepted by the community. alphaChimp ^laudare 17:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point, purhaps a compromise is in order. You say no change, I say population tripled in 3 months. Half way would be the population tripling in 6 months. Surely you cannot deny this infallible logic. --Thax 18:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone give this page full protection again. Klosterdev 17:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Why? There really isn't that much vandalism. Most of it was just drive-by vandalism from new editors and anonymous IPs. alphaChimp ^laudare 17:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have fully protected this page. The amount of childish vandalism was startling. Any admin is welcome to remove the protection at any time without consulting me; all I ask is that you monitor the page for half an hour or so to ensure the vandalism really has stopped. In any case, this page should be unprotected no later than 2006-08-02. --Yamla 17:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert has given the Wikipedia exposure, while making a political statement, and that is worth the potential slowing of the improvement of the elephant article. Keep it protected, but if the article wasn't protected, I might have to vandalise it myself. --Omnimmotus 19:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You're a tool. Iodyne 19:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

As much as it's important to respect the integrity of this article, I really do feel like Wikipedia does take itself too seriously sometimes by campaigning so hard against fancruft and the like. This page garnered a lot of attention last night, and it really showed how much we're part of the pop culture lexicon. I would hate to show our elitist tendencies to the world like this, getting so freaked out because we actually getting some attention, even if it was unexpected. - Stick Fig 23:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

vprotected with vandalism locked in place -- please fix that!

Template:Editprotectedreview Someone changed the number of African elephants from 600,000 to 1.8 million, and then the page was locked. This number should be changed back to 600,000. The vandal also changed the word "remain" to "remained" in an effort to make the crazy changes in numbers more readable. That word, too, should be changed back.—GraemeMcRae^talk 17:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. [3] --Interiot 17:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This whole thing is sort of ironic because, if the page was not protected, we would have fixed this already. I really understand the desire to protect this page, but Colbert has actually been attracting some legitimate attention to this page. I think some good edits have actually been made here within the last day. alphaChimp ^laudare 17:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

On the other had, if the page was protected, the problem wouldn't have been there in the first place. Maybe someone should check the TV schedule and see if the Colber Report is set to re-run at all. Klosterdev 18:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I just reduced the protection level to semi-protected. Most vandalism was from anons and new users. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Fact: Elephants have NOT been multiplying like rabbits

Contrary to the Colbert Report, the number of elephants has NOT tripled to 1.8 million, and we ask anons and other editors to respect that fact. Thank you. To the media: you are doing Wikipedia a disservice by irresponsibly hyping the vandalism of "Elephants", so please cut it out. — Rickyrab | Talk 19:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, really? Ok, then I won't vandalize the page with that then. I only vandalize with truth. --Macarion 23:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

But I bet there was a spike in visitors here. That's also good because we'll get a spike in new editors, of which a certain percentage will become dedicated.

What are you freaking out about. Have you looked at the net effect? [4] The state of the page has actually improved. Wikipedia knows how to deal with vandalism, and the more editors the better. Let Colbert keep talking. -Harmil 19:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, I heard from someone that elephants are in fact multiplying like rabbits. I can't remember where, it must've been Fox News. Yeah, that's it... that's the ticket. --Bobak 20:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see you prove your "fact" that they haven't been multiplying like rabbits, because I beleive they are. --GMEsch 20:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Colbert did a great thing. Now many more people will come here!!!!!!A New Wikiality!aido2002 21:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone didn't understand the "wikiality" concept. --Macarion 23:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Fact: some Wikipedia editors need to get some perspective

Here's the segment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmHm0rGns4I Admit it, it's funny. And Colbert brings up a very good point about Wikipedia and wikiality, one that this community is still struggling with. Retroactively locking pages is just not a good answer. Notice that this page got locked *with* the erroneous 1.8 million elephants figure, leaving no way for a regular person to fix it! The problem is that only labor-intensive edit wars decide what information stays and what gets dustbinned. This will be fixed one day, hopefully soon. Until then, keep an eye on this page -- I'm afraid Colbert fans will prove to be a persistent bunch. -- Sabron 20:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Lighten Up, Think Before You Leap Tall Buildings.

They edited my user page for contact, ckeak. They also removed my addition of Patrick Henry's brithdate, as if it wasn't factual or an important day of mention. It's up there with the Bahai Founder biting the big one, and yes he is blessed with sharing a day with me. Who wouldn't be. They banned Google and Wikipedia critic sites as spam from being linked here, so I do something tricky and link the via another location, but not directly, address doesn't touch it, but they then remove that and they even have the nerve to have entries on Google Watch Scroogle Wikipedia Watch and so on. They should at least back link to the official site, oh and I know a big Wiki nono is going after User Pages. Isn't it Firefox? Why is a more notable 1996 Vancouver Election ignored over 2002? or 2005? and I say this doing better in the latter ones this place seems designed to make the more knowing suffer, make mighty erudite have endless head aches because someone is upset you knew something better than they did or where there, or expect honest facts to stated about you or do what they ask and bring up notable sources ending up in their deletion (2005 and my former Mention here under 2005 election ballot name, I was asked for them and provided them). They encourage people to take pot shots at them. Oh know I see the Wikka Cult arrising to attack me. Admins need not use words, they can Vandalize with Authority.

--G-Spot 20:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The preceding text was randomly generated by combining unrelated segments from user talk pages and running them through Babelfish twelve times.--BigCow 22:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Article on Fark

This article just appeared on Fark, so there will likely be another influx. --Thax 23:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Where? I don't see it there. --Macarion 23:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I just saw it, it's a YouTube link to the segment, along with this caption: "Colbert Report - Wikiality, also known as the report that locked down Wikipedia" with a good size 200+ comments. If you can't see it, just to a find with "Colbert". Heh, bring it!  :-) --Bobak 00:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Fun Publicity

I watched the Colbert Report last night and logged on to Wikipedia, probably along with quite a few other people, and I'm sure many of them were making their first visit here. While it's true that Wikipedia prides itself on accuracy, it was a funny stunt. It reminded me of the time a satirical news show up in Canada proposed that all the viewers sign their online petition to create a law forcing Stockwell Day to change his first name to Doris. Wikipedia just needs to take it in a stride as a joke and see the silver lining that it was a bit of publicity.

I agree. Think of all the additions to The Colbert Report, Truthiness, and Lutherans (if you saw the show you know) that will come out of this!aido2002 23:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, let's just shrug off the fact that he encouraged what may be the largest most crippling surge of vandalism the wiki has ever known. We need to give him a Title, like "Great and Terrible Dark Lord of Ubervandalism" or something. He's like the leader of our own personal Legion of Doom, sitting in a pointy chair next to Willy on Wheels and Solomon Grundy. He should not be applauded. Finite 23:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Most crippling surge of vandalism? Crippling vandalism doesn't exist on wikipedia. There is the revert, and the protection. Shut up. --Macarion 01:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It will probably finish when Comedy Central is done playing its' millionth rerun of the episode. Ace ofspade 00:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless he does a follow-up tonight. -- Vary | Talk 00:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I shudder at the thought. Finite 00:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I know! The unwashed huns with senses of humor will then descend on us once more! To ze barricades! --Bobak 00:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Like it or not, just laugh at it and let it go. To be featured in that way on such a mainstream show really says something about what Wikipedia has become. Joining the ranks of politicians, headliners, Fortune 500 companies, wars, entertainers... To put it simply, being such an easy target and entering the realm of pop-culture leaves Wikipedia open to this sort of thing. Any changes made were pretty quickly reversed. Talking with a few other people at work who had seen the show, the consensus was that that it was that the prank was funny, got a lot of people involved, and no one was hurt. Suck it up and take a good joke!

True enough. The best possible response to Colbert is, "Bring it, sister!" - Nunh-huh 02:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Rerun

The segment is re-airing as I type this. Here we go. - Kookykman|(t)e 00:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Here comes the next wave, the 7:30 rerun just aired...--God Ω War 00:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Stable version?

Where's the consensus for this change? Seems pretty heady. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus, its a proposed policy/guideline that doesn't exactly have a consensus yet. Kevin_b_er 02:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

From what I'm hearing, this was agreed to behind the scenes, and the lack of discussion violates the proposed policy anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This is wrong. Cyde, please put the old page back in place! You have removed the entire edit history of the page, which destroys one of the primary research tools that makes Wikipedia useful to other editors. I'll replicate this comment to your talk page for reference, but if you respond, please do so publically at Talk:Elephant so that the community can have a chance to understand your reasoning here. -Harmil 02:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I would have supported implementing the first stable versions article on the discussion page, but implementing the stable version article without any disucssion on the talk page is in violation of the policy he is using to "stabilize" the article in the first place. Please, Cyde, consider this more carefully. I would suggest that the article be "destabilized" so that a discussion on whether to "stabilize" could ensue as per the laid out process. Daniel Bush 02:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Bush, is the idea of stable versioning always supposed to involve moving the article's history to someplace that typical users will not find it? Isn't that MORE damaging than quickly reverted vandalism? -Harmil 03:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The edit history needs to be moved so that when the development version is moved back, it retains a record of the edits that produced that version. Keeping a stable version is for the reader, which far outnumber editors, and even with editors, most all edits are made without looking the page history. The page history isn't as important as you make it out to be, it is still available at the development version, and this is a temporary measure anyway. —Centrx→talk • 03:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You are assuming that EDITORS are the ones who care about the edit history. Not so. The edit history is a MUST for those using an article for research. They need to be able to see that some "fact" was added a week ago, and replaced a well sourced bit of information that lasted a year. If the casual reader can't use the edit history any longer, then we should just punt the stable version idea. -Harmil 03:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

But they can use the edit history, it is available at the location of the dev version. —Centrx→talk • 03:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless that's where the "history" link at the top of the article goes, no one is ever going to see it, and they're going to make assumptions based on the history that they DO see. -Harmil 03:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Since when did "move the articel out of everyones view and protect it and leave it like that" become part of policy or practise? It's not like this is the First Time Ever that someone edited an article in the mass-media. That proposal has nothing like the support needed for anything like a trial run, and I don't care if there was some 5 minute conversation in the group-think of IRC that said "yes! noone editing an article is good!". Absent a powerfully compelling reason why this page shuld not be unlocked, I'm going to reverse the whole lark in a few hours time. I mean, seriously, things linked from the Main Page are probably busier than this was. -Splash - tk 03:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If the current Main Page featured article is anything to judge by, this isn't true. There have been 25 edits since the Elephant article was moved and unprotected (that is, in the last 40 minutes), all or nearly all vandalism or vandalism reverts. In that same amount of time, there has been 1 edit of the Main Page article, and it isn't vandalism. —Centrx→talk • 03:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Have you seen the history of Fidel Castro? -Splash - tk 03:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I misread the time stamps. This is still current. I've reversed it. -Splash - tk 03:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Desperately wanting something is not reason enough to unilaterally impose it. "Be bold" applies to editing, not changing how things work, especially not if there is, as far as anybody can tell, only a dozen of users supporting the change. The vandalism has continued on the development page after the article was "stabilized", and now even the development version is sprotected. Meanwhile a removal of an obvious spam link from the stable version was reverted. Let's hope Google spiders are smart enough to figure out what's spam and what isn't. Zocky | picture popups 03:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Colbert Edits

Has Steven Colbert himself edited this page? LCpl 02:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No, he pretended to edit several pages on Wikipedia during his show, but it was obvious that he was just quickly tapping on the keyboard. He couldn't have gotten a response from clicking on "edit" that fast, much less finished an edit. -Harmil 02:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Source Other Than Colbert?

I must add that this post was already removed twice by someone, not alphachimp, but other hypocrits like him. Is this not a discussion, is this a place where we get to argue, argue over FACT. I say something that these "admins" cannot explain and they simply remove it. Hypocrits.

I read this from alpha chimp: ("I like laminated monkey nuts") <- Sadly I did not write this, but I will let it stay because this is a discussion page.

"Sadly"... that isn't what he said? It sounds like him. <- I didn't say this either, check the changelog

:If you can cite some sources to that effect (e.g. anyone other than Colbert), then we can examine it. The nature of elephants is that gestation takes an extremely long time. It's doubtful that such a change could have occured. alphaChimp ^laudare 16:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you predjudice alphachimp? Is that it. You for some reason allow facts on other articles sourced by people, people I might add that I may or may not like. But when you don't like someone, for example Stephen Colbert, you disregard facts they have as "doubtful" to quote you. What, your opinion now trumps fact? Your opinion that this is "doubtful" makes it not true nonetheless? Let's say that you found that it was doubtful that the sky was blue, would that make it not true. Are you that arrogant? So arrogant that you would change scientific fact to match "your" reality?? Let's look at the article on watches, shall we? It says that "the first "self-winding," or "automatic," wristwatch was the invention of a British watch repairer named John Harwood in 1923." I find that very doubtful. Plus it was found using I source I don't really like, the UK Patent Office, so I think I'll just go ahead and change it because it doesn't fit "my" reality.

Wow there it is, it's fact. Isn't it. I used the technique you did, didn't I?

First off, check out WP:CIVIL. Characterizing me as "predjudice", a "hypocrit" isn't really going to get you anywhere.

Second, you cited Wikipedia to justify your assertion that elephant population had tripled, when that reversion had already been removed. The primary difference between your citation of sources and mine is that the UK patent office is a secondary source, while wikipedia is tertiary. alphaChimp ^laudare 03:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, "First Off", I'm sorry I was out of line with those. They may not be true, I can only assert from what I've seen.

"Second", you have not answered any of my questions. Is Colbert not a secondary source also? Why are you ducking my questions with this? --Cmptrgy412 03:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The Number of elephant in Africa has Tripled in the last two months.-Fact — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.21.130 (talk • contribs)

Colbert is a comedian. We don't use comedians as sources for anything other than their own jokes and the rare incident that involved them or their material. If you want to contribute to this article, please feel free to find reliable sources -Harmil 03:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes colbert is a comedian, but does that make him not human? How do you know he doesn't care about the elephants? What makes him an unreliable source? I believe this was not a joke, but a heartfelt relay of fact. You disagree, so I feel we should debate on who is true.--03:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

When was the last examination of the total population of elephants? The most recent reference in this article is to 2003. It is possible that the elephant population has increased, if not tripled, even if Stephen Colbert hadn't mentioned it on his show. I think the inclusion of a line akin to "It is not known whether or not the elephant population has increased or decreased in the last few months. Many claim that it has in fact tripled, while skeptics find that assertion unlikely."--71.255.212.152 03:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Pee Wee

Elephants are a leftest conspiracy theory and have no room to be talked about on such a "fact" oriented webpidea such as this. - Fact.

Find a reliable source and no one can argue with you. That is the part Colbert forgot, that things must be verifiable and cited or they can't be added. Konman72 04:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You can clearly see from the number of edits and the amount of argument that many members of the wikipedia community do believe that the population of elephants has tripled in the last few months. You don't need a source for that. I think an inclusion similar to the sentences above would help to ease the debate on this issue.--71.255.212.152 04:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Pee Wee

That's where you and Colbert are wrong. Facts are never established by the community, they are established by citations and verifiability. There is no debate, either find a citation or leave it be. And that is the truth. Konman72 04:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Citations of whom? People of the community!--Cmptrgy412 04:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Find one reliable source. That would mean, scholarly, peer-reviewed, something like that alphaChimp ^laudare 04:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

People of the community are not cited, they find reliable sources to cite. Colbert is not a reliable source (but he is damned funny). The Ungovernable Force 04:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You guys really need a lesson in Wikipedia policy. Citations must be from reliable sources and be verifiable, which are the exact same restrictions placed on a normal encyclopedia. Also, if this is too much truth for you, check out the five pillars, they are the guiding principles of wikipedia. In the end though you really just need to be able to discern the difference between a joke and the truth. Konman72 04:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a fact that: many people in the wikipedia community believe that the population of elephants may have tripled in the last few months. My citation would be the talk page and previous edits on wikipedia. I can also find numerous other communities where people purport that the population of elephants have tripled. I'm not saying that elephants have tripled in number, I'm just saying that many believe it to be true, though skeptics, like yourself believe otherwise. Like on the 9/11 article, it mentions that many people believe that the mainstream 9/11 story is not entirely true, though skeptics believe otherwise. That's not the same as saying the mainstream 9/11 story isn't true, it's just stating a simple fact that a large group of people believe a different version. Do you see the difference? Surely you can agree that many people argue that the population of elephants has tripled. --71.255.212.152 04:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Pee Wee

One of the Five Pillars Agrees: " Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view" "--71.255.212.152 04:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Pee Wee

Not how it works. Just leave it alone, the joke is over. Colbert is funny, you don't need to do everything he tells you to do. Besides, a wikipedia talk page is not a reliable source, nor is any other "community", only scholarly work of some kind. We don't represent POV's of communities or individuals unless they are noteworthy and of a scholarly nature. Konman72 04:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not a fact that many people in the Wikipedia community believe that the population of elephants tripled in the last few months. It is all of you Colbert fans that have editted Wikipedia that say such. There is no such thing as "wikiality" and Colbert was wrong in saying such. He does not know about Wikipedia's guidelines on verifiability or reliable sources, and neither do any of you fans that decided to follow his advice. Just because someone puts something on Wikipedia does not make it the truth, and no matter of posting the same message over and over and over will not make it true (in this case, it won't take elephants off of the endangered species list). The World Wildlife Fund and the Endangered Species Act will not use Wikipedia as any sort of resource. Ryūlóng 04:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What Ryulong said. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 04:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Last time I checked people who edit Wikipedia are part of the Wikipedia Community. Please don't resort to personal attacks. I'm not trying to argue Stepehn Colbert's point that the elephant population has tripled, instead I'm suggesting we add a section mentioning that many hold the belief and that others are skeptical of that belief. That is a clear fact. Also, why should YOU determine what is noteworthy or scholarly? That seems to be POV. --71.255.212.152 04:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Pee Wee

The Wikipedia Community is not a reliable source, either, and the only people in the Wikipedia community that hold the belief that Colbert spoke of are the sole fans of his program, which is a minority within itself. Ryūlóng 04:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

In order to state that there is a belief that the population has grown then you need a citation that fits the reliable sources criteria. If you do then please state it here. But any "community" site, including Wikipedia's talk page, does not work. Konman72 04:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

And we are not pushing a POV by keeping the idiocy of Colbert's fans off of Wikipedia. And Wikipedia has guidelines on notability as well. Ryūlóng 04:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Colbert is a parody. People who think his "views" are serious really frighten me. Bensaccount 04:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That seems rather aggressive. Satire is a long-standing tradition of serious social commentary. Those following his suggestion are exploring a current weakness. It's the fools who can see when the emperor is wearing no clothes, so I wouldn't scoff too much. --Chrysoula 04:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you claiming that many people don't hold the belief that the elephant population has tripled? That needs a citation, and I believe that since all the evidence points otherwise, the burden of proof lies on you. And I agree with Bensaccount. --71.255.212.152 04:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Pee Wee

Actually it still lies with you, what are your sources for such a belief. It is actually a logical truth that you cannot prove a negative so what you ask is impossible ;) Konman72 04:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No I think you've got that wrong. I believe you're for a logical truth that can prove a positive definition of your own belief by inverting the budren of proof. --71.255.212.152 04:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Pee Wee

The irony of all this is that the population of elphants in Africa HAS tripled in the past 6 months. 71.202.37.171 04:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, really?! Got a source ;-) (no, I don't actually believe you, oh, and your logical thing was really one of the funniest things I have read in a while, thanks for that) Konman72 04:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, It wasn't one of the funiest things you've read in a long time. You don't have a source to verify that. See the five pillars --71.255.212.152 04:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Pee Wee

So you've totally given up the facade at this point. Can an admin ban this user yet? Konman72 04:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Why are there reversions on this Talk page?

Are we actually doing this?

Somebody blanked the page, the only reversions are for obvious vandalism. Konman72 04:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Hope that remains true.