Talk:Columbian mammoth/Archive 1

Extinction date?

The second paragraph is terribly contradictory on when the animal went extinct. can anyone clear this up? Murderbike (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Waco, TX, record ?

We read in the article:

The Waco Mammoth Site in Waco, TX holds the record for the largest known concentration of skeletons of mammoths believed to have died in the same event.[3]

The word "record" usually implies (or means) an extreme that is measurable and numerically quantifiable. (Otherwise, how do you really know it is a record, as compared with other instances?) So, when I read the above sentence, I instinctively was waiting to read on, and learn the *number* of skeletons that gives the Waco site record status. But no such information follows that sentence in the article.

Now, perhaps that number is not known, even if only to the writer, or is not being disclosed for some other reason. But then I would have expected something more like

The Waco Mammoth Site in Waco, TX is by far the largest known concentration of [...]

Because, once again, citing an instance as a "record" would seem to require that the fact in question is quantifiably verifiable and also, assuming it actually is, that that information be shared with the reader.

(Or maybe not? But that's how it seems to this reader.) Toddcs (talk) 08:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

After reading this I went to the referenced website to see if they had any more information. The exact link isn't there anymore (they seem to have moved the history page which is where the link pointed to). After going through all the pages of the very small site I couldn't find any reference to a record. In fact the site mentions, "[h]owever, recent geology research indicates the animals died in a series of events spread across many.". Across many years? I don't know, that's where they left it off. They do describe three distinct events though. Here's a link if anyone else wants to check: http://www.wacomammoth.org/story.html. The Waco site sounds like an interesting find but doesn't support a record. I'm going to be out of town for a couple of days so can't make a change now but this is definitely something that will need a better reference or be removed. Wolfhound668 (talk) 13:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not look up archive.org? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I see that older versions of the page did in fact make this claim and they had it as their tag line at that point as well but that seems to have been removed some time after 3/10/2009 (the last archive version if I'm using wayback correctly). Without knowing why it was removed I won't be making any changes myself. Wolfhound668 (talk) 13:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Purpose of the giant spiralled tusks???

What is the generally accepted purpose of the giant spiralled tusks??? Or is there no known purpose? Thanks in advance to anybody that knows (also, if you could put it in the article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.94.102 (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Other petroglyphs have been found

The following sentence appears to be factually incorrect:

   Petroglyphs in the Colorado plateau are the only known Ice Age depictions 
   of Columbian mammoths, if they are not mastodons instead."

Such petroglyphs have been found in Utah, according to this page:

 http://www.donsmaps.com/utahmammoths.html

which appears to be authoritative.

I won't edit the text because I'm certainly no expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SDLarsen (talk • contribs) SDLarsen (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. That discovery was made in 2011, and the source used in the article is from 2007 so it is just outdated. I'll add the article (not that homepage). FunkMonk (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!SDLarsen (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Discovery

A tusk has reportedly been discovered in Seattle and is a big news story here. While primarily a regional story, it has received some coverage elsewhere[[1]][[2]] and might eventually merit inclusion. Richard K. Carson (talk) 06:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Restorations?

Most of the restorations we have of this animal have some inaccuracies, most of them lack fur, which the species is known to have in at least some amount. Therefore, the only restoration now included is the one by Horsfall. But there are a few other ones. This one has some fur, but seems a bit too Asian elephant-like.[3] The older version is less derivative, but has no fur.[4] This one by Charles Knight is nice, but doesn't the head appear a bit small?[5] FunkMonk (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Recent photo

Early 20th century photo

• And another image thing, it appears to me the two images here show the same specimen at the Page Museum (the one currently in the infobox), just mounted in different postures at different times. Anyone know? The Page Museum skeleotn was once mounted in LA Museum of NH.[6]FunkMonk (talk) 05:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• Added the Knight image, the head may appear small because of the lack of fur on it, which also makes the body look bigger. The specimen it is base don apparently also has a proportionally small head. I also added a restoration of a hunt, though inaccurate in some ways, it can be excused by its age, and it is explained in the caption that it is not to be taken too seriously. FunkMonk (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: IJReid (talk · contribs) 23:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'll go for this review. Overall, this article is close to passing, but I will scrutinize it as much as I can as I assume you are going to nominate this for FA when it passes. IJReid ^discuss 23:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm still proof reading most of the parts after Palaeobiology, so they may not be completely up to snuff yet... Probably some time tomorrow. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• The images could be rearranged, with an image of human interactions being moved down to the extinction section and photo's of fossils being spread out more so they don't overlap.

Yeah, I'd like a horizontal image of Clovis points for extinction (there are some on Commons, but they are from too far North), so if you find any, give me a hint... FunkMonk (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I've added a a horizontal image, but I'm not sure if columbi are known form the site... Which fossil images do you think should be rearranged? I've placed them where there is relevant text, which is reflected in the captions. FunkMonk (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• For some reason I thought there was a general policy that articles on extinct taxa begin with "[name] is an extinct..." although since mammoths are one of the iconic extinct groups it could get away with "[name] is a species of mammoth...". Correct me if I'm wrong.

That only makes sense when the title is a scientific name (as they are already grammatically "definite" in their names), not with common names, as here. FunkMonk (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• If they interbred, their range must have overlapped. I suggest rewording, but am open to how you reword it.

It is stated that their range overlapped in the intro and under distribution. But it is not known to what extent. FunkMonk (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• How can their range have overlapped if M. columbi only lived in US to more southern, with M. prigmigenius in northern Canada. There is quite a spacial distance there.

It is explained in the article that it may have happened when southern areas where colder, but this is not really resolved by scientists yet, and the hybrid findings are very new, so have not been properly explained. I have a source where great surprise is expressed over the findings, perhaps it should be added? http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/scin.5591801217/abstract FunkMonk (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Added the source. FunkMonk (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• What disappeared 12ka, the Clovis?

The mammoth, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

By the way, if you're wondering about the choice of restorations, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Columbian_mammoth#Restorations.3F FunkMonk (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The restorations are okay, but maybe the Horsfall should be switched with the Knight, if the former is more accurate for depicting anatomy. IJReid ^discuss 00:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Both are actually based on the same AMNH specimen (note the tusks), they only seem to differ in the distribution of fur, which is unknown... FunkMonk (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• The caption of the holotype should be corrected, space needed and brackets inside brackets can be removed.

It was like that in the paper, but I think you're right. looks more like other specimen numbers from that museum. FunkMonk (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• The last sentence before the evolution section does not make much sense. I would recommend clarifying or rewriting.

The rest of the evolution section reads very nicely, well done. IJReid ^discuss 00:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've simplified it a bit, does it make more sense? FunkMonk (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I've read the description, and I think it is GA or ever FA standard. IJReid ^discuss 01:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Cool, if there's anything you feel should be elaborated on, or if there's something you feel is missing, please mention it. There's a lot of info that could potentially be added. Also note that some info here is identical to text at woolly mammoth, since many of the same things are true for both species. FunkMonk (talk) 08:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The dentition has enough, but more info on general description/comparison with other species might be in order. IJReid ^discuss 13:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll try, it is very hard to find anything specific, because most of what is known is identical to woolly mammoths, and much of what is known about woolly mammoth anatomy comes from frozen carcasses, which are not known for Columbians... FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• The sentence "Modern elephants form large herds, sometimes formed by multiple family groups, sometimes including thousands of animals migrating together" kind of has a weird structure, seems to end too soon. Could be fixed. IJReid ^discuss 13:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Better? FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Might want to mention what matriarchal is. IJReid ^discuss 13:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
• There are many times where an age in thousands of years has a period instead of a comma. Should be fixed.

The two above should be fixed. I've proof read the rest of the articles, so you're free to go at the entire thing. FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Explain "masticated".

Changed to "chewed". FunkMonk (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• There are more periods instead of commas below the natural traps section.

Oh, I switched everything to periods. FunkMonk (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Co occurred should be hyphenated, I believe.

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The rest of the article is greatly written. IJReid ^discuss 15:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Cool, feel free to nitpick more, I'm waiting for a copyedit anyway, and you know how long that cna take... I still want to add more description info, if I can find it. FunkMonk (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Notify me when you've finished adding, and I will read through it once more. IJReid ^discuss 17:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

A bit more anatomy added, don't think more of significance will be found. FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Final querry before passing, in the Relationships with humans and Extinction sections ages in thousands have periods instead of commas. IJReid ^discuss 22:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it periods throughout the rest of the article? FunkMonk (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how that happened. In my opinion, eg. 12.000 looks like 12 point 0 instead of 12 thousand. Do you think this should be fixed? IJReid ^discuss 23:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Heh, now I'm actually in doubt about what's right. I'm not much of a numbers guy... Maybe there's a manual of style recommendation somewhere? FunkMonk (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Anyhow, I think I fixed most of them now... FunkMonk (talk) 02:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I will pass it now. Just a suggestion for later on, might want to make sizes and weights using the convert template, this should prevent unforseen OR. Also, synonyms reclassified, such as all those later placed in Parelephas, their authorities should be in brackets, makes it less confusing. IJReid ^discuss 04:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pass! Actually, it appears brackets are only used when the original author is credited after a mention of a later recombination by someone else. For example it would be: Archidiskodon imperator (Falconer, 1857) Leidy, 1858, or something like that. Or Mammuthus columbi (Falconer, 1857), as in the taxobox. FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Just a note, the last four synonyms need authorities. IJReid ^discuss 13:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately I have no idea, as Fossilworks didn't list their authors: http://fossilworks.org/bridge.pl?a=taxonInfo&taxon_no=47873 Worst case, I can just give them all (Falconer, 1857), as it is technically true. I think some of the recombinations are form the 70s and 80s, but I don't know the specific authors. FunkMonk (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Just giving my humble opinion

Since I'm seeing a little back and forth between user:Rui_Gabriel_Correia and user:FunkMonk I'd like to add that I agree with FunkMonk that going into detail on what a shaft wrench is would be beyond the scope of this article. The description of "a tool for straightening wood and bone" seems to be plenty for me (but then I know what a shaft wrench is so your milage may vary).

I was hoping that I could wikilink "shaft wrench" as a compromise but unfortunately there is no wiki article on the subject (even the bone tools page leaves a lot to be desired IMHO). I found a decent page on the type of tool with a good picture but it's taken from a deer, not mammoth, and is plains Indian so I'm hesitant to work a link in. I'll leave the link here in case anyone wants to do something with it but again, I don't think it's strictly necessary. http://www.ou.edu/archsur/OKArtifacts/wrench.htm Wolfhound668 (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think more info is needed in this article, but an article about the tool itself could be in order, with a link to that article from here. FunkMonk (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no back and forth going on here other than user:FunkMonk who is obviously displaying typical signs of "I own the article, I got it to good article status, don't come and point out gaps that no-one had noticed". I have seen it so many times, it is an ego problem that is difficylt to deal with. The principle is simple: when there is a resonable request for sources, clarification and whatever other type of additional infomation, the course of action is to address the issue, not sweep it under the rug, has FunkMonk is doing. And Wolfhound668, we are not writing the Wikipedia for you and me, but for millions out there, so the discription being plenty for you or whatever my milage (sic) might be is not the issue. The concept of "straightening bone" is not the same as "crushing wheat" - "straightening bone" is an alien concept, not easlily understood by 99% of people. Let's also not forget that we are talking about bones from dead animals. Yes doctors can straighten bones in live people and animals over months of painstaingly minute adjustments. To straighten a bone from a dead animal would not be an easy feat. Then it does also not help that it was accomplishing by resorting to a "shaft wrench", a loose description of a tool that 99% of people would not get. In fact, I've just realied that even FunkMonk does not understand what the text is saying. Just like he has so far not understood what the issue is - it is not about the tool, it is about what the tool does. Get it? Don't worry, I will fix it. One last think, FM, decide on the reason for removing the request for clarification - fisrt it was that there was nothing in the source, now it is that this is not the place for this discussion. Please pick one, so we know what your problem is. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be unaware of what the WP:Scope of the article is. It is the mammoth, not the tool. There is a reason why the 200 page book about mammoths cited here doesn't go further in t´detail about the tool, so we shouldn't either. In depth discussion of the tool is not within the scope of this article. It's quite simple. We don't have long explanations about other tools in this article either. Info about that tool is to be found in an article about the tool. So create an article about it and link it from this article, that's the most logical solution. It'll take you less time than arguing. FunkMonk (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Shaft wrenches are not used to straighten bone

Please have a look at the article as it is now so I don't waste my time adding full citations as per style guide if you are going to revert. The wrench is not used to straighten bone, which is what I was querying from the beginning. It was simply the wrong information. It is used to straighten the shafts of (wooden) arrows. Thanks, regards. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• That is what the source cited says. So unless you can demonstrate it is wrong, it stays. Here's another source that mentions bone: www.lithiccastinglab.com/gallery-pages/11abonewrench.htm I'll create a new article for the tool, the new source doesn't mention mammoths, so it is verging on original synthesis to keep the text in the article about the mammoth. You can also make the article yourself. Either way, it will be created, and the info moved there, where it is more appropriate. FunkMonk (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

It s one thing to say it straightens "wood and bone", it is an entirily different thing to say — as the source that you have just indicated — "straighten spear shafts made of either wood, ivory or bone". A shaft made from bone would have been wittled down to less than an inch, it is already a tool that is now being corrected/ perfected. I would love to see what the original source (Lister) says. I can track down the book, but unfortunately cannot find a full-text version on Googlebooks or elsewhere. Perhaps you might oblige. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, Lister does not get more into detail than this article does, since it is not within the scope of the book. It is not a book about stone age tools. Here is another book that mentions bone: [7] And a website:[8] FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, instead of looking up other sources that mention bone, would you be so kind as to tell the rest of us what Lister says? You took the information from there, so therefore he says something about it. That something would suffice. Could you kindly oblige? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. You keep on strengthening my case. "it has been hypothesized that the object was used to straighten wood, bone, or ivory spear shafts"/ "possibly used for straightening ivory or bone rods. And oh, 0 out 10 for your research honesty, when you already start off by skewing the search terms, as can be seen by your search terms "shaft wrench straighten bone". And even so, you haven't proven anything, except that it was used to straighten the shafts of arrows, made of a variety of materials, including bone. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

So now you're changing the goal post? You first said "The wrench is not used to straighten bone, which is what I was querying from the beginning." I then showed you it was the case. So what is the problem now, can you try to be specific? Lister says: "It is thought to be a shaft-wrench - a tool for straightening wood or bone to make the shafts of spears, similar to tools used by Eskimos." FunkMonk (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

So now you're adding lower quality sources saying the exact same thing as Lister. What's the point? FunkMonk (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Just exactly what is it that you don't get? It is one thing to say "wood", it is another to say "arrows shafts made out of wood", just like "gold" is differtent from "gold coins", "clay" is different from "clay vessels", get it?????? The text used to say "to straighten wood and bone", now it says "to straighten arrows shafts made out of wood, ivory and bone". There is a huge difference. What exactly did you want it to mean? To straighten a leg bone? to straighten rib bones? a radius, perhaps? Have you ever tried to straighten a bone? Can you do it by sticking it into a whole carved in another bone? So yes, "The wrench is not used to straighten bone", it is used to straighten arrow shafts — thin, semi flexible, semi pliable instruments pieces Now at least it even makes sense why it is called a "shaft wrench", which before it did not. Nobody is changing (sic) [moving] the goal post (sic) [posts]. And if it is not within the scope of the article, why did you add the part about the Innuit when you first removed the request for clarification? In fact, if the sources says that "for straightening wood or bone to make the shafts of spears", you had enough information to solve the request for clarification, but opted to merely remove it, claiming that "Not stated in source". All you are doing is convincing everyone else who comes across this page that you took this personally and are not adult enough to admit that you did the wrong thing, that the text was not clear and that you have a "I own the article" attitude about it. Which is a real pity considering the amount of work you have done around here. Nobody is perfect, so it is only natural that from time to time others will come along and find something that can be improved. That, my friend is the no. 1 principle of the project — that no matter how good, someone will always find something that can be improved. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

So what exactly is the "huge" difference? The important part is the material, which is wood or bone. Now you're just trying to change the goal post because your initial complaint about bone (as seen in the very title of this section) was invalid. Can you try to be a bit more concise, the long, rambling rants aren't very readable. FunkMonk (talk) 04:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Since you don't answer, I've removed your low-quality homepage sources. If you want to add sources, they should be scientific article, like the rest. FunkMonk (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

About the extinction

It's stated that the Mammuth were hunted since 20,000 years ago, so.. the (in)famous 'blitzkrieg theory'always tell about the 'extinction of megafauna' unable to adapt to humans... in 1,000-2,000 yrs. If the humans started to hunt mammuths 7,000 years BEFORE clovis, then it should be noted that the 'blitzkrieg theory'(already high questionable for many reasons, see the horses extinction in north america, while they survived in Asia...), is seriously weakened.

About the hunting of big game, it should be noted that not even the iron weapons made in East Africa managed to kill the elephants to extinction.

And, BTW, megafauna in Euroasia disappeared roughly in the same time as the american megafauna did. But in Eurasia hominid were not unknown to the animals, so the 'pure overhunting hypotesis' is doubly questionable. First, there was not a really 'blitzkrieg' (10,000 years, or 1,000 thousands generation is not a 'blitz' at all), second the mammuth weren't dodoo (i.e. they definitively did not lack of powerful predators, and knew hot to fight to survive); third, the american extinction should be compared with the euroasian event, even if the local megafauna lived with humans since around 1,000,000 yrs. This is definitively in contrast to the blitzkrieg hypotesis, that means animals being too stupid to defend themselves from the humans, just because they did not know them. Eurasian mammuths should have knew them, but it won't change their fate. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.20.209.65 (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

We can not note anything not mentioned specifically in the sources used. FunkMonk (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The oldest reliably dated human skeletal material in the Americas is around 13,000 years old (e.g., Peñon woman or Naia (skeleton)). So, if humans were present in the area for very long before that, it appears that for some reason, they weren't very abundant; otherwise, we would have found their remains by now. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Then why there is this statement? The earliest suggested evidence of Columbian mammoth-butchering in America (from Lovewell, Kansas) dates from 18,000 to 21,000 years ago.[38] Paleo-Indians of the Clovis culture, which arose 7,000 years later, may have been the first humans to hunt mammoths extensively IF the blitzkrieg is a viable theory, this is not an indifferent statement to counter it.

We don't know how reliable the earliest evidence is. If it is reliable, the earliest hunters may have been inefficient, while the later Clovis hunters with better technology might have operated more like a blitzkrieg. WolfmanSF (talk) 01:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

A couple more points - African proboscids did did not make it through the Pleistocene unscathed. 1.5 million years ago they included at least three families and five genera: Deinotherium, Stegodon, Mammuthus and Elephas, as well as extant Loxodonta, containing probably 8 or more species (see Trends in Proboscidean Diversity in the African Cenozoic, 2006). Only two species of Loxodonta have survived to the present, and it's quite likely humans played a role in the demise of the others. Iron weapons would have helped much if the limiting factor in hunting efficiency was getting close to the wary elephants.

Also, a simple consideration of geography (Eurasia and the Americas are connected in the far north) makes logical the observation that some megafaunal extinctions in northern Eurasia and the Americas occurred in a similar time frame. While humans have lived in Eurasia for a very long time, during the vast majority of that time they only occupied part of the land mass; they were unable to live in the colder zone in the north because they lacked enabling technology. As their clothing and perhaps hunting equipment improved, they were able to gradually move north until they occupied the entire continent, and this happened around the time some of the cold-adapted megafauna disappeared. As they approached the northern limit of Eurasia, they also occupied Beringia, and from there they were able to invade the Americas. WolfmanSF (talk) 06:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

And still it proofs nothing other the fact that humans hunted the elephants, that it's the same thing that they did and doing even today in Africa. And still the elephants are here. 1)- you are basically contradicting yourself when you talking about the extinct loxodonta species, as in Africa there were doublessy humans since no-knows-how-many years. And still, you say that several loxodonta species were extinct. So exactly, how to cope it with 'blitzkrieg extinction theory'? Paradoxally, your points are acting against your own deductions. As i am working in this field i have a lot to say about this 'theory' and i frankly don't understand how it became so popular, despite the logical fallacy that you showed above.

2)-you said that the humans have lived for a long time in the Eurasia in the hotter regions. But we know how the elephants and other megafauna were present even there. And Neanderthalensis hunted it. And never extincted it as well. And there is no explaination that can help to understand why the mammouth became extinct in north-Asia, the Stegodon died in China, while the asian elephant did survive. As China and India were populated since xxxxxx years ago, this cannot be explained. And the users above is right, no elephant/mammouth shows any signs of 'pacifism' at all, they were ready to fight every day, as the modern elephant are. And the reasons is simple: they must fight to survive against many enemies. The homo sapiens is only one of them. 62.11.0.22 (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss what theory is right or wrong. All we can do is present what reliable sources state. FunkMonk (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Engvar

This article was written in British English, since the animal is not only found in the US, and I even asked about the issue before nominating it for FAC[9], so I wouldn't have to deal with silly edit-wars later on. But it seems the time has now come (years after it was promoted to FA), and we're now getting half-assed translations to US English. I therefore reverted, since several BE words were still left in the article (such as "palaeo"). But if WolfmanSF wants to translate the article, be my guest, as long as you do it completely. And instead of just removing the banner that says this article is written in UK English, add another banner that says it is in US English. That is your responsibility, if you insist on changing the variety of English. Just reverting to a mixture version over and over doesn't cut it, and will be reverted. FunkMonk (talk) 09:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi FunkMonk; stick a flag in the ground one way or the other and don't waver; consistency is whats (relatively) important. "wouldn't have to deal with silly edit-wars later on" - indeed. Its important not to get bogged down in trivial things, you have other things to do. Ceoil (talk) 09:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm willing to let the conversion happen, as long as it is done thoroughly (my issue is mainly consistency). But it should be done by those who apparently feel so strongly about it. FunkMonk (talk) 10:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, their-in lies the road to hell, where the loudest voice wins. You wrote the page; be firm, impatience with nonesence, wanting to move on. Ceoil (talk) 10:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not keen on seeing ENGVAR changes happen without discussion; they can be quite contentious and I think it's always better to post a talk page comment first. FunkMonk, is the current version a full translation? Or is it still a mixture? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Mike, you are inviting distraction. You cant have it both ways. Ceoil (talk) 10:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I think this discussion is fairly pointless, it doesn't change the content of article, nor does it make it difficult to read for people who are used to different standardisations. Why was this edit war started in the first place? There are better ways to expend energy on Wikipedia rather than edit warring over minor spelling differences on already featured articles. What ever standardization was current when the article was promoted to featured should be maintained to discourage this sort of behavior. --Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

• Just to make it clear, the FAC version was UK English, and it was held this way (even during TFA) until a few words were changed to US spelling yesterday. I reverted, but then another user reverted it back, and changed a few more words into US English. Now it seems at least all instances of "palaeo" need top be changed into "paleo", and a new US Engvar banner should be added to the talk page (the UK banner was simply removed). And yes, I do think disputes like this are beyond meaningless. The important thing is just that we stick to one variety throughout the article, which is currently not the case. FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree, a consistent standardization should be used throughout --Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
    • End of story as far as I'm concerned. Ceoil (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)