# Talk:Wildebeest

I think that a link to the GNU project is NOT completely irrelevant. The only difference between gnu and GNU is the case and there is a reference to this page in the GNU article.
On the other hand, no matter what the subject matter being discussed, one must not be afraid to bring GNU into the mix.  connor rocks, if you will, the link that gnus would probably not be as insanely popular as they are today *without* the GNU project.
gnus aren't insanely popular you silly
popular animals are fierce bears and cuddly penguins

The opening line 
"GNU" redirects here. 
is untrue: GNU has (as then stated) its own article and typing that with double quotes takes you there also.
But it is output by a redirect macro and I don't know how to remove 1st 3 words without removing other referral to the uppercase acronym software topic by breaking the macro. Iph (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Is the XXXX wildebeest the largest wildebeest?
Yes like the XXXX whale, the XXXX wildebeest is the largest of all wildebeests.

Currently the species box at the bottom of the taxobox lists the two Connochaetes species and three out  of the five sub-species. Personally I think only the two species should be listed. What are your thoughts? -Rooivalk 07:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Changed - Rooivalk 02:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This article has rather poor formating, the text and pictures should be re-positioned to make the paragraphs more uniform. I dont know how to do this myself, otherwise I would. Harley peters 02:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Anybody have a source for the claim that "implausibility of gnu" is the usual collective?  This expression only gets eight google-hits: one is this article, and the other seven could well have this article as their source (they are not reliable sources themselves). Rhyolite 00:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed the link to collective animal names since the list does not include gnu and lists wildebeests as a herd not an implausibility 152.17.125.167 (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Wildebeest stampeding at 65mph? I find this very hard to believe that they run at only 5mph slower than cheetahs. Is there a reference to this?
This - http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004737.html site suggests 50mph max, a considerable reduction.
No, Wildebeest and Lions have reached never in reality a speed so high, are data cabaret artist or of fanatic, and they make exceeded by many even faster ground animals.
Cheetah: 65 mph (105 km/h)
Springbok and Grant's Gazelle: 60 mph (96 km/h)
Hartebeest Tiang (Topi): 50 mph (80 km/h)
Thomson's Gazelle: 47 mph (76 km/h)
Ostrich: 46 mph (74 km/h)
Wildebeest: 43 mph (70 km/h)
Zebra: 40 mph (64 km/h)
Lionness and Tiger : 37 mph (60 km/h)
Leopard: 36 mph (58 km/h)
Sable Antelope: 35 mph (57 km/h)
Giraffe: 35 mph (56 km/h)
Lion: 34 mph (55 km/h)

--85.170.228.20 (talk) 09:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

While Wildebeest are of the antelope family and can run pretty fast, I have never observed them, even stampeding, at anything close to 65 MPH.  My observations have been about 35-45 mph when stampeding. I have no reference otherwise I would correct and cite. LDEBarnard (talk) 03:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This article contradicts itself. In the opening sentence, it declares that it is pronounced with a silent G (/nu/). However in the next section, it tells us the Dutch pronounce it [xu:] and the English pronounce it [gnuː] (as in the song). So who, exactly, pronounces it /nu/? Patch86 13:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Not me! Practically anyone I have ever heard say it uses /gnuː/ --Harris Morgan  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.190.115 (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The Dutch pronunciation is [ɣnu] or [xnu]. Xhosa has ingqu with a voiced nasalized aspirated palatal click. I would guess that that is Khoisan in origin and closed to the origin of the word. Could anybody confirm? 76.182.122.19 (talk) 12:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

/gnuː/ 193.44.6.146 (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Before the 1980's I never encountered the hard G pronunciation of gnu (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Space_Coaster). I have always known the G to be silent, like gnat, gnome, and gnostic. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_G , which cited gnu (the animal) to be pronounced with a silent G. I think this is probably one of those many words in modern English which has changed how it is pronounced. My "The New Century Dictionary" D Appleton, New York / London 1946 says that "gnu" is pronounced "nü" or "nö". 
Other words in the same dictionary that start with "gn" are gnar, gnarl, gnash, gnat, gnathic, gnathion, gnaw, gneiss, gnome, gnomon, gnosis, and gnostic. All of which are silent G. No "gn" word in this dictionary has a hard G. (BTW, this is the oldest dictionary I have, and its my go-to reference to quick check how words have changed)
http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=gnu&search=search has an audible pronunciation, which sounds like "noo".
My opinion is that it is clear that the "proper" pronunciation has a silent G. However, it has been mispronounced for so long, by so many, that either is probably acceptable in modern usage.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcphja2 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC) 

I'm asking for a citation for the /g@"nu:/ pronunciation. I've never heard it outside the Flanders and Swann song, where it is clearly jocular. +Angr 10:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The Gnu song has an article - it say that the silent G is pronounced to deliberately comment on silent letters in the English language. It's passed into common usage and will probably end up in the dictionary. This is how language changes. Miriam webster has noo rather that g-noo and dates it to 1777, from the Khoisan t'gnu (which makes it sound Yorkshire...) Totnesmartin (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I hear it mispronounced about half the time. People try to pronounce the G. 'gah-new', 'gh-new', 'ga-new'. Some even try to pronounce the G without adding a syllable, ghnoo (ussually resulting in a word that is 1.3 to 1.7 syllables long). Darn speakers of Americonian, always putting the hack-cent on the wrong suh-lă-bull. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.106.46.59 (talk) 09:01, October 9, 2015 (UTC)

i request that the Conservation status, should be placed here, in fact to any animal for that matter. 
Pece Kocovski 10:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The name seems to be derived simply from "wild beast", but the spelling with 'ee' instead of 'ea' suggests a Dutch origin. Does anyone have any information about this?
84.198.246.199 (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty much all correct, but it's more like savage beast/animal.  Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU! 12:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The article English words of Afrikaans origin lists it as being from the Cape Dutch, a forerunner of the Afrikaans language. The modern Afrikaans name for the animal is wildebees. It may be worth noting that bees in Afrikaans is cattle, which may make more sense than beast or animal. Booshank (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Same goes for Dutch. beesten = cattle.-- DasRakel  〒  21:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Beast sometimes means cattle in English as well: cattlebeast, beast. Rmhermen (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2011
(UTC)
Actually 'bees' in Afriikaans would be the genderless singular of cattle - thus wildebees, whilst the plural is 'beeste', thus wildebeeste. I suspect a faulty anglicisation of the Afrikaans in the etymology of this word. It would be interesting to know at exactly which point it became an accepted term for 'Gnu' in the English language. I imagine it would have been some time after the coming into being of Afrikaans as a language.

None of which explains why Microsoft used "Wildebeest!!" as a password for its Excel add-ins ATPVBAEN.XLA and FUNCRES.XLA (VBA/Excel Analysis Toolpack). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it is extremely unlikely that the cheetah, a slender and vulnerable cat, preys on Wildebeest. They must prey only on very young animals. Should this be explicitly stated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.164.142 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 4 June 2009 
3rd Jan 2010: Have removed " A predator in the middle would get trampled. " - this is nonsense!
To the person above - cheetah do hunt down wildebeest.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.201.218.226 (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC) 

No, the cheetah attacks only the calfs, only a group of 3 or 4 males can attack an adult, and still, it is risked for cheetahs. The cheetah is very fragile and a grown-up gnu could kill him easily, especially that gnus are considered the strong and aggressive antelopes, in the same way as an common eland, an oryx or a sable antelope.
Even a leopard cannot kill a healthy grown-up gnu, it attacks the pre-adults, has aprt if the animal would be hurt or patients. And I have already seen a male gnu in fight with a lioness, and he eventually escaped him.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angel310 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC) 

And a happy gnu year to one & all.
(Sorry, I could have resisted, but I didn't.)
87.74.73.172 (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
«This female-dominated sex ratio may be due to illegal hunting and human disturbance as higher male mortality has been attributed to hunting»
Or maybe because that´s what happens with all the other bovids known. Why one would expect a 1/1 ratio (adult male/adult female)?
Males dominate a small group of females, does this sound natural or unnatural?
Though I´m not necessarily denying that trophy hunting on males can have an impact.
Just me 5 cents.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.249.98.188 (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC) 

There is a group of Earthlings that protest in order Wildebeests are renamed as
WielderBeasts.
No government supports that change because of economic reasons and dark deals with Wildebeest bribed trade unionists  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.199.7 (talk) 08:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC) 

In the article it is stated that "Wild individuals can be competitors of commercial livestock, and can transmit fatal diseases like rinderpest".
As of 2011 rinderpest has been completely eradicated. This part of the article should be changed to reflect that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.189.169.139 (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wildebeest/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Reid,iain james (talk · contribs) 14:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Nice Article, happy to take up its review. IJReid (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


### First comments
Just a comment to help laymen who have not seen the species articles, which range on the range map is for which species.
Nothing important, but could an automatic taxon box be added to replace the normal one.
I dislike automatic taxoboxes. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
why is there no fossil range in the taxon box, in the article is says how old fossils are.
You cannot be certain that it was the blue wildebeest that changed the least from the species common ancestor, so I suggest the wording is changed slightly.
I have left this as it was. Other parts of the article make it clear that the black wildebeest diverged and the blue changed little from the ancestral form. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
"In East Africa, the blue wildebeest is the most abundant big game species, " Should be in the article, which means removing the ref. Also, link game (food).
"Some populations perform " should state of which species, as the blue wildebeest is mentioned in the previous sentence, and the black in the end of this sentence.
The sectioning of the article does not seem standard. "Migration" should go inside "Distribution"; "Differences" should go directly beneath "Genetics" and be grouped with "Taxonomy" and the two under "Classification"; and "Ecology" can be used over "Interactions" and "Breeding".
"Differences between blue ..." should be renamed "Differences between species"
why is the scientific name of the hirola in brackets behind the common when it is not for the topi etc.
All the species mentioned after the hirola are in the genus Damaliscus and I have rephrased the sentence to clarify this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
"Where it lives alongside the blue wildebeest, the two can hybridise, " The black wildebeest is not mentioned at all in the paragraph, which needs to be fixed.
All for now, IJReid (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking on this review. I think I have dealt with all the points you raise. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Good to go :) IJReid (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The lemma "wildebeest" sounds really funny to a speaker of the Low Countries' languages, because it simply means "wild animal". It's not a perfect lemma, could you please consider it being switched to "gnu" which apparently makes more sense, in spite of Afrikaans' special expression? --Ghettobuoy (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The title of the article depends on the name most commonly used in reliable independent sources, and in this case is "wildebeest" rather than "gnu". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Most used is Wildebeest, so article name should follow.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuka Chief (talk • contribs) 15:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC) 

There is 2 (?) broken template on this page, and it messes up with the preview, can someone fix this?
36.80.25.44 (talk) 09:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The taxobox template has the name "(Lawton’s ñu)" in it. I'm not sure where this is coming from. Additionally, "Lawton" is not mentioned in the article. Somerandomuser (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure where it came from. The name does not seem to be widely used so I have removed it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I love it 31.215.71.221 (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

it's all wonky! 38.49.72.99 (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)