Talk:Donkey/Archive 3

Bad word
A** is a bad word. Maybe it should be censored. (Nintendostan (talk) 04:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC))
 * I am certain that ass is another word for donkey, it is not just explicative. (Dagdagtic (talk) 11:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC))
 * First, Wikipedia is not censored. Second, ass is a legitimate alternative term for donkey, so is quite rightly included in the article. Dana boomer (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Besides the fact that ass is a synonym for donkey, the word you are thinking of is spelt "arse" in most of the English-speaking world. Jivan82 (talk) 06:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

So interesting that you say that - quite a coincedence. I was hoping to ask if anyone would support correction to the opening statement about the donkey and the ass as being synonymous. "The donkey or ass, Equus africanus asinus,is a domesticated member of the Equidae or horse family... ." In fact, the term ass refers to "a subgenus of Equus (single-toed (hooved) grazing animal) that encompasses several subspecies of Equidae." Apparently the common donkey is a domesticated subgenus (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asinus). Would anyone oppose my attempting to rewrite the opening to make this distinction clearer? Thanks, D


 * The whole article is being sandboxed for a rewrite. I wouldn't worry about it now.   Montanabw (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Merge Burro back here - discussion
Seeing as how little has been done to expand the burro article since it was spun off here, (and history looks like is was spun off and merged back, then spun off again) I believe it is a content fork and as such, suitable to re-merge back into this article. I recommend that discussion of the merge be consolidated here. There is very little to distinguish burros from donkeys in general, and that bit of information can easily be handled in a section here titled "Burros" os something similar. Montanabw (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hah, a strange co-incidence of timing - I had started drafting something for that page 2 days ago when my internet was down. I'll attempt to expand it further. I'd be against merging it here, but had planned to move some parts of it to North American donkey. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You are once again creating a "breed' where there is none. A "Mexican burro" is 100% OR, as is your "North American donkey." American (i.e. both continents) donkeys are not bred in the same manner as in Europe.  Are either on your famous FAO list?   However, I don't have the time or energy to deal with you now, so go ahead and have fun with your little content forks, I'll just fix it all later. Why not make articles on all the redlinked European breeds you have in your list of Donkey breeds?  Montanabw (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Mexican burro is of course listed in DAD-IS, it is one of the largest donkey populations in the world; if you believe it to be identical to the tiny burro population of the United States, please adduce sources that say so. On the North American donkey, I think you have a fair point; if you can think of a better name for the article, please suggest it. North American donkeys would IMO be preferable, but may fall foul of WP:Singular. On the other breeds, non fuit in solo Roma peracta die. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have multiple, independent sources (not just the DAD-IS) that say that Mexico has a specific donkey breed called the "Mexican burro" (a breed, not just a type or sub-group), then a specific article should be created for them. However, the majority of sources/dictionaries that I came across in a quick search said that "burro" is just another word for/type of "donkey" - in which case, the burro article should be merged back here. "North American donkey" should probably be moved to "Donkeys in North America" or even "Donkeys in the Americas", since it could easily cover their history in North, Central and South America. Dana boomer (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ditto to Dana here. And there is no "breed" called the "North American donkey" -- that is flat out OR. Indeed, the interesting thing to come out of this whole discussion is the understanding that other than a few specialty breeders who preserve European breeds, there really aren't donkey "breeds" in at least North America in the sense that there are unique donkey breeds in the Eastern Hemisphere and Horse breeds everywhere.   Montanabw (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion
I politely disagree on merging 'Jenny' with the Donkey page. It's a species of it's own, even if it has to derive from breeding a Donkey and a horse together, and I feel that it still warrants it's own page. However, if it must be moved, I would like to suggest that you would also have to merge the 'Mule' page with this, as it wouldn't be fair to have the Mule have it's own page but have it's counterpart Jenny to be regulated to the Donkey one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrayKirby (talk • contribs) 17:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest merging Jenny (donkey) here. There's no content there that could not easily be integrated here. We don't have articles for hen, ewe, sow, cow, bitch or indeed lioness. Why is this one needed? Merging it would also avoid the necessity of discussing the correct name for it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We do have articles for mares. But, given that it's small, if you don't think it could be expanded further, I'll make a deal: merge both burro AND jenny.   Montanabw (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose merging Burro and Donkey. The Burro is essentially a Mexican animal and concept. Merging the articles would unnecessarily conflate it with the larger concept. Lou Sander (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, so we need an article Caballo because the any discussion of horses in Latin America should be at the Spanish word for 'horse' to avoid "unnecessar[il]y conflat[ing]" the Latin American population and concept of "horse" with the larger concept? — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  20:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment on my post above, which I thought was about merging Burro and Donkey. What I was trying to say is that the Donkey article is very long already, and is mostly about the animal and its biology, while the Burro article is mostly about the animal as an aspect of Mexican and other Hispanic culture. I don't see the benefit of mixing the two. Lou Sander (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment only the word is of Spanish origin. The burro itself is a small but not miniature donkey descended entirely from European ancestors, some came from Spain up through Mexico and others via other European imports to the US east coast.  It is not "native" to Mexico.  Montanabw (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hint: . Even if it weren't, your point would still be irrelevant and is a straw man, since no one argued that burros are a native species. It's like arguing that Caballo needs to be a separate article, because only  caballo (Spanish for 'horse') is of Spanish origin, and the Latin American horses themselves are descended entirely form Euroasian ancestors. DOES NOT COMPUTE. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  20:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Be nice, SMC. I see I failed to finish a sentence, which I just did. My point was that the statement somehow implied that burros are "Mexican," which they aren't.

Support merging Jenny and Donkey (but Oppose merging Burro and Donkey. This is getting complicated. Lou Sander (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that you find it complicated does not equate to a pro or con merge position, but a neutral one, by definition. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  20:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose merging Jenny, Support merging Burro. Burro was merged, then split out again as a content fork. Jenny article should be expanded parallel to mare to discuss reproduction and anatomy, which is noticeably different from that of the horse. Montanabw (talk)
 * Comment And yeah, I know it's complicated. The problem is that this donkey article was in the midst of a solid rewrite (not by me) when yet another editor came in and wanted to do it all differently.  And that same editor went in and expanded the burro article with a bunch of OR and POV agenda. So now the whole thing is an effed-up mess.  Those of us who care just no longer have the time, energy or patience to deal with this person, so good luck ;-) .   Montanabw (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Well, I certainly hope that in the discussions surrounding all the moves, merges, etc., nobody descended into incivility and called anybody else an "ass", or "jackass", or "asinine". On second thought, given the context and the nobility of the subjects of the article(s), such names might be seen as compliments, not incivilities. Lou Sander (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Especially given that asinine really only means "stubborn or immovable"; Americans often misunderstanding it has having something to do with "asshole", because of the "ass"/"arse" confusion. Lots of 'pedians are in fact proudly stubborn when it comes to resiting unsourced or PoV-pushing article changes. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  20:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Weeeellll. I learned the value of refactoring and strikeout.  It is a difficult to resist temptation...  =:-O  Montanabw (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * And it is getting more difficult to resist it every day. Lou Sander (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Support merging both as sections: While Jenny (donkey) be developed into a proper article like Mare, it's not happening, so per WP:SUMMARY there's insufficient justification for a split. It should be merged to Donkey, and the post-merge redir should point to that section. The poorly-sourced WP:POVFORK at Burro (which is Latin American generally, even including the US Southwest, not specifically Mexican) is mostly OR attempting and failing to show that burros are magically different from donkeys. ; the fact that donkeys/burros south of the US/Mexico border tend to be small is just a matter of chance, geography (limited genepool) and nutrition. It is not a separate subspecies, nor a formal breed. I see evidence cited to date that it's even a distinguishable landrace. If it demonstrable as one, I'd support it being kept as a separate article, clearly identified in the lead as being about a landrace. PS: I've spent more than half my life in the American Southwest and I know Spanish. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  20:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I was the one who proposed merging burro, and so obviously I support it.  There was some work done on the article recently (and thanks SMC), but I do think that it still could be merged.  Probably the only real unique bits are the feral burros protected under US Federal law, with the statute titled "burro" and not "donkey."  While I think an argument could be made that a 400-year old population might be a landrace, it definitely isn't quite a breed, at least, not in the way that a lot of the feral horses have been. I guess on jenny, while I don't favor a merge, I will acknowledge there's an argument to be made to merge it into a "reproduction" section or something and spin it back out later when there is sufficient material.(and to avoid confusion, jenny would be better than "jennet," which though also used to describe female donkeys, is also a type of medieval horse)  Montanabw (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support merging Jenny, as discussion of basic terminology and sex differences should be confined to this article for now. Unlike the example of mare, there is not enough material to justify a separate stub in my opinion. A good comparison is ram. On the other hand, I weak oppose merging burro, as it seems that it's not just the Spanish term of the same animal, but actually a specialized term for feral donkeys or donkeys of a certain type in the Americas, and that there are citations aplenty that support the specific and separate definition for burro. Steven Walling • talk   06:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm coming around on the Jenny issue. Slowly, but yeah, nothing keeps it from being spun back out later and the redirect will remain.  The problem with burro is that it's really just a name, definitely not a "breed" as such, though maybe with landrace characteristics, but virtually the same animal (a little donkey) exists worldwide.  I have no clue what a DNA study would show--if a little working donkey somewhere in Africa is basically the same "breed" of animal as the little beast in the US southwest -- or not.   A lot of times in the USA we sort of say "donkey" and "burro" interchangably, with burro simply referring to the size.   The expansion of that article was originally fraught with OR, and SMC cleaned up what I could not.   Montanabw (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I would ultimately be okay with merging burro too, as long as we were very clear about including information about both its status as an alternative name and the fact that it actually refers to a fairly specific kind of donkey (even if there is genetically little to no difference between the types). Steven Walling &bull; talk   21:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll withdraw my opposition to merging Jenny, the arguments for merging do make sense. As the person who placed the merge tag on burro, I clearly am OK with that, and support whatever caveats people who actually perform the merge feel necessary. I'm not the person to do either edit, but if Steven or SMC want to, I'll peek at the merge and offer minor tweaks if needed.  Montanabw (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Question. I still don't see any clear reason to merge Burro. Could somebody please articulate one? Lou Sander (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A) It's not a breed, B) it's not a separate species, C) It might not even be a landrace (donkeys tend to be adapted to deserts) and D) it's just the Spanish word for "little donkey" a word choice which became common amongst English speakers in the SW United States over the years due to the Spanish/Mexican influence in the region (which was part of Mexico until the 1840s).  Montanabw (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, theres no reason to have two articles for the same animal. As far as I'm concerned, I always thought "burro" was just a Spanish/Mexican word for any donkey.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose The "burro" article seems to be more about the term "burro", it's etymology, and how it is used in different parts of the world, than about the animal itself. Perhaps some of this information could be referred to in the "donkey" article, but I think the articles should stay separate.Jivan82 (talk) 07:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Support If the word's about the same thing as another article, it goes under the main article, maybe as a sub-section. We don't have separate pages for the Falklands and "Los Malvinas", after all. 69.125.249.6 (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Support Since a jenny is simply a female donkey, it's foolish to have separate pages (especially when the "Jenny" article is so short). Wikipedia is full of extraneous pages (e.g., for various fictional characters when they are discussed plenty on the page(s) discussing the work in which they appear); we don't need more. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC) CLOSED Very old discussion, no consensus. TheMagikCow (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes to merging articles
It seems like if a burro is just a kind of donkey, as is a jenny, then yes, these articles should indeed be merged. What are the next steps? Sara FB (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Someone just needs to merge them! However, I think that burro is mergable, but jenny (donkey) is akin to mare, which DOES have a separate article and possibly should be expanded.  How about we merge burro and further discuss how we want to handle jacks and jennies?  20:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I approve as do several individuals involved in earlier discussions (discussion at WikiProject Equine). I'm no biology expert and rather new to substantive Wikipedia edits so am reluctant to take the plunge myself. But it seems appropriate! I'll ask a high-ranking friend to look at it tomorrow and comment. - Sara FB (talk) 07:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Nothing is stopping you! ;-)  And I am one of the people at Wikiproject Equine who favored merging burro... Jenny needs a bit more thought and discussion, though.  Montanabw (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw that! All right, I'm going in... :) = Sara FB (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Good luck!  Montanabw (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I support this too. --Article editor (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 August 2013
Please edit last sentence of 3rd paragraph of section Religion, Myth and Folklore. There was no 'secret´ knowledge that Jesus had about this prophecy. It was public knowledge. He and almost all Jews of the day were well aware of it. He rode into Jerusalem on the donkey because they all knew the prophecy.

2001:5B0:2AFF:1EF0:0:0:0:34 (talk) 00:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you are supposed to say "please replace x with y. Lou Sander (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Indeed. Please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. I am setting this request as answered, but you are more then welcome to set as unanswered if/when you restate your request. If you need assistance please leave me a note on my talk page. -Ryan  04:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it is worthwhile mentioning Pinnochio in this section, where bad boys are turned into working donkeys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.224.68.225 (talk) 08:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Equus asinus Kadzidłowo 001.jpg
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Equus asinus Kadzidłowo 001.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 24, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-04-24. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Plural to singular
If there is no reason (like different kinds of donkeys) for using plural in section: Religion, myth and folklore; paragraph: In the Jewish religion, donkeys are not a kosher animal. They are considered ... I would like to put the paragraph in singular form: In the Jewish religion, the donkey is not a kosher animal. It is considered ... . This way the switch from plural to singular could be avoided. Slowlate (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Reversion of my recent edit
I assume this careless reversion was directed at my edit but it also had the effect of reverting unrelated contributions by me and another editor. I find the edit summary unhelpful. The editor has apparently not bothered to read the citations, which only show that the earliest citation in the OED comes from 1785, not that this is the "first recorded use". I have a copy and the OED makes no such claim. Although the OED is a good approximate guide to when a new word appeared, a thorough trawl will very often uncover something older. My other edits which were reverted are self-explanatory and include the addition of a tag. For now, I shall re-revert all but the removal of the references because it is clear the other editor had not bothered to check what else he was changing in his revert. I shall also add to the "sources" I am supposed to have removed. --Lo2u (T • C) 15:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you, I wonder, actually look at the sources at all? The Diaz source (which needs to be better cited, btw) is quite clear that Fairman gives 1784, based on Nares's grammar, and that the OED gives 1785, based on Grose. For all I know the OED may be wrong, or Diaz may be wrong about it, but our job is to report what the sources say; of course, if after your thorough trawl you wish to bring new sources that support a different view, then I'm sure those should be considered too. On the topic of carelessness: to introduce a red herring ("in some dialects of English") and then immediately require a citation for it hardly seems a careful approach; would it not perhaps be preferable to find the citation first? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you mean about a "red herring". It is a straightforward fact that the two only merged in a minority of dialects. The implication I take from your restored wording is that the merging was general. Happy to produce a citation for this "red herring", though I am not required to unless it is requested. The Fairham source, admittedly only indirectly cited, says, "The first instance of donkey is in a list in Robert Nares' grammar (1784); Francis Grose (1785) stated that donkey meant "A he, or jack ass", but I have found no example of donkey restricted to...". The OED makes no claim to have the earliest source. --Lo2u (T • C) 19:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm sorry, I do see what you mean by "red herring". I appreciate now it does look strange to assert something and then put a tag after it. I wasn't actually questioning my own assertion about the limitations of the change so much as the whole concept of 17th century sound changes. The change seems to have been a part of a very narrow set of vowel changes (the most obvious change is "curse"->"cuss") but I'm not convinced about the date (OED gives 1860 as the earliest example of arse-> ass) and I suspect some confusion with the unrelated Trap–bath split. --Lo2u (T • C) 19:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Drop the stick, Lo2u, you need to find better sources if you insist on your view here. You have not.  JLAN is one of our stronger editors on UK English and related language issues and I suggest you listen to him on this one.    Montanabw (talk)  22:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, no. I also have a good few years' experience editing and rewriting derivation-related parts of articles and an appropriate academic background. There are potentially serious flaws with the explanations given here. I can find nothing substantial in your comment so I suggest you absorb my previous 19:30 comment properly before you continue to contribute. --Lo2u (T • C) 23:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You need to provide SOURCES for your assertions. Put up or shut up.  Once you quit trying to prove how superior you are to everyone else, then maybe a rational discussion of article content can ensue.  In the meantime, you are not providing support for your assertions and the sources as cited do not need WP:SYNTH material added that isn't supported there.   Montanabw (talk)  17:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Please, I've said already that I have no particular expertise in etymology, which perhaps does. However, I remain to be convinced that the text as it stands has serious flaws, or that it misrepresents the discussion in the Diaz source. Perhaps some fresh sources would persuade me. At the moment, the business about "some dialects" comes across as one editor's personal opinion; the assertion that the OED does not necessarily cite the earliest occurrence of a word the same. If, as is of course your right, you doubt the discursus of de la Cruz Cabanillas and Martínez, please cite the academic sources that challenge it. I have no emotional investment in it, it was just the only relevant source I was able to find at the time. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have now looked at the entire Diaz source and I'm happy that the section I tagged as needing citation is basically accurate and verifiable, even if it needs clarification. I will post here before I edit the article. I see nothing opinionated, by the way, about saying that the pronunciations of this word have developed in different ways in British English and American English. It's widely known and written about. Regarding 1784, I really think that given that we have in Fairman a reliable secondary source that says simply 1784 and not "1784 or 1785" it would be a mistake to use Diaz's alternative 1784 or 1785, at least if the primary source can be verified so that we know 1785 is definitely incorrect (which I've not yet been able to do, even though there are online copies). From, looking at the whole thing in context, Diaz doesn't seem to see any contradiction in the date. He's saying "the earliest source found by x is 1784; the earliest found by y is 1785 so there's agreement about the date." To imply Diaz is unsure which is correct is probably to misunderstand him. I still don't understand the reason for the assertion that he word ass was "replaced". It seems needlessly sweeping, especially given that this article has a section on wild asses. --Lo2u (T • C) 12:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no particular investment in the 1784 versus 1785 question, though if sources differ, then it is wise to note that. As for donkey versus "ass", there is a distinction between the domesticated and truly wild forms of e. asinus. Donkey is the smaller domesticated animal, with multiple breeds; ass is still seen, but is not the common name today.   As far as the form of the word used for one's buttocks or ill-advised behavior, "widely known" isn't a source, end of discussion there.  Sources, sources, sources.   Montanabw (talk)  17:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. Given that you must surely know that many English speakers pronounce "arse" and "ass" differently, I do find this a little obtuse. There are actually two unrelated merges of ass and arse. One, temporary and partial, in southern British English in the mid to late eighteenth century, in which both were pronounced "arse"; the other in North American English in the nineteenth century when both came to be pronounced "ass". For the latter, as I have already explained, the source is the OED but could be basically any dictionary at all. For the former, Diaz's discussion (and probably some uncited parts of this Wikipedia article which have not been removed) seem to be based on Barber, who says this "The lengthening did not take place in all forms of English, and [æ] or [a] can still be heard in many varieties of the language." I don't think there's any difficulty citing this bit. The real problem is in dealing with internal inconsistencies and disagreements between the sources in a way that does not introduce original research, which, as I say, I shall try to fix later.
 * 2. Actually, I think that if we can be absolutely certain the OED's source is not the earliest, it is rather unwise to provide a source, even a reliable one, that we know is incorrect, at least not in a way that gives them parity. WP:RS does not require every available source to be given. That said, I have not actually been able to find "donkey" in Nares at all and I won't do anything until I do.
 * 3. If ass is still seen but is not common, why are you intent on not toning down even slightly the assertion that it has been "replaced"? Why not be content with your own statement, which we both agree about, that it is still seen but is not the common name today? -Lo2u (T • C) 19:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. I do know how people pronounce many words today. I don't know how people pronounced words in the late eighteenth century; for that I rely on the sources. If an apparently reliable source says that there was convergence, that's what I write in the article. I don't introduce original research based on my own experience more than two hundred years after the fact. That is not obtuseness, it is academic rigour (and, incidentally, our practice in this wiki).
 * 2. Yes, I went through that a couple of years ago, failed to confirm the 1784 date, and wrote the text that's now there, noting the difference between the sources. If a source as solid as the OED has a dissenting or incorrect opinion that should probably be mentioned in any case.
 * 3. It must be obvious to any reader that a gradual process that began in the past is not necessarily complete in the present. But I'm not "intent" on preventing you from making it still more obvious. Would you settle for "began gradually to replace"?
 * I don't see any of this as very important, and don't plan to devote much more time to it. As the proverb says, "if it isn't broken, there's no need to mend it". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that "in some dialects" or at least "in some language varieties" is now adequately sourced. Are you happy for it to be inserted? I have never been attached to my own wording and am quite happy with "began gradually to replace it". --Lo2u (T • C) 10:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2015
Please look at the "History" part. The ancestors of domesticated donkey should be Nubian and one unknown donkey. Both of them are subspecies of Africa wild ass. And "the Somali wild ass has considerable mitochondrial divergence from the Nubian wild ass and domestic donkeys.".

--HenanZhu (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

HenanZhu (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting development. Once your account is a little more established (a few more days) you should be able to make this edit yourself.  In the meantime, would you like to propose how you'd like to see the section phrased...?  Also, can you provide a more direct URL to the text of the study, I can't get the article to come up with just the PMID. I added a direct URL to the ref for everyone to review...  Thanks!   Montanabw (talk)  17:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)