Talk:Kangaroo/Archive 2

What would the actual translation be?
This article references a paper about the first western contact with the Guugu Yimithirr language as a way of dispelling the myth that Kangaroo directly translates as "I don't understand". However, I think it's a missed opportunity to mention what the Guugu Yimithirr translation of "I don't understand" actually is. Any Guugu Yimithirr experts out there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.148.83.110 (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kangaroo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140125064953/http://australianwildlife.com.au/kangaroo.htm to http://www.australianwildlife.com.au/kangaroo.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140417103429/http://planet.uwc.ac.za/nisl/biodiversity/loe/page_192.htm to http://planet.uwc.ac.za/nisl/biodiversity/loe/page_192.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002020057/http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/jun2004/nhgri-08.htm to http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/jun2004/nhgri-08.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kangaroo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090205023954/http://www.kangaroo-industry.asn.au/morinfo/BACKGR1.HTM to http://www.kangaroo-industry.asn.au/morinfo/BACKGR1.HTM
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927154255/http://www.sandiegozoo.org/animalbytes/t-kangaroo.html to http://www.sandiegozoo.org/animalbytes/t-kangaroo.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120121210124/http://www.nma.gov.au/shared/libraries/attachments/friends/archive/in_the_national_museum_captain_john_gore/files/17814/Captain_John_Gore_rf.pdf to http://www.nma.gov.au/shared/libraries/attachments/friends/archive/in_the_national_museum_captain_john_gore/files/17814/Captain_John_Gore_rf.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060917145454/http://www.ava.com.au/avj/9908/99080514.pdf to http://www.ava.com.au/avj/9908/99080514.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Dangling sentence
"Although controversial, kangaroo meat has perceived health benefits for human consumption compared with traditional meats due to the low level of fat on kangaroos"

This sentence is unclear as it does not specify what "Although controversial," refers to (so called "dangling modifier"). Is it the act of eating that is controversial (morally or whatever?), or is the "health benefit" not universally accepted, or is the "act of perceiving a health benefit" criticised, or is there a controversy over the lower fat content etc.? Furthermore, "traditional meats" may have widely differing fat contents, and I would not formulate "low level of fat on something". Finally, the "health benefit" should refer to the consumption, not to the meat (i.e., something like: "the consumption of kangaroo meat is perceived as having health benefits..."), but then again, I am not a native English speaker, so what do I know? It would just be easier for foreign readers if the language would be more clearly defined.2001:16B8:2692:1500:8DE5:E9DB:508F:7173 (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

"Kangaroo" actually meant, "I don't understand" debunked?
I ask politely and respectful to all, for others to comment and give their opinion, please?

I can understand how rumors can excite and vary from the actual facts, however as even a sub-level reader of Wikipedia, I find the claim within the article, specifically under "terminology", to be a bit presumptive of any possibility of actual verified facts. The sentence and claim I refer to and question within the article is this;

"This myth (that the term "Kangaroo" actually meant, "I don't understand") was debunked in the 1970s by linguist John B. Haviland in his research with the Guugu Yimithirr people.[14]".

This claim that "John B. Haviland" "debunked this as a myth" seems to be, innocently enough, more likely a bit biased or one-sided, presumptive to me in my own humbled opinion. Mr. Haviland, in his research article, himself states (in a nutshell) that the "language has changed little from the earliest 1770 recordings and the 1970 ones". Yet in reading his report online, anyone can see there are numerous and unending "explicit changes" in the words used back then and the words used in more recent times of just four decades ago.

It is true that the human race often is susceptible to gossip and rumors, but in my own mind's eye, I can see a very valid possibility that this one, the rumor of Kangaroo" being derived in the way it was rumored to, is of a sound possibility. Even Haviland himself spoke of how easily it was to misinterpret the meanings of words back then in Cook's time, by wrongfully distinguishing a word as a perceived attempted misunderstanding for another word instead, simply because whoever was asking the definite question was pointing at their "hair" while asking for the translation for "head"and so mistook the word for hair to mean head

So there is sufficient "wiggle room" in how we can perceive the developments of the language barrier being crossed.

To say that the myth was debunked by simply quoting the opinion of "one" researcher is a bit speculative and biased as per the natural order in how opinions go, as there is little evidence pro or con to present. If ever there was a way to prove it true, one way or the other, it seems to me and I am sure others, that the rumor of the origin of the word surely has no peril of being used maliciously or to stray from the truth in order to simply discredit one person or the other. It seems to me that for anyone to claim that the rumor was solidly "debunked" rather than to state that it has in the past been merely "put it into question", is more presumptive without evidence to the contrary to support their claim, than to hear one claim the rumor stood an understandably so likely chance of being true.

So please if you will, consider what I have tried to present and see how your own perceptions might weigh in on the subject. If I have missed something, or not accidentally failed to consider all the presented "facts" please feel free to help me understand the issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djd103 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit request: German page
same as with the Dutch request the German (Deutsch) title is in plural http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A4ngurus

Please add it :)

Update
I just tried and it doesn't let me as "Kängurus" is already linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macropodidae

Error: > Site link dewiki:Kängurus is already used by item Q23193.

I also tried to use "Känguru" (singular) as the link on this page, but as it is just a redirect to "Kängurus" (plural) I get the same error message.

Is there any way around that? It is really irritating when landing on this page to not be able to switch to German (Deutsch). I had to go back to DuckDuckGo and search explicitly for "Känguru Wikipedia" to find the German article.

Retrovertigo en (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit request 2: German page
As I don't know how to add a language I want to tell you that the German (Deutsch) title in the German wikipedia is

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A4ngurus

I am German so I know that's correct. The first edit request is at the bottom of this page. I would be pleased if someone could add it. Harry shacklebolt (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2020
CHANGE FROM CHANGE TO
 * wallaroos: the black wallaroo, the smallest by far, with a tail length of 60–70 cm and weight of 19–22 kg (14.8–48.5 lb) for males and 13 kg (28.6 lb) for females;
 * wallaroos: the black wallaroo, the smallest by far, with a tail length of 60–70 cm and weight of 19–22 kg (41.8–48.5 lb) for males and 13 kg (28.6 lb) for females;

MeriKen (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Danski454 (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 03 August 2020
Hi! I just noticed that the picture of the kangaroo in the infobox has been improperly identified as a female red kangaroo. The kangaroo in the image is most definitely an eastern grey kangaroo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.187.227.131 (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Wantok (toktok) 23:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I've just reverted the change, as the observation/request by the IP user seems to be incorrect, going by the descriptions for the two species - the animal in the photo has the black distinct facial markings of a red kangaroo. Bahudhara (talk) 04:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, on closer examination.Wantok (toktok) 05:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am going to have to disagree with you on this one. Red kangaroos have much more distinct black and white facial markings. This kangaroo is missing all of the distinct markings of a red kangaroo, including for example the cheek dots. Furthermore, you can tell from the facial structure and the eyes that this is not a red kangaroo. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RedKangaroo1.jpg Here's a what a female red kangaroo looks like. They're not similar at all. Furthermore, I'd like to point out that the picture was taken in the Blue Mountains conservation reserve. That is not part of the natural range of red kangaroos so I doubt that anyone would encounter a red kangaroo in that area. 31.187.227.131 (talk) 11:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to check in here again. I've found another well-referenced article about red kangaroos with further evidence that the kangaroo in the picture is being misidentified as a red kangaroo and is in fact an eastern grey kangaroo. http://sarkive.com/mammals/macropus-rufus/ the article states the underside of the body and the lower parts of the limbs are light grey to white, the paws and toes are dark, and the tip of the tail is pale, helping to distinguish this species from the grey kangaroos, which have dark tail tips. The kangaroo in the picture has a dark tail tip. Hopefully this, in combination with the other things I've noticed should be enough evidence to conclude that this is an eastern grey kangaroo instead of a red kangaroo. 31.187.227.131 (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello again. Unfortunately the link to the article has broken since the last time I checked in. Since the correction still hasn't been done, I'd like to link to another article that mentions the dark tail tip of the eastern grey kangaroo. https://australian.museum/learn/animals/mammals/eastern-grey-kangaroo/ I am hoping to hear from you soon. 31.187.227.131 (talk) 11:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Melmann 00:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect Species Identification still up
Hello. It's been several months and the species in the infobox is still being misidentified as a red kangaroo. There's plenty of evidence that points towards it being an eastern grey kangaroo, including the facial markings not matching with ones found on a red kangaroo, the location the picture was taken at being outside of the natural range of the red kangaroo as well as the dark tail tip being characteristic of eastern grey kangaroos and not red kangaroos. I am kind of surprised that this has not been fixed yet. Full disclosure, I was also the one to make the edit request above, but it's gone ignored for months. If I had been able to edit the page I'd have done it myself by now. EGKangaroo (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed that image, along with the incorrectly included taxobox, there are reviewed images at commons with species shown in higher quality. ~ cygnis insignis 11:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2021
The Kangaroo can drown its pursuers if it feels threatened or scared. It does this by using there arms to push them underwater. Kangaroos doing this to humans are very rare but it has happened in 2014. 1Angus (talk) 08:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Mel ma nn   08:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is already mentioned in the article.--Countryboy603 (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Range
Information about where in Australia kangaroos are mostly found - can anyone provide it? Also 40 years ago an Australian told me that those in the west are larger - and more dangerous.2603:6010:4E42:500:3413:383D:A6CC:6AAE (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This information is in the articles for the individual species listed in the Taxonomy and description section. HiLo48 (talk) 03:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2021
kangaroos cannot walk not jump backwards, statistically speaking. 70.185.81.188 (talk) 05:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - hako9 (talk) 07:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Name origin
The popular story about the origin of the name should be correct. The Pacific languages have lots of common sounds of words which have similar meaning. Although Vietnamese, Khmer, Thai, Burmese, are different languages they have much common word origins. Among them Vietnamese is easiest to read via Google translate because of using Latin alphabet. As an example if you translate “don’t understand” to Vietnamese you will see “không hiểu” which starts to make sense. 72.231.177.15 (talk) 04:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)