Talk:Koala/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Violence

I have been told even by Koala enthusists that they can been quite violent, and in some cases even without being prevoked. Koalas being violent should be mentioned in this article, as it is most definitely part of their natural behaviour.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.79.186 (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a verifiable [[WP:RS|reliable source that says that koalas are violent then there is probably a place in the article for it. If all you have is "that is what I have been told," that is not verifiable or reliable. Jons63 (talk) 05:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

THIS IS SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO INCORRECT!!!!!! This person can't even spell organization right, so why should we believe him??!?!?! Besides, he says things that say "that is what I have been told" are not reliable, but HE USED THAT IN HIS WRITING!!!! (when he said "I have been told even by Koala enthusists that they can been quite violent, and in some cases even without being prevoked."

so dont listen to him! 65.37.38.249 (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Koalas will be violent in self defence, like most animals they would prefer to survive than face a chance at death. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Drop bears

This was added by an anonymous user, can someone confirm it's nonsense? Evercat 12:32 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

A close relative of the koala, is the Drop-bear (phascolarctos cinereus extremis), it is much like the koala, only three times larger, they have distinctive large gripping talons and forearms; very sensitive to sound, they are named for propensity to become disoriented and fall upon parties of noisy unsuspecting tourists. The injuries caused as drop-bears frantically attempt to secure a hold on the torsos of their victims are quite horrific and their images have been suppressed by the Australian Government. Tourists are advised to wear crash-helmets when in the vicinty of eucalypts. They are known to be particularly aggravated by the tones and cadence of the North American accent. KOALAS ARE NOT BEARS

Oh, it's entirely true, guys. People do tell the story, especially to tourists. It's one of the most common fictional animals around. Very well known. Err ... should I do a taxobox now? Tannin

Sure, and while you're at it, make one for wild haggis which roam free over the hills of Scotland. :-) Evercat 12:37 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Actually, we probably should move it over to "Culture of Australia", or "Legends of the Australian bush", or somewhere like that. Australia: only country in the world where drop bears still survive. :)

Hey Evercat, I think you're onto something. We should do a page. Call it Fictional national animals or something like that. It would be a lot of fun, and yet entirely appropriate material for an encyclopedia. Let's see now ...

• Australia: Drop Bears
• Scotland: Wild Haggis
• Tibet: The Abominable Snowman
• United States: Sasquach or Big foot.
• Scotland (again): Loch Ness Monster

There are only 2500 koalas in QLD but an over population in SA, but these koalas are a different breed. They are a lot bigger and they have different colours around it and on the ears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.41.216.135 (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ahem -- I believe Sasquatch lives here in the Pacific NW -- I think the Cascades?? And what about the Jackalope and its German cousin? JHK

This could be fun! Tannin

Heh, nice idea. :-) Evercat

I'm in. Who's gonna start it? --Dante Alighieri 20:34 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

LOL LOL. Don't froget mokole mebe or however you spell it for Congo. And The Beast Of Exmoor. Dora Nichov 12:59, 2 February 2007 ()

cutest animal in existence

"the Koala is the cutest animal in existence" is this vandalism or has this been scientifically proven? (it wouldnt surprise me if it had)

Not exactly vandalism, more like over enthusiasm. There is a idea that Darwin should be updated to become 'Survival of the cutest'. Or at least, now that we are in a world where human activities are affecting many environments, the best measure of fitness would be cuteness, since it is only attractive macro-fauna that people care about protecting -- you seldom see people campaigning to 'Save the Great Grey Slug'.

Given the number of programmes to help Koalas with their reproductive problems, it would suggest that Koalas have a cuteness quotient that is at least in the top 10%. -- Solipsist 08:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

My friend from Brisbane swears that they are not so cute. I will be adding in a section and I swear to you I'm not trying to be disgusting, but if an animal tries to come up a tree after a koale, they urinate on the intruder. I promise I'm not just being gross. --Waterspyder 04 November 2005

The addition about urination as a defence mechanisms is simply not true - an undocumented story that doesn't belong here. I have observed koalas for 30 years (and caught~ 800) and have never observed this behaviour and nor has any other koala biologist that I know of.

If a list was made on cutest Australian animals, for example, koalas would be eclipsed by every Macropod from walaby sized downwards, every Bandicoot and every rodent native to the country. The perception of the Kaola being cute comes from the ignorance of these animals, not the animals natural attractiveness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.79.186 (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ecological role?

Quote: The koala fills the same ecological role as the sloth of South America

What is this ecological role? I could find no information on what that role might be in the sloth article either. Donama 06:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The role is what they do and maybe what they are. I'd guess the relevant characteristics are: leaf-eating, tree-dwelling, slow-moving, warm-blooded, medium-sized. The point is that although they aren't at all closely related, they have evolved to be similar and to act similarly through convergent evolution. Mark¹ 12:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a moths species that exclusively feeds on koala poo http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/publications/articles/biolink7.html#HDRkoalaKoala soph (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Brains

I read somewhere about "the reason koalas have small brains" (though this was a teaser which didn't tell you the reason). If there is some basis for this, it would be nice if someone could add 1) how small their brains are, and 2) why. Mark¹ 18:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Wrote it myself. ;) Mark¹ 23:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I know nothing about koalas in particular, and little about biology in general: I'm an electrical engineer (want me to solve a Laplace transform?). But isn't it at least highly probable that their small brains are related to their energy conservation (I think I read somewhere that the brain uses a large percentage of the energy (food) most mammals consume), and more importantly, the small brain within a large well-supported cranium would provide a "crash pad" to protect the brain in case this tree-dwelling creature misjudges the strength of a branch? Can we find a marsupiologist (is that even a real term?) who could suggest a reason? Yiddophile 23:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert either, but in one of Tim Flanery's books he wrote that Koalas brain cavities are filled forty percent with fluids, and that was indeed because of the lack of nutrients in gum leaves. We still need someone to find more dedicated information before it is included in the article though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.79.186 (talk) 06:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No Water

I was once told that Koala means 'no water' and that Koalas rarely drink. This seems like it should be mentioned but I can't find it any where.

The information is now on the article page. Figaro 03:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The current reference for its meaning seriously doesn't look like a reliable source. In any case, I doubt gula has enough morphemes in it to mean "no drink" or "no water". --Ptcamn 14:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, English can communicate "no drink" in two monosyllabic morphemes as "thirsty", and "no water" (and, theoretically, "no drink" or even "no beverages containing mind-altering fermented substances") in the monosyllabic monomorphemous "dry", so I'm somewhat less skeptical.  ;) 216.52.69.217 12:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

A number of problems with the etymology section as it is now:

1. The spellings used are dated and inaccurate. Specifically, koolah looks like an old spelling of gula, mentioned above.
2. It isn't specific about which language each name is from. (It really annoys me how people always tend to lump them all together as "Aboriginal words", as if they were all the same. I mean, which group used "koala" to mean "no drink"? All of them?)
3. It says "koala" comes from the following Australian Aboriginal words... but it certainly doesn't "come from" all of them simultaneously! --Ptcamn 18:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I have now added five further references about the word 'koala' meaning "does not drink", "no drink" and "animal that does not drink", to prove this fact. Figaro 22:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

That just means it's a widespread myth. People love to repeat interesting facts without bothering to check if they're true—the fact that none of them can actually say which language it's from, only that it's "an Aboriginal word", illustrates this. One of them also repeats the story of "kangaroo" meaning "I don't know", which is well-known to be a myth. ([2] [3]) --Ptcamn 08:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ptcamn - none of these sources cited are authoriative and "prove" nothing. e.g. the Sydney University source is a childreen's page within the Sydney University domain with no supporting evidence. If it had been an anthopological thesis on Aboriginal languages, then there might be some reason to cite it. I am surprised when I look at Figaro's profile that so little weight is put on sources. Maths must be more straightforward than Biology or Linguistics!! I believe this section needs to be cleaned up.

I deleted the references, for now. --KJ 02:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Figaro, please don't just readd the same references without any explanation. Also, please use ref tags properly; don't use them as you would markup plaintext. --KJ 05:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Extinct in SA at some stage??

Can this actually be verified by reference back to an official survey or something? I find it extremely difficult to imagine that this is physically possible (every single koala known to be dead) given the amount of suitable bush that would have been available. Presumeably if they were extinct then there should also be reports of koalas being introduced to all the places they are found now or reports of them migrating into these areas. Presumably there would also be reports in the papers of the day of "last koala killed" or "no koalas sighted for x years"?

The suggested merging of the Koala bear page with this page

The reason why the information is on the Koala bear page, and not on the Koala page is so that people will become aware that they are called Koalas and not Koala bears. This is an encyclopedia, where the correct name should be learned, at least. I am worried that if the information on the Koala bear page is merged with the Koala page, the misnomer of Koala bear will probably continue. Figaro 03:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• It is a confusing and unnecessary page when the name issue can be discussed here. Inocorrect common names do no (as far as I have noticed) get wikipedia pages.--Peta 23:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Redirected. End of story. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

External links, anyone?

Could useful external links be added?

By the way, I deleted a link because I found its site dubious; the site it led to had a photo of someone claiming "my name is John." The link was added by an advertiser; his blatantly commercial edits led me to another site, and I saw the same photo again. This time, it said that the person was named Jack Moore. --KJ 11:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The smell

Diff: [4]

Much as the Flamingo's bright color comes from the carotene they eat, the Koala has been observed as smelling like large cough drops due to their diet of eucalyptus.

Really? I thought koalas smelled awful. I once read this in the Reader's Digest: Some tourists in Australia were taken to see koalas. The tourists noticed a strong unpleasant smell, and the tour guide said that it was from eucalyptus leaves that the koalas eat. One tourist was familiar with eucalyptus and pointed out that koalas did not smell anything like eucalyptus, to which the guide replied, "That's what the eucalyptus smells like when it comes out of the koala!" --Kjoonlee 05:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who knows about koalas smelling like eucalyptus, can you specify if this their natural odor, or because they're just rubbing against the leaves all day?Anerbenartzi 05:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Koalas have been noted as smelling of eucalyptus -- an odor familiar to many as associated with cough drops.

I removed the above from the article. No references cited, and possibly incorrect. --Kjoonlee 05:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried Googling for "Koala stink" instead of "Koala smell" and got this link: http://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/staff/gene/tasmania2.html

It has a very similar story; maybe I didn't read it in Reader's Digest after all. --Kjoonlee 05:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The Australian Koala Foundation's Koala FAQ has some details: --Kjoonlee 05:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

My source on the smell is first-hand; I went camping with friends in the Great Otway National Park last year, and the area was full of koalas (noisy buggers kept us up at night). Some came walking through our campsite and let us pat them. And they do stink; it is a smell kind of like eucalyptus, but mixed with a foul sweaty smell. And it's STRONG. It seems to come from their chest. I patted one on the back and my hand didn't smell much, but another friend scratched it on the chest and it reeked! -- davo1000, 15 February 2007.

The strongest scent comes from the male Koala's chest, which has a scent gland on it that he uses to mark territory and attract females - that is why your friend's hand would have smelt.

I volunteer in a wildlife park and yes, koalas do smell like eucalyptus, as does their manure. I've been told the oil is excreted through their skin to cause the smell but I'm sure rubbing up against the leaves would also contribute. Male koalas have a musty unpleasant smell associated with their scent glands. Most koalas that are handled in wildlife parks for tourists to touch or hold are either female or have been castrated so they do not have this pungent odour. --Miss.chelle.13 (talk) 05:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Food

Seems odd that a page on the koala has no mention of eucalyptus as a food - or maybe it has been deleted from an earlier version thru vandalism ....can someone re-insert the sections on food...TT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.8.159.2 (talk • contribs) .

So I just re-inserted the original text that had been removed by vandals on food...the text seemed to stay stable for a while so presumably there will be no objections but there is still some stuff missing from the Ecology Section that should be returned...(and yes I will get around to registering ASAP)...TT—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.100.200.19 (talk • contribs) .

SemiProtect?

Do you guys think this page needs a semi-protect? It's had a lot of vandalism (why?!) -Patstuart 19:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It's true it's getting vandalized a bit more than some other articles, but there are also articles that get even more vandalism that aren't semi-protected. Octopus, for example. --Kjoonlee 02:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Donuts?

Koalas don't eat donuts. Isn't their major source of food eucalyptus trees? Is it some kind of vandalism? Since there isn't much reference about eucalyptus trees, and all there is stuff about donuts, and what kind of donuts they eat. I definitely think this is vandalism. Of course, if not, could you give me proof?cutienemo04

Yes, it was vandalism. You can check the "History" tab to see the various edits to help revert vandalism. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The "donuts" thing is a reference to Wikipedia Brown, a parody of Encyclopedia Brown, much like the insertion of Paige Fox pictures on the warthog entry. 67.113.48.212 19:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

koalas as pets???? really?

ok, there is a section of pets that says koalas are not normally kept as pets. is this really necessary if they dont? or should it not at least explain in more detail the legal status of them as pets? Daniel625 22:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well from my experience foreign people dont know we cant keep them as pets, so a legal status as to keeping them as pets is warrented, and maybe also the difficulty of keeping such an animal as a pet. Enlil Ninlil 05:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

hi this is FRIEND here koalas are my favorite animal and I know a lot about them I also know they might go extinct and I am willing to do anything to let that not happen and I am looking for people to help me! So please contact me at bluefan2516@hotmail.com and share your ideas!

Extinction, nar there as common as dog shit her in Victoria mate, cant run them over though too much blood.Enlil Ninlil 03:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Conservation Status problems

Sigh. Thanks for the attempt at humour, Enlil Ninlil. Anyway, the conservation section of this article needs some serious cleanup. There are no references, and some of the statements are questionable at best.

For example, the koala was only hunted close to extinction in South Australia. The koala isn't considered to be in serious decline Australia-wide by the IUCN, nor by most state governments, although it is considered to be declining in some regions. The IUCN actually classes the koala as "endagered", NOT "vlnerable". Stating only the conservation status of koalas in those states where it is considered to be threatened is POV. For example, QLD considers the species to be "Common". Culling was not just "suggested", but is considered by most ecologists to be absolutely necessary. I will try to get some references for the AKF statements about conservation status.

If anyone else would like to help, that'd be great. CnsBiol 06:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The IUCN has no "potentially vulnerable" classification. The reference shows it as "LR/nt", which is "near threatened". - UtherSRG (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

My apologies - you are correct. The Australian Koala Foundation have incorrect information on their website. However, the full IUCN classification for the Koala is "Lower Risk/Near Threatened", which has different connotations to simply "near threatened". I've altered the text slightly, and inserted the link. CnsBiol 03:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Koals as pets is realy a srupid idea —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aishe zq (talk • contribs) 14:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Just thought i'd ask about someone updating the line in the conservation section where it says that the koala's IUCN listing is 'Lower risk/ Near Threatened,' because they've (as you can see elsewhere on the article) dropped it back to Lower risk.

Can we please unprotect the site to get some thorough updated information on the conservation status? The koala is currently being assessed for federal listing and numbers are in steep decline - this is plastered all over Australian Government websites so can definitely be cited.Koala soph (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Images

Dropped an old image at the bottom. The others need a bit of ordering IMHO. That left-right-left thing helps sometimes. Fred 13:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Noise

If my memory serves me correctly, koalas make a deep grunting noise which is not what one might first expect. Does anyone have a scientific description of this? Leon 03:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Mentioned in an interview with a zookeeper.http://www.miamimetrozoo.com/animals-and-attractions.asp?Id=523&parentId=41&rootId=2 On youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIuHICSahzc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejAgzpy1fTI&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeFjBg5NVVM&feature=related I think it would be neat if someone added an mp3 clip of the noise to the article, because if I were coming to the article with no knowledge of koalas, I would find it excessively interesting. Claycrete (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The male koalas make this noise in breeding season. I have a video of a koala making this noise if anyone wanted to upload it. --Miss.chelle.13 (talk) 05:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Cultural references page

I have now created a new page called Koala — cultural references, and have transferred all of the 'cultural references', which were listed on the Koala page, to the new page — I have also added a link from the 'See also' section on the Koala page to the new page. (This is similar to the Kangaroo emblems and popular culture page, to which there is a link from the 'See also' section of the Kangaroo page). Figaro 07:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it to Koala in popular culture to avoid non-words in titles. See Gorillas in popular culture as a possibly better template. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved to Koalas in popular culture. --Kjoonlee 13:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have now moved the page to The Koala in popular culture because it is a more correct title for the page. The page is about the popular culture of the Koala (as a species). Figaro 13:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you move it back.. we've got Dodos in popular culture, Gorillas in popular culture, Penguins in popular culture, and probably many more.. --Kjoonlee 14:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Because the Koala is the subject of Australian emblems and logos, I think that it might perhaps be best to follow the article title of Kangaroo emblems and popular culture (which is similar in content) and rename the Koala cultural references page as Koala emblems and popular culture. Figaro 23:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Predators

The article mentions that the koalas isolated on Kangaroo island have no predators. It doesn't address the situation on the mainland, though. Are there any predators? If so, they should be listed, and if not, that fact should be stated. JamesMLane t c 02:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There should be a listing with a reference as dogs being one predator, maybe some of the larger Goanas and crocodiles, homo sapiens and the car. Enlil Ninlil 04:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

People and cars aren't really predators... Peta 04:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right on the cars part, but why are people not? We hunt for food sometimes, other times it's because we love to kill. Enlil Ninlil 04:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

To nit-pick predation is specifically about killing and eating; humans haven't eaten Koalas for some time. People killing koalas for "fun", or by accident, isn't predation. The major impact of humans on the species is habitat destruction and motor vehcile accidents. If you read the Kangaroo Island article it says that koala has done well there because their favorite food was abundant and there are no foxes. Dogs and foxes are the only significant predators on mainland koalas listed in the National Koala Conservation Strategy; owls and eagles can take juvenile koalas. This article probably overstates the predator free status of Kangaroo Island; and could obviously state what does predate on koalas.--Peta 06:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I was joking, anyway you are correct on the predation, but what of the reptiles that inhabite the warmer parts of Australia. Enlil Ninlil 07:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Didn't read anything about that; pythons, goannas and koalas wouldn't really have the same range, even where they do co-habit you can't overlook that koalas are pretty big and have big claws making them pretty unattractive prey for something that has to swallow them whole.--Peta 00:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The range of pythons, goannas and koalas overlap completely, to the extent that you will never find koala habitat in Northern Australia that isn't also prime goanna and python habitat. Having claws makes no difference whatsoever to snakes, they will happily swallow animals with horns and hoooves. Goannas of course don't swallow their prey whole, which is why they can eat sheep, kangaroos, people etc. ::: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ethel Aardvark (talk • contribs) 04:12, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Crocodiles usually submerge their prey to suppocate it, then dismember it if its too large, they have killed people in Australia before that is well known, size and ferocity doesnt matter for them. The Saltwater Crocodile article, explains some things they eat. Goannas on the other hand they may be vemonous, see the Perentie, but there isn't a reference for that. Of corse the Megalania would most likely have aten this and the Giant Koala as well. Enlil Ninlil 04:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

When on the ground, red foxes and dingos. When they are in trees, they're relatively safe, but Wedge tail eagles and the Powerful owl and goanna are known to prey on the young during the day and night respectively. Paradoxically, snakes don't generally hunt koalas, the Green Python (Morelia viridis) is one of few snakes verified to prey on them, though there is such little overlap in the range of the two species, basically the two only come into contact in far north queensland. Up until relatively recently, it is likely that their main predator was the Thylaceo with its possible ability to climb trees, though this species became extinct with the arrival of humans. The Thylacine may also have hunted the koala on the ground, though their extinction is definitely attributable to the arrival of humans and dogs. Would be useful to find references in support of this, but its pretty common knowledge in Australia. --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Additional information about mating

Could someone please insert the following information somewhere appropriate in the article, I don't know where to put it. Usually, after mating is successful, the female tends to go away while the male Koala, still excited, wants to mate again. So eventually the female Koala can violently fend off the male Koala after mating has occurred because she does not want to mate again. When I saw this happen, the male Koala ran after the female Koala and the female Koala clawed him out, discouraging him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masteragent (talk • contribs) 20:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone's constantly erasing my info about twins without justification. I'd like to know why. It's a fact I added about the official recording of twins in the 'Life cycle' section of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masteragent (talk • contribs) 13:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Try adding an inline citation, I'll I will regard it as something real and not just something from your head. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

thumbnail pictures

I've removed the forced sizing of the thumbs in this article so it looks cleaner. 121.208.180.8 (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection please for the page

Could this page please be protected from vandalism attacks. Thank you. Figaro (talk) 09:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Pap

Life cycle section and the Ecology and Behavior section define "pap" differently. Is it or is it not "excrement/faeces"? One section says it is and the other one denies it. 71.132.197.133 (talk) 09:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"Koala bear"

I've removed the claim that "koala bear" is inaccurate — again. Before re-adding it, could anyone so inclined first discuss it here? --Ptcamn (talk) 03:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no discussion needed. It *is* inaccurate to call it a bear. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If you can prove a genetic relationship with the bears then please provide it, otherwise it should stay. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't taken a look at the article so please take this with a pinch of salt. Nevertheless, if you're trying to deny the fact that people call them Koala bears, that would be linguistic prescriptivism — in other words, POV pushing. --Kjoonlee 16:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

From a descriptive linguistics POV (which is the best way for NPOV IMHO) it is not incorrect to say anything, as long as it's not a slip of the tongue. Does my edit look OK to everyone? --Kjoonlee 16:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying people don't call them koala bears. I'm saying that when someone does call them koala bears, that they are inaccurate when doing so. They are not bears. It is inaccurate to call them bears. Do you understand the word "inaccurate"? It means, roughly, to miss the mark. The Koala is no more related to the bears of family Ursidae than kangaroos are, or any other marsupial is. Shall we call them all bears? No, that's silly, and it is silly for folks to continue to call them koala bears. But, none of us can stop people from being silly, but we can label that activity as inaccurate, which is as polite and as correct a way of saying it as any. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that's not how languages work. --Kjoonlee 17:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Meaning, even if you don't approve, you can't deny it, and people will say it and regard it as accurate. So it would be descriptively wrong to call it inaccurate. --Kjoonlee 17:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What? Reverting to a POV version, without supplying reasons? --Kjoonlee 17:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've given my reason here, since it was too long to put in the edit summary. It IS an inaccurate description of the species to call it a bear. That is a fact. People can and do wrong things. Their ability to do so in no way changes the fact that the descriptive name "koala bear" is inaccrurate. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What's accurate or inaccurate is very arbitrary. I've always had success (vagina vs. vulva, hieroglyphics vs. hieroglyphs) with regard to "inaccuracies" or "incorrectness" so I feel a bit down in the dumps. If you disapprove of "koala bear", wouldn't there be something you can add which might (or might not) convince people to stop saying it, while not approving/disapproving anything? --Kjoonlee 17:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Would "zoologists generally disapprove" be an accurate description? --Kjoonlee 17:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Disapproval" has nothing to do with it. It is simply inaccurate. Just leave it alone. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You're not very helpful. Prairie dogs are not dogs. --Kjoonlee 17:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither are "Fake Picassos" Picassos, nor are big cats Felis catus. Alleged thieves might not be thieves and possible solutions might not be solutions. --Kjoonlee 22:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You have a prescriptivist POV with regard to common names of Koala bears. I have mentioned it, yet you have reverted me with an automated tool. Are you trying to drive me away? --Kjoonlee 17:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Are there any words you might use instead of inaccurate? "Misleading" maybe? I have no objections for "misleading." --Kjoonlee 17:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually we should use it is missleading and inaccurate and is seldom used today. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoa. All this discussion went on while I was away. In response to Enlil Ninlil, I would say that calling it a bear is not any sort of claim of a genetic relationship with bears. Common names of animals have existed since before genetics and before zoological taxonomy, and have always been used based on superficial resemblances, not genetic relationships. "Koalas are not bears" is not an objective fact. It's an objective fact that koalas are not members of the family that zoologists call Ursidae, but there's no reason to insist that the common-language word "bear" be restricted to that family. Zoologists don't control the English language.

I object to describing it as either "misleading" or "inaccurate". We should simpy stick to facts: "Descriptive English names based on "bear" have also been used, including 'monkey bear', 'native bear', 'tree-bear' and 'koala bear', although koalas are not members of the family Ursidae." The reader can come to their own conclusions about whether using the word "bear" for something that's not a member of Ursidae is inaccurate. --Ptcamn (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Present tense would be required as well, since people do still call them Koala bears. --Kjoonlee 22:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The correct common name is Koala. Anything involving the term "bear" is incorrect. People can call it what they will, but that doens't make them correct. The correct name for members of the genus Cynomys is "prairie dogs". Not because they are dogs, but because the name of the species in that genus are named prairie dogs. Calling them prairie gophers would be incorrect and inaccurate. The correct common name for this species is Koala. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed! Who assigned all these names, and what gives them the authority to do so? --Ptcamn (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

MSW3. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

MSW3 does not have authority to tell people what names to use. Nor do I think is that even its purpose. I doubt that if you asked its editors, they would tell you that the only "name" for an animal is the one they list, and anything else is incorrect. --Ptcamn (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Grammaticality is in the eye of the beholder; to say only one thing is linguistically correct is a gross error. --Kjoonlee 22:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, people can and do call it whatever they want. People can and do use incorrect grammar all the time. That doesn't make the grammar correct. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, there's no such thing as incorrect grammar. It's your grammar which is wrong (it doesn't fit) and you blame other people for it. --Kjoonlee 23:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What's more, sea cows, sea lions, sea horses, guinea pigs, buffalo bisons and aardvarks are not cows, lions, horses, pigs, bisons, or pigs (varks). Hence it follows nicely that Koala bears are not bears, a fact which is just as obvious to people who know sea lions and lions. --Kjoonlee 23:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The difference is the distinction beween a name, and what a thing is called. some things have multiple names, some have only one. The things you listed are the names of the things (or the class the thing is in). The Koala is called by many things. Only "Koala" is its name. Calling something by what it isn't is not accurate. It is still done, even though it is technically incorrect. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You have a strange definition of "name." A name is what you call things to denote them. I hope you don't go through the mistake of quoting dictionary definitions, though; dictionaries are meant to document usage, not to mould people's thoughts. --Kjoonlee 23:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In the US, dragonflies have lots of names (including darning needles, mosquito hawks) and sodas are called sodas, soda pops, and Cokes. Soft cheese has a varied distribution of names as well, and there are other names for dragonflies in all the languages of the world. Heck, there are more than 15 words for dragonfly in the Korean language. --Kjoonlee 23:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

So... you are saying that from a zoologist's point of view, it is wrong to say koala bear. I'm saying that from a linguist's point of view, it is wrong to say it is wrong to say koala bear. Looks like we have a clash of POVs. We should solve these problems to mutual benefit, not through blind reverting or repeating of dogma. --Kjoonlee 23:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Kjoonlee, the inclusion of 'bear' implies that a koala is a bear, as a zoologist would understand it. Most people know that the animal world is divided into various categories, one of which is bears, which does not include the koala. If people who say 'koala bear' aren't saying that the koala belongs to the bear family, then what are they saying? 'Bear' is innaccurate and it should be stated so. - David (5 February 2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.255.116.22 (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I was just reading Leitner, Gerhard; Sieloff, Inke (1998). "Aboriginal words and concepts in Australian English". World Englishes. 17 (2): 153–169. doi:10.1111/1467-971X.00089.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) If I've cut through the jargon correctly, it is saying that koala is one of a fairly small number of Aboriginal expressions that has entered not just Australian English but world English, and indeed a number of other languages. It says that initially the term koala was an "unknown referent" i.e. people had no idea what a koala was, so the word was largely meaningless to them; the taxonomically deviant expression Koala bear was more informative and so became popular, and is still in common use today.

Considering koala bear is surely the only bear-based expression still current, perhaps we could split it off from the other bear-based names? Something like:

The word koala comes from Dharuk gula. Although the vowel /u/ was originally written in the Latin alphabet as "oo" (in spellings such as coola or koolah), it was changed to "oa" possibly due to an error. The word is erroneously said to mean "doesn't drink".

When first adopted by English speakers, the name Koala bear became popular, as this roughly evoked the species' appearance to people unfamiliar with it. Although taxonomically inaccurate, the name Koala bear is still in common use today. Other descriptive English names based on "bear" have included monkey bear, native bear, and tree-bear.

Hesperian 00:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In my lifetime (a long one) Australians have almost entirely stopped using the term Koala Bear and now just call them Koalas. I accept that language evolves and that usage varies from place to place. Does the name used where the creature actually exists carry more weight than the less scientifically accurate usage in other places?HiLo48 (talk) 01:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia really about arguing semantics? Whatever term some people use to refer to Koalas isn't really informative, and too inefficient to track down EVERY name for them, and on those grounds should not be added.67.142.171.21 (talk) 19:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This IS about whether it is informative or not. If the word bear is added to the name, we are providing misinformation. Koalas are simply not bears. For people not familiar with the fauna of Australia, and distribution of animals in that part of the world, it's a key fact. HiLo48 (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for page protection against vandalism

Could this page please be protected against vandalism. At the moment it is being repeatedly vandalised by both Pokky9 and 210.1.203.68 (both of whom are obviously the same person, because the disgusting obscene message is always the same). Protection of this page would therefore be very much appreciated. Figaro (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Requests should be made at WP:RPP. I have just reported the IP so hopefully this will take care of the vandal. I really dont think its worth protecting because of 1 person, if it escalates then i suggest asking for a short pd. of protection. Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 11:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Poisonous? Toxic?

At my local Zoo, I heard from the docent that it's not advisable to handle koala bears without gloves because they excrete toxins/poisons. True? --Zybez (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

For starters, Koalas are NOT koala bears - nor are koalas related to bears in any way (koalas and bears are totally different species from each other). Although the Eucalyptus leaves which the koala eats are toxic, it is not necessary to wear gloves when handling koalas (except, perhaps, to avoid being scratched by their sharp claws). Figaro (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparent contradiction

The article states that koalas are secure at anational scale, the populationis large and thriving and so dorth. And yet we have one paragrpah staing that koalas are doomed form a lack of genetic diversity. There seems to be a large disconnect between thes epositions. The expert opinion seems to be that koalas quite ecurem though like all species some populations are threatened. Is there any evidence that koalas as apsecie sare in any danger?Ethel Aardvark (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

While not usable as a source in itself, Encarta provides a pretty reasonable summary of the point. Orderinchaos 04:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

These edits, [5] [6], removed inappropriate wording. The other edits between 03:27 and 03:42, 6 October 2008 added fact tags to sentences supported by refs, altered sentences to become meaningless, and misrepresented the sources to suggest its Australian conservation status is 'secure'. This DSE (Vic.) source does say

Compared to other Australian states, Victoria has a large and thriving Koala population.

However, the editor must have skimmed because in the same document they go on to point out:

In some areas, population densities are so high that they put unsustainable pressure on tree species, and this can become a direct threat to forest patches. In other areas, management support is needed to help reverse the declining numbers and link Victorian Koala Management Strategy.

I will restore the edits to the inappropriate wording. cygnis insignis 05:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

None of which adresses the contradiction. All the sources, inlcuding Encarta, say that koalas are not considered threatened. A review of the species national conservation status concluded that the Koala is not threatened at a national scale. The IUCN lists the species as "Lower Risk / Near Threatened". Yet the article says that they are threatened. Which is correct? Are koalas threatened as the article says or are they not threatened as the scientific literature says? There appears to be an obvious contradiction here. I really don't care which ay this goes, but the article can't really say the species is not threatened, and then go onto say that all koals are threatened, can it? If the article wishes to state, as Encarta does, that there are some experts that say that the koala is threatened that's well and good, but it really needs to be made clear that ths is a contentious point not supported by the major authorities such as state and cmwlth govts or the IUCN. As it stands it simply states in one place that the koala is threatened, with no refernce, and then states later that the koala is not threatened.Ethel Aardvark (talk) 07:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what is meant by "added fact tags to sentences supoprted by refs". I see no refs in those sentences. Is my browser broken? Ethel Aardvark (talk) 07:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Discrepancy in Life Cycle Section

Can someone clear something up for me? The life cycle section says: "the world's first confirmed identical twin Koalas, named "Euca" and "Lyptus", were born at the University of Queensland in 1999.", but according to this (http://www.cctv.com/program/cultureexpress/20070423/102448.shtml) and this (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/photogalleries/wip-week29/), they are not. Is this just a technicality between "captive born" and "wild born"? What's the scoop?
WiiWillieWiki 208.111.239.27 (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Multiple vaginas

"The female has two lateral vaginae, a feature unique to the Koala, and it has two separate uteri which is common to all marsupials."

That's not true - all marsupials have two lateral vaginas, and two uteruses. The reference mentioned contradicts the claim. I'll go ahead and change the text. WorldAsWill (talk) 05:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Twins

Walker's Book of Mammals (6th ed) says:

"[...] the usual litter size is 1, though twins have been recorded regularly."

Whereas Wikipedia says:

"Twins are very rare [...]"

Does anybody have any reliable numbers? Both "regularly" and "very rare" are vague, and they give pretty much opposing ideas. Marsupials in general have a litter size of one, with occasional twins, so I wonder how different the koala is in this sense. WorldAsWill (talk) 05:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Twin koalas are extremely rare. The first known identical twin koalas, Euca and Lyptus, were born in April, 1999, at the University of Queensland. Sometimes a female koala with a joey will adopt another koala joey, whose mother has been killed, and the two joeys are then mistakenly assumed to be twins. Figaro (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Koala distribution

In addition to Western Australia and Tasmania as places in Australia where Koalas are not found, this site [7] also says they aren't found in the Northern Territory either. Please add it to the article.--203.51.49.157 (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Imagery?

There appears to be a lot of unnecessary imagery here- I'm all for 'koala crawling on ground' and 'koala eating eucalypt leaves', but do we really need 'koala clinging to a branch #7'? It's almost a gallery! We probably need to rid the page of all identical copies other than the clearest image (probably the first ones). En-AU Speaker _(T) (C) ^(E) 01:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Tasmania?

We're told that there are no koalas in Tasmania, with no elaboration on that point. Tasmania was last connected to the mainland in very recent geological times, less than 10,000 years. It would seem inevitable to me that Koalas, which exist in Victoria in their strongest numbers, would have also existed in Tasmania. Where did they go?

HiLo48 (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the bass strait flora was not suitable for the species, the flora of tasmania has a large amount of rainforest, but sparce eucalypt woodland which they prefer. Or they could have become localy extinct and many animals naturally do. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 05:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not true that Tasmania has little eucalypt woodland. Certainly there are large tracts of cool-temperate rainforest especially in the very wet west and south-west, and several other koala-unfriendly biomes elsewhere. (The whole interior of the island is dominated by mountain ranges and high plateaux, which are definitely not koala country.) However, most of the drier east coast was (and a lot of it still is) covered by eucalypt-dominated dry sclerophyll forest. (Indeed, the most widespread eucalypt in the world, the Blue gum now found throughout France, Israel, India and California, is native to Tasmania and actually the State flower.) Yet so far as we can tell, koalas have never lived in Tasmania; no koala fossils have ever been discovered there, and the island's aboriginal population had never heard of them. The exact reason for this is not officially known, so my answer will be original research which cannot go on the page. However the best guess is that it is simply too cold for them in winter. Even in Queensland, they do not live about 600 m altitude, suggesting that they are very intolerant to protracted cold. This is not too surprising given the low calorific content of their diets. -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Clivepollard, 3 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} you should mention that, although koalas are not found 'in the wild' in Western Australia, they are found in several zoos and parks, notably Perth Zoo, Caversham Wildlife Park and Yanchep National Park. thank you Clivepollard (talk) 00:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I suspect they are also found in zoos in other countries, just as with many other animals. There are lions in zoos in Australia too, but the Lion article naturally doesn't mention that. I don't think t's an appropriate addition. HiLo48 (talk) 00:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 00:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Add Infraclass info

Please add Infraclass info in the sidebar about scientific classification so that this entry is consistent with other Wikipedia entries for marsupials. The information to be added to make it consistent with other pages should be added to the scientific classification sidebar below the line for Class and is -- Infraclass: Marsupialia

You seem better informed on this than most. Please feel free to add it yourself. It's probably safer that way. HiLo48 (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Koala and joey.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Koala and joey.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 22, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-08-22. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 20:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A female koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) with her joey clinging to her back. At birth the joey is hairless, blind, and earless, and only about 20 mm (0.79 in) long. It remains hidden in the pouch for about six months, feeding only on milk. During this time it will grow ears, eyes, and fur. The joey will remain with its mother for another six months or so, riding on her back, and feeding on both milk and eucalypt leaves until weaning is complete at about 12 months of age.Photo: Benjamint444

Thanks for the alert. It did need a fix. The listed size of a newborn joey was just a bit big. 25cm/10in! HiLo48 (talk) 23:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there a source for the size of the newborn, and what unit of measure is employed in it? I suspect that the two-digit precision of "0.79 in" does not correspond to the actual accuracy with which this typical length has been determined, as it seems to imply a variation within ±1 percent only. Maybe reduce the precision of the conversion to one significant digit (which can be done in one of two possible ways, either to 0.8 inch or to the even less precise "1 inch")?—SM5POR (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that 0.79 precision did bother me a little. Given the nature of this measure as an approximation to a figure that's going to vary anyway, I'm tempted to abandon the automatic conversion and go for "three-quarters of an inch". HiLo48 (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

But what do authoritative sources say? I checked the history of the article, and on 18 May 2005 a comparison was made with the size of a jelly bean. Then on 11 May 2007 it was changed to "a quarter of an inch". Both edits were by unregistered users, and neither was attributed to a source. Your suggested measure "three-quarters of an inch" is three times as long as "a quarter of an inch". My printed encyclopedia at home doesn't state a size, so what is your source? Even "three-quarters" of anything sounds a bit too precise if it's just a rough estimate.—SM5POR (talk) 23:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I found a statement at http://www.thekoala.com/koala/#BREEDING saying "roughly 2 centimetres" which supports your "20 mm", but "roughly" means to me that it could conceivably cover an extreme span of 1-3 cm, which would include even the whole inch for a big joey (the more limited span of 1,5-2,5 cm would quite appropriately be rounded off to "2 cm" without the need for a "roughly" qualifier).—SM5POR (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm Australian, and I have to say that in my 60+ years I've never seen one of these newborn koalas. (Seen plenty of adults.) Pretty sure that would be true for just about everybody else in this country too. Maybe they do vary that much in size. Perhaps we can go with "...up to 2½cm or about an inch..." HiLo48 (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

multiple "pussy" koalas have more than one viganal organ in their bodies so the male can be in different positions

File:Phascolarctos cinereus Bonorong.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Phascolarctos cinereus Bonorong.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 28, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-10-28. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 16:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A female koala (Phascolarctos cinereus), an arboreal herbivorous marsupial native to coastal regions of eastern and southern Australia. The word "koala" comes from the Dharuk word gula. English-speaking settlers from the late 18th century first called it "koala bear" due to its similarity in appearance to bears, although they are not at all related. Instead, its closest living relative is the wombat.Photo: JJ Harrison

Violent koalas

Koala's are not violent, they are not even real bears! If you would like to see a real bear hit up the rocky mountains or the zoo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Britt503 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The article makes it quite clear they are not bears. (See "Names" section.) No Australian calls them bears. As for violence, those not in zoos or tourist places where they are handled from birth are wild animals. They will fight in self defence, and have very nasty claws. Males fight over females too. Don't get in their way.

Senate inquiry findings

I've removed:

"In 2011, a senate inquiry found that less than 43,000 Koalas remain in Australia, less than half the population which was sited in 2008.[30]"

since it is clearly false and does not match the source cited as evidence for the claim, which says only:

"Last year, a Senate inquiry into the status, health and sustainability of Australia's koala population heard that there could be as few as 43,000 koalas left in the country."

Firstly a Senate inquiry hearing something (which just means the claim has been made, it doesn't mean the Senate inquiry agreed with it) is not the same as a Senate inquiry "finding" something (ie considering it to be true, not necessarily correctly). Secondly "there could be as few as 43,000" means the estimate is at least 43,000, but the removed article text says the estimate is at most 43,000.

The actual primary source report of the Senate Committee is currently at http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=ec_ctte/koalas/report/index.htm . The primary source for the 43,000 figure appears to be an estimate by the Australian Koala Foundation of between 43,515 and 84,615 koalas, and there is clear evidence of disagreement about the reliability of that or any other estimate. (see p. 29 of link).

There is ample material in the link to use as a basis for a more accurate summary of current views about koala population and difficulties estimating it, if anyone would like to add some in (I may do so later). Therealsleepycat (talk) 05:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Gender determination

I noticed several images are labeled "male" or "female" but there is no explanation of how you can tell. I did find a source that I do not trust saying that males have a black sticky substance that comes from a chest gland. Other then the mentioned size difference and observing genitals or absence of a pouch, is there other ways to determine the gender? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ann Vole (talk • contribs) 18:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Small amendment needed

The section regarding the infection of retrovirus saying that it stops koalas from "fighting of" infection, rather than "fighting off". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zodyack (talk • contribs) 11:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Number of images in this article

Y'all got a little image overload going on here. A good start would be to cut the infobox images down to one. – JBarta (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Jeancey trimmed a few images and I cut the infobox images down to one with the reason in the edit summary. – JBarta (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Genetic diversity in Victoria

This article makes the claim that koalas have a limited genetic diversity in Victoria, using ABC Four Corners - "Koala Crunch Time" 20 August, 2012 as a reference. I do not consider a current affairs television program to be a reliable source for scientific claims and unless a scientific reference for this alleged fact that there is a restricted gene pool in Victoria can be produced I intend to remove the sentence. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

But the ABC is a serious public broadcaster, and I would consider its reliability much higher than that of usual TV programs. The report (starting from ca. 28:00), clearly explains that after the koalas were hunted almost to extinction in the early 20th century, Victoria's koalas today are mostly descendants of those translocated from French Island in the past 90 years, which is consistent with other references in the article. The report states (34:30) "apart from a few isolated populations, nearly all Victoria's koalas go back to the tiny gene pool on French Island". To me that sounds more like a significant aspect worth expanding in the article, rather than removing. --ELEKHH^T 11:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, however this claim is still OR. It is true that koalas were significantly reduced - but not eliminated - from most of their range within Victoria. However, the re-generation of the state-wide population using koalas from French Island, Philip Island and other locations does not necessarily mean that there was a tiny gene pool in those source populations, nor that all the allele groups in the original populations were lost. All these statements are inferences and OR or synthesis unless a reputable, and I would suggest scientific, source for those specific claims can be found. As for the reliability of the ABC in general and this program in particular it should be noted that 4 Corners is a current affairs program, not the product of the ABC's science unit. Also, ABC journalists have been known to on occasion to fall prey to the temptation to exaggerate claims for a "good cause". There are plenty of people around who seek to over state the case for koalas' decline and make sweeping statements about their imminent demise that are not backed up by the science. How can we be sure that the non-science journalists operating without scientificly literate oversight have got every detail correct and have not been sold a line by well intentioned people with an agenda? This is especially so when this particular claim is almost a throw away line in the item concerned? - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what would make it OR since is exactly reflecting what is stated in the source. About 8min are dedicated to the subject so is not a throw away line. Is fine to have high standards for RS and look for confirmation, which is really easy and a simple google search brings you plenty of sources like this or this (pg.13). --ELEKHH^T 21:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Koalas in Europe?!

It is possible to have Koalas in Europe, where there is a similar climate and lots of eucalyptus? Do they occur in urban parks in Australia? there are so many eucalyptus here and eucalyptus woodlands are so deprived of live that some people dislike them a lot, the koala would be a star.--Pedro (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, first off, what species of eucalypts are we talking about? Koalas are notoriously picky in their diet and generally speaking will eat only about five species. There are literally hundreds of eucalyptus species, most of them not koala food. Secondly you need a LOT of eucalypts for koalas, we have had major issues over here with koalas being introduced into areas such as isolated forests and islands where the koala populations have ballooned out of all proportion and I seriously doubt that any park would be big enough for a koala population of any size, and even if you only introduced a few, pretty soon with natural increase you would have a whole lot of trees with no leaves on them and a lot of starving koalas. Finally, there is the issue of European winters, koalas do not inhabit the alpine areas of Australia and are not adapted to long cold winters. All in all, this ideas does not really have any legs, sorry. - Nick Thorne ^talk 03:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

A few things

• The use of the word fuck in a quotation in the "Cultural significance" section seems a little out of place. I know that Wikipedia isn't censored, but I don't think anyone who clicks on this article will expect to see that word in such an innocuous article. This problem is especically relevant to this article because it is probably fairly popular with the school crowd and younger.
• Many of the photo captions should probably be expanded, especially if this is headed to a GAN.
• If you need some more copyediting for this article, just let me know. I was looking forward to ce'ing it, but another member of the GOCE went and snatched it up. Good on 'em, I say. Good luck with your GAN!

Bobnorwal (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm assuming it's actually the word "fucking" that you're concerned about, in that quotation from Mitch Hedberg. I'm less concerned with that usage in a quotation than in asking who Mitch Hedberg is? Is he notable enough for his thoughts on koalas to appear in this article? That content seems quite undue to me. HiLo48 (talk) 04:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

entirely agree with all the aboveIztwoz (talk) 08:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I won't revert your removal of that text, but you really do need to learn a little more about polite behaviour on Wikipedia. Don't let your obsession with eliminating naughty words stop you following the rules here. HiLo48 (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hedberg is among of the most popular stand-up comedians ever. I'd figure his reference to koalas was notable enough. LittleJerry (talk) 12:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

dear HiLo - methinks you could do a little more than I need to regarding polite behaviour. I blanked the word in response to first criticism. I am not at all bothered by, let alone obsessed with swear words I use them all the time.Iztwoz (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hm, I'm not really sure what the trouble is here, but I didn't mean any trouble. I just thought the f-word seemed out of place here. That's all. So I'm just gonna keep calm and carry on. I think we all should. Bobnorwal (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Bobnorwal - your comments were fine. They initiated a discussion. Discussions are the correct way to decide on article content. We all get a chance to express our views, we reach consensus, and we change the article if that's what's appropriate. It's User:Iztwoz who chose to abandon that process, and throw in a personal attack at me along the way. It's interesting that AFTER the content in question was unilaterally deleted by User:Iztwoz, a polite comment from another user in favour of it staying has appeared here. I welcome it, but make no comment on it. (Mainly because I've never heard of Hedberg, but that's probably just because I belong to the wrong demographic.) HiLo48 (talk) 20:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I noticed that this article is semi-protected, while there is no evidence of edit-wars on this talk page or of constant vandalism in the history. Thanks, 76.10.128.192 (talk) 05:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

There was very significant ongoing vandalism before the semi-protection was put in place, and previous times that the semi was lifted resulted in an almost immediate onslaught of further vandalism. Having said that, that was four years ago, which is a long time. Anaxial (talk) 08:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

please check

Thank you for that awesome article, its a very nice read. Could you please check this sentence: … around 57 million years ago during the Oligocene.[13]. 57 Mya would be late Paleocene, that's twice as old as the Oligocene. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I've corrected this to 23 million years, thanks kindly for your note! Sasata (talk) 16:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Text Correction - joeys are young kangaroos not young koala bears  !

As this article remains semi-protected , please remove the following in the 2nd paragraph : QUOTE These young koalas are known as joeys, and UNQUOTE .

This is most definitely incorrect , check any ( online ) dictionary , amongst others : http://www.koalanet.com.au/australian-slang.html#J .

Young kangaroos are known as " joeys " not young koala bears , as any Australian will tell you .

This sentence would then read : QUOTE Young koalas are fully . . . a year . UNQUOTE . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.92.72.214 (talk) 02:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as that slang dictionary says, baby kangaroos are known as joeys, but so too are baby koalas. See here, here, and here. HiLo48 (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations!

....on another interesting article! Amandajm (talk) 07:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

In zoos

Koalas are not often in zoos, I think in Vienna is the only koalas in europe. A list like the in zoos list from the great panda

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Giant_panda#In_zoos

would be nice and interesting!

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120305152315AA0gIRi http://www.zoochat.com/2/european-zoos-koalas-267479/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.2.254 (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The reason that koalas are rarely found in zoos outside Australia is that their diet in restricted to only a few species of eucalypts. Amandajm (talk) 08:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Velar vocal cords

I added a description of the newly discovered vocal cords in the soft palate of Koalas, together with a citation to Charlton et al 2013. I wasn't sure whether to add this with the rest of the anatomy under "Description" or under "Social spacing" where the vocalization is already described. I ended up adding to both sections. Is this standard for species pages? I also stuck to the Current Biology paper but there's also a nice blog article here, together with soundclip - http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/12/02/newly-discovered-organ-helps-koalas-bellow-at-elephant-pitch/ Cmungall (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Localised deforestation

Some localised areas of Australia obviously have experienced 100% deforestation (eg Sydney Airport). The article says that localised deforestation ranges between 33% and 93%. These statements can not both be true. What part of this don't you understand? Mark Marathon (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank-you for clarifying your concern. I have amended the text using a different source. Sasata (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The geographical range

FFS, stop reverting every edit I make. At no point does that article say that the term geographical range of the koala has shrunk. It never even uses the term geographical range. Nor does it say that >50% of any shrinkage is caused by fragmentation of habitat in Queensland. If you believe otherwise then quote where the article makes those claims. You have already broken the three revert rule twice today.. For your own good, I suggest you stop this behaviour. Mark Marathon (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The McGregor 2013 article says just that in the first two lines of the second paragraph of the introduction. "Geographical range" and "distribution" I would consider synonymous. The term "geographic rage is used in the title FWIW. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The terms are not synonymous in ecology. Geographic range is the area where a species can be found. It's essentially a line drawn on a map, everything inside the line is the range. Distribution is a much more precise delineation of where the species actually exists. It's not uncommon to refer to a species' distribution [within its range] , which rather highlights that the terms aren't in any way synonymous. To pick an obvious example, tigers have the same geographical range as they had 40, 000 yeas ago, extending from Siberia to Java. They certainly don't have the same distribution. The article does use the term geographic range in the title, but it never says, or even implies that it has shrunk.

And if you believe that the article attributes >50% of the shrinkage to fragmentation of habitat in Queensland, then can you please quote where it says that? Mark Marathon (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Alright then - this is the comparing:

Source - "The distribution of the koala has contracted by more than 50% from pre-European distribution [11], [12], with much of the reduction attributed to extensive fragmentation of koala habitat in Queensland"

Article - "The distribution of the koala has shrunk by more than 50% since European arrival, largely due to fragmentation of habitat in Queensland"

I'd say that "largely due to" is a fair rewording of "with much of the reduction attributed to" - this is, I presume, what you have a problem with?Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Largely is a nebulous term. It may mean 5%, it may mean 95%. It is not in any way synonymous with majority. In scientific writing, when "majority" or "most" is meant, that is the word used. The fact that the authors did not say majority makes it reasonable to assume that this is not the case.Mark Marathon (talk) 05:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

??? - Okay, I'd say that "much of" is as nebulous as "largely" and as one couldn't state which one is necessarily greater than the other, then to all intents and purposes they are synonymous. I think you are splitting hairs here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

No, they are not synonymous. Look at some dictionary definitions. Largely means "to a great extent; on the whole; chiefly; mostly; almost completely ". "Much of" is never used as synonym of "mostly". If you believe that it can be, then please provide evidence to that effect. If you can't, then the terms are not synonymous.

If the authors have chosen the phrase "much of" ", and the alternative word is open to being misinterpreted as "mostly", which is clearly not the intent of the authors, then why the hell use the alternative word?Mark Marathon (talk) 05:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

(a) we avoid identical terms to avoid paraphrasing. Most people would think of "much" as "alot" - at least on my planet anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree entirely. So we'll use "a lot", we won't don't use "largely". Glad we could settle this.Mark Marathon (talk) 05:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The sentence "The distribution of the koala has shrunk by more than 50%... a lot due to fragmentation of habitat..." is not grammatically correct English, and I've reverted accordingly. I suggest an alternative phrasing. Anaxial (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Questionable rock art image - File:Koala_rupestre.jpg

Another view of the rock art in question, which does have provenance supplied

This image (Koala_rupestre.jpg) in the 'Cultural significance' section has been bothering me for some time and yesterday I listed it for discussion at our Wikipedia:Meetup/Adelaide/Meetup 10, which took place last night. We made a quick Google check which revealed that the original photo was taken in Kakadu National Park, and a bit more searching this morning pinpoints it as being taken at the Anbangbang Art site at Nourlangie Rock. There are other depictions of these rock paintings in Commons, such as the one I've included here for comparison, as well as on the WWWeb, as this site is often visited by tourists and shown on various trip report blogs. None of the descriptions of the significance of these figures to Aboriginal Australians mention koalas (e.g. see Nourlangie Rock Art Gallery), which isn't at all surprising as Kakadu is some 1,300 km from the nearest koala habitat. The filename, as well as the caption "Aboriginal rock art depicting a koala", therefore seems to be a personal interpretation by the original file uploader and subsequently uncritically accepted by the editor who added it to the article.

I'm surprised that even though the image was called into question during the GA review, no-one seems to have followed this up. There's no evidence from the original uploader's list of contributions or userpage that s/he ever visited Australia, which also raises copyright questions. I'll remove the image shortly and replace it with something more appropriate to the section. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2014

Please replace reference: George Culver "http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/George_Culver" to: Georges Cuvier "http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Georges_Cuvier"

80.174.170.220 (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done - good spot - Arjayay (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2014

It is written koalas sleep 20 hrs a day and are active for 4 minutes a day .. .it should be 4 hours.. please make the correction .. Thanks :) 182.74.60.205 (talk) 10:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It says "only 4 minutes a day are spent in active movement". Koalas, like any of us, can be awake and not moving. HiLo48 (talk) 10:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Done -This one says, "they usually feed and move around for about four hours a day". Thanks for the correction suggested. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The statement in 'Description' that "Unlike kangaroos and eucalyptus-eating possums, koalas are hindgut fermenters" is incorrect. All Australian possums and gliders are most certainly hindgut fermenters. Ref: Hume I.D. (1999) MArsupial Nutrition. Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 9780521595551 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blinkyben (talk • contribs) 22:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2014

Please add a period at the end of the "History" subsection (Vladimir Putin). 174.124.245.18 (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Done Bahudhara (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Species status

I reverted a change by RedCarbonAlchemist (talk) because of the edit summary "I changed it from Least concern to endangered because i looked at the facts and the population has shrunk and has a risk for going extinct." This is original research. Such a change requires sources. I think you will find that the actual status of koalas may be vulnerable, but I do not have time at the moment to find appropriate sources myself, so I have left it at the previous value. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I have re-reverted after RedCarbonAlchemist reverted with the edit summary "(https://www.savethekoala.com/about-koalas/koala-endangered-or-not This is proof.Please stop changing the page" The Koala foundation is an advocacy group with a reputation for over stating the situation and is not a reliable source for the claim being made. Evidence from the IUCN Red List of or the Federal Environment Department of the animal's conservation status would be appropriate but not the opinion of a pressure group. Their opinions are proof of nothing except their opinions. Also you do not have the right to tell other editors to stop editing the page especially when you yourself do not engage in the discussion part of the BRD cycle. - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

On inaccuracy

"The koala (Phascolarctos cinereus, or, inaccurately, koala bear)...."

I request audience for a quibble, please.

As you may have predicted, said quibble pertains to the specific verbiage of the adduced sentence. Yes, it's quite obvious that the inclusion of the word 'bear' in the title is inaccurate--that isn't what I'm contesting, as koalas are quite plainly not members of the family Ursidae. No, I'm just a bit dubious about the pertinence of mentioning such a thing in the opening sentence of the article. Moreover, doing so foregoes mentioning that this is a colloquialism--or, at the very least, insinuates the colloquialisms are inherently inaccurate. Not every English title for an animal is inherently colloquial, either. However, 'koala bear', as a title, is certainly more prevalent in colloquial contexts--something that, I believe, warrants a mention. Furthermore, I'm fairly sure that most speakers are cognizant of the fact that the koala bear is not actually a bear when they employ this phrase.

Without any further garrulous ado, I propose that we modify the sentence so that it reads "The koala (Phascolarctos cinereus, or, colloquially, koala bear)...."

If you have any objections, I welcome you to voice them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghost Lourde (talk • contribs) 18:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm so good with it, I did it myself. I also remved the comma you added, as that was incorrect. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

What pretentious twaddle - However, 'koala bear', as a title, is certainly more prevalent in colloquial contexts--something that, I believe, warrants a mention. Really? Where's your proof? It's certainly not in general use in Australia! Furthermore, I'm fairly sure that most speakers are cognizant of the fact that the koala bear is not actually a bear when they employ this phrase. Again, where's your proof?

This has been extensively discussed previously - see #Popularly known as a koala bear, I think not...

Making the change without allowing time for more discussion is also jumping the gun, so I'm changing it back to the previous version. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Wait, I changed it? My apologies. I legitimately forget having done that. Sorry, I was being absent-minded. 'What pretentious twaddle'? Please, sir, be civil. Such remarks are impudent. I don't go around calling your works 'frivolous pabulum'. In any case, if it is a title, then it is one employed in colloquial contexts. Why? Because there are only two broad contexts in which Koalas could possibly be discussed: Colloquially, or academically. Secondly, if it's popular enough for the term to be noted by this article, then it must be in use *somewhere*, wouldn't you think? If that use is rare, then perhaps it would be pertinent to include some mention of that in this article. Truisms do not require substantiation. Ghost Lourde (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It's an article about an Australian animal and virtually nobody in Australia calls it a koala bear colloquially or academically. I don't believe the errors of people with a passing knowledge or interest deserve to be given any more credence than they are now. It's not like it's a translation issue - the incorrect name is solely down to ignorance which I would have thought an encyclopedia is trying to stop. Of course it's fine to refer to this incorrect name usage in the article but not the title. Tigerman2005 (talk) 05:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Protected

Following the ANEW report I have protected this article for three days. Can we resolve this matter sensibly here without having to resort to further administrative action? I am highly loath to issue blocks over a good-faith disagreement like this appears to be. I will of course unprotect the moment I notice or someone informs me that this is resolved to everyone's satisfaction. --John (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Can we add that the AKF is currently working a trying to pass the Koala Protection Act, to protect the Koalas? While they don't so much care about the habitat, they do care about the Koalas themselves. (Queenb1621 (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC) queenb1621) 8:15, 25 January 2015

References

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2016

According to actualised Red List of Threatened Species by IUCN Koala seems to be VU (Vulnarable) not LC.

See http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/16892/0

RadekDobrovolny (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2016

165.234.100.37 (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC) A koala can sleep standing165.234.100.37 (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Andy W. (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2017

91.90.66.12 (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Large cecum ?

Should the ref to the large cecum be changed to large appendix? - --Iztwoz (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The existing source refers to the caecum, and appears more reliable than the one you cite, where the journalist may have misunderstood exactly what the expert was saying. So I think we'd need better sources before overriding the one we already have. Anaxial (talk) 07:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Koala. 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/20131113105530/http://www.drewbabb.com/100-greatest-commercials/commercials-page-five.htm to http://www.drewbabb.com/100-greatest-commercials/commercials-page-five.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Koala vs koala

Hello everybody,

Why is the spelling in the text "koala" and not Koala"? I thought all proper nouns are capitalized.

Thanks a lot --F.Blaubiget (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

It's per the Wikipedia Manual of Style - see MOS:LIFE. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Popularly known as a koala bear, I think not...

Can we please remove the line "It is popularly known as the koala bear because of its bear-like appearance." in the opening paragraph? It is unsourced and koalas are not commonly referred to as "koala bears" in Australia. If you want to leave the line in there, please at least change it to "It is often incorrectly referred to as...". Thanks. Slabba (talk) 10:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I was about to suggest the same thing. In June I changed it to it is popularly known outside Australia as the koala bear but in July it was changed back to what it is now. Regards, --Forward Unto Dawn 11:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I have just changed the 'popularly known as' to 'incorrectly known as' - and then removed the offending sentence altogether. Figaro (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not sure I would remove the sentence altogether. Whilst it is incorrect to refer to koalas as koala bears, they are also referred to as koala bears nevertheless. I would recommend reinstating the sentence, but changing it to "popularly known outside Australia as the koala bear" because to say "incorrectly known as the koala bear" may give some readers the impression that Australians also refer to them as koala bears. Any other comments?--Forward Unto Dawn 12:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support I agree. Hardly anyone calls them bears within Australia, however you do often hear non-Australians calling them that. That is an incorrect term, however it should still be noted in the lead, as that is a common name for them. DarkToonLink^Heyaah! 13:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• There is already a comment in the "Etymology" section about the incorrect term, where it states:

Because of the koala's resemblance to a bear, it was often miscalled the koala bear, particularly by early settlers.

so there would be a duplication of the misnomer. I am wondering whether the above sentence (in the 'Etymology' section) is enough - or whether perhaps, a comment such as:

and is still popularly known outside Australia by that name.

could perhaps be added to the sentence, thereby achieving two purposes - that of showing that the 'popularity' of the name is by people outside Australia - while not putting too much emphasis on the misnomer itself. Figaro (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm still all for mentioning it in the introduction (since the introduction sums up the article), but emphasising that the term "koala bear" is only used outside Australia. Although, to do so might perpetuate this name. Perhaps it should only be discussed in the Etymology section. Hmmm... quite a pickle.--Forward Unto Dawn 14:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I was also rather jarred to see "popularly known as" in the lead, as if it was somehow OK to call it a "koala bear". I wish we could somehow word this to make it clearer that it IS NOT a bear. It's true that the term "koala bear" is widely used, particularly in America, but I'd like to see it say something like "often incorrectly called a koala bear." --MelanieN (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "popularly known" is a poor choice of words. It's very jarring to Australian ears, so in fact quite unpopular there. "Commonly but incorrectly known" (...in the USA, or wherever that is the case) would be much more satisfactory. HiLo48 (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Some good comments here. Even though it is also mentioned in the etymology section, I now think it is necessary to mention the misnomer in the opening paragraph so that it stands out. I don't like how it is currently written with the use of the word "popularly". Since at present, it reads like everyone (including Aussies) call the marsupial, "koala bears". Perhaps we could write it as, "Because of its bear-like appearance, it is a common misconception to refer to koalas as koala bears". Interestingly, past tense is used in the etymology section, "it was often miscalled...", so we might need to tinker with that section too. Slabba (talk) 01:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

How about "Because of its bear-like appearance, it is a common error outside Australia to refer to koalas as koala bears"? The word "misconception" doesn't quite fit that structure. And yes, it's certainly still a current error. I routinely found "koala bear" in American web sites when looking for sources for my response in the discussion about joeys above. HiLo48 (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I like that. Should we add "in fact they are not related to bears", or just leave it as you have it? I really think we need to fix this, and I wish it had been done before the article went on the Main Page. --MelanieN (talk) 03:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy with that wording HiLo48. I don't think we need to add the "not related to bears" comment, as it makes the sentence a bit unwieldy, but I'm open to suggestions. Slabba (talk) 04:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I like your sentence, HiLo48. I think it sums up the key points well. It also belongs in the introduction per MOS:LEADALT--Forward Unto Dawn 06:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. (With a tiny grammar correction.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone! Regards, --Forward Unto Dawn 07:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• Do we have a source that says it is not called a "koala bear" in Australia? That needs to be cited in the article before it is put in the lead. Sasata (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, good point. Taking the word of an Australian is not sufficient. I'll have a look for some reliable sources.--Forward Unto Dawn 07:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

What does everyone think of Helium.com as a source? It appears to be (semi) peer reviewed. Because I found an article (http://www.helium.com/items/913170-animal-facts-koala-bear) which states that "while there may be some Australians who make the classic error of referring to koalas as koala bears, it's mainly people from overseas who use that term". I'm still looking for other sources. There are plenty of sources on the subject, but thus far only Helium seemed acceptable. Although for some reason, Wikipedia has it listed on its spam blacklist.--Forward Unto Dawn 07:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The sentence "Because of the koala's supposed resemblance to a bear, it was often miscalled the koala bear, particularly by early settlers." is nonsense because early settling of Australia started in 1788 while phylogeny didn't arise until Darwin published the Origin of Species in 1859. So this looks like revisionist history, the early settlers calling the animal a bear would have been correct for the time because it looked like a bear! There was not yet any scientific basis to to disprove it as being related to the bear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.29.242 (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2018

Remove: * The Koala

The Koala link is hardly relevant and should be removed. Wundaful (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: on the contrary, the external link appears to be quite relevant, since it is about koalas and the article is about them too. Best, L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Although the link leads to an article that is indeed relevant and is, further, informative and well-written, its home page makes it clear that it is part of a personal website and therefore should, sadly, be removed as per Wikipedia:UGC, unless it can be proved that the author is well-known elsewhere in the relevant field. Wellset (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Got to agree - while this is a very nice and apparently well-researched resource, it is also clearly a non-reviewed, personal website and as such should not be linked as per Wikipedia:UGC. I have removed the link for now. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Human Relations should start with Aborigines

The first human contact with koalas started with the indigenous Australians. I suggest that the second paragraph of "Cultural Significance" be moved up to the first paragraph of "Human Relations - History". The paragraph includes stories of koalas being part of the first people's creation stories and their interactions with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.91.221.214 (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Koala's are "Functionally Extinct" due to bush fires (11/2019)

The bush fires of late 2019 have destroyed over 80% of Koala habitat. The Australian Koala Foundation has declared them as "functionally extinct" since their population and ability to survive has "has declined to a point where it can no longer play the role it once did in an ecosystem." Many articles about this. Gankalot1337 (talk) 02:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

References

I don't know where this poster lives, but this strikes me as an example of a very narrow view. Victoria and South Australia have had almost no bushfires this season, and large parts of Victoria aren't even in drought. Where I live, east of Melbourne, has had 50% more rain than usual over the past six months. The koalas in those areas, obviously unaffected by the NSW and Qld fires, probably don't realise they are extinct. I note that the Australian Koala Foundation is based in Brisbane. Perhaps it needs to take a broader look. HiLo48 (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that a number of experts have disagreed with the assessment of the Australian Koala Foundation, whose opinion seems to be very much a minority view. There is already some discussion of this on our existing functional extinction page. Anaxial (talk) 09:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Anaxial. I should have realised that we would have an article on functional extinction. Thanks for that link. I don't know how much you know about Australian geography and our media landscape, but Queensland and New South Wales people don't get much news from south of the NSW border. They certainly are having horrible bushfires right now, with many koalas killed, and land clearing in those states is constantly damaging koala populations, but things aren't quite that bad everywhere. HiLo48 (talk) 10:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The Australian Koala Foundation has a track record of taking an alarmist view of koala populations. I would take any of their proclamations with a grain of salt and would seek a good alernate RS before taking notice of anything they say WRT making content for Wikipedia articles. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

If anyone is going to cite anything, cite this great CNET article that got an actual scientist to comment that they’re not functionally extinct.—The lorax (talk) 04:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Drunk koalas

There’s nothing here on the (mistaken) belief that koalas are perpetually drunk from the fermented eucalyptus leaves.

I heard quite a few comments about it (in the 80s). Especially by comedians: I’m pretty sure there were some in The Big Gig.

Any info?

NB: I checked archives but not History.

MBG02 (talk) 06:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing here about that because it's not true. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I tried to interview a few koalas about this, but their responses were incoherent.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

NSW koala populations, before and since Jan 2020 bushfires

I note the somewhat snide and Victoria-centric remarks by HiLo48 in the section "Koalas are "Functionally Extinct" due to bush fires (11/2019)", which predate (by less than a month!) the devastating bushfires of Dec 2019 and Jan 2020 in both NSW and Victoria. Those fires have made HiLo48's assertions regarding koala populations completely moot. I considered adding more current information to that section, but the changes in the last two months have been so dramatic that I thought it better to start a new section.

Another consideration is that a NSW Parliamentary inquiry "Koala populations and habitat in New South Wales" was established on 20 June 2019. [See https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/inquiries/Pages/inquiry-details.aspx?pk=2536#tab-hearingsandtranscripts ] The inquiry received written submissions in the latter part of 2019 (before the fires), but as of mid-February 2020 (post-fires) is continuing to hear testimony, which is directly relevant to the Wikipedia article. For example, the Wikipedia articles states that "In New South Wales, they [koalas] are abundant only in Pilliga", while evidence given yesterday (Feb 18, 2020) asserts "Surveys in 2016-17 identified the loss of about 80 per cent of the koala habitat but return visits in 2019 "failed to find one koala scat", Dr Phillips said. "It's functionally extinct [in the Pilliga]." And that was BEFORE the fires. [See https://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/koala-losses-spectacularly-huge-after-nsw-drought-bushfires-20200218-p5420h.html ]

So all the information about koala habitat and populations will need thorough review, and the submissions that continue to be made to the NSW inquiry are an essential reference for that, as least as so far as the NSW content of the article is concerned. Ian Page (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

You can write what you like about NSW. I will let editors who know more about that area deal with it. However, insults directed at me do not change the fact that what I wrote above about Victoria is still largely true. Your comments, in fact, still demonstrate a massive ignorance about Victoria. One of the important things about ignorance is to know when yours is getting in the way of you making sensible comments. I know that I don't know much about the situation in NSW, so I avoid making blanket statements about it. Now, go away and read WP:AGF. HiLo48 (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

why is this article protected??

just curious why there's protection on this article? i would think koalas are a pretty uncontroversial topic. i wanted to add more about the "drop bear" urban legend regarding the prank played on a reporter last month as described here and in other RS] unless there's a separate page for koala folklore, or the "drop bear" myth itself? thanks... Crispy critter liberation front (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

there's also multiple typos in the body of the text i'd like to correct but can't...the section about diet needs proofreading Crispy critter liberation front (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

See drop bear. I strongly advise you to change your username if you want to edit topics on Australian fauna, it makes you look like part of the reason the article was protected. Acroterion (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Eucalypt vs Eucalyptus

With this edit Tzepeng incorrectly changed Eucalypt to Eucalyptus. Eucalypt, more formally known as Eucalypteae, is a Tribe that includes several Genera, including Eucalyptus and Corymbia. This is relevant to this article because koalas' diet inludes members of Corymbia as well as well as Eucalyptus and occasionally some other genera. Eucalypt is thus the best taxon to describe koala food. HiLo48 has reverted the change, this post is to prevent any edit warring if someone else sees HiLo48's revert and decides to take action. - Nick Thorne ^talk 11:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Nimiokoala Litokoala.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• T.irwini trypomatigote 2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Koala souvenirs.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Mukupirna

Can a confirmed user mention Mukupirna in the section on Taxonomy and evolution. Something like this should do for now - In 2020 fossils of Mukupirna, meaning big bones was found. This is thought to be the ancestor of all living wombats and the koala. 2A00:23C6:3B82:8500:2168:3CD4:D868:3F67 (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Koala bear "inaccurate"

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is a very odd RfC to evaluate and defies simple analysis by counting. Fortunately for everyone's sanity, discussions and RfC's are both determined by the consensus of discussion participants and ...consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority)... A very great portion of the discussion below is discarded per policy as irrelevant arguments. Indeed, it is rare to see this much off-topic disruption from an RfC that does not involve, say, the Balkans. Once stripped of disruption, the discussion comes down to one side expressing personal preferences backed by popular and/or campaigner websites and invocations of local usage versus another side linking policy and manual of style concerns to international usage backed by reference works. This renders a great deal of clarity via the "quality of arguments" but is not entirely a sufficient analysis. In contentious RfC's it is especially vital that the closer consider if there are policy or guidelines that would contradict the opinions of editors. There is no policy or guideline, however, that would invalidate the consensus reached in the discussion below. ArbCom principles ([t]he English language Wikipedia site is an international site which welcomes and expects participation by editors from all countries.) and the Wikipedia:Article titles policy ("Common name" in the context of article naming means a commonly or frequently used name, and not necessarily a common (vernacular) name, as opposed to scientific name, as used in some disciplines.) are relevant in this regard. There is a rough consensus to include "koala bear" in the lead and to include some indication that "bear" is not biologically exact as a name. There is no consensus as to exactly how that indication should phrased. The normal editing cycle can refine such indication but in the meantime, WP:NOCONSENSUS applies: In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. As near as can be determined, the "proposal to modify material" stems from this edit removing "inaccurately". (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

---

Should we mention "koala bear" in the lead section? If so, should we claim it is inaccurate as a koala is not a bear? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

---

I removed the claim that koala bear is "inaccurate". There is no evidence that the people who give it that name actually thought they were bears, they just give then that name due to the resemblance to them. This is not unheard of in biology. See also: horny toad, sea lion, guinea pig. LittleJerry (talk) 01:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, testing the comparison...sea lions, guinea pigs, sea horses etc are never mistaken for actually being lions, pigs, or horses because of their names. Can we say the same for Koala "bears"? There's a different sensitivity there. --Merbabu (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Nick Thorne, Bahudhara defend your position. LittleJerry (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• Agree with LittleJerry; good examples given above. Neither is the Tasmanian devil a devil, or the dragonfly a dragon or a fly. If we pointed out all "inaccurate" common names, there'd be no end in sight. This is not needed. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

But koala bear is not the common name of the koala. No one in Australia calls it that, I don't care what people elsewhere call it. This is an Australian animal and we should not pander to ignorance. In that same way that Wikipedia calls pseudoscience exactly that early in article about those subjects, we should be explaining to those readers here that are calling this animal by the wrong name that they are in error. Koalas are not even placental mammals ffs, nothing like bears. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Mentioning other cultures/nations' colloquialisms is not "pander(ing) to ignorance."--Mr Fink (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. It is because of ignorance (ie lack of knowledge) that people call them koala bears and it is plainly wrong, leaving that term uncomment on is indeed pandering. Saying that it is inaccurate is entirely appropriate. The comments about the Tassie devil and dragonfly are false analogies. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

They are called koala bears because they look like bears, not because people thought they were bears. Same reason sea horses got their name. LittleJerry (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

People outside of Australia refer to koalas as "bears" due to a superficial resemblance between them and members of Ursidae. Or, would you agree that we should make a comment in Kangaroo or the Chinese wiki counterpart that the Chinese word for "kangaroo," "袋鼠," which literally translates as "bag mouse," was coined out of ignorance and is plainly wrong, too?--Mr Fink (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

"No one in Australia calls it that" is factually untrue. I'm Australian-born and raised and the term "koala bear" was in use in Australia in my childhood. As evidence, I offer this search of Trove where you can see the term "koala bear" in use in Australian newspapers, research articles from Australian universities etc. I would agree that current Australian English favours "koala" which is, and should be, the title of this article, reflecting current Australian usage. However, it is normal to include other common names for things at the start of an article so readers know if they are at the right article or not. So it is appropriate to mention "koala bear" in some way at the start of the article, as readers might expect to see that name. But equally it can and should be explained (as it is in note [a] but it could be taken out of the note and made more visible) that the koala is a marsupial and not a bear. So if the ignorant reader arrives at this article, they can realise they are in the right place and learn that "koala" is more accurate than "koala bear". This would not be "pandering" but "educating". I note that the Macquarie Dictionary has the term "koala" but says "Also, koala bear ... Although the koala is superficially similar to a small bear, there is no zoological justification for the expression koala bear." [Macquarie Dictionary, accessdate 5 September 2020] so it would appear they have taken a similar approach. Kerry (talk) 01:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I wish to point out that this may have been the case, but in my childhood over three decades ago we were expressly told not to call it a "koala bear". And I suspect you know that it is frowned on in today's society to call it a bear. If you want to discuss that it was called a bear, then do so in the article, but not in the lead. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 12:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

But the article already makes it clear that they aren't bears, the first sentence: "....arboreal herbivorous marsupial native to Australia." and the following "It is the only extant representative of the family Phascolarctidae and its closest living relatives are the wombats,..." LittleJerry (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

And just how many average readers (considering where most of our readers come from) would have the slightest idea what arboreal herbivorous marsupial even means let alone family Phascolarctidae? Why are you so against simply making the straightforward statement that koala bear is incorrect? - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

They know what a marsupial is and by saying their closest relatives are wombats (also known) that makes it clear they are not actual bears. LittleJerry (talk) 02:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I am amazed and disappointed that the erroneous term "koala bear" appears in the first sentence of the article. By all means, mention the error in the article, but please not in the lead. This unwarranted status merely justifies the term in the eyes of the uneducated. We don't mention "tuna fish" in the lead of Tuna, nor do we mention "lead pencil" in the lead of Pencil, despite these being common names in parts of the world. Frankly, it's unAustralian to give any credibility to "koala bear". WWGB (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

There is no real need to discuss this. It is covered in the Manual of Style. As per MOS:LEADALT "significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages." So we should include "koala bear" in the lede para and I propose we get rid of note [a] with an explict statement along the lines of "Although sometimes used, koala bear is inaccurate as the koala is a marsupial and not a bear." Kerry (talk) 07:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I still doubt that many reliable sources of the modern era refer to "koala bear". I don't mean tourist or tabloid sources, but WP:RS. I'm also leaving aside joke phrases like "how much can a koala bear". I have had a look online, and frankly they just are not there. WWGB (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not the issue. It's what the reader thinks it is called. Many of our readers do not write reliable sources. We can see what Google searches show, which confirms that koala is the more popular term (for searches) but show that "koala bear" is still in use.

Wrong. It is indeed not an accurate name, it is not what the Koala is called in Australia and as WWGB says, it is not what it should be called in the lead section. As he suggests, discuss this in the article, but do not add this to the lead section. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 12:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to edit the article in relation to this matter while there is a discussion going on. Please revert your edit. Kerry (talk) 12:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion so far shows that it is largely consensus to remove this from the lead. I know you aren't happy with this, but you cannot go against consensus. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

No it doesn't. There's four people for keep, three people for removal. LittleJerry (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

That count is a little out I'm afraid. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I have raised an RFC. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the count is. We don't make decisions based on numbers. We use consensus. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm willing to compromise by stating in the lede "Despite not being a bear, the species is popularly called the koala bear due to its superficial resemblance to them." I object, however, to claiming that people "miscalled" them, since it implies that they actually thought they were bears. LittleJerry (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

So are you saying they accurately called them bears? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Read what I said again. Especially the last part. Were members of the genus Hippocampus "miscalled" sea horses? LittleJerry (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Can I suggest people read WP:CONSENSUS so everyone understands the process. It requires us to consider relevant guidelines or policies. I have identified one relevant guideline MOS:LEADALT. Are there any others that people want to draw attention to?

Next what do we agree on? I think we are agreed that "koala" is the preferred term and that "koala bear" is not because marsupials aren't bears. If so, how do we reflect that in the article?

Question 1. Do we

• A: include "koala bear" in the lede
• B: include "koala bear" elsewhere in the article
• C: don't include "koala bear" in the article

Question 2. If we include "koala bear" in the article (lede or elsewhere), how do we describe it?

• A: as an alternative name?
• B: as an historical name?
• C: as a deprecated name?
• D: as an inaccurate name?
• E: something else
• F: some combination of the above

Question 3. If we include "koala bear" in the article (lede or elsewhere)

• A: do we make the point about marsupials not being bears
• B: do we offer some explanation of why the "koala bear" term came about (e.g. "look like bears")
• C: anything else we want to say about the "koala bear" term (e.g. historic use)

I think we might make more progress if we establish consensus on this one question at time. How do we feel about Q1? Kerry (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Question 1A, Question 2A, Quesion3A and B. LittleJerry (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• There are some very silly examples above. Horny toad, sea lion, dolphin, guinea pig, Tasmanian devil and dragonfly are all examples of creatures that are called by their names. A horny toad is not a horny toad frog, even though it looks like a frog, a sea lion is not called a sea lion seal even though it looks like one, a dolphin is not called a dolphin shark even though they are often mistaken for sharks, so why then do people think calling a koala a koala bear is not innacurate? It doesn't matter who uses "koala bear", it's as wrong as calling an "eem-you" an "eemoo"! Emus are not cows! --AussieLegend (✉) 16:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Distinctions without differences. LittleJerry (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Not to most Australians, unless you say that our opinions don’t count. Which seems to happen quite a bit. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

(summoned via bot)

Question 1A, Question 2A, Question 3A and B, per LittleJerry. This is basically the approach taken by Encyclopedia Britannica:

• (first sentence:) Koala, (Phascolarctos cinereus), also called koala bear, tree-dwelling marsupial of coastal eastern Australia classified in the family Phascolarctidae (suborder Vombatiformes).
• (further down in their article:) Because of the animal’s superficial resemblance to a small bear, the koala is sometimes called, albeit erroneously, the koala bear.

In general, this discussion would benefit by distinguishing more clearly between the mere mentioning of a name and factual statements about biological classifications. Our article Prince (musician) doesn't dwell on how the subject's given name is factually wrong because he was not actually a prince.

Also, it's surprising and disappointing that some arguments in this discussion seem to be guided more by nationalistic sentiments than by Wikipedia policy (e.g. "It's unAustralian to give any credibility to 'koala bear'").

Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed that was a very silly argument (mind you, it's not the first time I've seen Australian editors get dismissed completely out of hand for things they feel strongly about, so nice work there). However, the argument that we can compare this to a "sea horse" would only work if the animal was a "sea", and a "horny toad" is a "horny", a "guinea pig" is a "guinea", a "Tasmanian devil" a "devil" and a "dragonfly" a "dragon". The common name of a koala is "koala", not "koala bear". - Chris.sherlock (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

There is, however, the case of a starfish which is not, in fact, a fish, and yet is known as such despite there being a perfectly valid alternative name of "sea star" that's often preferred because of its greater accuracy. That article cites both names, without trying to make a ruling that one or the other is "wrong" in our editorial voice. From my perspective, this is similar. Anaxial (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• As per LittleJerry and HaeB; give "koala bear" as a legitimate common name (without any qualifiers), then further down clarify that these are not bears. We don't have to save civilization by cramming that into the first sentence. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Except its not a legitimate common name in modern English usage. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

You have a reliable WP:SOURCE that explicitly states "koala bear" is an illegitimate common name in modern English usage?--Mr Fink (talk) 20:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Save the Koalas has it in their FAQ: [8], same without National Geographic [9], World Widlife Foundation [10]. Over the last thirty year’s or so, Australian children are almost universally told not to call them bears. Given the animal is native to Australia, it does count for something. And in fact, it is a strongly held view by the majority of Australians. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Neither source explicitly states that referring to koalas as "bears" is illegitimate, the latter doesn't even make any attempt to discourage people from referring to them as "bears."--Mr Fink (talk) 23:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

They each day it is inaccurate. One day I hope you come to Australia and make this faux pas, I would personally enjoy being a fly on the wall as you are corrected. Frequently. However, the issue is that we should t put the inaccurate name in the lead. At the very least, it needs to be explained that it is inaccurate. Even the EB says this. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you aware of the rank hypocrisy of your scolding Elmidae for making "highly personal, vaguely insulting comments," yet, also voicing your desire to watch me be scolded in person for illegitimately calling koalas "bears" and your accusing Elmidae of being unhinged?--Mr Fink (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I was told that I am mentally ill and “Phantasizing”, and that I would “run off to AN/I”. It seems you are fine with my known mental illness (PTSD and anxiety) being introduced into a discussion. That wasn’t initiated by me. But if you are ok with discrimination, that reveals more about your character than my own. I am not Phantasizing. I am trying to keep my arguments about the subject. So forgive me if I react adversely against discrimination. You clearly don’t care if someone targets my mental illness. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

If that’s the way you feel, fine, but i was more responding to the personal nature of his remarks. I do consider personal way of describing my points as “Phantasizing” to be unhinged, I’m not sure how else to take it. Anyway, this is a discussion about naming koalas so it’s irrelevant. Though amusing in many ways how outraged he is getting over the points in making. I’m happy to compromise and even bow to consensus. Name calling and dredging up old disputes, well, I’m not doing that and I won’t be starting now. I will characterise an argument as “unhinged”, but I haven’t said he is unhinged. There is a difference. - 04:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Save the Koals states:

Please don’t call me a ‘Koala bear’!

When Europeans first came to Australia, they thought that Koalas looked like bears and in fact that they were bears so they were often called ‘Koala bears’. Koalas are not bears – they are marsupials and their correct name is ‘Koalas’.

- Chris.sherlock (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

That seems to be an advocacy organization advocating against an existing widespread usage. It's certainly in their remit to work on changing language and society, but not in Wikipedia's, cf. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, what were you phantasizing? Off the top of the heap - [11], [12], [13], [14] - four journal articles that use "koala bear" either as a synonym for "koala" or as the only common name. Looks like it got by the journal editors alright... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Phantasizing? Calm down, the argument doesn’t need highly personal, vaguely insulting comments. All of those are U.S. based journal entries. Seems extraordinarily biased. Does the opinions of only those in the U.S. count? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, do I perceive the dulcet sound of goalposts shifting? No one is claiming that this is the most common usage, only that it is in common use. I have shown you that even scientific journals use it - an intentionally more narrow target to hit. Otherwise, a simple basic web search demonstrates tens of thousands of instances. You don't have a leg to stand on here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

”The dulcet sounds of goalposts shifting”. You’re unhinged. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I guess you are lucky I'm not you, otherwise I'd be running to AN/I now, screaming loudly about harrassment... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why you are talking about AN/I, I’m finding your outrage over this issue strange, but also a bit amusing at the same time! Please, do go on. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Short memory? I mean, if you absolutely insist we can keep trading barbs until someone feels so "humiliated" that they have to call for adult supervision, but I'd suggest we better stop here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 03:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

This is very childish, and I won’t be following down an old and presumably resolved link to AN/I. I think it would be better to stick to the matter at hand, not raise past disputes that have no relevance to this discussion. Up to you, but I won’t be participating in irrelevancies. If your goal to humiliate me, then I would politely ask you not to do this, it’s not very nice. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 03:59, 6 September 2020(UTC)

Fine by me; then let's stop the bilateral needling. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 04:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

You going to apologise over you’re claim I am mentally unwell? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Matters of tone aside (I agree both "phantasizing" and "unhinged" were inappropriate), Elmidae did us all a favor here by fact-checking an argument by Chris and showing that it was based on wrong assumptions.

Chris, it would be more productive to acknowledge that and to try be more diligent in your contributions to this debate, instead of pivoting into "extraordinarily biased" accusations against Stem Cells (journal), the International Journal of Molecular Sciences, Current Medical Mycology and the ANS Research Symposium.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

That’s a personal aspersion. I have been diligent in my assertions. And yes, I do consider it to be extremely biased to completely discount something a large number of Australian feel strongly about. I didn’t cast any personal aspersions against any editors, though I think I did react badly when someone tried to tell me I was mentally unwell. The fact that they then admitted they were needling me, well that said it all, and I’ve taken a break for a while from such vicious personal attacks. The fact that I was then accused of putting aspersions in their mental health when I was reacting to them calling me mentally ill, and then targeting me for the temerity of complaining to AN/I... funny, you said nothing about that. Disgusting behaviour. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

For question 1, I would prefer it not to be in the lead section, but definitely discuss it in the body. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The expression "koala bear" is not unknown in Australia, else explain its appearance in the VERY popular Australiana (song). Doug butler (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

You REALLY don’t understand that, do you? The phrase from Australiana is “ I mean how much can a koala bear?” Bear is NOT part of a name, it’s an expression meaning “carry” or “put up with”. It is a play on words. It uses the misnomer for comedic effect. WWGB (talk) 01:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

If "koala bear" isn't a term in Australia, why is it being used as a pun? LittleJerry (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Because that’s the joke. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 03:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

No the joke is a pun. They are not making fun of people calling a koala a bear. LittleJerry (talk) 12:02, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

There's a song in Australia with lyrics "Please don't call me a koala bear, 'cause I'm not a bear at all". It's commonly known in Australia that koalas are not bears and to say so is a mistake. Deus et lex (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Once again, this is really silly. There is absolutely no need to mention "koala bear" at all in the lead. In Australia, it's quite common to see Metre abbreviated as "mt." or "mtr." but these abbreviations are clearly incorrect and the article doesn't mention these invalid abbreviations. Similarly, Australia is often referred to jokingly as "straya" but that isn't included in the article. Certainly, somewhere down in the article it can be mentioned that bear is wrong, and it already is, but there is no need to perpetuate an innacuracy in the lead. As it stands now, that is the case because of some edit-warring while the status quo is "The koala or, inaccurately, koala bear" and that is what the article should say while this is under discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The goalposts keep moving. Now that we've shown that "koala bear" is a valid common name in Australia and in scientific papers the argument as been reduced to "its inaccurate". LittleJerry (talk) 12:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

no, the goal posts are not moving. It is not at all a common name in Australia, and none of the sources listed here show that it is a common name in Australia. The goal posts have never moved. We got some examples of U.S.-centric scientific articles using an inaccurate name, but you most certainly haven’t given us any evidence at all that in Australia - the home of the koala I less! - that we use “koala bear”. In fact I have given sources that show the direct opposite. Unless Wikipedia is for U.S. readers only, it’s not common usage. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not a valid common name, it's an inaccuracy. Saying something a lot doesn't mean that it is valid, any more than "mt" or "mtr" are valid abbreviations for metre. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is. It's no less a valid name then sea horse or guinea pig. LittleJerry (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

There seems a lot of WP:IDHT here. Seahorse and guinea pig are the names of the creatures. There are articles at both locations. There is NOT an article at koala bear because that's not the name of the creature. What is it that you just don't seem to get? I'm sorry but I just don't understand why you are having problems understanding. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Distinctions without a difference. Just because koala bear is not the "official" common name, doesn't mean it isn't a common enough name to be in the lead. LittleJerry (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

It's only common among people who don't know that it's wrong. Wikipedia must not further mislead readers. HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, sorry if I have not read the entire thread. But it seems to me that there are at least readers (including me) who have once heard the wording "Koala bear". Those readers might wonder whether a Koala is actually a bear. So I don't see any reason why the article cannot have a sentence like: "Although some people call the Koala also Koala bear, it is actually not a bear but..."

Interesting question: how to deal with trivial names? E.g., a raccoon is a "Waschbär" in German, and a whale is a "walvis" in Dutch. No bear, no fish. The articles in German and Dutch explain about the names and tell what thoses animals actually are, but they don't say explicitly "THE NAME IS WRONG". :-) Ziko (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Usage in article space is governed by policy, which refers to common English usage. This is the English Wikipedia. In English, "Koala bear" is commonly used. I understand from what others have written that it has fallen out of use in Australia in recent years, however it remains in common use throughout the English speaking world. This is not "US-centric bias" - its a reflection of the fact that there are well over a billion English speakers in the world, and only about 25 million of them live in Australia. Since the article name is at "koala" and not "koala bear" it's really hard to grasp why using the term koala bear at all is considered insulting, or anti-Australian, or a reflection of poor education, or even somehow 'racist against Australians.' Nathan ^T 16:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• Mention in etymology section but remove from lead. The lead section should be a succinct introduction for what we want our readers to learn. It is undue prominence to put the incorrect and largely deprecated name in the lead, especially given the unanimous scholarly consensus that koalas aren't bears. Deryck C. 17:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's legitimate to refer to the common alternative name in the lede, and to explain why it's not technically accurate in the text. A section on why it might be considered offensive to Australians (as it seems to be, judging from some of the comments above) could be a useful addition, assuming we can find suitable references to support that. But I see no reason to censor its mention or to claim that it shouldn't be used, since that isn't our call to make - and it clearly is used by a number of non-Australians, whether it should be or not. Anaxial (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the current wording, "The koala or, inaccurately, koala bear..." (with footnote) is perfect. It acknowledges both that "koala bear" is used and that said name is also incorrect. Then later we explain why that's inaccurate. There's no need to change it. —howcheng {chat} 22:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I recognise that koala bear is indeed commonly used, albeit primarily outside Australia, and so it is justified to be in the lead. However, since koalas are not bears it is also entirely appropriate to add just one word, inaccurate, without explanation in the lead to help educate readers not aware of the inappropriateness of the term. Explanations can, and do, appear later in the article. Perhaps we should substitute inaccurate with inappropriate. - Nick Thorne ^talk 03:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm good with any such adverb that indicates that "koala bear" is an incorrect name. However, I disagree that (as suggested above) a reader would be led into thinking that the people who originally came up with that name had a particular reason for doing so. —howcheng {chat} 04:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• 1B, 2F, 3ABC - 173.206.33.141 (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• As a note to the closing admin, there has been CANVASING on facebook about this --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Unless you are prepared to provide diffs of this, please strike your comment. Even if you have some, this is probably not the correct forum to raise the issue. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

"Diffs" for off-wiki content? Strike because of what policy? It appears that Guerillero is referring to a post on a large (1.9k users) public Facebook group, and that several commenters indeed found their way here via that post. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Casting aspersions is considered to be a violation of NPA. Making such accusations without evidence is indeed a PA. - Nick Thorne ^talk 03:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

How is this a "personal attack" when no "person" has been identified? WWGB (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Facebook doesn't let you link to posts anymore, but HaeB verified what I was talking about --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• Per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO the contentious part of the article shouldn't really be edited until the RfC closes as this promotes edit-warring, which has unfortunately happened. I have now opened a WP:AN3 report as a result. Anyone who cares to is invited to look/comment. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Where is the RfC? HiLo48 (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The RfC is here. The AN3 report can be accessed by clicking "WP:AN3 report" both here and in my post above. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• Remove from lead Deryck's compromise sounded quite sensible to me. Remove "koala bear" from the lead, but discuss the use of the term in the appropriate section. ErinRC (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
• Remove from lead and mention in Etymology or mention as an alternative name in lead or endnote in lead, but definitely not "inaccurately". It draws unnecessary attention to the fact that the koala is not a bear and is inconsistent with other articles with misnomer common names or alternative names. Either mention it as an alternative name with an endnote, place it as just an endnote in the lead. Either way, mentioning it in the Etymology section is useful. < Atom (Anomalies) 00:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

---

• Right ho, it's been a month. Anyone want to put on their Uninvolved hat and draw a conclusion? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• It was also historically called the "Native Bear" - e.g. see the 1903 postcard in this recent article, which also links to Koala: The Story of Australia's Native Bear, originally published in 1937. While no-one would mistake a Woolly bear or a Water bear for an actual bear, the koala's resemblance to one does, IMHO, deserve mentioning the inaccuracy in the lede, especially bearing in mind the diverse readership of the English WP. Bahudhara (talk) 05:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
• If I were writing this article I'd have the first sentence "The Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus), often "koala bear" or "native bear", is an arboreal herbivorous marsupial native to Australia." — and leave discussion as to the imprecise nature of those historical names (thanks Bahudhara) for the etymology section, as many have sensibly suggested. Doug butler (talk) 06:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think I've ever heard or seen anyone refer to a koala as a "native bear". Granted, I wasn't alive 117 years ago... --AussieLegend (✉) 06:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

How about 90 years ago? HiLo48 (talk) 07:30, 8 ;October 2020 (UTC)

Or 25 ? Doug butler (talk) 12:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The lead should be correct and contemporary. No erroneous or archaic names please. WWGB (talk) 10:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• "Koala bear" is clearly the incorrect name of the thing, and some unknown fraction of the world population believe it's the correct name. That's hardly disputable. I wouldn't presume to guess that fraction, but it's significant and I can attest that I thought it was the correct name until I was grown (even though I knew it isn't actually a bear; I could tell that by looking at it). It should be identified as incorrect (or colloquial) in the first paragraph precisely to dispel the widespread misuse. Tomorrow's kids should be better informed than I was; that is the purpose of Wikipedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

---

• As this has not had input for a month and there's plenty of contrasting expressions of preference, I've put in a request for closure by an uninvolved editor. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• So if I'm parsing that close correctly, we stick with the current The koala or, inaccurately, koala bear but should feel free to carry on the squabble about synonyms/rephrasings of "inaccurately"? Fair enough. Not touching that one though. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Punctuation

The word Coast suppose to have capital letter C because it is a name. Tommyto20031705 (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Koala souvenirs.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Nothing here about human-koala interactions

There's nothing here about how koalas actually interact with humans. Are they aggressive? Friendly? Tempermental? Do their claws hurt? Have humans ever been harmed by them? This kind of information would be much more appreciated than mentioning how a bunch of foreign politicians think they are cute. 68.60.202.174 (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Conservation status

I've been adding the recent changes to the conservation status, and meeting an inordinate amount of resistance to the inclusion of verifiable facts (see edit requests in subsections below). The taxobox is able to reflect the information I added to the article, but this has reverted to the outdated assessment of the redlist. There are political sensitivities to the conservation status of Australian mammals, recently brought attention by international reports. The status of this 'species' is defined by legislation referring to the EPBC, which states the conservation status of Endangered (by extinction!) is inclusive of QLD, NSW (and the ACT). The sub-population, perhaps including subspecies, in Victoria is excluded, not sure why yet, the SA and KI groups are re-introductions subject to direct conservation actions. ~ cygnis insignis 22:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I feel the need to add some context and some more words here. There is a lot more to the politics involved than you and other non-Australians probably realise. The Australian government that has just declared the koala to be endangered in New South Wales and Queensland is a right wing one that has been heavily criticised for its lack of interest in environmental matters, and strong support for the mining industry, including destructive activities like open cut mining and fracking, activities obviously not good for koalas. It is facing an election in the next three months, and is trailing badly in the polls. The states where it most needs and hopes to improve its standing to have a chance of retaining government are (and this is the real surprise!) New South Wales and Queensland. It's just possible that this announcement will win votes for a government in trouble. Now, back to koalas, there is no doubt the announcement is a valid one. The NSW and Qld governments have an appalling record on managing koala habitat. The globally reported bushfires of two years ago mostly affected those two states, compounding the problems for koalas. But, the declaration of koalas being endangered explicitly excluded the other two states which have koalas, Victoria and South Australia. This is probably correct. I know of at least three areas in my state, Victoria, where koalas are in close to overpopulation numbers. One of those areas is close to the South Australian border, so one can only assume that they are doing OK there as well. So we here at Wikipedia have a problem. It's simply wrong to say that koalas are now endangered throughout their range, but they ARE endangered in part of that range. I'm not a fan of Infoboxes in general. Too often they fail to adequately explain a situation. Simply changing the koala's conservation to endangered there is misleading. Perhaps we need to list both statuses (e.g. Vulnerable/Endangered) with strong hints that readers should consult the detailed text, where we elaborate more in the way I have above (not the political stuff, of course). HiLo48 (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2022

Update the conservation status from "Vulnerable" to "Endangered", as the Australian government has reclassified their status.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/11/koala-listed-as-endangered-after-australian-governments-fail-to-halt-its-decline 51.37.46.229 (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Not Done because the IUCN has not yet revised the koala's conservation status [15].--Mr Fink (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out that this reclassification is NOT for the whole of Australia. Note the "s" on the end of the word "government" in the source, read source, and see why it's there. HiLo48 (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Not worth pointing out as far I can see. ~ cygnis insignis 06:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Then why did they explicitly mention less than half of Australia? HiLo48 (talk) 09:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Who knows, what's ya point ~ cygnis insignis 14:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

That I have better manners than you, and that I want this article to be accurate, something you seem to have no interest in. In my state of Australia, I know of at least three areas where koala numbers are too high. They are eating themselves out of house and home. I repeat. this reclassification is NOT for the whole of Australia. Far too many editors who has touched this area if the article in the past two days have ignored this fact! HiLo48 (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The koala only occurs in the eastern states, less than half the continent, the article already explains the distribution and their managed introduction in SA. ~ cygnis insignis 18:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I wish I didn't have to repeatedly educate foreigners who think they know better than a local. There are still strong populations in Victoria too. All Australia's media is concentrated in NSW, so a distorted picture based on what is happening there is what makes the headlines. We need to go a little deeper. Koalas ARE NOT endangered nationally!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

According to the reactionary disortions given in defense of suppressing cited and current facts, citing personal opinions. ~ cygnis insignis 22:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Done updated to SPRAT (EPBC), as cited. ~ cygnis insignis 06:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2022

The Koala has been moved to Endangered status by the Ausralian government. The key reason is rapid loss of habitat, though this is exacerbated by other factors including disease. 155.186.210.4 (talk) 23:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The article has already been updated to reflect this fact, although yet again I MUST point out the the update only applies to two Australian states and the tiny Australian Capital Territory (kinda like DC in the USA), not the whole country. Koalas are doing fine in much of my state. HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• done again. ~ cygnis insignis 18:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• I restored this again, and added the determination that designates that population as a 'species' legislation.gov.au ~ cygnis insignis 19:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• this was again reverted by @HiLo48: with the edit summary "As LiitleJerry said, there are large areas where they are not endangered. Reverted to reflect the truth. See Talk page." 'Not endangered' in this distorted sense means already driven to extinction in the last couple of centuries, but over more than half of the continent it has been extinct for millennia. ~ cygnis insignis 23:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Question of OR

@Cygnis insignis: Could you please explain what's so horrible and terrible and awful about my restoration of prehistoric koalas that it merits starting an edit war to remove it from the article? Or, could you at least be bothered to assuage my justified concern that I might be once again targeted by quality control paladins using Wikipedia's rules about original research as a shapeshifting legal hoop for me to try and fail to jump through in order to unfairly exclude my art from Wikipedia on the grounds that some people think that my art style and ability not being super-hyper-realistic, top-tier professional, photograph-like, museum quality is a horrific sin against God and puppies.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I take npov very seriously, I am especially concerned by the use of images for their ability to convey a pov. For those who also share an interest in scientific illustration, the history of reconstructions in paleontology is worth reviewing. Any inclusion at wikipedia needs to be attributable to a published source. This is a principle, not a personal opinion on the merits of any individual's creations. ~ cygnis insignis 18:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Bullshit. Just bullshit. Can you give specific reasons why you want this particular reconstruction removed and not some vague, feel-good gobbledygook? Especially since a) we already have vetting systems in place in Wikipedia for paleoart, and b) my detractors have tried to pull this bullshit about "attribution to published sources" before in order to accuse me of plagiarism. And I've also had critics claim "it's just principle" in order to justify using me as a sacrificial lamb to make their worthless point. I mean, I really, really don't appreciate people trying to target me and my art just to feel great about making some worthless point. "I used SOURCE X as my primary inspiration" "Oh, no, you can't do that, I say it's plagiarism!" "I used several other pieces as reference via google." "That's so awful! It's OR, delete everything!" "We don't want to delete other artists' work on Wikipedia, we just want to target only you because we think you're a convenient target to torment for our own pleasure!"--Mr Fink (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

In fact, we went through this same bullshit about original research and no source about this specific art in 2020 [16]--Mr Fink (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I mean, I do not appreciate at all being the target of self-purportedly omniscient wikilawyers accusing me of "original research" when it's painfully obvious they are naive about what Wikipedia said about original images:

"Because of copyright laws in several countries, there are relatively few images available for use on Wikipedia. Editors are therefore encouraged to upload their own images, releasing them under appropriate Creative Commons licenses or other free licenses. Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the "No original research" policy. Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the body of the article."

--Mr Fink (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

major koala changes

Cygnis insignis please stop making major changes to a FA without discussion. You randomly changed the leading sentence of the article to "...is a well known native animal of Eastern Australia, as iconic as the kangaroo. They are usually found sleeping or browsing for leaves in trees, especially eucalypts", with no explanation other than "lede prop". Likewise you added, "The total population was estimated in 2022 to be less than 100,000 and perhaps as few as 43,000 individuals". As I already stated here, these are not new numbers. The source you cited does not state that these are 2022 numbers but that "The Australian Koala Foundation estimates that there are less than 100,000 Koalas left in the wild, possibly as few as 43,000.". The article already states that "the Australian Koala Foundation argues that the exclusion of Victorian populations from protective measures is based on a misconception that the total koala population is 200,000, whereas they believe it is probably less than 100,000.". LittleJerry (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I endorse that comment. I also have concerns about the AKF as a reliable source. They are Sydney based, obviously well intentioned, but very narrow in outlook. They saturated the media with their claims soon after the bushfires two years ago. I tried to engage them in discussion about the fact that the bushfires hardly impacted Victoria and South Australia, so did not impact koala numbers there. Got zero response. I wonder if it's perhaps a much smaller group of people than it wants the world to think. HiLo48 (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Athleticism

People who have not lived among koalas imagine them only as dozy balls of fur perched high in the fork of a gum tree, yet they are capable of moving quite quickly when threatened, climbing (from the ground up a tree trunk) three metres in ten seconds. More surprising is their ability to leap from branch to branch and even tree to tree. I have witnessed this many times, so it must be documented somewhere, but there's no way one could photograph it in the usual way, as the action appears spontaneous and unprovoked, and one may not witness it from one month to the next. Doug butler (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

PS. While checking the article to ensure the subject was not already covered, I did a Ctrl+F search for the word "jump" and had something like 20 hits according to the search box, but the focus never moved and no words were highlighted. Clearly a boffin thing. Doug butler (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I tried the same search, and got the same inexplicable result. Looked a little deeper, with no satisfaction. As an ageing nerd, I am truly baffled. You're right, of course, about the (short term) athletic ability of koalas. Recently saw one leap about a metre across open space between "trees" at Healesville sanctuary. What do you think of this as a source? (Under Point 2.) It appears to come from a serious researcher. HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about 1m; they seem to prefer climbing down and up for short distances. Very hard to estimate, but it must be 2–3m between limbs of a big tree and further between adjacent trees. The wonder is how they latch on to the target tree, and the leap entails a drop of a metre or so as well. Doug butler (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

That source is too low quality for this article. All three of the main books cited (Moyal, Jackson, Martin and Handasyde) are available for free at z-library. You can check those. LittleJerry (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Kangaroo Island

Only one oblique reference to the boom-and-bust history of koalas on KI and the government that opted for enforced sterilization to save the trees on which their lives depend. Taking the economically and scientifically least responsible option rather than face the indignation of potential tourists. It would make an interesting and instructive paragraph (at least). Doug butler (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

This information was moved to the Koala conservation article. LittleJerry (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Surely there's some published research on number of sterilizations over what period, cost and effect on population/manna gum destruction ? It was a very big program. Doug butler (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

You're free to do the research and add that to the koala conservation article. LittleJerry (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks LJ. If I were within 100km of a university or library with a microfilm reader (or whatever is the current equivalent) I'd do that small thing. Alas, I have to rely on inter-library loans that take two weeks and cost $4.40 per item, so my research is restricted to Trove and the years 1850–1950. Doug butler (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Google scholar and Z-library are your friends. LittleJerry (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Never heard of Z-library, but what a wonderful resource. Thank you. Doug butler (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Doug butler, you could also use Wikipedia's Resource Request. LittleJerry (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Is the koala endangered?

Should the koala as a species be classed as "endangered" based on legislation.gov.au? LittleJerry (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: The endangered status applies only to Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales and Queensland. LittleJerry (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Given the fact that these designated areas of Australia (Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales and Queensland) are the only regions which host native populations of Koalas, then this should be no surprise they were spelled out. Your point is pretty much moot and somewhat meaningless. Of course they would only list these areas mainly because this is the natural range of the Koala in habitat. OregonWeed (talk) 05:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales and Queensland are NOT the only regions which host native populations of Koalas. They are also native to Victoria and the south eastern corner of South Australia. If your false impression is widespread, it's no wonder there have been what I have seen as some very confusing and strange comments here. HiLo48 (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support: The speciesbox template allows authorities other than IUCN for designation of endangered status. Given that the Australian government has classified it's own native wildlife as endangered in this case, I think it's relevant and notable to publish as such on wikipedia by citing the authority. The speciesbox template is not an "IUCN only" template. OregonWeed (talk) 02:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

distribution of species

• Abstain RfC is not a means of resolving verifiable facts versus, well see Talk:Koala/Archive 1#Conservation status section above for synopsis and citationa. It does not include Victoria due to earlier legislation, or cover reintroduced population (it is not native to Western Australia and the Northern Territory). Every major news ageny is covering this, but the astonishing decline is buried at the bottom of the article Koala declared endangered as disease, lost habitat take toll ~ cygnis insignis 03:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Please don't abstain, you should consider voting one way or the other. This submitting editor has every right to request a site wide RFC for this issue. But I also agree that in doing so this may be more bureaucracy than is really needed to resolve this issue. A straw poll would have sufficed. Comments? OregonWeed (talk) 05:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I added this to RfC become it appeared this was turning into a edit war. LittleJerry (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• A bit each way In response to cygnis insignis way up above, I've just added a long paragraph above that adds both some context, and a proposal. It's not ideally located to be seen by everyone, so I'll simply copy it here...... I feel the need to add some context and some more words here. There is a lot more to the politics involved than you and other non-Australians probably realise. The Australian government that has just declared the koala to be endangered in New South Wales and Queensland is a right wing one that has been heavily criticised for its lack of interest in environmental matters, and strong support for the mining industry, including destructive activities like open cut mining and fracking, activities obviously not good for koalas. It is facing an election in the next three months, and is trailing badly in the polls. The states where it most needs and hopes to improve its standing to have a chance of retaining government are (and this is the real surprise!) New South Wales and Queensland. It's just possible that this announcement will win votes for a government in trouble. Now, back to koalas, there is no doubt the announcement is a valid one. The NSW and Qld governments have an appalling record on managing koala habitat. The globally reported bushfires of two years ago mostly affected those two states, compounding the problems for koalas. But, the declaration of koalas being endangered explicitly excluded the other two states which have koalas, Victoria and South Australia. This is probably correct. I know of at least three areas in my state, Victoria, where koalas are in close to overpopulation numbers. One of those areas is close to the South Australian border, so one can only assume that they are doing OK there as well. So we here at Wikipedia have a problem. It's simply wrong to say that koalas are now endangered throughout their range, but they ARE endangered in part of that range. I'm not a fan of Infoboxes in general. Too often they fail to adequately explain a situation. Simply changing the koala's conservation to Endangered there is misleading. Perhaps we need to list both statuses (e.g. Vulnerable/Endangered) with strong hints that readers should consult the detailed text, where we elaborate more in the way I have above (not the political stuff, of course). HiLo48 (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  Not a single citation, this page is not a soapbox for a audience held captive by baseless reverts. ~ cygnis insignis 03:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  And that's close to a personal attack. My contribution there was not one that needs citations, and was a genuine attempt to be helpful here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  Halfway through that screed it says "Now, back to koalas, there is no doubt the announcement is a valid one." So again, what point was being used to hold the gate shut to valid contributions? ~ cygnis insignis 04:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  I don't know what you mean by "hold the gate shut to valid contributions". HiLo48 (talk) 05:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  cygnis insignis it is OR to label the koala as endangered nationally when they are only considered endangered in two states. LittleJerry (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  It certainly is. But I wonder if we are seeing evidence of a broader problem here. Another non-Australian editor wrongly declared further up the page yesterday that koalas are only native to those two states. Could this be a widespread misconception, one that's distorting this discussion? HiLo48 (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2022

Change Conservation Status from Vulnerable to Endangered UnnamedContrib (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Not done Because the IUCN has not changed the koala's conservation status from "Vulnerable" to "Endangered"--Mr Fink (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Koalas declared functionally extinct

Conservation status should be "critically endangered, possibly extinct in the wild". 72.72.206.217 (talk) 11:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Why? The source cited clearly agrees with the current statement of "Vulnerable". Since the status in the box refers only to the IUCN status, we need a clear statement from the IUCN (and nobody else) that they have changed their categorisation, which it's obvious that they haven't. If some other organisation has described than as "possibly extinct in the wild" we can add that to the conservation section of the article, but we need to know what that organisation is, where they published the assessment, and that they are a reliable and widely recognised source for such things (a government body, perhaps?) Anaxial (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Here is an excellent article discussing this claim of functional extinction. A read of that article shows that things aren't as simple as the claim being made might suggest. Koalas are spread across four Australian states. They are not easy to count. While not thriving wonderfully anywhere, in some states they are doing much better than in others. The body making the claim, the Australian Koala Foundation (AKF), has produced an estimate of koala numbers much smaller than other bodies. In short, things aren't great. The AKF's claim is at the worst extreme. (Somebody has to be in that position.) HiLo48 (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. But even that, I note, says that there were, as of the article's writing, a bare minimum of 114,000 koalas in the wild - a far cry from "possibly extinct in the wild". The latter is a very different thing from the (undeniablly serious) "functionally extinct" claim being made by the AKF, and so is not supported by that particular source. Moreover, we already have a sourced mention of the AKF's latest position in the article, so I don't see an argument for making any further changes at this stage. Anaxial (talk) 12:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree. HiLo48 (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Environmental physiology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 5 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Cal2air, Cstran8.

— Assignment last updated by SparrowGrrl (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

"Inaccurately, koala bear"

It feels very unlike Wikipedia to describe an alternate name as inaccurate, it should be changed to sometimes or something like that. I did see the previous discussion but there was no clear consensus. Alternate names should not be considered wrong, even if they are "historical" or feel stupid to you Always beleive in hope (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

But it IS wrong. Originally, English speakers thought it was a bear. Now we know it's not. We need to address that fact somehow. HiLo48 (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Why so anxious to accuse our forebears of ignorance? Check this article from 1854. In any case, "koala bear" is a 20th-century formulation, the common name back then was "native bear" for the same reason they had "native box", "native cabbage", "native cat", and the rest. What would you call a fat furry creature with claws and a black nose ? Yes, they knew it was a marsupial even if its life history was a mystery. It is we who are ignorant in pronouncing a two-syllable Aboriginal word in three syllables. Doug butler (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, by the same logic we could say that "flat Earth" should not be considered wrong. WWGB (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The major difference is that of "accuracy" vs "correctness". Saying something is "incorrect" is prescriptive (ie, saying what should or should not be said). Saying something is "inaccurate" is descriptive, saying whether the word choice hits the mark or misses the mark. By choosing to say "inaccurate", we are not saying not to use that wording, but that if one uses that wording, one may be misrepresenting the facts whether intending to or not. Wikipedia (and most encyclopedias and dictionaries) try to be descriptive and try not to be prescriptive. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

• See Talk:Koala/Archive_1#Koala_bear_"inaccurate". Have we ever been around that bush. I agree that it is not our place to add that "inaccurately" in there, but that discussion ended in a big fat nothingburger of a null decision (after much acrimoniousness). Feel free to refight the battle but I for one will keep well away this time. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2023

In the last paragraph of the article there is the sentence, "Dogs kill about 4,000 animals every year." Looking at the source provided it states "Dispersing Koalas often find themselves having to cross main roads and coming into contact with domestic animals. It is estimated that around 4,000 Koalas are killed each year by dogs and cars alone." My interpretation of this is that 4,000 figure is combined kills by dogs and cars. I propose this sentence is replaced by "Dogs and vehicles kill a combined 4,000 koalas every year." AcrateofTuna (talk) 04:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done. WWGB (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Environmental physiology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2023 and 6 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tigerfan2024 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Hpayne4, JacksonJLandry.

— Assignment last updated by Lenaerickson (talk) 02:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

typo in 'behaviour' section

The koala does not need to drink often has it can get enough water in the eucalypt leaves,[9]: 73–74

I assume even if from the source this should be "as it can get enough water" rather than "has it can get enough water" 2601:547:C300:7F90:B5E9:55B8:C3A9:5C99 (talk) 04:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for alerting us. HiLo48 (talk) 05:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)