Talk:Revival of the woolly mammoth

What is a mammoth-elephant hybrid?

• What is a mammoth-elephant hybrid, going by its DNA? So much of an Indian elephant's DNA is the same as the corresponding mammoth DNA, that it could be said that the Indian Elephant is mostly mammoth already, and that the planned "hybrid" would be pure mammoth. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, but it is the differences that makes the species. We're also almost identical to chimps, but it's the differences, not the similarities, that distinguish us. I'm pretty sure a human/chimp hybrid wouldn't be unnoticed if it walked the streets... FunkMonk (talk) 10:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Imprecise title

This article is not only about cloning, but it is only about the woolly mammoth. Therefore we need to come up with a more precise title. Woolly mammoth recreation? De-extinction? Resurrection? FunkMonk (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it should be "De-extinction", it seems more concise compared to "Resurrection" or "Recreation". Monsieur X (talk) 11:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, only problem with that is that de-extinction is an informal buzz word. But if more people agree, it should be fine. FunkMonk (talk) 11:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 29 August 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

---

Moved. See some fair agreement below following discussion to rename this article as proposed. If the "de-" word gains momentum, then this title might be revisited in the future. For now, this request is granted. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 03:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Mammoth cloning → Revival of the woolly mammoth – This is not only about cloning (various other methods are considered), but only about the woolly mammoth (the only species that has frozen specimens preserved). Woolly mammoth resurrection/recreation could also be alternative options if de-extinction is too informal. FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Survey

I find all of the proposed terms troublesome.

- Cloning suggests making an exact copy while the bulk of the article discusses proposals to modify the elephant genome.

- Resurrection suggests reviving a frozen carcass that was recovered from the permafrost.

- De-extinction is poorly defined as it does not appear in any of the dictionaries that I consulted (including Oxford and Merriam-Webster). It could mean the reverse of the process of extinction, a formerly dwindling population that grows again.

- Recreation suggests that mammoths were originally created. Evolutionists will object to that notion.

My proposal would be restoration (or reconstruction) because all the proposals discussed in the article intend to use what is still available of the mammoth genome in the contemporary elephant to restore (or reconstruct) the mammoth genome.

Jprins66 (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the names are iffy in various ways, however, in paleontology, "restoration" and "reconstruction" would indicate an artistic depiction of an extinct animal, which are commonly called reconstructions/restorations, or the process of reconstructing mounted skeletons, so it would probably be more confusing for many readers. Maybe "Revival of the woolly mammoth" or "woolly mammoth revival" is better? There is even a "Harvard Woolly Mammoth Revival Project"[1], so this term has been used before. FunkMonk (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

You have a point there. I think that "Revival of the woolly mammoth" is the actually best suggestion so far. Woolly mammoth revival is more concise but sounds like an observation. Placing revival up front gives a bit more deliberate action.

Thinking a bit more, why not plagiarize Harvard and use Woolly mammoth revival projects or Woolly mammoth rival proposals? Wouldn't that cover the contents of the article quite accurately?

Jprins66 (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I've put it up front. I'm not sure adding proposals is necessary, because the article is both about techniques and specific projects, so it would be a bit too specific in scope? For example, one technique can well be used by multiple different projects. FunkMonk (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I am quite okay with this, thanks. Jprins66 (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support de-extinction. I think it is the most widely used and precise term. There are numerous sources in the article itself and also the article "de-extinction" that use that term. Vpab15 (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

De-extinction is a very recent term, if you look through Google, recreation/revival/resurrection (and tenses of these) actually seem to be more widely used. FunkMonk (talk) 12:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it is recent, but it is widely used and is the least ambiguous option in my opinion. Even the Mammoth Revival project website uses the term de-extinction (see [2]). Also, it is better to be consistent with the Wikipedia article de-extinction. Vpab15 (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support "Revival of the wooly mammoth species". Including 'species' eliminates any complications related to individuals of the species. I also did some ngram searchs in Google looking at 1950 to 2019, and though 'resurrect extinct species' seems to be an increasingly common phrase, 'revive' in various phrases seems to be in common use. Now, about 'de-extinction'; I agree that this is an up-and-coming term, but it implies that a sustainable population has been achieved, which is far and away different than simply 'reviving' a species through singular experiments resulting in a handful of living examples. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would be confused, and I'm not really sure what complication you're thinking of. That an individual mammoth is meant? Well, why would the reader think that? Woolly mammoth is the name of the species, not any individual. I think it's best to keep the title as simple and clear as possible, making it longer would make it more complicated.not less. FunkMonk (talk) 01:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• OK, fair enough. Changed the suggested title in my !vote. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

• It appears everyone agrees the current title is inadequate, at least, the problem is just that there are so many better alternatives we can choose. FunkMonk (talk) 14:51, 25 September 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.

Add 'Proposed' to the title

The current title 'Revival of the woolly mammoth' suggests that the article documents a technological feat that has already been achieved. I suggest 'Proposed revival of the woolly mammoth' to better reflect the nature of the topic, as I think this would lead to less confusion in people who come across this for the first time. DigitalHamster (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree. FunkMonk (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

No objection from me. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Made the move, doesn't seem controversial. FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I am afraid I don't agree with the move. It fails WP:CONCISE. There are plenty of other articles about hypothetical topics that don't follow the new title, like Chinese unification or Human extinction. Could you please revert the move and start a formal move discussion? Vpab15 (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Let's see if others agree or not. FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I have moved it back anyway. Vpab15 (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)