Jump to content

Talk:Rabbit/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

"Rabbit" is really the young

SLOWER THAN THE ANTELOPE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.133.166.237 (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC) "Rabbit" is really the young of the animal, the correct name for which is "coney" (pronounced "cunny"). (The alleged "Coney Island" should really be pronounced "Cunny Island.")RABBITS ROCK! This is an interesting example of a euphmism that the article could stand to address. --user:Daniel C. Boyer

In The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers' there's a faithful recreation of the scene from the book where Sam Gamgee cooks "a nice brace o' coneys", but in the film he pronounces them like the island. The correct pronunciation is probably too close to a well-known obscenity to be used much nowadays. Lee M 02:11, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The use of "coney" would then be similar to the use of "pussy" ... a term which has fallen somewhat out of use given its more lascivious slang connotations. During the seventies in the U.S. the term "beaver" had similar connotations (much to the amusement of the adolescents in the "Beaver State" of Oregon I might add).
"(The alleged "Coney Island" should really be pronounced "Cunny Island.")" <--- LOL --66.120.158.84 18:15, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

rabbits are such great pets!I love them and I also like PET Rats —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.38.230 (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the welsh word for rabbit is "Cwningen", a word with obvious similarities to cunny, cuniculus and etc User:Communisthamster

Section on "bunny" is poorly written

The section on "bunny" is poorly written. For example the term "bunny" doesn't come from the usage in Bugs Bunny though one might say that the popular usage from these cartoons has re-inforced the existing usage.

Bugs Bunny

Bugs Bunny is actually a Hare, Bugs first appeared in 1940 in a film called "A Wild Hare".Bugs unny is probably a hare but usually they use hare for a play on words in the title of the film or episode.

A bad thing about them

Bunny's',Rabbits',they can be very hard to work with and train.Be careful they can scratch you very hard when holding,scolding and/or threatening.Rabbits' and bunny's' have a thing for their prey,if they fail in trying to catch prey,they can start to get viscous for at least 60 seconds,and they would be spoiled enough to be alone. Bunny's or Rabbits' are very dirty,some owners...even people consider them dirty Flee-furred rascals, after only 1 day of owning them.

Giving birth

Rabbits are unique in a good way and a bad way ,lets talk about the bad way....When a female rabbit is pregnant to twins and up,she shakes for 5 seconds then gives birth.the baby's will be attached to each other for 1 day.if she is giving birth to just a regular baby it will come out perfectly unless either she or her baby is a mix.Even sometimes a boy rabbit can give birth if he's the right kind....It will be affly painfll to him.

Wheres the rabbit?

To catch a rabbit you need to lay down in the long grass and make carrot notices, but to catch a unique rabbit you keen up on him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.25.141.7 (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Need a better intro

needs a better intro. we should assume a reader who does not know what a rabbit is, as with any article -- Tar quin 17:39 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

Well, I'll get to it, don't worry, well mabe I won't, well it doesn't matter. -- Marumari 20:23 March 26, 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, I'm posting a picture of my pet bunny soon, so keep your hands off! Who am I kidding do what ever you want!!!!!!!!!! -- Marumari 21:34 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

Interested contributors, please see Talk:Rabbit (Australia). Tannin

I don't really know if I'm doing this correctly: I looked up "rabbits" to address some questions arising from a discussion w/my son this morning and was appalled to see the following clause: "A group of rabbits or hares are often called a fluffle...." Is this site so unedited that there's no one to jump up and complain about the use of a plural verb ("are") with a singular noun ("group")?!?!?!?

Hunting with a shotgun

The article mentions hunting with a shotgun. That doesn't make sense, too much of the meat is destroyed by the large number of pellets. I would think that most people would use a rifle. In Britan and parts of the U.S., it was once popular to have a "boring" in a light-gauge side by side shotgun; the "boring" was a barrel for a rifle round which was fired by a second trigger. Hunters going through the wood for mixed game would use the two shotgun barrels for birds and the boring for rabbits and squirrels. I'll await comment before changing the article.

Clearly written by a person who has never hunted nor eaten wild rabbit. Shotguns are preferred precisely because the scatter makes it much easier to hit the varmint. It's common when eating rabbit (or other small game including birds) which are formed by shotgun to have a small bowl near the diners into which they may discreetly deposit the pellets as they encounter them.JimD 00:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The pellets are deposited in a Shot Glass- which is why it is so called.

Also, will be uploading a photo of a wild rabbit shortly. Kat 20:53, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Pic removed as it is a cottontail rabbit, not a European Rabbit (the subject of this page).

Does anyone have a pic of a wild European Rabbit suitable for the taxobox? - MPF 23:18, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I know people that have hunted rabbits with shotguns. They us a small size pellet and not very may pellets hit an individual rabbit so the meat is not badly affected. Also they weren't really hunting so much for meat as for sport. - Rog —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.78.38 (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Wild picture

Although it's not *quite* wild, I had a pet rabbit which was a cross-breed (wild/tame), coming off more wild, in looks and personality. I could submit a picture for opinions if anyone is interested? Selphie 15:46, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) **

Rabbits in the Wild

I'm assuming that rabbits do still exist in the wild, yet this page has no information on them. What types of predators do rabbits encounter? What do they eat? What are some of their habits? Is the posted lifespan of a domestic or wild rabbit?

Rabbit

Although this page associates "Rabbit" with "European Rabbit", some of the content deals with "rabbit" in the more general sense. For example, Bugs Bunny is definitely a cottontail rabbit. --Big_Iron 00:12, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can someone explain why Rabbit was associated with European Rabbit on this page. While European Rabbits are certainly common around the world, since there is clearly now plenty of information about generic rabbits (more then European really). To me it seems like the European rabbit should have it's own page, and this page stick to information about Rabbit's in general. --Ahc
I agree wholeheartedly; this "European Rabbit" should be a separate article, with the general stuff on the disambiguation page, or maybe a "Rabbit (mammal)" as an expanded page similar to a diambiguation page. Somebody ought to just look at the "What links here" list to see how very few of them deal specifically with the "European Rabbit". I'll just cut and paste the current ones here as a jumbles list: Gene Nygaard 17:49, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(list deleted; see Special:Whatlinkshere/Rabbit)
It seems to me that we could leave almost everything here that's here, excepting the first few paragraphs which need a rewrite to remove the European rabbit specific comments (of course moving them to a new article). I'm not clear what from this article should be moved to the disambiguation page. --Ahc 05:47, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Since I haven't heard any objections I was going to go ahead. However, European Rabbit forwards here. So how does one go about un-forwarding a page, so we can sevor the two articles and move some content to European Rabbit? --Ahc 04:56, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Enter European Rabbit in the search box, or click on the link I provided here. Then when you get to "Rabbit", underneath the title will be a little "redirected from European Rabbit" with the highlighted link. Click on it, then just edit the page removing the redirect and put in text. Gene Nygaard 06:22, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! I made the changes. I think I made proper adjustments to the body of the text to reflect the change. But someone should review the changes carefully to be sure. --Ahc 03:21, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Done some reviewing - MPF 00:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4274129.stm Rabbit news

rabbit phobia

I have read that rabbits are traditionally very unlucky onboard ships, where even the word is not to be mentioned; much like Macbeth with actors. I found reference to this whilst working on recent biography of Alexander Selkirk (Selkirk's Island), however I have found very little further support for this idea.

The Unlucky nautical references to rabbits originate In Portland UK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_of_Portland See under Trivia.

incisive clarity

It's not very clear to me the description of the difference between rabbit incisors and rodent incisors:

"As a lagomorph, they have 4 sharp incisors (2 on top, 2 on bottom) that grow continuously throughout their life, and two peg teeth on the top behind the inscisors, dissimilar to those of rodents (which have only 2 each, top and bottom). "

Doesn't 2 each, top and bottom mean that rodents have 2 incisors on top and 2 on the bottom, and 2 peg teeth on top and 2 on the bottom in the context of this paragraph? This gives rodents 4 incisors in all which is the same as the rabbit. Is the intended meaning 2 incisors on top and 2 peg teeth on bottom?

Also inscisors is spelt incorrectly.

A check on the web reveals a consensus for lagomorphs having 4 incisors on top, 2 on bottom; this is also what the Lagomorpha article says. I'm changing this one to be consistent. -- Hongooi 12:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The peg teeth are not incisors, they are small and sit behind the upper two incisors. With the mouth closed the lower incisors butt against the peg teeth, I will try and find out if there is a medical name for the peg teeth. Medical term found, in the vet world the peg teeth are called secondary incisors in order to distinguish them from normal incisors, I have been promised a copyright free pic of them by a vet tech that will be eligable for use here :) Image of the peg teeth behind the upper incisors - http://www.fsinet.or.jp/~sokaisha/rabbit/teeth/pegteeth.JPG

The issue of the peg teeth is important, these teeth are what distinguish Lagomorphs from Rodents !

Clarification

"Rabbits are often used as a symbol of fertility. It is possibly as a consequence of this that they have been associated with Easter as the Easter Bunny."

Huh? -- jiyTalk 11:06, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't write this line but my guess is that it refers to the springtime (i.e. revival of fertility) and the Easter Bunny's giftgiving. --Krishva 07:01, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the associations of eggs, and the "Easter Bunny" with spring-time and fertility are all related.JimD 00:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Population Dynamics: Breeding like rabbits

I'd like there to be information in this article about how quickly rabbits breed. For example, gestation period, litter size, age they can reproduce, etc. Even some math examples would be nice - like how many rabbits would you have on an island in a month's time if you started with two? thanks

That would depend on whether you started with young rabbits or adults, as well as the number (or lack) of predators, and I would assume to some extent on the individual rabbits and how frequently they decided to breed, or (in the case of young) how quickly they figured out what-goes-where. I'd say that, beginning with two adults, you could easily have a couple of dozen inside of a year, assuming more-or-less constant weather and a hospitable climate.
Lagomorphs (rabbits & hares) certainly don't multiply as quickly as most rodents do. --Corvun 06:52, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
It would also depend on the species of rabbit. Cottontail rabbits have different litter-rearing habbits than do European rabbits (which raise their young in burrows instead of open nests like the cottontail). I don't know anything about the Japanese Amami rabbit. I know a domestic European rabbit's gestation is about 30 days, and a large domestic rabbit can give birth to up to 10-12 young. Young can breed each other at an age of 3-4 months even though they aren't physically completely mature. Other rabbit species may have somewhat different gestations and litter sizes. --Krishva 04:28, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
31 days is the average gestation time. It would be good to have a section on this. Intersofia 16:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I have personally witnessed rabbits congregating in numbers exceeding 100. Has anyone any information on rabbits "herdiing" behavior? - Rog —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.78.38 (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Expiration

Is this sentance supposed to mean what it actually says: 

"It is commonly believed that a rabbit, if injected with a woman's urine, will expire if the woman were   pregnant."  ??

Expire means "breath out". I expect the bunny would do that anyhow. jmd 12:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you are thinking of "exhale." "Expire" is usually used as a euphemism for "die." --Krishva 05:29, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, yes. But is a euphemism appropriate here? I've only normally heard it applied to people, and the exhale meaning is what I normally think of when applied to animals, especially if it's in a formal context like this one. It confused the hell out of me until I thought about it for a while. jmd 06:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, if it's vague it should probably be edited to something clearer. If you would like to edit, go ahead and be bold. :) --Krishva 07:11, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Technically "expire" and "exhale" mean the same thing. "Inspire" is the causative/transitive form of the transitive/intransitive "inhale". To inspire means to breathe into, aluding to the anima, or the breath of life. In this case its meaning is a bit more figurative, in that being inspired means having the divine spark (of creation) breathed into you. To "expire" does mean to breathe out, but may have taken on the euphemistic meaning of "to breathe out one's last breath" or something to that effect. And if there's any doubt to any of this, just think of words like "respiration" and "respirator". I've always found it a bit humorous when foodstuffs have "expiration" dates; you know your food's gone bad when it starts breathing! --Corvun 07:28, August 31, 2005 (UTC)


Images

What's with the first image on the page being an old, rusty rabbit trap. Seems a bit odd to me. Turnstep 03:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC) okay whats with the question "if a rabbit were injected with a womans urine" what is that?

Editors regularly clean out undiscussed links from this article. Please discuss here if you want a link not to be cleaned out regularly. (You can help!)

The external links section is way overboard. This article is not a web directory to every fuzzybunny-related site in existence. Please rigorously clean out any links that don't directly contribute to the encyclopedic content. Femto 14:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC) -- (see this revision for old links)
Feel free to remove existing links, too. I went through and removed ones that seemed obviously unnecessary, and left a few in without checking them thoroughly. Catamorphism 19:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Inventory of the current:

Unless there's a compelling reason against it, looks like an authority. Femto
Clear case of fuzzyness and of little value to this article. Femto

Morfz should be included but with two specific url's rather than one to the home page - http://homepage.mac.com/mattocks/morfz/rabcare.html is the definative compilation of care and feeding information. http://homepage.mac.com/mattocks/morfz/rabrefs.html is the definative compilation of health and medical issues.

Quite random assortment of medical facts that people could find more easily and more specific to themselves with a web search. Femto
If there's specific content on this page, link to it directly. Other than that, no, this article does not need a new home. Femto
Interesting further content on a specific topic. Judging from a quick web search the most elaborate site of this kind. Femto 13:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Could removed links to petsyclopedia be restored? We are not commercial site, we just introduce people to rabbit care (there are lots of articles) and publish all the cute rabbit pet pictures that readers sent to us. I'm sure it turned many people to love whole idea "rabbits as pets." -- Akaabc 06:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:External_links says, "In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose." I don't think this site provides a unique resource. The House Rabbit Society's site is the best resource on rabbit care, and rabbit pictures aren't really relevant to an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. Catamorphism 07:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to flame, I accepted your decision. Just BTW, I'd like to say that IMHO all other links except HRS aren't too unique also... "Charky and Ash's Home Page", "The Language of Lagomorphs What Your Rabbit is Saying and How to Speak Back".... nothing is unique about them. -- Akaabc 05:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Do we want links to breeder associations? If so, which ones? Is there an international head organization? Femto 17:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Why not? ARBA and BRC should have links up, they are the head organization for America (as well as Canada, Mexico, and parts of Asia as far as I know), and the BRC is the same for the UK. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.127.125.57 (talk • contribs) .
What about Australian, Japanese, Russian, Chinese, Spanish etc. associations then? My concern is that, as soon as one breeder association gets linked, everybody feels another one would be just as important, and the section mutates into a business directory. One link to an appropriate list at an external web directory would suffice in any case. Femto 11:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Except that rabbit associations aren't businesses. The American Rabbit Breeders Association heads the rabbit hobby in the US, Canada, and most Asian countries that currently hold organized shows. The British Council oversees the UK and Australia. I would say those two should be included, at the very least due to the large number of countries and people they represent. I also present that any breeders who stumble upon this article will be upset because listing the HRS and no breeder organizations shows bias.

Here's a link to a site with much more info on literary and mythic rabbit symbolism. It's thorough and seems to link to original sources.--docsophist 02:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC):

Looks good to me. Femto 10:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


The word is definItely, not definAtely! (I swear the most common mispelled word I see on the WWW.) Plus there are errors throughout this article--and it is going on a CD! I am getting so disappointed with Wikipedia.

This one has a lot of info on rabbit diseases http://www.TheRabbitry.org

The marketing portion of this site aside, it appears to consist of forums, which may, or may not, give good information about rabbit diseases. Either way, not sufficient for a link. TINYMARK 08:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. It clearly does not meet the criteria of WP:EL. Anyway, it isn't on-topic here and would be better suited to inclusion at Domestic rabbit if anywhere. Silly rabbit (talk) 12:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. And may I say what a pleasant surprise it is to find Silly rabbit here of all the 61,940,867 pages on en.wiki! - Neparis (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Given the possible perceived conflict of interest, I should probable recuse myself from editing any rabbit-related articles. Still, the urge is irresistible. Silly rabbit (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Kidneys

does anyone know where rabbit kidneys are? please message me somehow to tell me if you know —This unsigned comment was added by Beoknoc (talk • contribs) .

animals

there cool

how long do these animals live? BlueShirts 01:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Domestic rabbits Live 6 - 12 years but ill have to research wild rabbits. Paladin91

Weights??

I looked up rabbits in wikipedia to confirm my fuzzy understanding of the weights of rabbits. But the section on "Size and weight" does not give any weights. Ivar Y 11:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Depending on the breed of rabbit the weights vary enormously! Micro weighed 11 ounces when fully grown - http://www.barbibrownsbunnies.com/micro.htm Equaly, the guinness book of records no longer records pet weights due to pet abuse issues :( Some breeds are in the 20 to 30 lb range, but the averaghe bunny is probably going to be in the 3 to 8 lbs range.

Meat

Very little here on rabbit as a food source. I may add some more, since this is the common domestic use of the animal in most parts of the world rather than as a pet. Fishhead64 22:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


Anthropomorphic rabbits in Watership Down?

I think some differentiation should be made of the rabbits from Watership Down and other fairy tales, as that book is renowned for portraying the rabbits *as* rabbits, though they are able to communicate with each other and we read it in human words. I'm not sure exactly how to put that in the article, though.--Guidedbyalan 16:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Just omit "Watership Down" from the list. Anthropomorphism implies physical change, not simply the capacity for speach. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.32.130 (talk • contribs) .

IMHO that's a much-too-literal interpretation. The article on anthropomorphism implies that attributing human-like traits to animals can be seen as anthropomorphism as well. --Kjoonlee 04:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've read Watership Down and the sequel, and I've seen the movie and one episode of the TV series. I'm a big fan, but at the most, Watership Down only needs a link to its own article in here, not any more. If people are trying to learn about real rabbits, they don't need stuff about fictional rabbits confusing them. Jrdaigle1000 16:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the brief mention of Watership Down or Beatrix Potter's stories distracts from the rest of the article; in fact, I think this concise section enhances the article. Also, Richard Adams' rabbits were most certainly anthropomorphized, as the concept of anthropomorphism extends beyond appearance; the rabbits in Watership Down were given human attributes, such as a system of government, and recorded history. Comme le Lapin 06:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Putting domestic rabbits to sleep

They can also be put to sleep on their backs by making sure the head is lower than the body.

Is this a euphemism? Why would you want to make your rabbit sleep on its back? Anyone that knows what this sentence is supposed to mean should clarify it: if it's a euphemism for euthanasia, then the euphemism should be replaced with what it actually means. If it's something else, there should be at least some mention of its relevance. I've never seen a rabbit actually sleep in the way a human sleeps... 68.148.2.91 06:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Rabbits on their back may fall into a trance-like hypnotic state. [1] The sentence definitely needs some rewording, besides being rather out of place where it is now. Femto 11:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

One might want to put one's pet rabbit into a trance in order to easily clip its nails and inspect/clean its undersides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.28.223 (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The person above me and Femto are both correct, it does not mean put to sleep as in 'Kill', it means put to sleep a in 'put in a trance'. : ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.111.94 (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Pop Culture references.

There is a video game coming out from ubisolft for the Nintendo Wii called Rayman Raving Rabids about bunnies trying to take over the world. I think this should be included in the pop culture section. 67.40.167.161 19:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Not before it comes out. Fan-1967 19:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What about the rabbit in "Monty Python and The Holy Grail"? 72.230.9.34 03:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

An alternative suggestion: What if there was no "popular culture references" section at all? What if there was no "trivia" section either? This article is indeed about rabbits, but it doesn't need to be a collection of every mention of rabbits that has occurred throughout human history. Comme le Lapin 06:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
It's a hopeless battle trying to stop the flood of people adding their favorite trivia everywhere. The easiest way to deal with it would be to funnel this energy into a dedicated rabbits in popular culture sub-article. (actually, rabbit is one of the encyclopedically more presentable examples. See what an older version of the squirrel article looked like.) Femto 15:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh my...Thanks for putting this into perspective. Comme le Lapin 06:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Rabbit care

This article is telling people wwaayy too much about rabbit care! Someone should change it I think.--Fonkety ponk 02:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you; plus, there is already a main article for domestic rabbits. That Jason 05:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree, the "rabbits as pets" section has a much higher word count than it needs. Much of this section should be merged with the "domestic rabbits" article. Comme le Lapin 06:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The trouble with Rabbit#Rabbits as pets runs deeper than just too much overlap with Domestic rabbit: The problem is that Domestic rabbit isn't really a main article for "Rabbits as pets", since Domestic rabbit has more non-pet coverage than pet coverage. I think the scope of Domestic rabbit is probably right, since humans have been domesticating rabbits in a non-pet fashion for a long time (and will probably continue to do so). There is a newly created article, House rabbit that can help. It covers a large subset of Rabbits as pets, and should probably serve as a main article referenced by Domestic rabbit and possibly Rabbit. --Ed Brey 02:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism/hacking?

In the article, at the end of the section 'differences from hares', it says 'I dont really like rabbits. They scrath you.'

However, I can't remove this as when I go to edit the page, that text doesn't appear. What's happened here? Hopsyturvy 12:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

rabbits

jackie avila 
1/26/07
english
                   1.what do they eat?
                   2.what are thier homes called?
                   3.how long do they live?
                   4.do they have nick names?
                   5.how long do they dig?  



                   1a.grass,carrots and fruits.
                   2a.burrows and nest.
                   3a.four or ten years.
                   4a.yes.
                   5a.one or two hours.
                   
                   more info

rabbits do not eat nuts.young rabbits are called bunnies or kits.bunnies are born without fur.all rabbits live in groups but one. the coottotail rabbit dose not live in a group.the coottotail rabbit eats grass, forbs,green clover and berries.bunnies are safe in thire homes and hungry animals can't eat them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.9.210.89 (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Shfanim

It is mentioned in the beginning of the article that the hebrew word shafan (שפן) means hyrax. That is incorrect, shafan actually means "Rabbit" or "Hare", nothing more and nothing less. Trilandian 05:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I added a link to a comprehensive article (actually a book chapter) dealing with this subject in depth. Moderators: I linked directly to the PDF - is that acceptable, or should the link be to the enclosing page? --Arikk 15:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing about the behaviour of wild rabbits

Romeanna 07:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)I looked up rabbits because I’m just reading Watership Down, which made me curious to understand how real rabbits behave, as opposed to the fictional variety. There’s nothing on Wikipedia about the behaviour of wild rabbits – the page is almost entirely devoted to domestic rabbits, as are most of the other sites which I can find on the Internet. Surely wild rabbits are far more common than domestic ones, and yet there’s very little information about them. In the book, the rabbits have a very hierarchical society, the males appear to be fairly aggressive towards each other (or is this just a fictional device?), and the younger male rabbits live on the outskirts of the warren, possibly going off to join a new warren. If this is true, it would make biological sense, as it would reduce inbreeding. But that’s the point – is this really how rabbit society functions, or is it all just an invention of the author? Isn’t there anyone out there who can give us a chapter about the habits and social structure of wild rabbits?

Arikk 19:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Sorted. Well, kind of. I've added a brief section on wild rabbit behaviour, and I'll add to it when I can

When I read Watership Down, I was also interested in these things. As a result, I got a copy of The Private Life of the Rabbit by R. M. Lockley, which informed much of the rabbit behaviour in Watership Down. I highly recommend it. Basically, most of the rabbit behaviour in Watership Down is pretty accurate (apart from creating 'shapes', etc!). Skittle 20:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Vocalization

Most animal entries have a vocalization section describing the sounds that animal produces. As a rabbit owner myself I can tell you that rabbits are not entirely mute. Between reading on rabbit care and my own experience Rabbits produce the following sounds


Growl: Signifying aggression or in males can be a mating call. It can be a low continuous sound, or a sudden short bark or grunt. Generally the low continuous growl shows aggression.

Squeal: A high whimpering sound that normally shows fear or discomfort. My rabbit once used this to tell me she didn't like the way she was being held.

Purring: Actually it's not a sound that comes from a rabbit's vocal chords but is produced by chattering the teeth. Normally this signifies that the rabbit is comfortable and content.

Singing rabbit! Drutt 14:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Time to unprotect again

The log says its been over two weeks since this was protected...that seems like long enough. The very minor changes I was going to contribute was in Rabbit#Classifications:
change Sumatra Short-Eared Rabbit to Sumatran Striped Rabbit (i.e. a redirect elimination)
change Annamite Rabbit to Annamite Striped Rabbit

67.100.45.173 20:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

{{editprotected}} This page is semiprotected; any username more than a few days old can edit it. There is no need for administrator assistance. CMummert · talk 01:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
If there's a valid reason for leaving this article permanently semi-protected, could someone please identify it and make the two minor changes listed above? Otherwise, now that that period of vandalism that provoked the protection is long past, the article needs to return to an unprotected state so that minor changes like those listed above could simply be done instead of discussed. Thanks. 67.100.127.67 (fka 67.100.45.173 (talk · contribs)) 06:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC).
Unprotected John Reaves (talk) 07:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Minor changes mentioned above applied. 67.100.122.199 (fka 67.100.45.173 (talk · contribs)) 18:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Wikiproject

I have proposed the creation of Wikiproject Pocket pets, if interested, please visit the proposal page. thanks! VanTucky 05:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Conflicting info with Hare page and Cottontail page

The Rabbit article says: "All rabbits (except the cottontail rabbit) live underground in burrows or warrens, while hares live in simple nests above the ground (as does the cottontail rabbit)...."

The Cottontail article says: "Most (though not all) species live in burrows...."

The Hare article says: "All rabbits (except the cottontail rabbits) live underground in burrows or warrens, while hares (and cottontail rabbits) live in simple nests above the ground...."

So, where do cottontails live? Also, are there 13 (per Rabbit) or 16 (per Cottontail) species of cottontail?

I came to these pages because I am trying to identify an all-black loppy-eared rabbit/hare that has recently ventured from a brushy/wooded area into my backyard. I am getting peeved with too many things out of wack on Wikipedia. I used to recommend it; not anymore.

Tone tag

The pet rabbit section sounds like it has been heavily edited by children who own rabbits with various knowledge of dubious truth. Given that I'm not a rabbit expert, I've elected to tag it rather than try to correct it. It does not carry the tone of an encylopedia article. Phasmatisnox 01:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, the section reading

'Rabbits are known to run around and yell "BUNNY BUNNY BUNNY". It's very funny, but very dangerous. Anyone who hears said bunny call will be turned to dust and jizzed on my a monk named Drew.'

should probably be removed as it is a sad mockery of what is wikipedia... 8, May 2007

This page is subject to a high degree of vandalism. You probably caught it in the midst of a vandalize/clean-up cycle. The specific vandalism has since been fixed. Don't hesitate to clean up any other vandalism that crops up. --Ed Brey 12:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Cecotrope

Why is the cecotrope phenomenon not mentioned in the article? I came here to confirm whether this was in fact true, and reading through it article it appeared to not be true, but then I did another google search and found that it is. Why is this not mentioned in the main body of the article under food or eating habits? I know it can be considered a bit gross, but even so, rabbits are still cute. --70.48.243.49 22:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to add information you feel is missing from this and other articles. People filling in the gaps they find is how Wikipedia articles are built. Neitherday 01:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I have added some information on Cecotropes - please update if you feel it requires expansion/correction. DanMatthewsUK 13:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Rabbits as pets

This section is completely out-of-sync with the main article, Domestic rabbit. For example, this article says, "A healthy indoor pet rabbit can live between 5 and 15 years", whereas Domestic rabbit says, "The natural lifetime of a well-cared for domestic rabbit kept indoors is typically between 6 and 10 years,[9] although it has been known to reach 12 years".

I also feel that this section is too long, and should only serve to summarise the main points from Domestic rabbit. Perhaps somebody is willing to clean it up? 84.43.93.73 17:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, there were probably varying sources to begin with. As it looks like the other article is sourced, and this one isn't, you could just change the stats (adding the source, of course), or you could place a {{fact}} tag next to it. As for it being too long, I wholly agree, as this section is already duplicated elsewhere; you could be bold and just remove it. The Evil Spartan 17:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

- It also has a lot of incorrect information, particulary involving nutrition and housing.

Rabbits as food

When I view the page, the phrase "Richard Morley is known as taking care of pets" appears at the top of the Rabbits as Food section, but when I try to edit it out, the phrase is not there. Does anyone know how to get rid of it? --Kelmendi 20:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the page Template:Companion animals in cuisine had been vandalized. I reverted the vandalism, removed the template from this page, and nominated the template for deletion. --Ed Brey 01:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Coney and Bunny

If coney was once pronounced "cunny," slang for vagina, and fell out of favor, does the term bunny come from a corruption of the original pronunciation of coney? [Unsigned comment added June 23, 2007.]

Etymonline gives the following etymology of bunny [2]:
1690, dim. of Scottish dialectal bun, pet name for "rabbit," previously (1587) for "squirrel," and
also a term of endearment for a young attractive woman or child (1606). Ultimately could be from 
Scottish bun "tail of a hare" (1538), or from Fr. bon, or from a Scand. source.

--86.142.171.45 (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know

I changed a sentence in "naming rabbits" as i was shocked to read it. I don't think the word "cunt" should be written on an article about rabbits. I should be able to research rabbits without coming across such vulgarity. dan 20:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I reverted your edits as Wikipedia is not censored. The fact of the matter is the word "coney" is no longer used because of it's association with the word "cunt". Therefore there is every reason for it to be here. People should be able to research rabbits without having their reading material censored. --Krsont 00:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No need to imitate me. People say make bold edits and i did but i thought i'd just say here. Sorry if that particular edit was wrong. It's no excuse to be rude. Couldn't you have said something like "acctually, as wikipedia isn't censored, it would have been best to leave it as it was, so i changed it back."

Sorry, I did not mean to be rude. I thought that was essentially exactly what I said. --Krsont 11:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's sort out this mess

I think everyone agrees that all the rabbit pages need some rationalisation. Who wants to help me with this? Otherwise I'll just be bold and do it...

I suggest the following:

1. There needs to be changes to the following pages:
Rabbit
European rabbit
Domestic rabbit
The other related pages, Cottontail rabbit, Amami rabbit and other species are fine.

2. As has been pointed out, Rabbit needs a proper introduction.

3. Rabbit should contain minimal information specific to issues dealt with on the other two pages. Particularly, the entire section on Rabbits as pets should be reduced to a single paragraph, with a link to Domestic rabbit. Also, the section on Rabbit behaviour in the wild (which I added...) really belongs in European rabbit.

What that leaves in Rabbit is mostly zoological and taxonomical information, and cultural and literary references. That's a bit of a shame, since this article is going on CD. The alternatives are to bring all the information from European and Domestic onto this page (too long), or to put those pages on the school CD too!

What do people think? If no one objects, I'll just go ahead and make the changes. Arikk 06:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that House rabbit should be added to the mix. It is a special case of domestic rabbit, albeit a common one. So much so, IMHO, that the rabbit page would be best served with a "House rabbit" section followed by an "Other domestic rabbits" section, with each section having a paragraph or two and the appropriate main article links. I'd be willing to help with the re-org. --Ed Brey 18:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed - the top 3 categories I think are good (Rabbit/European Rabbit/Domestic Rabbit) and House Rabbit should be a specific section on the Domestic Rabbit page. We then include all 3 on the CD, if that's possible. DanMatthewsUK 10:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I moved pretty much all of the information in the Pet section to the appropriate parts of House rabbit, and the stuff relating to O. cuniculus to European rabbit. It's not perfect, but it's a start. We need to spruce up Rabbit a bit now. Arikk 07:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Does their fur coat color change with the seasons?

I have seen white bunnies and other colored bunnies, and someone just told me that their coat changes from brown to white with the seasons. Is this true or false? Even if it's untrue and their coat never really changes color, that myth should be clearly dispelled in a sentence in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.192.17 (talk) 06:12, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

My Darker haired rabbit shed coats and would become slightly darker in the colder months as opposed to summer, so this is true.


Anatomy section

I added an Anatomy section. The absence of the section seems to have been a big weakness in the article, but actually my motivation for adding it was to provide a home for content in House rabbit that really applied to all rabbits. I'm not so keen on having an incomplete section so near the top of the article, but I put it there because I followed the example in the Cat article. If you have any ideas on where to go from here, please be bold. --Ed Brey 18:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Rabbit Weights

The size and weight information in the article appears to be incorrect, as it states that rabbits can reach 50CM and 2KG - a 50CM rabbit (and I believe they can get larger) weighs significantly more than 2KG.

A 30CM rabbit weighs in at about 3KG, in many cases.

69.157.43.90 14:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Rob Potter

Rabbit Views

Should we put a section on views on rabbits? Actually this could be put into part of the article as there is {in my opininon) little to say: animal lovers adore rabbits and farmers are bent on eradicating the crop munching bastards. (Willieboyisaloser 13:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

Is there enough controversy to be worth commenting on? The animal lovers I know acknowledge the environmental problems farmers face, and the farmers I know only complain about the rabbits in their fields, not about house rabbits. Currently, the article has sections on the good and bad of rabbits. Is that sufficient? --Ed Brey 17:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm just a bit perfectionalistic {is that a word?) (Willieboyisaloser 17:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC))

maybe you could put my view on the smugness of rabbit expression? i believe it was deleted from the discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.112.51 (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Genetic testing" section removed

I removed the following section, which was titled "Genetic testing". The topic was too tangental to be worth including. Additionally, the section title didn't match its content; neither matched the "Rabbits in culture and literature" section they were in; it was not encyclopedic ("exciting new discoveries"); it had multiple misspellings; and it was POV (asserted that the theory of evolution is true, even though the POV of most people is that the theory is false). --Ed Brey 17:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Leading scientists at Cambridge university are undergoing research into the origin of the astrolatica southern mountain rabbit and are making significent breakthoughs in their studies. Project leader Dr Drake Migan says 'we are making exciting new discoveries. The finding of a fossil of deartica mountain rabbit , of the same family as the astrolatica has meant that we now know these rabbits lived up to 17,000 years ago, where as we previously thought they had only evolved in the last 12,000 years." By comparing skull fossils between these two species Dr Migan and his team are able to map the evolution of this extrodinary animal and learn more about its habitat and diet.
Hey, just a correction about "POV" on evolution: no matter how many people think that the Earth isn't round, that the holocaust never happened, that reptilian aliens control the government, or that the theory of evolution has not been demonstrated, it still has NO bearing on an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and therefore personal opinions are completely irrelevant. There is no more scientific debate over evolution then for any other well accepted theory, such as atomic theory, theory of gravity, heliocentric theory, etc etc etc. They are all overwhelming accepted by the scientific community and have all been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt. (Just a little correction) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.154.251 (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to macroevolution, which is subject to ongoing debate. --Ed Brey (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually there is no scientific debate about "macroevolution", either. Did you even read the article that you just linked too? There's even a section about "macroevolution" in it, and an entire article on it. Macroevolution isn't a type of evolution, just a quantity, and there is no more scientific debate over whether it occurs then over if evolution occurs. 76.64.154.251 (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the article on the creation-evolution controversy is too sparse in its treatment of macroevolution, but the main article describes the word's meanings more completely. To try to state this plainly, the scientific debate I'm referring to is whether, for example, humans and rabbits share common ancestors. --Ed Brey (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
There is no such scientific debate. Maybe there's a religious/pseudoscientific one, but it is not a good idea to confuse the two. --86.135.176.52 (talk) 14:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
You can separate special revelation from God regarding origins from scientific observation. However, solely within the realm of science, there are camps on both major sides of the debate, although I'm not sure what they'd each have to do to convince you that they exist. --Ed Brey (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
see manufactured controversy. The only people who claim there is a debate are religionists with an agenda who want to pretend their viewpoint is anything other than extreme fring crackpottery. A similar thing exists with global warming, or at least did until quite recently. --86.135.176.52 (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent) Your use of the term "fringe" is inconsistent with the size of each camp.[3] Your use of the term "crackpottery" is simple POV labelling. Your accusation of only "religionists with an agenda" in one camp would need some evidence behind it, although it's not an important subject to reach a conclusion on. --Ed Brey (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell that poll polled average people, not actual scientists, so the only thing it might indicate is the woefully inadequate education of a sizeable percentage of the population of whatever country that was being polled. I'm sorry, but it really beggers belief that you really think you have a leg to stand on in this absurd debate. As I said before, the fringe crackpots who believe in creationism are clearly people with an alternate agenda, just like the crackpots who deny global warming. I suspect you know very well that this is common knowledge and are merely trying to cause an argument. --86.137.152.133 (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ears

"their prominent ears, which can measure up to 6 cm (more than 2 inches) long . . ."

I just measured my rabbit, and his ears are four inches long.

Can anybody insert more accurate figures here?!? VaneWimsey 05:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Intro paragraph picture

please remove that silly picture on the top of the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.189.214.83 (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Picture in the infobox

I've changed the intro pic back to the one of a few days ago, because I think it's a much more attractive shot. It very clearly shows a rabbit looking directly into the camera, thoughtfully chewing on a blade of grass... brilliant.

I do realise this photo was inserted by a vandal who went on to add attack images, but that shouldn't be allowed to overshadow its quality.

Moyabrit (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Seconded! The previous (German) image looked emaciated and did not look like an adult rabbit. TINYMARK 22:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"Danger" of eating rabbits

Is this any more notable than the fact that any other undercooked meat can cause health problems? Or that eating an exclusive diet of any meat is unhealthy? --Elliskev 15:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't put that section in but I did add some references. I had never heard of either of these diseases before, which is why I went looking for references, so I think it is good to include that info. The bear article has info about trichinosis, which would be a similar type disease to these rabbit diseases. If we're having a section on rabbits as food, I think these diseases should be included.Bob98133 (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I see. It just strikes me as strange. The source that you added says that it the disease can be contracted by eating undercooked rabbit, or by handling raw rabbit. How is that any different from handling/eating raw/undercooked beef or pork or chicken or lamb or bear or turkey or ... ? --Elliskev 18:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I need extra info on my rabbits....

I have a med-large rabbit that is white with brownish-orange colored spots all over it...just wondering what breed it could be? I also have a new rabbit--it is smaller with small/short ears, pure white with blackish-brown mouth/nose area, ears, feet, and tail...I was told it was a Dwarf Himilayan and someone else said it was a Californian...I'm confused? I do know for sure the smaller one is a buck! I introduced the two, and they got along fine, but now my buck is mounting and biting the fur off of the larger one...is that normal?RedMama2008 (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

To keep the article from becoming a linkfarm, I am moving a recent addition to the external links section to the talk page to gain consensus of whether or not it meets the external link guidelines for inclusion? If this link does, does it make any of the current links redundant? Please provide your feedback below. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Picture

Could someone check on that picture. That rabbit looks suspiciously like a Hare. Rabbits I've seen in Europe look like rabbits. 71.236.23.111 (talk) 04:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

"Nearly half of the world's rabbit species are in danger of extinction; many are among the most vulnerable of all mammals" - is this actually true or is it some vandalism that has slipped in? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 11:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That's nonsense, or a Colbertism. A lot of places rabbits are so pentiful they are regarded as pests. Please pull that line out. thanks Bob98133 (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
No, it's quite true. Remember, this page is about rabbits in general, of all species. European rabbit deals specifically with Oryctolagus cuniculus, and that is the main pest species. Most of the species of the genus Sylvilagus are common, but all the other genera are very much endangered. Have a look at the links in this very section under Rabbit#Classification Arikk (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Opinionated views?

I removed the following section:

"loveing the rabbit.

we all should love rabbits and not kill them. we must ban rabit season together. they derserve to live! rabbits are to cute and will not be shot or hurt one bit. so who thinks i am right!?"

This has nothing to do with encyclopaedic knowledge, in my opinion. It was entered by an IP without a name, just a number. Kumorifox (talk) 11:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that the material you removed did not meet Wikipedia's neutral point of view and verifiable policies - (the material was not cited to a reliable source). I went back a bit farther though to re-include some other information that had been deleted.
But also keep in mind that just because an edit is from an IP address and not a registered account is not in itself a justification for whether or not it is a "good" edit. We try to assume that registered and unregistered editors are trying to improve the encyclopedia. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh no, I didn't mean it like that! I've made a fair few contributions when not logged in. I just stated it as an observation, not meaning anything else with it. Kumorifox (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Rabbits.

Rabbits are cool ad fluffy!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.199.153 (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

why is this page protected? correction requested

Why is this page protected? The article presently says that rabbits are a high-quality protein food, whereas everyone knows that that isn't true, and that anyone who relies on rabbits to meet their protein needs is going to die from it. Since the page is protected, I can't correct the error. Will someone please correct it then, or else remove the protection from the page, so that I can correct it myself? Thank you. 68.77.200.95 (talk) 17:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is a frequent target of vandals (see the edit history). If you have a reliable source that supports your claim of rabbit meat not being a high quality protein source, place the source information here. Once editors have reached a consensus of how to include such information, an administrator can add the information to the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
After looking, the article is only semi-protected which means that if you create an account, you will be able to edit the article. However, please be aware that just adding your opinion to the article is not allowed. You will need to support your edits with citations to reliable sources and if other editors object, then the editors will need to work together to create a consensus version. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

This page presently says rabbit meat is a high-quality protein food, and the statement is unsourced. Since the page is protected and I do not have an account, howabout someone attends to this situation, or unlocks the page so I can myself delete the dangerous material, as it unsourced and therefore qualifies for deletion? 68.254.169.86 (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

RABBIT MEAT KILLS

This article presently says: "Rabbit meat is a source of high quality protein."

A person who is eating rabbit meat in an effort to meet protein needs, will actually die sooner than the person who is starving to death from no food at all.

Since everybody who knows anything about rabbits knows that, why hasn't this article been corrected, and why is it page-protected with about the worst possible error on it?

Who page-protected the article? If you don't want to unprotect it, how about removing the dangerous, false and necessarily UNSOURCED statement? 68.254.161.21 (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the reason we haven't "corrected" the article is because your "facts" about rabbit meat are completely untrue. Gwernol 00:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Because in general I am a stickler for applying Wikipedia's verifiability policy to articles, I have added a tag requesting a citatation. However, you will generally find that reaching consensus requires working together with other editors and throwing screaming fits and demanding your way is counterproductive to achieving results that you desire for an article. In fact, if you had asked nicely for the unsupported statements to be removed, I would have removed them rather than simply requesting that a source be provided. -- The Red Pen of Doom 06:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Based on Gwernol's above comment, I'm thinking Gwernol must think Gwernol has a source for the unsourced (and false)statement. Well, Gwernol, how about come up with your source, or else do the honors of deleting the false and dangerous statement? How much time do you think you need, to conclude that you can't source the statement? 68.77.195.203 (talk) 01:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It took me about 10 seconds. I typed "Rabbit meat is a source of high quality protein" into Google. The first result is [4] which says: "Like other lean meat, poultry, and fish, rabbit meat is a good source of high quality protein". Now, please stop trolling. Thanks, Gwernol 01:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Indelicate Question

I know this sounds like a silly question, and it probably is. Please humor me. Can rabbits break wind? I've heard (from people I know who farm rabbits) that they can't. Other sources have said that they do, but at a pitch too high for humans to hear. Ha. I wonder if it's an urban legend (actually a rural legend). I've conducted no testing of my own, and will count on you good people to settle the bet educate me.Typing Monkey - (type to me) 03:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

I fail to see the relevance of the history of the word "coney" in this article. This is an article about the animal, not the trivial aspects of historical names. That's what dictionaries are for.

Realizing that Wikipedia is not censored, this irrelevancy reduces the accessibility of this article, without any benefit. --Elliskev 16:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

hey, sorry I didn't see this until just now. I'm confused as to why you think this isn't relevant. The history of the name in English is just as relevent as any other aspect of the animal - if you look around Wikipedia you can find etymologies in a number of other articles. The article also contains a number of other notes, also completely relevent, that talk about other aspects of rabbits as they pertain to human culture (of which language is a part). Clearly it is not just biological facts but also human cultural ideas about rabbits that are relevent to this article. And, seeing as you see no problem with the note that points out that the name *has* changed in the past, giving the actual *reason* for this change is not only a good idea it's practically demanded. Leaving a potential reader hanging by mentioning that the name changed but giving no reason is something that really would reduce the accessibility of the article. --Krsont (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The history of a word that is no longer in use is far too trivial to include in an article, if it detracts from the article. Maybe this is a cultural difference. The word "cunt" is generally considered very vulgar in the US. It is jarring to come across it in an article as basic as this.

I have nothing against the inclusion of etymologies, if they add to the understanding of the subject. How does this add to the understanding of Rabbits? --Elliskev 00:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that archaic slang doesn't add much understanding. The recent edit is better, but could even be shorter. I think it is OR to assume that the archaic slang was abandoned because of the sexual slang. I don't doubt that it is true, but I think it would need a reference.Bob98133 (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
It already has four references for this very fact. RedPenofDoom makes a good point regarding the specific terminology however, so I've rewritten it to be more accurate. And the word coney referring to female genitalia is not archaic, it is still very much in common use but more commonly spelt as cunny, although admittedly it has lost any association with rabbits (hence no need for mention in the article!). --Krsont (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
As for etymologies, as I note above, you clearly had no problem with keeping in the article the fact that the word referring to the animal has changed in English because you didn't remove the mention of it in your original edit. Therefore I fail to see how taking the logical next step and explaining why this happened, with multiple reliable sources to back it up, is a problem.
Regarding the "jarring" nature of the word... look, I can sympathise. I understand it's an offensive word. Maybe slightly more so in American English than British English as you indicate, but by no means is it something you'd say in conversation with an elderly relative in the UK ;) However, as I am sure you are very much aware, Wikipedia is not censored. There is a general content disclaimer, which applies to every article no matter how "basic", regarding content. --Krsont (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Curse-sont appears to have been on a crusade to keep this unnecessary term in a paragraph about bunny rabbits no matter how remote this turn-of-the-century trivia was to the primary subject. No mom would have reason to expect that when their child does a book report on bunny rabbits that this term would be in the one paragraph discussing bunny rabbits. Point goes to Elliskev on this tempest in a four-letter teapot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricegator (talk • contribs) 04:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the name calling, I think we can already see where you're coming from in this discussion. As you are no doubt well aware, Wikipedia is not censored. The only criteria here is whether or not the inclusion of the word aids in the understanding of the reader, in knowing the history of the word for the animal. We have already established that you clearly have no problem with having etymological information in the article, because if you had your edit would have consisted of removing the section "naming" altogether. So clearly you believe we need information on the origin of the word here. If so, we have to look at how we can make this section as clear and informative as possible. The version you substituted left the word completely unmentioned, which does *not* aid understanding and accessibility. In fact it reduces it, because the reader can only be left in confusion wondering what the vulgar word might have been. I have therefore restored the previous version. --Krsont (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, Krsont. My intent was cleverness, which I clearly fell short of. As to your points, I agree that wikipedia is not censored, but maintain that this article seems at best a very unusual place for that uncensored nature to be a problem. Also, I did give consideration to simply eliminating the section, but was not so bold as to eliminate a section someone though important enough to put together. Here is my suggested solution which 1) I believe to truly preserve the interests of all, studious etymologists and inquisitive third-graders alike; and 2) requires your help. (See, I'm really not a name-caller by nature!) The solution: create a new article. The paragraph, lock, stock and citation-filled barrel can then be relocated, but remain readily available to any with an interest in rabbit etymology. It can have a link in this article, so those souls who really want to know the trivial-to-most origins of the term bunny rabbit can learn them in all the four-letter blue detail they'd like, but the rest of the world -- including the thousands of elementary students looking up information on this favorite furry animal -- can read the non-trivial content without what many Americans consider to be the most offensive term in the English language being highlighted in blue so it jumps off the page at them. Win-Win if you're willing to budge just a little (and willing to help set up a new page with a link back, which I haven't yet the skill to do.) Thanks for your consideration, Krsont. Ricegator (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I would be willing to consider this, but I suspect such an article may quickly find itself either merged back into this article or deleted. I also feel a little uncomfortable making such a move when your expressed purpose is still that of censorship. I simply cannot find in myself any impulse to limit who is allowed to read this content, because it expresses the truth, and the truth is never a bad thing to let someone read.
However, if I am completely honest, I have to concede that going by the strict letter of the WP:NAD policy it may well be the case that the naming section does not really belong in this article regardless of objectionable content. I think the solution would be to move some of the content and sources to the article cunt (which already discusses the issue but not in as much depth) and the rest of the content to the Wiktionary entries on the words rabbit, coney, cunny etc. I'm assuming you'll be ok with this so I'm going to go ahead and make the necessary changes. --Krsont (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You are a scholar and a gentleman, Krsont. Your solution was the right call, and yes, for the right reasons. Thanks, too, for the link to WP:NAD. That led me to the laundry list of things to be avoided, all interesting, of which NAD was number one. Always learning! Ricegator (talk) 06:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Photo =

The photograph of a rabbit in an English country lane looks awfully like a hare to me - very long ears and long legs. Tim (Guest). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.135.95.99 (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

you appear to be right. The profile in particular, with the prominent snout/nuzzle, clearly points to it being a hare and not a rabbit. I'll remove it. --Krsont (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Culinary Name

If rabbit was a popular meat at one point, does it have a culinary name (such as beef, venison, pork, etc. for other animals)? --96.42.42.75 (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

sicko70.50.221.212 (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
No more sicko than it is to be a veggie, just a personal POV. Few people bother to shoot them for food, mostly just to save their plants: they are very bony and of course cute. Still, I wonder how much is quietly used in commercial catering, like horsemeat?


I do not know of a separate name for the meat: perhaps rabbit-meat was too common to merit a Norman word, like Boeuf etc. You sometimes see "rabbit pie" (and jugged hare) on trendy English country pub menus.
It was "popular" when I was a student, in the special sense that it was the very cheapest meat at Sainsbury's, which accordingly sold shiploads of frozen boned slabs labelled "Chinese Rabbit". You could pay a butcher in the market to dress the local game, also called "rabbit" (in Oxfordshire at least). One tended not to mention the genus of one's stew, but I have never heard or seen the meat called anything but rabbit.
On the other hand, personally I never say "coney", but I have heard that still used in rustic conversation about the animal.Jezza (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

the citation #4 point to an invalid URL, use: http://www.scottveterinaryclinic.co.uk/rabbits/index.php I'm sorry I could not fix but I'm not a regiestered user. best regards. 28 Jan 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.47.171.101 (talk) 08:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the broken link. Thanks for the report. --Ed Brey (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

artefact

I bought an artefact of a rabbit (size: 3" size long) with a man(looks like a prince or Goddess) riding on it. Its made of metal and looks bronze. So far I have been searching for the significance of this artefact and no result. Maybe there is someone who has some or any idea of this artefact? Or perhaps it is just a piece of art with no meaning? Can someone helps me?

Thank you, looking forward to any reply!

Jane Chai, Malaysi.

Plagiarism

The entire section of "Location and habitat" is taken verbatim from the Encyclopædia Britannica. It is cited as a source as such, but nothing is in quotes. The entire paragraph is plagiarism. This section needs to be re-edited. Maybe someone would like to paraphrase or rewrite the information? This actually occurs in other sections as well, such as Behavior. I haven't made a thorough survey of the article, but I would not be surprised if there are other long sections also taken verbatim from the Encyclopædia Britannica 2009 Student and Home Edition. Rapparee71 (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The sections: "Location and habitat", "Characteristics and anatomy", "Behavior", and "Repoduction" are all verbatim from the Encyclopædia Britannica. These need to be rewritten. I placed them in quotes only to show that they are verbatim copies. There may be other sections, but these are definitely taken directly from "rabbit." Encyclopædia Britannica 2009 Student and Home Edition. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 2009. Rapparee71 (talk) 09:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, and have thus removed the sections, because they were copyvio's. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


OH NO! What happened to the headings Behavior, Location and Habitat, and Reproduction? HeEELPP!!! (I think this article has been vandalized. --Airplaneman (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the history of the article, you will see that those sections were removed because they were plagiarised from the Encyclopedia Britannica. See above. Rapparee71 (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, put new sections at the bottom of the page. See the section titled "Plagiarism". Rapparee71 (talk) 11:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


Sleeping Habits

Wild rabbits are crepuscular, meaning they are most active during dawn and dusk when there isn't much light.

rabbits as pets

rabbits are good as pets for children for the age tree and above —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.168.196.174 (talk) 07:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Reproduction

How come the reproduction section of the article is empty? Is it because everybody "knows" where rabbits come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphapeta (talk • contribs) 04:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

See above, Plagiarism, the removed text was a copyvio from Brittanica. feydey (talk) 08:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

More Pictures

My lawnmower found a rabbit nest. Luckily they were short and the mower was cutting high. Pictures over two weeks are here: 2009051620090524 20090602-1 20090602-2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhansonxi (talk • contribs) 02:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Coney/Cunny

I've changed the sentence

"(t)he word rabbit ... replaced the older word during the 19th century after coney became a vulgarism by analogy to the word cunt, (widely considered vulgar) due to their similar pronunciation"

to

"...became a vulgarism by analogy to the word cunny, a variation of the word cunt..."

- 21st-Century readers may be unaware of this earlier variation and I feel this helps to clarify just how similar the two words were Dom Kaos (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

actually no, you seem to be a little confused. The word cunny is a modern re-spelling of the older word "coney". It originates from the word for rabbit. If you read further in the section, it explains that the pronunciation of the word meaning rabbit changed, it was originally pronounced to rhyme with "honey", which is the source of the word "cunny". I reverted your changes, if you look at the given sources you'll find they agree with the original version. --Krsont (talk) 07:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

rabbit holes

{{editsemiprotected}} Please say they live in rabbit holes, as this page is semi-protected and I cannot edit it.91.110.172.127 (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Question: Why should this be added? And where should this be added? --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 20:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Because they do live in rabbit holes and the section needs expansion so at least put SOMETHING in it. Only my view you don't have to.91.110.172.127 (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 Done --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 20:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rabbit/Archive_1&oldid=1137110152"