Talk:Jungle

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jungle article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Ecology High‑importance

	Ecology portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.EcologyWikipedia:WikiProject EcologyTemplate:WikiProject EcologyEcology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Environment Mid‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Forestry (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Forestry, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ForestryWikipedia:WikiProject ForestryTemplate:WikiProject ForestryForestry articles

Plants Mid‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Popular culture (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular culture, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Popular cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Popular cultureTemplate:WikiProject Popular culturePopular culture articles

Culture Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Weather: Climate Mid‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Climate task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

This article was selected as the article for improvement for a period of one week.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Untitled

The term jungle is very much used in popular parlance. The correct term is Rainforest, although Tropical forest can also be used. The Jungle Book by Rudyard Kipling perpetuates the use of the word. I have amended the article. Peter Shearan 09:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the correct term is not rainforest—it's jungle. I've often wondered what insidious plan lurks behind the attempt to do away with the word jungle. Probably some sort of mulitcultural nonsense. You fail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.44 (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One solution to the back and forth arguments is to just omit the origin of the word. That way everyone will be happy. You guys agree? Otherwise the changes will go on and on forever.

Accuracy and not everyone-will-be-happy must be the primary premise of Wikipedia writers. By the way, you must sign your name. Type four consecutive ~ marks. 4.131.34.64 21:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of the word

I only just noticed this "secret war" of sorts. People seem to be switching the word's etymological origin from Sanskrit to Persian to Sanskrit left and right! What appalls me is that these users do not leave their reasoning on the Talk page and rarely even comment their changes in the page history. This is ridiculously un-Wikipedian behavior! So I took to effort to do the research for all of us. Merrian-Webster Online dictionary:

Main Entry: jun·gle Pronunciation: 'j&[ng]-g&l Function: noun Usage: often attributive Etymology: Hindi jangal & Urdu jangal forest, from Sanskrit jangala desert region 1 a : an impenetrable thicket or tangled mass of tropical vegetation b : a tract overgrown with thickets or masses of vegetation 2 : a hobo camp 3 a (1) : a confused or disordered mass of objects : JUMBLE (2) : something that baffles or frustrates by its tangled or complex character : MAZE <the jungle of housing laws -- Bernard Taper> b : a place of ruthless struggle for survival <the city is a jungle where no one is safe after dark -- Stuart Chase> 4 : electronic dance music that combines elements of techno, reggae, and hip-hop and is marked especially by an extremely fast beat

So indeed the word originated from Sanskrit. Anything otherwise would be original research which is unacceptable on Wikipedia. If, however, the research is backed by a peer-reviewed source, be sure to provide the link on the Talk page before posting. And for pete's sake, please SIGN your comments. 4.131.32.64 15:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UTC, you are the guy who keeps posting Sanskrit. Stop acting like you are impartial. Untill further investigation NEITHER Persian nor Sunkist or Sanskrit may be used. -Johnny Dark

Sign your name properly genius! And no, I am not "UTC." UTC represents the time standard! 4.131.34.64 21:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is 'jangal' as is in Persian language. Most words in Sanskrit are Persian origin after the Persian conquest of Indian subcontinent. (Asghar Khayat) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.50.129 (talk) 06:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jungle in western culture

It reads like an essay. I don't see that there's much lost by removing it altogether. Junes 17:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree, but don't have the courage to remove it myself. -D

The whole thing seems biased, in my opinion anyway, so I'll remove it.

The problem with this section of the article is that it's unnecessary and doesn't make sense. Like it was mentioned above, it reads like an essay, not an encyclopedia article. It's not neutral. And, most importantly, it's not necessary. At all. You could have a perfectly good, better, actually, jungle article without it. I don't know who keeps putting it back, or why, but it needs to be removed.

The problem was that the word itself was POV, and I added the goddamn "essay" to clarify the goshdarn meaning of the goshdarn word. Then, the WikiLiberaceJugend manurecanned the contribution because it made too much sense. Heck with it. You're creating a monstrosity of white boy and neo-colonialist bias. See you to court.

POV Check

The statement: "Using this word to refer to a dense forest in a hot climate is nowadays considered colonialist, and such a forest must be called a rainforest even when the use of the latter term is scientifically inaccurate." does not seem neutral to me, saying it "must" be referred to as a rainforest even when the term is inaccurate? The rest of the article does not come across much better.

You got that right, and I'm about to clean up this article right now. Dragomiloff 01:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

Somebody edited the picture. Please change it back.

I noticed and had already reverted it. No problem Sander123 15:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roses?

"...a forest characterised by extensive biodiversity and densely tangled plants such as trees, vines, grasses, and also various roses..." roses? —Pengo 04:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what types of roses are in the jungle?

where is the jungles locatied

                      -dls oboe rocks

weird

When I checked at school, this page was vandalised. I checked on my home computer, and wasn't. What happened? Pacguy19 21:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm interesting...I wonder what thats all about. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 17:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)==dont know==[reply]

What i think it is is that your school computer might be a little you know jinky!!!!!!!!!!!

P.S

The vandalised version of this page said something about Burger King.

Yeah, like Burger King imports a significant portion of their beef from former rainforest land that won't hold sugarcane anymore so they graze cattle until its desertified. Cutting down the rainforest majorly blows. Anywho, I took the liberty to insert that human activity is probably directly related to the impenetrability found at the edge of the jungle, Ill toy with a few different wordings, but I dont know if I can make it blend in well with the choppy flow of the prose. heh heh -Rudy Hasspacher

Wow

This article really needs alot more done. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 17:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

URGENT

Everyone who cares about the planet:

This article needs to state more about how evil villains are destroying the rainforests and how that we must become sustainable by acting like animals, not destroying them. Inthejunglethedeepdarkjungle (talk)

Clarifying Article and Justifications of Usage and Origins

There are some issues requiring attention. First, the word origins I believe should include Urdu and its closely related cousin Hindi. That is where the word as it is now used spread from. Its earlier origins as stated are Sanskirt. If everyone wants to go back to the original roots of words in common usage on the Indian subcontinent, it will all become sanskirt or persian and the arabic that came through the persian. The modern languages that spread the words, "jungle" for example, would not even be mentioned. This is not appropriate. Moreover, it is the definition in Urdu (and Hindi) that is now common usage, not the original sankirt which according to the previous version of the article included "desert" - clearly not what we call jungle today.

Second, the article as it stood was unclear in several places. It gave one meaning at first and then reverted to some "technical" meaning which was almost contradictory with the first. That is, the original meaning was a thick forest teaming with animals etc. and the later meaning was a bunch of low thorny shrubs outside the rain forest. I have taken a shot at fixing it, but it still may not be right. I have been careful to edit minimally.

Allegory Section

Is this section really needed? There were some quite obscure references to hobo's and such which I really didn't think belonged here, so I have removed the sentence. It is perahps ok to leave the "law of the jungle" in there becsuse it is commom usage and is related to the meaning of the juncle.

Citations etc

This article is now fairly complete. Ths subject is not one that requires much more - there are some references added and the rest does not really need references, but there is room for adding a couple if someone wants to do this. Most of the information in the article is generic. There is such a thing as over referencing - where every sentence is refenced.

I suggest we leave it alone and move on to other words, unless there are factual problems, in which case please correct and describe in the discussion.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.201.107 (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I propose a merge of the article to Forest as (as described in article) a jungle is basicaly a wet forest in a tropical zone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.49.224 (talk) 07:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Did you even read the article? "The term may still be used in technical contexts to describe the rainforest biome, a forest characterised by extensive biodiversity and densely tangled undergrowth including the young trees, vines and lianas, and herbaceous plants." There is more than one definition here, chummer. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 19:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeThis article is useful for distinguishing between common parlance and technical terms for various kinds of forests commonly called "jungle". Also the metaphor section is good information. I think some readers would benefit from some of this information, which would probably have to be deleted and not included in Forest in order to not be tangential to that article. Brambleshire (talk) 06:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Merge

My vote is not to merge. A "jungle" is more than just a forest. It has a connotation of an environment that is teeming with life in which the "forest" is the foundation on which the other living things play their roles. I would recommend leaving it as a separate article but provide links to "forest" and vice versa. Even on the Indian subcontinent where the word originates, there are "Forest Officers" not "Jungle Officers". There is a difference in the meaning and I believe it is the more encompassing environment that jungle connotes. If someone seconds this, I could add this aspect into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.201.107 (talk) 07:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, the merge discussion is dead, and has been for a while. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 07:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is there a tab at the top of both articles on "jungle" and "forest" to merge. If the discussion is dead, please remove the tags.

Anyone can remove the tags if the discussion's dead. The page isn't protected. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 19:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

I noticed the introduction defines jungle but fails to provide a source. Lastitem (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few years ago a Public Broadcasting Service (USA) documentary explained that a jungle consisted of thickets of dense shrubs and trees interspaced with grass and went on to explain how it was confused with, but NOT the same as, rainforest. This article gives a completely different meaning. I have never heard of this definition! Densest part of rainforest? What does that even mean? I am wondering if there are several (local or regional) meanings and that we must agree to disagree? Obviously, we need an authoratative definition. ALSO, I note there seems to be some confusion: a TROPICAL rainforest is one of several kinds of rainforest - places here seem to equate rainforest with tropical rainforest. Do you need references to temperate rainforests? (eg. NW Pacific coast of N. America)71.31.149.224 (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon rainforest

Isn't that a jungle too? TylerDurdenn (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Because a Jungle is a variation of Tropical Rainforest should they be merged? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IGGY7735 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it depends on how much the content of the two articles overlaps. That's a good way to tell if one of the articles is superfluous. Lastitem (talk) 06:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between a jungle and a forest

That is something that the article should explore in a lot more detail in my opinion.Lastitem (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is awful

There are no references given as to what a jungle is or what field of study the term refers to. The article a little information on the etymology of the word and alternative uses of the word, but at no stage does it actually present any verifiable information on what the word primarily means. Without such basic information the article is essentially worthless.

At this stage, the article should probably just be deleted. I can;t see that it's providing any information at all beyond what a dictionary would provide.Mark Marathon (talk) 08:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move Etymology Content to Wiktionary, Merge with Tropical Rainforest

Most of this article is about the usage of the word "jungle", as opposed to actually talking about jungles. I propose that that content be moved to Wiktionary, the appropriate forum for discussing the word "jungle", or to an etymology section at Rainforest. Furthermore, this page should either redirect to rainforest or tropical rainforest, or become a disambiguation page between those two articles and Sinclair's The Jungle. This article itself repeatedly notes the historical change from preference for the word "jungle" to the word "rainforest", and while the linguistic study of that change is interesting and scholarly, it should not be the main focus of Jungle.

Unless someone can provide evidence that "jungle" is not merely a synonym for "rainforest" or "tropical rainforest", then a merge should be formally proposed. Andrew Keenan Richardson (talk!) 18:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the article? I included at least 6 impeccable references that state explicitly that "jungle" is not merely a synonym for "rainforest".

As far as the criticism that the article primarily talks about usage; in that regard it is no different from many other articles, for example Darkness. Such articles take that form precisely becuase the subjects are more culturally than technically important. An article on Darkness or Jungles which didn't primarily discuss cultural usage would be glaringly unbalanced. Mark Marathon (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Encyclopaedia Britannica "jungle" is a synonym for "rainforest", with a pointer to the latter in the entry for "jungle". So I support a redirect and a merger with rainforest. Thomas.W (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you quote where Britannica says that "jungle" is a synonym of "rainforest". The link you provided says that a jungle is "a tropical forest with luxuriant, tangled, impenetrable vegetation", which is also the first definition given in this article. It then goes on to provide a link to rainforest, just as this link does. I'm not seeing anywhere that it even implies the two are synonyms. This is an example of where the WP article is more comprehensive than the Britannica one, not an example of where it contradicts it. The two articles contain the same information, but the Wikipedia article expands on it much more. Mark Marathon (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Life

Does any one live there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.226.161.31 (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is/are jungles?

The lede currently states that "the nearest equivalent scientific term is probably monsoon and seasonal tropical forest". Is that not too restrictive? Surely the popular conception of a jungle would include Tropical rainforests as well - possibly even as the primary definition. Iapetus (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jungle. 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/20130527033626/http://geoggeol.wku.edu/jall/classes/geog328/pdfs/Land%20Biomes.pdf to http://geoggeol.wku.edu/jall/classes/geog328/pdfs/Land%20Biomes.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/programmes/tv/jungle/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ups.edu/biology/museum/worldbiomes.html

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) 15:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to rainforests

As discussed more than once in this talk page, the WP:PRIMARYUSAGE of the word jungle in the English language is to generally refer to rainforests. This article is very essay-like and verging on WP:ORIGINALSYNTHESIS. I recognize the value of explaining alternate usages and having this article's content expanded beyond just a dictionary definition, but to make no reference to the word "rainforest" in the lead is an oversight. One author has reverted attempts to explain this primary usage in the lead, but he does not appear to command consensus. Please discuss here if you think there's reason to not include "rainforest" in the lead. Thank you. --NoGhost (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence for the assertion that word jungle in the English language is generally used to refer to rainforests? Becuase all the references in this article say otherwise. Actual books and articles written on this subject, and the OED, all say you are incorrect. So if you have reliable sources that agree with your beliefs, then trot them out so we can add the information to the article. You can not, however, add statements just because that they are true. Please read WP:VERIFY.Mark Marathon (talk) 02:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Marathon: A quick glance at the edit history shows that you alone have been reverting any references to rainforests in the lead. A stable version until July of this year contained the term "rainforest" in the lead. I'm not sure what your argument is here. No one is trying to remove the essay "jungle as a metaphor", no one is claiming that there is only one definition of jungle, and no one is asking that jungles be considered solely as synonyms of rainforests. The only point of contention that you seem to raise is with reference to the historic use of the term jungle being placed in the lead. That this is true you do not seem to debate, since you have helped edit the following sentence in the article: "The word jungle accounted for over 80% of the terms used to refer to tropical forests in print media prior to the 1970s, since when it has been steadily replaced by "rainforest", [21] although "jungle" still remains in common use when referring to tropical rainforests." Including reference to this in the lead is important not only because it will give proper weight to this definition of the term (especially when compared against the sentence about colonial discourse in the lead), but because many readers who visit this article are likely hoping to find information about rainforests, tropical or otherwise. Consider, for example, that the Planet Earth II episode that aired last year was titled "Jungles" during which tropical rainforests were referred to as jungles. I will try to capture to essence of the aforementioned sentence from the article in the lead. Please feel free to help edit this sentence and I trust we can find an agreed-upon wording without giving undue weight. Thanks! --NoGhost (talk) 07:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand the distiction between "rainforests used to be mostly referred with the term jungle" and "the term jungle used to mostly refers to rainforests". Am I correct that this is the source of your confusion? If so I will explain the difference, which is significant. The former statement is well referenced and included in the article. The latter is not referenced at all and therefore can not be included, much less in the lede. Whales used to be mostly referred to as fish. That does not justify a claim that fish mostly refered to whales. A reference supporting the claim that whales were most commonly called fish until the 1920's is easy to find. That does not constitute support for the claim that prior to the 1920's, the term fish generally referred to whales. You need a separate reference for the claim that the term "fish" mostly referred to whales in 1910. And in exactly the same way, the reference that rainforests used to generally be referred to as jungles does not in any way support your claim that jungle used to generally refer to rainforest. All crows are black birds, but not all black birds are crows. Mark Marathon (talk) 08:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Marathon: Okay, this is helpful! I didn't properly understand your concern and it appeared (to me) that you were just against any reference to rainforests in the lead. I've edited the sentence to hopefully better reflect the content of the article. Please feel free to edit it if you feel it can be improved. Thanks. --NoGhost (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

evoke/evokes

re:

The word "jungle" itself carries connotations of untamed and uncontrollable nature and isolation from civilisation, along with the emotions that evokes: threat, confusion, powerlessness, disorientation and immobilisation.

@Mark Marathon:, in what dialect of English does the verb "evoke" not need to agree with its subject? "The emotions" is plural so the verb "evoke" should be plural. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  10:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question: every dialect of English I am familiar with: US, Canadian, British, Indian, Southern African and Australian amongst others.

Your confusion seems to stem from pair of errors commonly made by non-native speakers:

The first is that, in English the "s" on the end of a verb doesn't make the verb plural, they way it does for a noun. Confusingly, exactly the opposite is true: for singular subjects, the verb receives a terminal "s", while for plural subjects, the verb remains unchanged. Hence, "When we have a storm, the water wets the rug" is correct" not "When we have a storm, the water wet the rug". Conversely, "When we have a storm, the raindrops wet the rug" is correct, not "When we have a storm, the raindrops wets the rug". Water is singular, so the verb recieves a terminal "s", "raindrops" is plural, so the verb receives no "s".

The other source of your confusion seems to be between subject and object. A sentence in English often has multiple nouns, but only one is the subject to which the verb refers. In many cases, as here, it can be difficult for non-native speakers to discern what the subject is, while native speakers do so intuitively. Yet the verb has to be in agreement with the subject, not the object. This can lead to some constructions that look odd to those used to the construction of other languages. So, for example, "When we have a storm, the water in millions of raindrops wets the rug" is correct, not ""When we have a storm, the water in millions of raindrops wet the rug." This sort of situation is confusing because at first glance appears that the verb refers to the noun "raindrops", which is plural, which suggests the verb should not receve a terminal "s". In reality however,the verb refrs to the noun "water", which is singular.

Similarly "The coach is at the park, together with the boys he teaches" is correct, not "The coach is at the park, together with the boys he teach". "The coaches are at the park, together with the boy they teach" is correct, not "The coaches are at the park, together with the boy they teaches" Once again, at first glance it that the verb "teach" refers to "boy", indicating it should not receive a terminal "s" where "boy" is singular, and no "s" where "boy" is plural. However the verb in fact refers to "coach", and so receives a terminal "s" depending on whether "coach" is plural. A simple way to avoid this is often to look at the plurality of the adjacent pronoun. If the pronoun is plural ("they", "those" "their" etc) then conform the verb to plural by adding the terminal "s". If the pronoun is singular ("he", "that" "his"etc) then conform the verb to singular without any "s".

More closely analogous,, "The building is fitted with sufficient generators to provide electricity for 3 days, along with the fuel that requires", never "The building is fitted with sufficient generators to provide electricity for 3 days, along with the fuel that require". "A recession leads to many lost jobs, along the financial hardship that causes." Never "A recession leads to many lost jobs, along the financial hardship that cause" "The vessel carries two life support systems, along with the batteries that requires" is correct. Never "The vessel carries two life support systems, along with the batteries that require".

We have a similar situation in this article.

"The word jungle carries connations, together with the emotions that evokes" is correct. Never "The word jungle carries connations, together with the emotions that evoke". The verb "evoke" refers to "the word jungle", not to "emotions". Emotions is the object not the subject. And the adjacent pronoun is the singular "that", which is the hint that the verb should conform to the singular with the terminal "s".

I taught English, for a few months, and I know this can get very confusing for non-native speakers. Somehow, native speakers just pick it up intuitively. We just know that "The fire kills the trees, and the monkey that lives in them" is correct, not "The fire kills the trees, and the monkey that live in them. Mark Marathon (talk) 04:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A glance at my user page would suffice to tell you that I am a native speaker. I know putting -s on a verb doesn't make it plural and I know very well what subject and object mean. I see what you mean now, and the sentence is a bit of a garden path if you ask me. I was parsing "that" as a relative pronoun and not a demonstrative, i.e. as "along with the emotions, which evoke:"

Can we please at least reword it to:

The word "jungle" itself carries connotations of untamed and uncontrollable nature and isolation from civilisation, and evokes the emotions of threat, confusion, powerlessness, disorientation and immobilisation.

– filelakeshoe (t / c)  09:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or, "which that evokes". – filelakeshoe (t / c)  16:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Marathon: Your behaviour at this article is bordering on ownership. I already responded to your presumptuous comment glossing me as a pre-intermediate ESL student above, and all I got in response was a tumbleweed. What exactly is "grammatically incorrect" about introducing a relative clause with "which" and how does it "misrepresent the source"? The sentence is horribly worded, and needs sorting out some way or another. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  10:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am just talking to myself here despite being told to "get consensus", I alerted the Copyeditors project, there is a thread here. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  13:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence needs to be reworded. The root problem is that the word "that" refers to the compound phrase "untamed and uncontrollable nature and isolation from civilisation", not to "jungle", but the singular word "that" does not cleanly match such an antecedent. This leads to confusion as stated above, in which filelakeshoe reasonably but wrongly interprets "that" as referring to "jungle". (It is the untamed nature and the isolation that evoke the emotions, not the word itself.) In such a situation, where the sentence is being misinterpreted by a reasonable person, the best solution is to rewrite the whole sentence. The suggestion above is not quite right, since the "and" sets up the second clause to have "jungle" as its subject. Something like this would be better, though not perfect:

The word "jungle" itself carries connotations of untamed and uncontrollable nature and isolation from civilisation, which evoke the emotions of threat, confusion, powerlessness, disorientation and immobilisation.

In this example, the compound phrase "untamed and uncontrollable nature and isolation from civilisation" is the subject of the verb "evoke", which conveys the intended meaning of the sentence. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jungle. 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:

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) 22:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jungle. 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/20061206023124/http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/programmes/tv/jungle/ to http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/programmes/tv/jungle

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 06:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where are they?

The article needs a major section saying where the world’s jungles are. Loraof (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

urban jungle/ concrete jungle

the idea of the urban jungle seems worth mentioning — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:7402:7701:981D:D378:4ED6:BF57 (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Something else

What about something else Some words And curiosities, conditions, animals and plants 178.255.168.56 (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]