Chimpanzee was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.
Chimpanzee is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Chimpanzee at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.
Hello. All I see about their food intake is "omnivorous diet". It does mention how they get food, e.g. "troop hunting culture blah blah blah", but it doesn't have any information about what they actually eat. Well there is a thing about bugs but it's not the point (the point there is the tool usage, not the food).
An example of what I mean is the Lion page. It gives all kinds of examples of stuff eaten by lions. There are like 15 examples spanning around SIX paragraphs for lions, whereas chimps only get two words: "omnivorous diet".
I don't know, I just thought there would be a "diet" section that says all the kinds of things they eat. I thought it would have a lot of information about chimpanzees since I keep hearing how they are our closest relative or whatnot (maybe it's closest living, but you know what I mean). I just thought I'd see more info.
Anyone updating this diet info. would be greatly appreciated.
Morphological, DNA, and fossil evidence suggest that humans and chimpanzees diverged 6-7 million years ago. Suggestions that the genus homo and pan should be merged seem to be mostly coming from social activists (Jared Diamond is an historian/anthropologist) rather than hard science...the kind that comes from things like actual research and testing. Clearly, if even autralopithecus is considered a separate genus and only diverged 2 million years ago, chimps really aren't all that close to humans. Rather, it seems that an emotional longing to find a closely-related species is behind this unscientific proposal.220.127.116.11 (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
All proposals related to subjective taxonomy, e.g. where a genus should begin or end, are unscientific. Unless or until Homo and Pan are defined as clades under a PhyloCode, i.e. a testable concept, what does or does not belong to the "genus" (whatever that means) Homo is totally a matter of opinion. One could sink all vertebrates into Homo and there would be no rational reason to argue against it, because the term "genus" lacks a definition other than "a ranked taxon above Species and below Family". Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not an expert - but to say that chimpanzees are two species .... common chimpanzee and that other funny one that nobody's heard of, confuses the reader and demeans the status of bonobos. It's not the same as saying that there are two types of Orang Utan - they are the same species. This is like saying - there are two species of dog ... the wolf and the domestic dog (that's how it appears to be conveyed - I know that's not correct). Bonobo are a different species, albeit the same genus, and shouldn't be included in the same article. I see there are at least four sub-divisions of pan troglodytes - surely that should fill the page. The reason I'm making this point, is that it makes the bonobo seem ... as they used to say ...just like a pygmy, or gracile style of essentially the same animal. Its whole way of existence differs markedly from chimpanzees and because of this, shouldn't be treated alongside them. Francis Hannaway (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Chimpanzee is the common term for the genus, not the species. They are classified as two distinct species, pan paniscus and pan troglodytes. Changing the article would require a ton of reliable sources demonstrating that those cited in this article, Bonobo, and Common chimpanzee are in an extreme minority in the zoological community. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not doubting that they are the same genus - not for one minute. What I'm suggesting is that by having an article about "Chimpanzees" in general will lead the reader to dismiss the bonobo as "just a little type of chimpanzee". Yes - it's the same genus ... but no, it's not the same species. This article confuses the issue. I know that there is a separate page for Common chimpanzee, and a separate page for Bonobo - but people looking for the common chimpanzee will come here first and progress no further.Francis Hannaway (talk) 14:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2014
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
please change "and are built in trees with a minimum diameter of 5 metres (16 ft)" to something else... There aren't that many trees that big, I think it is an error. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Trunks are rarely that wide, but branches can result in the whole tree being that large. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)