Jump to content

Talk:Ape: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
CarLot (talk | contribs)
37 edits
CarLot (talk | contribs)
37 edits
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
#REDIRECT [[talk:hominoid]]
{{PrimateTalk}}

Moved from article:

Since the concept includes some quite different animals, most of the information should be on the individual pages. But perhaps some common information could go here. Perhaps something about conservation issues? (Most ape species are rare or [[Endangered_species|endangered]].)


What about the new mystery ape that has recently been photographed, captured and had its mitochondrial DNA analyzed? Seems to be a third species of chimp; a few people have suggested it may be descended from a wierd Gorilla-chimp hybrid. It seems to be a previously unknown species of chimp. This topic should be discussed in our articles on [[Ape]], [[Chimpanzee]] and [[Cryptozoology]]. (Of course, the text should not be identical in each article.) [[User:RK|RK]] 04:20, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

:[http://karlammann.com/bondo.html The Bondo Mystery Ape]

:[http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/08/08/coolsc.mysteryape/ CNN article: Seeking answers to big 'mystery ape']

:[http://www.leakeyfoundation.org/newsandevents/n4_x.jsp?id=3343 Leaky Foundation intro on Elusive African Apes: Giant Chimps or New Species?]

:[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0414_030314_strangeape.html National Geographic news: Elusive African Apes: Giant Chimps or New Species?]

I have had a go at the Ape page. It was a bit of a muddle. The real problem is that the concept of "ape" has drifted over the centuries, from any tailless nonhuman primate to its current meaning of a member of one of two particular families. However even now primate taxonomy is even more of a mess than most orders, so it is hard to get consistent terminology, and authorities do not agree on what the names of those families should be, or whether they should be in a superfamily. I've gone for a version that seems simple to grasp. There did seem to me to be one error in the article as I found it, though: I don't think there's any serious usage of "ape" that doesn't include the hylobatids.

Sorry, that last comment came from [[seglea]] at 04:55 UTC 031105 - I thought the signature, date, time got added automatically.

Try yet again! it came from [[user:seglea|seglea]]

when exactly did humans become apes? i'd like a year.

:That depends on if you are asking when humans genetically became apes (which would be we've always been apes), or when it was first postulated that the other ape species and humans were descended from a common extinct ape ancestor (which would be about when [[Charles Darwin]] wrote Origin of the Species), or when it became a more common understanding than just a scientific one. - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] 18:24, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
::more of angry sarcasm, sorry. i suppose what i meant was when was it that humans ceased being in a clade analogous respective to apes as apes were to monkeys, for that is how i remember it being said.
:::So you mean [[Ape#History_of_hominoid_taxonomy|this]]? - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] 21:44, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

== "True apes" ==

"Except for gorillas and Humans, all true apes are agile climbers of trees."

What are "true apes"? [[User:Brianjd|Brian]][[User talk:Brianjd|j]][[Special:Contributions/Brianjd|d]] | [[Talk:HTML#Restricted HTML?|Why restrict HTML?]] | 08:02, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

:Took me a bit to figure it out... it's because there are primate species with "ape" in the name which aren't apes, such as the [[Barbary Ape]]. I'll see what I can do to make this clearer. - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] 15:21, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

== ''Pierolopithecus'' ==

Hrm.... Nice try Tim, but I don't like the way it sits there. The listing is of extant genera. If we list ''Pierolopithecus'', then someone is going to come along and add some more, and then someone else will add some more.... until the extant genera are buried in the extinct ones. I'd rather keep the listing as extant, and possibly put a link to [[:category:Early hominids]]. - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] 16:32, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

== reorg ==

Now that the legal status section has been added, I'm thinking the whole article needs some reorg.

* 0 Intro
* 1 Historical terminology
* 2 Biology
* 3 Cultural aspects
* 4 News
* 5 History of hominoid taxonomy
* 6 Classification and evolution
* 7 Legal status
* 8 References

I think "Legal status" and "Historical terminology" should be placed next to or within "Cultural aspects". I think that the "News" section should be removed - it's not news any more. I think that "Biology", "Classification and evolution" and "History of hominoid taxonomy" should be grouped together similarly to the cultural sections. However, I'm not sure the best way to go about all of this. I also like the "History of hominoid taxonomy" as a bridge between the biological and the cultural. - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] 11:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

:I changed News to New Species? for the time being; it could be incorporated into one of the other sections but I couldn't decide where. Do you know of any follow-up info on that? Also added a pic. Gibbons don't get no respect.
:I also noticed that Cultural Aspects are odds and ends from human culture not a discussion about culture amongst apes. [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 12:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

::Yes, it's not about ape culture but about apes in human culture. - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] 12:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

== Humans are not apes ==

Put your political correctness aside for a moment. Taxonomy notwithstanding, the term "great apes" has ''never'' been understood to include humans. By definition, apes are non-humans. Please quit twisting terms for political expediency. Or, if you prefer, show evidence that current usage refers to humans as "great apes", or that the term "great apes" is commonly understood to include humans.

:"Taxonomy notwithstanding"??? Taxonomy's the whole point! That's like saying "Economics notwithstanding, so-and-so's a really good investor." &mdash; [[User:Asbestos|Asbestos]] | [[User talk:Asbestos|<FONT COLOR=#808080>Talk </FONT>]] [[User:Asbestos/RFC|<FONT COLOR=#808080><small>(RFC)</small></FONT>]] 03:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
::Please do not feed the trolls. Let them fall into the traps they set up and help them to move along, but please don't feed them. - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] 10:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
[[Nim Chimpsky|Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you.]] ;). [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 12:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
:::No trolling here. And no, taxonomy is '''not''' the "whole point". Common usage is the "whole point" (my bad for bringing "academia" into this). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an anthropological journal
:::Admit it: no one, but no one, uses the term "great apes" in conversation to mean humans. Well, maybe a few odd people in the anthropology community. But the term "great apes" MEANS "large, non-human primates". That's what it was invented for. That anthropologists may have taken the term and redefined it for their own use is completely irrelevant.
::::Wikipedia is not a collection of common usage information. It's a full, general, encyclopedia. This means being a bit more technical than just plain common usage would allow, so that its use as a reference can improve individual knowledge, not lower it. - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] 18:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
:::::Calling humans "apes" doesn't "improve individual knowledge", it merely ambituates terminology. You folks really need to set aside your religious fervor for a moment and acknowledge that, among 99.9% of the population, "ape" does not now, never has, and never will refer to humans. I'm amazed that there appears to be no one editing this topic who has the capacity to see that this is a matter of definition. I would have thought the collective IQ high enough to understand a simple argument of definition, rather than running to quasi-religious arguments such as below:

:::::It took about 300 years for some folks to accept the idea that the Earth is a moving planet rather than the stationary center of the universe. We probably have about another 150 years before everyone will accept the idea of wikipedia including humans in the ape clade. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 19:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
::::::Sorry, this is pure bull. The earth moving is an ''observation''. What "ape" means is a ''definition''. The poster above is correct: "ape" does not and never has meant "human", except perhaps among a very, very tiny minority of people. Among Scientologists, "power" has a specialized meaning. Shall we redo the Wikipedia discussion of "power" to be from the Scientologist viewpoint? (I bet there are ten times as many Scientologists as there are anthropologists who refer to humans as "apes".) [[User:71.102.98.219|71.102.98.219]] 22:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)SB
:::::::I take it back. Apparently there is '''one''' person capable of understanding the argument. Thank you, SB, for not being another [[lemming]].
:::::::Technically, not ''everyone'' believes the Earth is a moving planet, so the snarkier part of me wants to say that 150 years is too short an estimate. *grins* However, ''everyone'' isn't what's needed anyway. - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] 19:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
You said don't feed the troll, so don't feed the troll. Revert him/her. Ape includes humans, end of story. [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 23:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
:Since Darwin, there has been a continual effort to keep a barrier between humans and other apes. For those who feel that the biological fact of humans being apes is irrelevant, there is at least one group outside of the scientific community that accepts humans as apes: those non-scientists who are working to protect the non-human apes. [http://www.personhood.org/main/faq.html first Google hit] --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 23:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Marskell (and Schmidt, and Uther), why are you being so anal-retentively proscriptive in your definition? This is not a personal attack on your man-ape religion. It is a fact of word usage. A "lion" is not a "tiger" and a "mouse" is not a "rat", regardless of how closely the two species might be related. A "human" is not an "ape" in any normal definition of the word. Throw as big a tantrum as you like, but kicking and screaming doesn't change the fact of how the word is used among English speakers. Why must you proselytize your own religion?

If you want to argue that a human ''should'' be considered an ape, that's another thing. It might even be worthwhile bringing up your argument in the article. But '''that's not how the word is used''', so it's not how the article should describe it. An ape is an ''animal'', which is to say, ''not human''.

:So you are saying that humans are not animals? Nice argument. For if we aren't animals, then we surely can't be apes. Yes, we are animals. We are mamamals. We are primates. We are apes. We are great apes. - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] 11:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

----

::Finally, a glimmer of understanding begins to peek through. Yes, that is what I am saying. The word "animal" is a term used (by humans) to describe other "animate" beings that are NOT human.
:For if we aren't animals, then we surely can't be apes. Yes, we are animals.
::No, we are not.
:We are mamamals.
::Yes, that we are.
:We are primates.
::Yes, that we are.
:We are apes. We are great apes.
::No, see, there you go, falling into your pattern of misusage. We are "mammals" and we are "primates", which are both taxonomic categories. We are not, however, "apes".


----

reply to 131.107.0.80: When you explore the universe, one of the things that can happen is discovery of new ways to understand familiar objects and processes. An example from outside of biology is recognition that a single force, gravity, can account both for falling objects on Earth and the Earth-Moon orbital system. Prior to this realization, people assumed that there had to be two different accounts for <BR>
(1) how an apple falls off a tree <BR>
and for <BR>
(2) what holds the Moon in its place in the sky.<BR>
Realization that one rule of gravitation accounts for both, changed the way people could think about the solar system.

:Agreed. Yet we still maintain separate terms for "Moon" and "apple", despite their inherent sameness.
::This misses the point. The point is, we do not have both "apple force" and "Moon force", all we have is gravity that applies to both apples and the Moon. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 15:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Comparative anatomists such as Charles Darwin were able to recognize the relatedness of humans and other apes. The [[Ape]] article describes the process by which study of apes led to the full realization of our position in the ape [[clade]]. By detailed study of the molecular components of apes (mainly proteins and the DNA sequences of chromosomes), the data allow us to firmly conclude that humans fit nicely within the ape clade and that we are closest to chimps. Cultural biases that tend to make people ignore the similarities between humans and other apes can now be recognized and passed over in favor of recognition of our actual place in the tree of life.

:I would guess that any careful scientist would never be so brash as to proclaim that we have found "our actual place in the tree of life". Be that as it may, this is not a religious argument about whether or not humans are related to chimpanzees, which you seem to want to make it. This is a matter of definition.
::Apply this attitude to gravity. You could try to define "apple force" as being distinct from "Moon force". Your definition would not make it true that there are two different forces. We have to let the evidence decide the matter, not tradition or anything else. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 15:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I would not object to a short section in the [[Ape]] article that described the fact that many people still attempt to promote use the term "ape" so as to exclude its applicability to humans.

:Here, you betray your inability to write from a NPOV. You wrongly assume that anyone who wishes to define the term in context of its actual usage must be "attempt[ing] to promote [exclusive] use [of] the term 'ape'". Of course, this is absurd, somewhat like saying that "many people still attempt to promote use of the term 'dolphin' so as to exclude its applicability to blue whales". Well, duh. Blue whales AREN'T dolphins, any more than humans are apes.
::The point is, word meanings do change. Concepts evolve. At first, people had the idea that there is a force that applies to falling objects on Earth. People like Galileo performed experiments and quantitatively described the force of "(Earth) gravity". Later, Newton recognized that the orbit of the Moon could be accounted for by the same force. Previously, people had imagined that something other than "(Earth) gravity" was needed to account for the movement of the Moon. The meaning of "gravity" was changed by recognition of the universal nature of gravity. This is now celebrated as a "law". People have given up on the ancient biases that in the past led people to imagine "celestial spheres" or an ethereal force that might apply only to the celestial objects like the Moon and not apples. People just expanded their concept of gravity to include both celestial and Earthly movements. Similarly, there is now no reason to resist expanding your concept of "ape" to include humans. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 15:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

This is like trying to claim that gravity does not apply equally to the Moon and apples.

:Wrong. It's like trying to claim that blue whales aren't dolphins. Which they aren't.
::What you are saying here is the equivalent of "humans aren't gorillas" or "humans aren't gibbons" or "humans aren't Old World monkeys". No one here is saying that humans are gorillas. However, dolphins are a group of cetaceans that don't include the cetacean species Blue Whale; apes are a group of primates that '''does''' include humans. - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] 14:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I think there should be discussion of the term "non-human ape" and why it is so commonly used by scientists and, increasingly, by non-scientists who recognize the fact that we are apes.

:Except for one thing; "we" humans aren't apes. We're humans. Why is this so hard?
::"Why is this so hard?" <-- Maybe you should provide the evidence that supports your view that humans are not apes. The [[Ape]] article outlines the reasons why scientists have decided that humans do fit within the ape clade. Note: this is a matter that is decided by evidence about the nature of humans and other animals, not by tradition. We do not decide if gravity applies to the Moon based on thousands of years of tradition that held that Earthly physics must be different than celestial physics. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 16:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

There could even be an attempt to explain why it is that some members of some religious sects find it important to deny the fact that humans are apes.

:Or why some quasi-religious types insist on modifying the current usage of words and then insisting that theirs is The One And True Definition.

There could be a link from the [[Ape]] article to some sociology page that fully explores this cultural phenomenon. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 13:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

:But if you wrote that, would we get the same POV as you insist on putting forth here?

Ape is and should be regarded as a word to refer to all members of Hominoidea that are not humans. If humans are apes, then there is no point whatsoever in having the word ape--we already have Hominoidea to describe that cladistic family. I don't understand where the handful of anthropologists get off taking a word that already had an understood use and then bastardizing it to become a largely useless and meaningless term. If you are going to make use of the term ape to include humans for scientific reasons, then just use Hominoidea, since you are, after all, a scientist. Elsewise this is just pointless.

Taxonomists made the word Hominoidea, and they can go ahead an do whatever they want with that word. But here you decided to take an existing word which meant something very different, and reassign that same word to have redundant status with a new word only useful for taxonomists and of no use whatsoever to laymen. This is absurd. Humans are humans, apes are apes, and together they are the Hominoidea superfamily. Why are scientist always trying to redefine everything? Scientists do not have the final say on the meaning of words that have been in use for centuries. No one gave any scientist that authority, and the English language does not need to obey the every whim of the scientific community. Ape is not a clade--Hominoidea is a clade. I do not doubt evolution nor the common ancestry of humans and apes, but humans are not apes. You are trying to promote an agenda--to force people into believe the relatedness of humans and apes by calling humans apes--and this is not in line with an NPOV approach. You will find few strronger advocates of evolution than myself, but this notion of deciding to arbitrarily define ape as synonymous with Hominoidea is nothing but confusing and excessive.

== Inconsistency among the quasi-religious ==
:Marskell: I also noticed that Cultural Aspects are odds and ends from '''human culture''' not a discussion about '''culture amongst apes.''' Marskell 12:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
:UtherSRG: Yes, it's not about '''ape culture''' but about apes in '''human culture'''. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Note both Marskell and UtherSRG here doing exactly what they declaim in others: Differentiating between "apes" on the one hand and "humans" on the other. In religions such as Christianity, I believe this would be known as "rank hypocrisy". Not sure what their religion calls it. Certainly not "science", as any honest scientist is always exceedingly careful in his definitions and usage. Remember, friends: '''De'''scriptive, not '''pro'''scriptive.

:No, there is no inconsistency here. "apes in human culture" is talking about the general category (ape) within the context of a narrower category (human). I've never said there was a difference between humans and apes, only that you and I disagree on what that difference is. Humans are a species of ape, are a species in the ape superfamily [[Hominoidea]], in the great ape family [[Hominidae]], which are all in the animal kingdom [[Animalia]]. - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] 14:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

==Leave off==

Seriously again, I'd suggest ceasing to respond to this fellow. Just revert the errors. This is not an Encyclopedia of Conventional Usage. That is enough and s/he is essentially a vandal just looking for a soapbox. [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 16:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

:That's about the level of discourse I figured I would get from you, Marskell. I don't preach your One True Religion, so therefore I'm a vandal. No, I'd say you are the soapboxer, not I.

==Not helpful==

Anonymous poster, I agree with your point that they are abusing the common usage of the term "ape", but constant, repetitive revisions aren't going to solve the problem. It looks like you are making changes from Microsoft, given your IP. I'm at Microsoft and would be happy to meet with you. Let me know who/where you are and we can talk. In any case, I encourage you to discuss the issue here and take normal channels to get your changes included. As I said, I mostly agree with you, so I'm not trying to harrass you. Just pointing out that your current tack won't work. You claim Uther and the others are "religious", but you should know that many religious types only respond slowly (if at all) to argumentation or to being told how stupid they are. (As a religious type myself, I know ''I'' don't much appreciate being told how stupid I am because I believe something or other.)

:Yes, SB, I am at MS, but no, I don't particularly care to meet with anyone, no offense intended. I'm busy and only post between builds and such.
:You think ''I'm'' bad? Check out the responses below. Are these people stupid, or are they liars? Because I don't see any other possibility.

Just curious: Does everyone understand Anonymous' point, that "ape" doesn't mean "human" in any context outside a strict anthropological view? (And a few who want to claim personhood for the apes.) Everyone seems to want to browbeat Anonymous for being some sort of sectarian, but his/her arguments are purely definitional in nature. I find them very convincing; indeed, I found reference to humans as apes to be a source of confusion, or at least of a severely POV writing that seems agenda-driven.[[User:71.102.98.219|71.102.98.219]] 17:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)SB

:This is not an Encyclopedia of Conventional Usage. That people may think Bats are birds doesn't stop us from listing them as mammals. [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 17:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

::Bull. Thinking that "bats are birds" has nothing whatsoever to do with recognizing the meaning of the term "ape". You are introducing a red herring. Saying "humans are apes" is like saying "Japanese are Caucasians". It is simply false by definition. Privately redefining "Caucasian" to include "Japanese", as if to recognize the underlying "humanness" of both groups, does not solve the problem, any more than redefining "ape" to include "human" in order to recognize the underlying genetic heritage of both solves the problem that APE DOES NOT MEAN HUMAN.

:reply to 71.102.98.219: Everyone understands the fact that many people do not think of humans as apes. This does not mean that the [[Ape]] article should say that humans are not apes. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 17:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

::It's not a matter of "many people do not think of humans as apes", Schmidt. It's a matter that the word "ape" does not and never has meant "human", except as SB pointed out in very specialized or agenda-driven cases.

:Anon would like us to say that humans aren't animals! Just because people have a misunderstanding of reality

::How utterly condescending of you. What, exactly, do you think I am misunderstanding?

: doesn't mean that our articles need to have that same misunderstanding.

::It's definitional, Uther. Unless you're hopelessly stupid or a liar, you must surely understand that.

: Instead, we should note the misunderstanding, and then go on with talking about what actually is. - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] 17:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

::Yes. And "what actually is", is that "ape" does not now nor ever has historically meant "human".

Anonymous, this is not helpful. You will simply get yourself banned along with everyone else at MS (which I am, at the moment). You're listed at the 3RR page. Request arbitration or something, but forcing the issue won't solve anything. It will just get you and other MSers banned. [[User:131.107.0.80|131.107.0.80]] 18:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)SB
:Suck it up, SB. These three are bullies. They refuse to acknowledge the point or even discuss it. You said so yourself. I'm not going to just take this lying down.

==Moving on==
Well, the anon has been blocked, but this issue still isn't resolved. Anon's point is that "Ape" has a meaning outside of the anthropological view? I think that part of the problem here is that [[Hominoidea]] redirects to [[Ape]]. As Humans are certainly of the superfamily Hominoidea, they should be mentioned as a significant part of this superfamily. Could this conflict be ameliorated by simply splitting the two concepts into separate articles? [[Hominoidea]] would retain the anthropological aspects of the term, while [[Ape]] would be about the animals commonly known as "Apes"? I am not a biologist or anything, so this is merely speaking from the perspective of an outsider admin who saw the conflict come up on his radar. --[[User:DropDeadGorgias|DropDeadGorgias]] [[User_talk:DropDeadGorgias|(talk)]] 19:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

:The thing is, humans are apes in every biological sense of those two words. What can and should be done is, as has been said, to note the misunderstanding in common usage (and I balk at calling it common usage) and move on. However, the "Historicl terminology" section already accomplishes this to some degree. I will endeavor to address this. - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] 20:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
::I will second Uther and repeat my above point for the third or fourth time: this is ''not an encylcopedia of convential usage.'' If it were, AIDS could be listed as a "gay disease" and wives could be listed as "chattle." Yes, "ape" can be described as distinguishing humans from our relatives (though again, I second Uther as to whether this is "common" usage—my kid brother knows we're apes even if my older brother doesn't (no joke)) but the seperation is not ''what ape means.'' '''''Ape means [[Hominoidea]].''''' I mean that's it, in a verifiable ''this is it'' sense. Yes, you can say "I was talking with a number of so-and-sos and they only use ape to mean non-human." Well, good for you; we are not obligized to apologize to the people who don't understand ''the rudiments'' of taxonomy. We should not split the two terms and ultimately introduce more ambiguity. [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] 01:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Anon showed his hand when he started making statements such as "You folks really need to set aside your religious fervor", "your man-ape religion", "Why must you proselytize your own religion", "this is not a religious argument about whether or not humans are related to chimpanzees, which you seem to want to make it", "some quasi-religious types insist on modifying the current usage of words". People often ascribe their own motivations to other people, and this is exactly the same language as used by those who refer to Darwinism as a religion. Anon wishes to separate humans from animals, as he has said above. This is his motivation, and he is clearly not interested in the science of the issue. Anon's point that the word "Ape" is sometimes incorrectly used has now been added the article by UtherSRG, just like the [[Whale]] article mentions that some people referred to the animals as [[fish]]. Well done, now it's said. &mdash; [[User:Asbestos|Asbestos]] | [[User talk:Asbestos|<FONT COLOR=#808080>Talk </FONT>]] [[User:Asbestos/RFC|<FONT COLOR=#808080><small>(RFC)</small></FONT>]] 04:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
:You obviously have no idea what Anon's point was. Though crudely put, he made it perfectly clear: The word "ape" '''does not mean''' "human". It's not an incorrect usage to say that "ape" means "non-human", since it very obviously means exactly that. (Why else would calling someone a "big ape" be considered an insult?) I am very well aware of the scientific arguments stating that humans and apes are of the same general type, and that in fact that some apes (e.g. chimps) are more similar to humans than they are to other apes. If you read Anon's stuff carefully, it seems he was well aware of that, too. He simply pointed out (correctly) that the word "ape" does not now and never has meant "human".

:And frankly, though I disapproved of his tantrum and his getting all of Microsoft banned, I think he's absolutely right about the religion thing. There is no other reasonable explanation for why people would simply refuse to recognize what a word actually means. (As for the specious comparison below (above), "fish" hasn't included whales in over a century, so the comparison is nonsense.) As Marskell and others seem unable (or more likely unwilling) to grasp, this is not a question of taxonomy, it's a question of linguistics. 20:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)SB - <small>moved by [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] to prevent breaking the existing text</small>
::Sorry, but you are incorrect. During the debate I asked a bunch of folks here at work, just to see if I was being stubborn. I asked, "Are you an ape?" Without fail, everyone was able to reply with some form of affirmative answer. - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] 21:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

==Neutrality disputed==
Humans are not apes. Stop trying to redefine the word ''ape'' to include humans! [[User:64.200.124.189|64.200.124.189]] 22:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
:Please read this page. The issue you raise has already been discussed. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 00:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
::No, it has not been "discussed". Some anonymous poster tried to discuss it, and when he was shouted down, he threw a tantrum and got kicked off. But his point was never addressed, except by those unable to comprehend that it wasn't an issue of taxonomy, but of definition.
::
::64.200.124.189 and the MS Anon poster are both right. "Ape" doesn't mean "human" and never has. I'm surprised and more than a little disappointed that so many people utterly refuse to recognize this obvious truth of linguistic usage. 20:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)SB
:::Disagree. Different usage has already been noted in the article. - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] 21:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Wrong. Different usage has been disparaged in the article, which still maintains (wrongly) that "ape" means "human".18:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)SB
::::This issue has already been discussed, please '''read''' the discussion, above. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 23:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I have read it. I even participated in it. There was no discussion. There was Anon telling other people they were wrong, and there were other people telling Anon that he was wrong. No actual discussion took place, though Anon did at least make his point clear. But you, Uther, and whoever else simply ignored his point, for which he threw a fit and got tossed. Shame, too, because as bad as his presentation was, he is right.18:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)SB
:You are making a persistent attempt to insert factually wrong information into an article. Your error has been discussed repeatedly on this page. The wikipedia article already explains in great detail why you are wrong. Under wikipedia rules, I am supposed to assume that you have good intentions. Making that assumption, I assume your argument is that since some people do not think that humans are apes, you think that wikipedia should ignore the fact that humans are apes and say that human are not apes. As has been pointed out before on this page, such an argument is not the basis upon which wikipedia articles are constructed. To resolve this dispute, I propose that you find some experts on apes who support your position. By expert, I mean someone who has done research on ape cladistics and published peer-reviewed articles on the topic. If you can find some ape experts who say that humans are not apes, then we can continue this discussion. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 19:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Why not add a parenthetical line about common usage after this line: "the family Hominidae consisting of gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, and humans, collectively known as the 'great apes'." I think the common usage point is well-taken and could be acknowledged without compromising the accuracy of the article. An example of how common this is comes from the Living Links project directed by Frans de Waal, a scientist who clearly knows that humans are apes: “Apes may have retained traits in our common ancestor that we find hard to recognize in ourselves, or that we are not used to contemplating in an evolutionary light.” The distinction in casual usage is very common and should, I think, be noted. This is in no way saying the distinction should be made throughout the article.

:The distinction is there, just down in the next section, "Historical and modern terminology". - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] 18:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

::Right, sorry, got it, missed it. Thanks.

== Ok, humans are apes. ==

Then bees and ants are wasps?
From the Wikipedia: "A [[wasp]] is any insect of the order Hymenoptera and suborder Apocrita that is not a bee, sawfly, or an ant."
Why can't apes be members of [[Hominoidea]] that are not humans?
I have read the [[Ape]] discussion. Why can't apes be defined in the Wikipedia in a "normal" (common usage) way, like other animals?

[http://paleofreak.blogalia.com El PaleoFreak]

:Wikipedia isn't defining apes to include humans. Wikipedia is following the science, and the science says that humans are apes. - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] 11:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

:I'm not sure what the point of that statement is? Wikipedia follows facts, not common usage. Most people believe humans aren't animals at all, that doesn't mean it's true. [[User:Lengis|Lengis]] 05:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
::Well, it may be true many people in a number of countries don't believe humans are animals but I hope that's not true of most people. Not all nations are having the same trouble with religious doctrine attemptng to subvert science. Yet.

:Science doesn't say humans are apes; Sciece "says" humans are hominids, hominoids, anthropoids, primates, etc. "Ape" is not a scientific, taxonomic term but a common term. What about muy example about hymenopterans? Isn't it a fact that ants are wasps? [[User:PaleoFreak|PaleoFreak]] 02:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

== About the new species ==

[quoteblock]"Subsequent molecular investigation of hair and pelt samples showed them to be common chimps who had individually adapted to local conditions."[/quoteblock]

So this indicates that they are actually a subspecies (aka race) of chimp. As per the definition of a subspecies, they are physically different due to geographical location, but are able to reproduce with other members of their species and produce fertile offspring in the form of a crossbreed. I changed the name of the section to reflect this. [[User:Lengis|Lengis]] 05:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
:They may be a subspecies, or they may not be. It's not for us to declare them as such, that's a job for the scientists in the field. It's up to us to simply report the known information and such. I've modified your edit to keep us from crossing that line. - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] 12:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

== Bonobo ==

Isn't the Bonobo the closest ape to the human, anatomically speaking?
http://www.blockbonobofoundation.org/

A better Bonobo link is http://www.bonobo.org/whatisabonobo.html

== Questions ==

Are dogs wolves?
Afe birds dinosaurs?

:Yes, and yes. - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] 14:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:46, 28 February 2006

Redirect to:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ape&oldid=41664136"