Talk:Ape: Difference between revisions
Line 145: | Line 145: | ||
::Actually, before the 19th century, if Europeans managed to distinguish between monkeys (defined as having tails) and apes (defined as similar animals not having tails, including [[barbary ape]]s), then they were doing pretty well. [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 11:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC) |
::Actually, before the 19th century, if Europeans managed to distinguish between monkeys (defined as having tails) and apes (defined as similar animals not having tails, including [[barbary ape]]s), then they were doing pretty well. [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 11:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::Well your post is quite irrelevant. I refer to prior to the 19th century. The original term for apes was baboons. Then it cahnged to inclued any tailess primates closely related to humans. Now the term is used to address all animals that share an ancestor with humans and gibbons.[[User:Westvoja|Westvoja]] ([[User talk:Westvoja|talk]]) 18:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Sourcing and POV == |
== Sourcing and POV == |
Revision as of 18:34, 13 July 2011
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Primates C‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||
|
![]() | Software: Computing Unassessed | ||||||||||||
|
Archive 1 |
why are apes black?
Because its very hot in the Jungle. Skin burn!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.79.234 (talk) 06:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
anwser please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.225.188 (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Orangutans are orange. A better forum for questions such as these would be the science reference desk.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Apes cannot swim
the Wikipedia page about swimming says that. Isn't that interesting?--teakhoken89.15.87.21 (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- After thinking about it... maybe they can, but they have to learn it? Like the humans (who are apes, too). I still think it is interesting.--TeakHoken89.14.9.161 (talk) 13:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Non-human apes have much denser muscle mass than we do. This is why an angry chimp can be quite dangerous to an unarmed man twice his size, and it is also why they're terrible swimmers. Now that I think of it this lends a bit more credence to the "aquatic ape" hypothesis, but that's neither here nor there. 96.237.59.92 (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
hominoids
Why is hominoids linked to apes? It's a total different species. ape is not a taxa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.205.145.79 (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- The article explains the terminology. Aleta Sing 15:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.205.145.79 (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
merge
I whole-heartedly think this should be merged with great apes, objections, agreements? Iamanadam (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Object. Great ape is family Hominidae. Ape is superfamily Hominoidea, which in cludes both Hominidae and the lesser apes (the gibbons) Hylobatidae. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Graphical correction
Hi, I'm trying to substitute in the article this graphic :
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fc/Hominoid_taxonomy_7.svg/400px-Hominoid_taxonomy_7.svg.png)
... with this other one :
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/12/Hominoid_taxonomy_7-2.svg/400px-Hominoid_taxonomy_7-2.svg.png)
... because in the second one you can see a mention to Hominina and Panina subtribes ( important groups ) . But someone always reverts the change .
Can I know what's wrong with the second graphic ? Thanks . --Faustnh (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't match the text. The text only mentions the splitting of Hylobates into 4 genera. do you have a date when the subtribes were added to the tree? - UtherSRG (talk) 07:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Littered article
I was bold enough to litter the section Cultural aspects of non-human apes, with template:obscure. The reason is the following: the facts may be correct, but as regards to why "humans" aren't "apes" according to human language, it blarghs! A pattern like "a butterfly is not a fly" is the inverse of "a human is not an ape". In truth a butterfly is not a fly, but is called a such, on the other hand, in truth a human is an ape (especially me), but is not called a such! The patterns don't match, so the section speaks irrelevantia in order to "explain". Said: Rursus ☻ 07:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that it is probably not the best-written paragraph ever... Perhaps the article should simply acknowledge that 'ape' in its most commonly accepted use is a colloquial, not a taxonomic term for denoting any member of Hominoidea other than humans. The implicit pretension that the word 'ape' has, or should have, exactly the same vigour as the scientific, Latin term is a little pedantic i.m.o. Iblardi (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)chido
- A gorilla is an ape, but we don't call it a 'gorilla-ape'.
Hominoid evolution
There's very little on hominoid evolution and nothing on early ape species. When did apes develop? There's only one brief reference. Nothing is mentioned about Faiyum Oasis Oligocene finds, or Miocene apes. There should be something about "dental apes" and the separtion of hominoids from Old World Monkeys. In my opinion there's too much on taxonomy in the article, and not enough on the development of the hominoids. - Parsa (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- There has actually very few non-human ape fossils found. I know there have been none found for chimps or gorillas from their speciation with our ancestors down to the two extant species. There is the possibility of one for orangs, found in Asia. See www.honoluluzoo.org/orangutan.htm . It's a curiosity, really, and one reason why our ancestors (before actual fossils like Ardi have been found) are referred to as "chimp-like". There simply was no other being to hang the presumed resemblance upon. SkoreKeep (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
cultural aspects of non-human apes
This section seems very poor. I may edit it someday, but not after just stumbling across it tonight for the first time. If anyone has any attachment to that paragraph, feel free to chime in.
My first response was, Why is this even here? After reading it all I realized it was an attempt to convey how ancient humans regarded apes, but the initial impression was just random religious musings and i didn't like it. Cvislay (talk) 04:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I am more inclined to title this section "Historical Legends regarding Apes" instead. The paragraph will need to be more well thought out. Verifiable dates and origins of the legends should be included. Apes, as such (other than humans) do not appear in the bible, with the exception of possibly being possessions (1st Kings 10:22, 2nd Chronicles 9:21), although this may have refered to some form of monkey instead. Nutster (talk) 06:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
In the absence of any citations at all this section should be deleted. I have never heard of any of these. "Unfortunately, in all the vast stores of ancient rabbinic literature, no text has yet been discovered that corresponds to the Qur'an's motifs of Jews who caught fish on Saturday, or of their being transformed into swine and monkeys" http://people.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/070419_MonkeyBusiness.html It is discreditable. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Vanished section on terminology
The section on the origins of the word ape vanished in this vandalism edit [1] and was not restored when an inexperienced user removed the nonsense paragraph that was added. The question is, do we want the section back?
I quite liked that the section:
- Gave some etymology and context for the word ape, including similar equivalents in other languages
- Nicely dealt with "humans aren't apes/yes they are/you can't dictate language"
- Gave an accessible entrance to an occasionally formidable (but bursting with tasty information) article
I didn't like that it was:
- Unsourced
- A vandalism magnet (although possibly just because it was the first true section)
I'm not going to make such a substantial edit to an article with a history like this without bringing it up here first! 86.178.73.74 (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree most strongly that the section should be restored. When I read the article for the first time this morning, I thought something that explained the etymology was missing at the beginning. I turned to the talk page and, lo and behold, I found your section.
- So far as your "didn't like" items:
- Unsourced. Add aN {{unreferenced section|date=January 2010}} template at the beginning.
- A vandalism magnet. You can request semiprotection by adding a new section called Edit Request to this talk page containing an {{editsemiprotected}} template and a brief explanation.
- I really think that this should be done ASAP. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 12:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've put it back, and I'll probably come back to edit it. It has other problems than being unreferenced and possibly original research. For instance, according to the OED, in its earliest use it was used to mean a monkey, before the word 'monkey' existed in English. William Avery (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, during the long period when both the words "ape" and "monkey" were in the language, but prior to 19th-century taxonomic work, if any distinction was made between the two words, then it was usually that an ape was a primate without a tail, while a monkey was a primate with a tail (thus Barbary ape etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. The OED says (under 'monkey'), "Historically, ape was used as the general term for all apes and monkeys, and is attested much earlier in English than monkey. Until the mid 19th cent. zoologists often regarded the term monkey as excluding the New World primates. Monkeys were later distinguished from apes by their possession of a tail and cheek-pouches, though ape is still used in the names of some monkeys with very short tails, such as the Barbary ape." Its first citation for 'ape' in what it lists as sense 2 (i.e. tailless and in distinction to monkey), is 1699. William Avery (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, during the long period when both the words "ape" and "monkey" were in the language, but prior to 19th-century taxonomic work, if any distinction was made between the two words, then it was usually that an ape was a primate without a tail, while a monkey was a primate with a tail (thus Barbary ape etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps it should be noted that many languages (Russian is a biggie) don't have a distinct names for ape as opposed to monkey. SkoreKeep (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
"human beings"
the accusation in the words "except humans", though you might overlook it, is very substantial and easily felt. Make the accusation explicit or leave it out. --VKokielov (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- I am referring to the sentence which reads "most ape species, except humans, are extinct." --VKokielov (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think that the majority of them went extinct over 100,000 years ago, so we can't really be blamed
. It's actually relatively common for there to be more extinct species than existing species in such a grouping anyway... AnonMoos (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think that the majority of them went extinct over 100,000 years ago, so we can't really be blamed
- Agree w/AnonMoos. Bob98133 (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- I would think that it should not mention humans in that sentence at all. After all, we're the only species left in humans out of at least 8. There are 2 species of chimps, 2 of gorilla and 2 of orangutan.SkoreKeep (talk) 02:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- There's some confusion here because VKokielov misquoted the sentence. It actually said [2] most are rare or endangered which makes a lot more sense. Saying most, except humans, are extinct doesn't make much sense as noted above because there's no reason to single out humans and it may imply to some that all non human apes are extinct Nil Einne (talk) 04:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Old dates!
This article says: "The lesser and greater apes split about 18 mya, and the hominid splits happened 14 mya (Pongo), 7 mya (Gorilla), and 3-5 mya (Homo & Pan)"; What about Sahelanthropus tchadensis(7mya)? Böri (talk) 09:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Humans are not apes
Humans are not apes, we are in the same clade, but that doesn't mean that we are apes, any more than it means that apes are monkeys, despite them being in the same clade. We are in Hominoidea which includes humans and apes, much like simian includes Hominoidea and monkeys. Voortle (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- The classification of humans as apes comes from the hierarchical system of taxonomy. There's no reason for humans not to fall in the categorical word "ape". If you were inclined to narrow the definition of "ape" to not include humans, you'd be giving far more justification not to include orangutan and far more still not to include gibbons.69.141.67.232 (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've never met anyone who considers humans to be apes. This article violates WP:undue by taking an extreme minority view and allowing it to dominate the whole article. Saturdayseven (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- You should get out more?Rememberway (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- The denial that most humans have about being called an ape is nothing more than bigotry caused by western philosophy and the judo-christian religion. This kind of bigotry thinking is the same that fuels racism. Westvoja (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Your rant isn't any more relevant to the improvement of the article Ape (which is what this talk page is for) than a fundamentalist Christian rant would be -- maybe less. AnonMoos (talk) 11:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- You just dont want to addmit that I'm right. Look at it this way it has been scientifically proven that humans and chimps share a common ancestor before any other ape. Thus when you speak of apes you must include humans. The only way for humans to not be included is if humans evolved prior to the evolution of apes. Separating humans and apes is as irrelevant as claiming that a poodle isn't a dog. A poodle is a type of dog just as humans are a species of apes.Westvoja (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- Your rant isn't any more relevant to the improvement of the article Ape (which is what this talk page is for) than a fundamentalist Christian rant would be -- maybe less. AnonMoos (talk) 11:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- The denial that most humans have about being called an ape is nothing more than bigotry caused by western philosophy and the judo-christian religion. This kind of bigotry thinking is the same that fuels racism. Westvoja (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- You should get out more?Rememberway (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've never met anyone who considers humans to be apes. This article violates WP:undue by taking an extreme minority view and allowing it to dominate the whole article. Saturdayseven (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
This article violates WP:undue
This article takes the POV that humans are apes. This is an extreme minority viewpoint and allowing this view to dominate the article violates WP:undue. Obviously "ape" is just a word, and anyone can broaden the defenition to include anything they want, but I've never met anyone who includes humans in their defenition of ape. This article reflects only an extreme minority view point and violates WP:undue. Many editors have complained about this. Saturdayseven (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- So you're saying that the genetics is wrong? Human genetics put us squarely in the ape camp. Welcome, fellow ape.Rememberway (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- If you go by genetics, then old world monkeys are apes too because they are genetically closer to gibbons than humans are[3]. And genetics are not even relevant to this article because the concept of "apes" predates our genetic knowledge of primate evolution. Terms like ape and monkey are simply used to describe non-human higher primates. Trying to force these terms to fit genetics not only contradicts mainstream views, but is not even logical on a scientific level. Saturdayseven (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
We don't follow head counts or use "mainstream" definitions. We use what the reliable sources (a.k.a. the scientists) say. The sources refer to humans as being in a clade Hominoidea*. The common name for Hominoidea is apes. If humans are hominoids, humans are apes.
- (please ignore the edit summary comment. I made an error) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- The Webster dictionary (a reliable source) defines "ape" the following way:
a : monkey; especially : one of the larger tailless or short-tailed Old World forms b : any of two families (Pongidae and Hylobatidae) of large tailless semierect primates (as the chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan, or gibbon) —called also anthropoid, anthropoid ape[4] Saturdayseven (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Dictionary definitions are different than their scientific definition. Take dinosaurs for example. Dinosaurs are defined in the dictionary as any extict reptile or anything antique, old, or outdated. While the scientific definition is any animal that shares a common ancestor with triceratops and modern-day birds. Thus by this scientific definiton dinosaurs are not extict but are represented by 2,000 different living species of birds. So whatever words mainstream follows it doesn't necessarly mean that it's correct. Yes in the past "ape" was used to decribe any higher primate that is more cloesly related to humans than monkeys. But before apes were known to exist the word ape was used to decribe baboons. It just goes to show that over time words change it's meaning. Like the word "gay" which means joyful or happy; now means homosexual. The reason why this is such a hot topic is because humans try to place themselves at a level separate from all life on Earth. Our species think of themselves as divine god-like beings that dominate this planet and the only reason it exist is to provide resources for the only thing that matters: Humans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westvoja (talk • contribs) 01:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, before the 19th century, if Europeans managed to distinguish between monkeys (defined as having tails) and apes (defined as similar animals not having tails, including barbary apes), then they were doing pretty well. AnonMoos (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well your post is quite irrelevant. I refer to prior to the 19th century. The original term for apes was baboons. Then it cahnged to inclued any tailess primates closely related to humans. Now the term is used to address all animals that share an ancestor with humans and gibbons.Westvoja (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, before the 19th century, if Europeans managed to distinguish between monkeys (defined as having tails) and apes (defined as similar animals not having tails, including barbary apes), then they were doing pretty well. AnonMoos (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Sourcing and POV
Whether or not it is pushing a POV to call all hominoids "apes" cannot be settled by arguments among editors, as has been happening above. It can only be settled within Wikipedia's rules by appropriate use of reliable sources. No sources, let alone reliable sources, are quoted for calling all hominoids "apes". Unless such sources exist and are added to the article, substantial edits are needed. The dispute is NOT about whether the genus Homo belongs in the superfamily Hominoidea; that is well-attested by reliable sources. The dispute is whether reliable sources use "apes" as a term for members of this superfamily. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. Finding reliable sources to establish "apes" as "tailless monkeys" shouldn't be a problem, but I've no idea where to search for a reference treating all "hominoids" as "apes". Maybe the terminology section should detail alternative usages so that the rest of the article reflects the most established usage? --Fama Clamosa (talk) 12:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- I hate to sound like a Wiki-lawyer, because I'm not, but the only usages which should be discussed are those which can be reliably sourced. I don't know any reliable sources which treat all "hominoids" as "apes" and unless someone finds and adds one or more, within a few days, I'm going to remove all references to this usage from the article. Note that both the Prosimian and the Monkey articles explicitly explain that these terms refer to paraphyletic groups; this is the main (or only?) way in which the term "ape" is used in the literature and should be explained in a similar manner. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- While I personally use "ape" to include humans (as I suspect most scientists do), and I think everyone should use it that way, I'll concede that's not the most common usage. So this should be mentioned in the introduction rather than waiting for the terminology section (it's certainly more significant than the Barbary ape comment). I'd prefer you leave it at that, but if you really want to avoid the monophyletic usage, rename the article. The article is about Hominoidea; that's the proper, unambiguous term. Create an Ape article as a redirect, or make it a short article for it, one appropriate for an ill-defined paraphyletic term. Bennetto (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm very sympathetic to the idea of re-naming the article Hominoidea, as I prefer articles on biological taxa to be under their scientific names rather than common names. The only reason I hesitate is that I note that the article is included in the schools CD. I'll ask for views at WT:PRIMATE. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- A quick search on google scholar and google books turned up some inconsistent usage:
- [5] "The apes, Hominoidea, today include the gibbons and orang-utan..., the gorilla and the chimpanzee..., and humans" (Vertebrate palaeontology)
- [6] (Human evolution: an illustrated introduction, which seems to distinguish apes from humans)
- [7] (Human natures: genes, cultures, and the human prospect) (in one sentence describing Hominoidea as "apes and people", but in the very next sentence including humans as great apes.)
- [8] (Evolution and Prehistory: The Human Challenge) (describing Hominoidea as "Apes and Humans", suggesting humans are not a subset of apes).
- Harder to link, but I'm listening to a lecture by Terrence Deacon on iTunes U, and he clearly describes humans as a type of ape.
- My intuition is that changing the name of the article to Hominoidea is the right approach, but I think expert guidance would be helpful (I am not an expert). Fireplace (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have now revised the article to try to remove all POV usages of "ape". There may be a few left, so a bit more work is needed. The idea is to (a) explain the different uses of the term "ape" (b) try to avoid using it in one way or the other in the rest of the text. As I added the warning template, I've now removed it. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Addendum In line with Simple Wikipedia, I've decided to use "hominoid" as the 'common' name throughout, and have changed the article accordingly.
- "Ape", "lesser ape" and "great ape" all appear in double-quotes, as has become common in many sources for paraphyletic groups, unless either the context is clear (e.g. repeated mentions in a paragraph where the first mention is in double-quotes) or the term is clearly historical (e.g. in the discussion of Linnaeus' and Darwin's views).
- "Hominoid" (without double-quotes) is used as the common name for members of the Hominoidea throughout.
- I believe that this policy, if followed consistently as I have tried to do, makes the article:
- Clear, in that the commonest current usage of "ape" is meant, with double-quotes signalling that this term is paraphyletic/problematic
- Sourced – see the article
- Free of POV-pushing; the article is clear that humans are hominoids and on the most recent evidence are most closely related to chimpanzees, without trying to impose the term "ape" as a synonym for "hominoid" as the old version did.
- Some more copy-editing is needed, as is more referencing.
- It seems even clearer to me that the article should be re-named either "Hominoidea" or "Hominoid". I'll wait to see if anyone objects. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
- Addendum In line with Simple Wikipedia, I've decided to use "hominoid" as the 'common' name throughout, and have changed the article accordingly.
- C-Class Primate articles
- Top-importance Primate articles
- WikiProject Primates articles
- Unassessed software articles
- Unknown-importance software articles
- Unassessed software articles of Unknown-importance
- Unassessed Computing articles
- Unknown-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- All Software articles