Talk:Monkey
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Monkey article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:Vital article
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Other talk page banners | |||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Howler Monkey Gods
The Maya Civilization worshipped Howler Monkey Gods. Maybe someone could put in something detailing this in that religious worship section. Any objections?
"There has been some resistance to directly designate apes as monkeys despite the scientific evidence"
People who don't call apes monkeys are not going against science -- they're applying traditional "grade" terminology instead of strict "cladistic" terminology. AnonMoos (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed, that part should be rephrased I think. Paraphyletic groups have always been a valid concept, even if in pure genetic terms they are not very relevant. Taken to an extreme we would insist that humans, other mammals, reptiles and amphibians must be regarded as fish, because they're a subgroup of the fish clade. Genetically that would be correct, but it is not unscientific to refer to fish as a Paraphyletic group distinct from the tetrapods. — Amakuru (talk) 07:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I altered it a bit. It's yet another example of editors trying to say that ordinary language uses of English words are "wrong" because they don't align with scientific uses. Perhaps it helps to take a less emotive example. Consider whether a strawberry is a berry or not. In ordinary English, it clearly is; the first definition in Merriam-Webster online is "a pulpy and usually edible fruit (such as a strawberry, raspberry, or checkerberry) of small size irrespective of its structure". In botanical English, a strawberry is not a berry. Hence we have two articles, Berry and Berry (botany). Neither use is "wrong"; they're just different, and each is appropriate in context. Exactly the same is true of "monkey" and "ape", and our article should not say that either is right or wrong. You can't use "scientific evidence" to say that calling a strawberry a berry in ordinary every-day English is wrong, any more than you can use scientific evidence to say that it's right to call a chimpanzee a monkey when the latter word is used in its ordinary every-day English sense. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for adjusting the wording... AnonMoos (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
jtriojfislfdhgiufnvckajsdhcbuifgnkxizsnjkdodifkcvibghir7ees8ix8yfhgyrufgihxfdjsaijdgybdfyghgdydbxyhgfuhgbuydfxjdoduibhdfcgbyhiudfosdohjso0as9odiufghgovdcsija[zspdjfivdfnurht9djgfickx0o9 i iorthh8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.234.85 (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2020
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
memans eyob monkey Bbvvhgj (talk) 09:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jack Frost (talk) 09:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
"Order, Suborder, and Infraorder" . . . but no Genus?
Why? You have two additional levels of classification that most people rarely, if ever use, and are missing the one most commonly refered to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
i love it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:D603:6D70:A959:A9EC:B24F:7B02 (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2021
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Need to fix some misspelling 104.189.64.252 (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 06:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- C-Class Primate articles
- Top-importance Primate articles
- WikiProject Primates articles
- C-Class mammal articles
- High-importance mammal articles
- WikiProject Mammals articles
- C-Class animal articles
- High-importance animal articles
- WikiProject Animals articles
- C-Class taxonomic articles
- Mid-importance taxonomic articles
- WikiProject Tree of Life articles
- Wikipedia former articles for improvement