|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bonobo article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Bonobo has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Science. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Wikipedia CD Selection|
- 1 diet
- 2 diversity of faces
- 3 Locomotion change reference
- 4 Incomplete article
- 5 Commentary on Cooperation
- 6 Bonobo genome available
- 7 Broken image file
- 8 Gracile is not a helpful descriptor
- 9 Oestrus
- 10 SIV comment in socio-sexual beahviour
- 11 wild observation
- 12 Criticism of Frans de Waal's bonobos in captivity research
- 13 Possible reference?
- 14 There is an RFC that may affect this page
- 15 Sexual Behavior
- 16 External links modified
- 17 Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2016
- 18 Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2017
- 19 Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2017
I changed "This primate is frugivorous" to "The bonobo is an omnivorous frugivore". It is a more precise and less confusing description. The links to other wiki pages contain language that backs up this change. For instance on the wiki frugivore page "A frugivore is a fruit eater. It can be any type of herbivore or omnivore where fruit is a preferred food type." and on the wiki omnivore page, "Various mammals are omnivorous in the wild, such as the Hominidae...." The rest of the section is both accurate and well referenced and also explains quite well why Bonobos are classified as omnivorous frugivores. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 08:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
diversity of faces
'The bonobo also has highly individuated facial features, as humans do, so that one individual may look significantly different from another, a characteristic adapted for visual facial recognition in social interaction." - this statement is very doubtful. Humans are adapted to differentiate between human faces. The bonobo face is similar in structure to the human face. This might be the cause of the apparent diversity in bonobo faces that is perceived by humans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
All animals have a great degree of individuality in looks humans are just poorly able to see them unless given high levels of exposure, Bonobos happen to have more human like faces thus we notice them more rather than them truly having any more facial diversity than any other ape. Most zoo keepers who work with chimps know the faces of their normal chimps from one another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 14:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Locomotion change reference
I changed the line where it said Bonobos use bipedal motion less than 1% of the time. That was based on a study from 1993 and since then multiple observations have shown Bonobos ranging from even lower than 1% to substantially more than that. I was going to use this specific link as the reference: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1571309/ But I have no idea how to actually make a reference in the article, so if someone could put the reference in at the end of the sentence that'd be great. TheMadcapSyd (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for this, sorry it was reverted so quickly, editors are (generally rightly) wary of an unsourced statements. Jack (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Where is all the details on gestation and the proper details on their sex anatomy to other chimps. It seems this article over focuses on the "popular" stuff. really think these articles need more information. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Commentary on Cooperation
|This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Washington University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.|
Bonobos are one of two species of the genus Pan. They are essentially chimpanzees, though are smaller, less violent, and much more sexual than the common chimpanzee. In this Wikipedia article, much information is wanting as to the cooperation of bonobos in the wild. This article’s discussion of their social behavior focuses largely on their sexual practices and their engagement of homosexual activity. Cooperative traits such as kin selection and reciprocity are not mentioned in this article. Briefly, the article mentions that bonobos are altruistic, but the article fails to elaborate and say exactly how. This article can be improved by discussing the role of cooperation in child-rearing, avoiding predators, building shelters, and gathering food. Marklxb (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Bonobo genome available
The bonobo genome has recently become available. See http://www.eva.mpg.de/bonobo-genome and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Traces/wgs/?val=AJFE01
Broken image file
When I attempt to load this high-resolution image file, I only get the upper 30% of the image.
- It loads fine for me. Have you tried forcing a reload - you may have had a connection issue the first time you tried to load it and subsequent attempts may have been from your browsers cache. In Firefox you do this by holding shift while pressing refresh or with ctrl+F5; I don't know how to do it on other browsers. Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Gracile is not a helpful descriptor
The word gracile has, in the past, been attached to the name of the bonobo as the gracile chimpanzee. Because of this, people seem to think it's approriate to say - as in this article - that the bonobo is considered more gracile than the common chimpanzee. Probably, it could be said that there is an implication that ... well it's like a kind of chimpanzee, but y'know ... more gracile. So people are led to believe that it is actually a chimpanzee but a gracile one. Then they might go on to think ... I wonder what gracile means - but probably not. They'll just think that it's a chimpanzee ... but a strange type.
So, we know that the word gracile has been used as part of its name in the past - but do we take anything from that description. If I was to say, "A gracile man walked past my house." What sort of image would that convey? "My sister used to be gracile, but as she got older she put on weight, like the rest of us." Doesn't it sound a bit like lanky, skinny or moving gracefully - it does to me.
Is the word used in any other context? Do we have gracile elephants, horses, geese or bananas? I haven't heard of them.
My thoughts are, that we drop this strange, unhelpful descriptor and - probably trying to avoid saying how similar of dissimilar it is to the common chimpanzee - find another way of describing the bonobo.Francis Hannaway (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- The word is used most commonly in biology when talking about apes. Australopithecus is often referred to as gracile, as is the bonobo. It is generally used to distinguish from the robust form of an animal. Jack (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to pin down more information on what extent oestrus is concealed in Bonobos.
The article says: "During oestrus, females undergo a swelling of the perineal tissue lasting 10 to 20 days. Most matings occur during the maximum swelling."
This reference says maximum swelling lasts 13.4 days, but that swelling cycles do not correlate exactly with the menstrual and ovulation cycles. Small, 1993 suggests "bonobos continually exhibit estrus swellings and behavior".
Is there good evidence, as the article says, that matings mostly occur during oestrus, and that oestrus/increased sexual behaviour unambiguously exists in Bonobos? Thanks. PhilMacD (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
SIV comment in socio-sexual beahviour
At the end of the socio-sexual behaviour section there is a single line "It is unknown how the bonobo avoids simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) and its effects." which seems to suggest that bonobos are somehow immune to SIVs. The nearest I can get to this conclusion in the linked article is that Bonobos have never been found to have SIV and some hypothesising that non-pathogenisis of SIV is due to a pre-evolutionary split SIV outbreak. The article isn't really about bonobos and they are only mentioned incidentally twice. Not sure what the etiquette/procedure is here. Seems to me like this sentence should just be removed but as I'm new I'll just leave this here Crothersj (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I think this sentence is biased, poorly researched, and needs to be deleted or completed: "The primatologist often cited for the peaceful nature of bonobos has never studied them in the wild." There are several primatologists making this assertion including Francis White who has observed them in the wild. This sentence is unhelpful misinformation. Vince Watkins (talk) 03:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Vince Watkins
- I removed that line a minute before the IP commented in this section about it. Flyer22 (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Criticism of Frans de Waal's bonobos in captivity research
On the 29th, Severum deleted criticism of Frans de Waal not having studied bonobos in the wild; because he deleted the material without an explanation, marking the deletion as WP:Minor when it is not WP:Minor, I restored the material and stated that his marking was wrong.
As seen here, Severum deleted the criticism again, on the 30th (non-Wikipedia time), stating, "The deleted sentence refers to a journalistic piece, not a reputable source compared to others mentioned here." As seen with that diff-link, I reverted him, stating, "The New Yorker is a reputable source; criticism does not have to come from a scientific journal." Maunus followed that up by adding an academic source regarding what appears to be criticism of Frans de Waal not having studied bonobos in the wild; he then added a response from Frans de Waal on the criticism. Severum removed the material, and added new material in its place, taking away the criticism angle and Frans de Waal's response to it. I reverted, stating, "Two editors clearly object to your changes. Discuss the matter on the article talk page, per WP:BRD. No WP:Edit warring." As that link shows, I also stated, "Do stop being so pro-Frans de Waal in your editing. The fact that he has been criticized, and has responded to the criticism, should be mentioned. Added back this piece you added." I mentioned the pro-Frans de Waal aspect because it is clear to me, from having examined Severum's occasional editing of Wikipedia, he is pro-Frans de Waal with his editing and appears to want to hide any criticism of Frans de Waal. Severum reverted again, stating, "Wikipedia entries are to be based on science, not journalism. The issue of captivity vs. wild bonobos asks for a systematic comparison, of which there are few, if any. If they do exist, they might be referred to here." I responded with a WP:Dummy edit stating, "Something tells me that you don't know how Wikipedia is generally supposed to work. Criticism often need not be based on science, and Wikipedia allows that. Furthermore, this criticism is based on the science. Taking the matter to talk." It's clear to me that Severum is inexperienced with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, and is biasing content regarding Frans de Waal.
- In general it is correct that articles should be based on scholarly not journalistic sources. But it is not a problem to report it if a journalistic source reports statements or opinions of scholars and scientists. They are reliable sources for the opinions of the people who are interviewed, and if the people who are interviewed are respected scholars as in this case then there is no reason we cant use it. It is indeed necessary for this article that also the scholarship that disagrees with de Waals popularizing stereotypes of the bonobos be included prominently in the article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree about the scholarly aspect (well, unless it's a topic that generally doesn't need that aspect, such as a film article), but, like you stated, the The New Yorker source is relaying the opinions of experts in this particular field. And, of course, there's the aforementioned academic source you included. Flyer22 (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Drbogdan, as someone else who watches the Bonobo article/talk page, do you have an opinion on this matter before I start a WP:RfC on it? Severum is apparently not interested in this discussion and thinks that he can WP:Edit war, get his way, and that's all to it. Flyer22 (talk) 07:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- FWIW - seems that User:Severum is trying to promote a higher level of science authority in the article (*entirely* ok w/ me) - but - in a way that could be better - atm I agree w/ the comments (well-presented imo) of User:Maunus above - differing views of such issues, grounded in worthy scholarship, are welcome of course - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
WP:RfC: Should criticism of Frans de Waal's bonobos in captivity research be included?
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141215-great-ape-birth-is-world-first Bananasoldier (talk) 04:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
There is an RFC that may affect this page
There is an RFC that may affect this page at WikiProject Tree of Life. The topic is confusion over taxonomy of subtribe Panina and taxon homininae (are chimps hominins)?
I read the sentence that states "Bonobos are the only non-human animal to have been observed engaging in tongue kissing, and oral sex." and chose to verify it with the source provided. I'm glad I did, because I didn't find that statement anywhere. The bonobos were in fact observed engaging in that behavior, but the article also clearly states that the one other primate they were studying, Cebus Capucinus, engaged in oral sex "extremely rarely," but that it had not been documented during focal observations of adults. Adult capuchins were not the only subgroup being studied, that is they were also collecting data from juvenile individuals.
I am reluctant to edit the page myself, because I am new to wiki contributions and have not read all the guidelines.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bonobo. 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/20120506233748/http://www.zoosociety.org/Conservation/Bonobo/BCBI/Survey.php to http://www.zoosociety.org/conservation/Bonobo/BCBI/Survey.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- 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.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.
Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2016
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2017
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
- 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. — IVORK Discuss 01:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2017
|This edit request has been answered. Set the