Talk:Gorilla

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Former good article nominee Gorilla was a Natural sciences 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.
May 31, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed
WikiProject Primates (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Africa (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon Gorilla is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Gorilla 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.
 

Height[edit]

"Adult males are 1.7 to 1.8 m (5.6 to 5.9 ft) tall" 1.7 is 66.9 inches 1.8 is 70.9 inches

The sentence needs to be changed to "Adult males are 1.7 to 1.8 m (5'6" to 5'10") tall" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.215.55 (talk) 07:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Confusing Sentence[edit]

"...they are the next closest living relatives to humans after the chimpanzees (including bonobos)."

Are gorillas the next closest living relative to humans after the chimpanzees and bonobos? Or are gorillas the next closest living relatives (even when you include bonobos) except for the chimpanzee?

I'm guessing that bonobos happen to be of the chimpanzee family? Is that what this sentence is supposed to infer? Because I doubt the majority of people happen to know that...

Jmgariepy (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Untitled[edit]

The WWF-funded International Gorilla Conservation Program, have found that in the Virung montane forests there are approximant 380 gorillas in the wild. Gorilla live in groups and there is a leader in the group the silverback. Between the age of 11-13 a young male becomes a silverback.

Discovery[edit]

The first real account of the gorilla appears to be the one given by an English sailor, Andrew Battel, who spent some time in the wilds of West Africa during and about the year 1590; his account being presented in Purchas's Pilgrimage, published in the year 1613. From this appears that Battel was familiar with both the chimpanzee and the gorilla, the former of which he terms engeco and the latter pongo - names which ought apparently to be adopted for these two species in place of those now in use. Between Battel's time and 1846 nothing appears to have been heard of the gorilla or pongo, but in that year a missionary at the Gabun accidentally discovered a skull of the huge ape; and in 1847 a sketch of that specimen, together with two others, came into the hands of Sir R. Owen, by whom the name Gorilla savagei was proposed for the new ape in 1848. Dr Thomas Savage, a missionary at the Gabun, who sent Owen information with regard to the original skull, had, however, himself proposed the name Troglodytes gorilla in 1847. The first complete skeleton of a gorilla sent to Europe was received at the museum of the Royal College of Surgeons in 1851, and the first complete skin appears to have reached the British Museum in 1858. Paul B. du Chaillu's account (1861) of his journeys in the Gabun region popularized the knowledge of the existence of the gorilla.

I think that there should be something in the article about how it used t be considered a criptid to the Euoropean scientific comunity. But I am not very good at editing.69.226.111.50 (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The current wiki article claims the the western gorilla was first described "in 1847 from specimens obtained in Liberia." It would be more accurate so say it was first described by scientists, or something to that effect since it was apparently noted by others previously. More importantly, that gorillas have ever inhabited Liberia or anywhere that far west is, to my knowledge, grossly inaccurate. In fact, the source cited in support of this clearly states the specimens were obtained in Gabon. This certainly makes more sense as Gabon is within their current and historical range. The current wiki article then goes on to suggest that Gorillas were observed in Sierra Leone which I suspect is another example of sloppy research. As a side note, the aforementioned source (Conniff R. Discovering gorilla. Evolutionary Anthropology, 18: 55–61) actually does a good job of discussing R. Owen's controversial role in the original scientific description. Klicquot (talk) 05:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

How have you shown that gorillas were once considered cryptids? Kortoso (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Enemies[edit]

There should be a section on what kind of animals, if any, prey on gorillas. 63.26.213.175 (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)eric

See the Endangerment section. Bob98133 (talk) 12:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
It is not clear enough, this section only says that Gorillas have historically been victims of poaching and the Ebola Virus, but it does not specify whether or not they have any natural predators other than humans, which I believe they must have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.81.185.181 (talk) 01:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
It is implicitly clear, and fairly well known that other than microorganisms, insects, and Man, Gorilla has no natural enemies. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 11:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Yet it says Silverbacks protect the females. From what? If Giraffes, Cape Buffalo, Hippos and Elephants can be preyed on by lions, hyenas and other animals, it's doubtful the gorilla, which is much smaller can't have no natural preditors — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.149.195.30 (talk) 01:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
If human babies are sometimes carried away by lions or tigers, gotta figure that baby gorillas are, too. A couple days' food for a cat, that has no chance of fighting back on its own? Yeah, that's a target.
But I think there's something different about a species that is a usual target for another, and a species that's only eaten when there's special opportunity, or when the predator is especially needed. I'm not a natural predator of cougars, but if I'm out in the wild, starving, and it's him or me ... it's him.
So "no natural predators" should probably usually be understood to mean: "no habitual natural predators". Leptus Froggi (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Theory of Mind[edit]

This sentence in the section 'Laughter in Primates' :"self-awareness of one's situation, or the ability to identify with somebody else's predicament, are prerequisites for laughter, so animals are not really laughing in the same way that we do" makes it seem that no animal has the ability of self-awareness. Goodall and others have proven (to an extent) that chimpanzees have self awareness, and thus awareness of others. Arges86 16:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Laughter[edit]

The laughter section in the gorilla article really has little to do with gorillas. It doesn't really belong. --68.72.109.117 01:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Diet[edit]

In the article "Looking at Ape Diets," it says that gorillas - including the mountain gorilla - are folivores, not omnivores. The article says that the fact that they eat insects, even deliberately eat insects, does not mean they aren't still considered folivores. 70.50.54.112 02:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It depends on whether you are talking about physiology or behavior. Classifying them as foliovores is correct behaviorally because they primarily eat leaves, but classifying them as omnivores is also correct because their physiology allows them to eat both plants and animals. And you even point out that they intentionally eat insects, so their behavior is not strictly foliovorous. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Classifying them as omnivores is not correct. I won't bother arguing about it, though, because I can see from the article history that is pointless. 70.53.109.23 13:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, they are not really omnivores. They are herbivores that eat insects. It should be changed, as it is misleading to the casual visitor. (Satwa)

Calling gorillas omnivores is splitting hairs to the point of being incorrect. The fact that they eat a few bugs does not really make them omnivores anymore than horses are omnivores because of all the insects they eat while they graze. The physiology argument is not relevant as calling something a frugivore, carnivore, folivore, etc refers to what they eat, not what they could eat. 66.90.144.92 (talk) 05:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with UTC and Satwa, they are strictly vegetarians, it is misleading the many guests of Wikipedia. However, I see that it might be acceptable to edit that while they are strictly herbivorous, their physiology allows them to eat plants and animals, as UtherSRG stated. The Winged Yoshi —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Winged Yoshi (talkcontribs) 03:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems like this discussion has gone stale. Since Dec 21 (the last comment), no changes have been made here. I just visited this article and was surprised to see Gorillas being labeled omnivores. They are vegetarians, and herbivores or foliovores would be a much better description. All the arguments above stand. Let's see if we get any more input on this in the coming week, if not, then I will update the article with a note about the insect eating. Abhishekbh (talk) 05:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Just do it already. ThuranX (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Lol, done! For those who still don't agree: regardless of what the beyondveg site says, I am sure as a categorization, we can take UMichigan to be a more reliable source. Check out the refs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishekbh (talkcontribs) 03:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that they eat insects means they are definitely not "strictly vegetarian", what seems odd to me is that there is no mention of the fact that they eat their own dung. yes, it is disgusting, but it is a well established fact, and it is a major part of their diet. John Alan ElsonWF6I A.P.O.I. 03:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Well established? Do you have reliable and verifiable sources to back up your statement? If so, then please edit the article and cite your sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Would you believe Dian Fossey? Gorillas in the mist John Alan ElsonWF6I A.P.O.I. 21:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Tools[edit]

Though the 2005 article did indeed imply tool use was newly discovered in gorillas, the fact is that gorilla tool use has been recognized in the wild since at least the 1950s. See Beck, B. 1980. Animal Tool Behavior. Garland Publishing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.197.18 (talkcontribs) 10:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe they are omnivores because on the rare occasion they eat meat. They will not hunt though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.226.117.94 (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Textbox image[edit]

I think this image would be better for the textbox since the gorilla is facing the camera and we get a front view. A side view image would be better for a four legged ungulate. Bobisbob 03:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I prefer the gorilla image as it is now, in profile. ThuranX 06:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The Groves citation[edit]

UtherSRG, reverting my change for the second time, this time thankfully with an actual reason: "If you are going to edit a cited text, polese provide another citation that supports your edit. Read Groves to see that my revert more closely reflects what Groves wrote."

I checked the Groves citation the first time. I based the improved text on it! I just checked it again. It says the following:

Were they really gorillas? Or chimpanzees? Or baboons? or even Neanderthalers? What language was this word 'gorillas' and who were these interpreters? ... There seems little hope of ever establishing what those so mercilessly slaughtered "gorillas" actually were, or where they lived."

That matches my reading of other analyses of the Periplus of Hanno. The text that was there before and to which you reverted once again is factually incorrect: the Periplus makes no mention whatsoever about a debate amongst the men of Hanno's voyage. Neither does the Groves citation. Perhaps this is a misinterpretation of the questions posited by Groves as questions asked by Hanno the navigator's men.

You can read the actual original source yourself: http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Hanno.html

I'll quote the relevant part. That's everything that's in the Periplus on the topic of Gorillae. The Periplus is short, you can read it in a few minutes:

On the third day after our departure thence, having sailed by those streams of fire, we arrived at a bay called the Southern Horn[11]; at the bottom of which lay an island like the former, having a lake, and in this lake another island, full of savage people, the greater part of whom were women, whose bodies were hairy, and whom our interpreters called Gorillae. Though we pursued the men we could not seize any of them; but all fled from us, escaping over the precipices, and defending themselves with stones. Three women were however taken; but they attacked their conductors with their teeth and hands, and could not be prevailed upon to accompany us. Having killed them, we flayed them, and brought their skins with us to Carthage.

I've gone back to my version, edit it a bit further, and added in a citation to the source text. If you still don't agree, please don't just revert again and spell out your reasons on this page. Martijn Faassen (talk) 03:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Besides the point perhaps, but please also note that Groves itself isn't an infallible source. Groves writes the following:
"What languages was this word 'gorillas', and who were these interpreters"?
Not strictly wrong, and rhetorical, but we actually do have a clue about the interpreters. From the Periplus again:
Thence we came to the great river Lixus[6], which flows from Libya. On its banks the Lixitae, a shepherd tribe, were feeding flocks, amongst whom we continued some time on friendly terms. Beyond the Lixitae dwelt the inhospitable Ethiopians, who pasture a wild country intersected by large mountains, from which they say the river Lixus flows. In the neighbourhood of the mountains lived the Troglodytae, men of various appearances, whom the Lixitae described as swifter in running than horses. Having procured interpreters from them, we coasted along a desert country towards the south two days.
The interpreters are the Lixitae. This is confirmed later on:
Thence we sailed towards the south twelve days, coasting the shore, the whole of which is inhabited by Ethiopians, who would not wait our approach, but fled from us. Their language was not intelligible even to the Lixitae who were with us.
Of course we can't really identify the Lixitae or Lixites, but we at least have some clue about who they were. Quite a bit for the standards of the Periplus, which is rather sketchy overall. See the Hanno the Navigator article for more sources and analysis on the Periplus. Martijn Faassen (talk) 04:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Conservation status[edit]

we need this for the article. many other animals have it.--68.45.82.237 (talk) 05:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Conservation status is assigned to species and subspecies. There are two gorilla species, the Western Gorilla and the Eastern Gorilla. Both of those have the proper conservation status. Likewise, the four subspecies of gorilla also have the correct conservation status. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Expansion[edit]

This page is pretty short for an article on a popualr animal. I think a lot of the information in the Mountin Gorilla article can be used to describe all gorillas and should be moved to this article. I also think there shld be less gaps and the opening paragraph should be a little longer. Bobisbob (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If you can find and cite verifable and reliable sources, then by all means expand the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Bad Bob. You are not citing sources. I've reverted. Please do not edit unless you are going to cite your sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you could add {{fact}} tags and give him (or others) the chance to find citations. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) (Talk) 06:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I would have if there were only a few edits that I could easily diff to see what was added, but since he moved several portions around as well as added and deleted some, I couldn't figure it out. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Videos on page?[edit]

I've discussed this with Bobisbob who posted the videos to the article. I think it would be better not to have the videos on the page, but that links to them as See Also might be appropriate. As well, all the gorilla videos depict a gorilla at an amusement park.Bob98133 (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Purely from a personal point of view I don't like videos on articles, however that is my personal taste, I don't even know that the wikipedia policy is about them. However, if all the videos that are on the article are all of captive gorillas then it is hardly a true reflection of gorilla behaviour and if videos do stay (and I personally hope they do not, they should be linked to at most if anything IMO) then they should not be purely captive gorillas. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
We have videos of captive tigers on the Tiger article. If you decide to reove the videos from there then why not remove the tiger videos? Bobisbob (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Which doesn't really answer anything as this is discussing the gorilla article not the tiger article. I haven't even seen the tiger article. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
And having looked at the tiger article now, the videos on there are also from Disney Animal Kingdom just as the videos on here are also from there. Having videos of captive animals all from one Disney park is hardly a wide reflection on video of either animal. All it does is show each animal at a Disney park and promote that park.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I also don't think the videos should be on the page. Not all 4 of them at least.Cryo921 03:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Gorillas are herbivores[edit]

Gorillas are herbivores, not omnivores, do I have permission to edit that? The Winged Yoshi —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Winged Yoshi (talkcontribs) 21:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not true, so no. They eat beetles as well, thus, not herbivores. ThuranX (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Would the term "mostly herbivorous" work better? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Gorillas are omnivores. They eat things from Fruit to Rabbits. Komodoboy16 19:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Repeated Hyperlinks[edit]

I have deleted one of the repeated "Ability to swim" links to "Apes" at the last See Also section. The person whosoever finds a fault in the deletion kindly correct me and the page. Thanks. :-)--Ankithreya (talk) 08:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry[edit]

Sorry for my recent edit, which I have now reverted. My browser keeps getting stuck. ThundermasterThundermaster's Talk 12:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Cannibal[edit]

People are contending that Gorillas are herbivores!! I am no expert, but I have seen a primate (either gorilla or chimpanzee, I am not sure now) hunting in groups on TV (a program on National Geographic Channel). There was a huge group of these primates (more than 100, it was said to be biggest group) which attacked another smaller group of the same species very violently. Then they killed a young one of the smaller group and ate it. Who says Gorillas are herbivore? 198.62.10.11 (talk) 11:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That was a group of Common Chimpanzees. They will sometimes hunt Western Red Colobus monkeys, and sometimes chimps from other tribes. The question is, is a species herbivorous or omnivorous if it eats mostly plant products, but gets some protein from insects and grubs that are on the plants? I know that chimps will reject fruit until it is overly ripe and has some insects on it, making them omnivorous (even before considering their meat hunts for the monkeys). Do gorillas do the same, eating insects intentionally or unintentionally? - UtherSRG (talk) 12:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Gorillas do eat insects intentionally [1] --Ns1180 (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources for gorillas known in second hand accounts[edit]

JasonAQuest, you write Before explorer Paul du Chaillu brought specimens to Europe in the 1861, gorillas were known outside of Africa only from legends and second-hand accounts and make a citation. While the citation shows that Paul du Chaillu brought specimens to Europe, it doesn't confirm that gorillas were only known from legends and second-hand accounts. In fact your reference has (as well as the article) has them (at least the skull) described by Savage. I've moved the citation bit around and added in a [citation needed] for the statement that theyh were known by legends and second-hand accounts (I'd like to see something more than the Carthaginian "account"). Martijn Faassen (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be asking for further examples of them not being known, which is difficult to document. Savage had a skull and the accounts of local Africans, but no first-hand experience with them. - JasonAQuest (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The article currently claims they were known only from legends and second-hand accounts, not that they were unknown. Which way is it? Do we have examples of gorillas in legend? Whether having access to a skull is a first-hand or a second-hand account I'm not sure about. I'm inclined towards first-hand: it's first-hand scientific evidence of the existence of gorillas, just like finding a fossil may be first-hand evidence of the existence of an extinct animal. Whatever it may be, my main point is that this statement is rather vague. As an unrelated point, I think we should put the "discovery of the gorilla" information into its own section. I'll try to make a start with that. Martijn Faassen (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I've reorganized the 'studies' section and integrated Paul du Chaillu in there (moving it out of the popular culture section). I unbulleted the text in studies. I think the bullets were hindering its expansion as a narrative. Martijn Faassen (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
There were "legends" from Carthage. The "second-hand accounts" were from local Africans to Savage. There may have been others... I don't know, which is why I left it a little vague. I do know that du Chaillu claimed to be the first to see (and kill) one, and I've seen no contradiction of that claim. Savage's skull certainly gave him proof that they existed, but there's a fundamental difference between that and the knowledge that comes from observation of a living (or complete) organism. I can go dig up proof that my grandfather existed, but I don't know him. :) The point is that gorillas were new and remarkable to the rest of the world until the 1860s; however you want to phrase that information is fine with me. - JasonAQuest (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Not rated by "WikiProject Primates"!?!?[edit]

Of all things shoudnt they have rated this? If they dont take any sort of action soon I may just read the criteria and attempt to classify it myself. Please somebody, explain why this has not been rated. Yojimbo501 (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:PRIM has only just recently adopted the rating system. Please do feel free to rate this article. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Its not that I dislike it its just that I thought they would have rated it. Yojimbo501 (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyways I dont know how to rate it so if someone else could that would be nice. Yojimbo501 (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

An odd sentence at the end of a pararaph...[edit]

I bolded the offending sentence in the copy of the paragraph below. Just thought I should tell you about it, since the page is protected. 141.133.154.27 (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If challenged by a younger or even by an outsider male, a silverback will scream, beat his chest, break branches, bare his teeth, then charge forward. Sometimes a younger male in the group can take over leadership from an old male. If the leader is killed by disease, accident, fighting or poachers, the group will split up, as the animals disperse to look for a new protective male. Very occasionally, a group might be taken over in its entirety by another male. There is a strong risk that the new male may kill the infants of the dead silverback.silverbacks are know to have the biggest weiners of all gorillas and put it in the lady

btw, A quick look through the history tells me that the ip 76.181.158.218 added the sentence before the article was protected. If any admins want to ban the ip or whatever would be appropriate here, feel free. 141.133.154.27 (talk) 02:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the sentence has been removed. I have issued a warning to the IP. Keith D (talk) 09:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Rated B class- Nomination as a good article?[edit]

Ok I rated it B class. It had appropriate citations and facts and is pretty well organized, though there are some citation needed spots. Anyways I Thought it was higher than start class, so I am wondering if someone else could review it or maybe try to get it nominated for GA status? Yojimbo501 (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

BUT REMEMBER WHAT EVER THIS SENTENCE ABOVE SAYS ABOUT EVOLOUTION IS NOT TRUE!!![edit]

This junk was placed in the article, please remove it (it's in the Studies section). I can't since I don't have an account. 156.34.237.125 (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

  1. Please don't use all caps - that is interpretted as shouting.
  2. Although it is preferred that editors get an account, it is not required to edit articles.
  3. I do not see anything in the Studies section that is junk or needs to be removed. Can you be more specific?

- UtherSRG (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

New Record 55 years old[edit]

I added this since it destroyed the dead gorilla's record of 54: ====Oldest gorilla==== Jenny, the world's oldest gorilla in captivity celebrated 55th birthday at the Dallas Zoo. Todd Bowsher, curator of the zoo's Wilds of Africa exhibit calls the birthday "a special milestone." The International Species Information System stated that Jenny is the oldest gorilla in its database. Kristen Lukas, curator of conservation and science, Cleveland Metroparks Zoo, Ohio stated that "gorillas in the wild normally would live to age 30 or 35; Of the roughly 360 gorillas in North American zoos, only 4 are over the age of 50. All of them are female.".tv3.co.nz, World's oldest gorilla celebrates 55th birthdaygmanews.tv/story, Gorilla celebrates 55th birthday with frozen cake --Florentino floro (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I pared it down. no need for the fluff story, just the facts. Plus, since it supercedes the info in the previous paragraph, I merged it into there. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Not Herbivores[edit]

They are not. They eat insects, and not by the by as humans do when they eat salads in Tunisia, they use sticks to get them out of holes. They eat grubs snails and lizards. There is even a picture on the page of a Gorilla using a stick to fish.

Up to 5% of their diet is meat, they are not herbivores this is simply an error and the "sources" do not say it.

This is claptrap and completely unscientific —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonobonobo (talkcontribs) 01:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Three species?[edit]

Could someone please explain this revert? When and by whom were gorillas considered to be three species? Until about 2000 it was one species (Gorilla gorilla) with three main subspecies (Western lowland, G. g. gorilla; eastern lowland, G. g. graueri; mountain, G. g. beringei).[2] Where does the notion of three species come from?

  1. ^ Rowe, Noel. The Pictorial Guide to the Living Primates. Pagonias Press, 1996.
  2. ^ Stewart, Kelly J.; Pascale Sicotte, Martha M. Robbins (2001). "Mountain Gorillas of the Virungas". Fathom / Cambridge University Press. Retrieved 2008-09-11.  Cite uses deprecated parameter |coauthors= (help)

SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 19:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have checked thoroughly, and have reinstated my amendment to the article, with two references. Apart from 19th- and early 20th-century splitters, the agreement until recently was clearly one species, three subspecies. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 19:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a map in the infobox "Species" section, but the legend just has names and no colors to explain those used on the map. Easy to guess which is which, but it should be fixed. WHPratt (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Map still has orange and yellow areas, but no legend or key as to which color is which species. WHPratt (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Silverback confusion[edit]

Just reading the article from the point of view of someone who is interested in learning something about gorillas - early on i read "Adult females are often half the size of a silverback" - yet no explanation of what a silverback actually is. 83.67.5.220 (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've reversed the order of two sections to help out, hope that helps. It was in the article,but only explained long after first being used. ThuranX (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

anatomy[edit]

anyone have anything on gorillas anatomy, i was wondering how much one can lift

Theory? No Criticism?[edit]

This seems mostly POV and accepting scientific theory as science fact. Calling a beast a "relative" of humans, implies that we come from the same source. There is no evidence, and it is only guesses and hypotheses. Why isn't there anything saying this is theory or a section for criticism? MPA 22:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MPA (talkcontribs)

Er, Gorrillas are relatives of human beings, it's called DNA, look it up. I suppose "God created the heavens and the Earth" is a better theory??? Sorry, but 95% of rational, intelligent people would probably argue that evolution is a lot more scientifically sound than the magic man in the sky did it concept. Sorry, but religious beliefs are contentious. You're more than entitled to hold yours, but please don't force them onto other people - bible creationism (call it intelligent design if you will) does not use the scientific method and it has no place here or in any scientific debate for that matter. Besides, the evolution page has its own criticism section and that particular debate belongs there.--83.23.105.190 (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Amen to that LOL69.226.111.50 (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Lack of a better explanation is never considered proof in the scientific community.69.229.199.8 (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Er, right. Er, I love when people do that. So you write exactly as you speak? Ofcourse not, you were being, er, sardonic, even though, er, the first person was not. In any case, since humans and gorillas share so much, er, DNA, er, is that why people of African descent resemble them? Er, ofcourse not, that's, er, racism. And evolutionists never admit that their theory supports racism. 74.101.163.144 (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Size?[edit]

The article states that gorillas are the largest living primates with adult males having heights of 165-175 cm (5 ft 5 in – 5 ft 9 in), and in weight from 140–204.5 kg. Since humans are usually taller and can weight a lot more, why are gorillas classified as the biggest, and not humans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.243.149.101 (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

To quote Rreagan007 (talk · contribs), "Morbid obesity on that scale is a disease/disorder in humans. That would be like finding a gorilla with a huge brain tumor and saying because of that discovery humans don't have the langest brain of any primate." Jack (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Gorilla's[edit]

Gorilla's are known to be the closest animal to a human. In fact, there is a gorilla that knows 500 words in sign language and enjoys reaing magazines! Can you imagine talking to a gorilla in sign language?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.57.236.49 (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Intelligence of gorillas compared to chimpanzees?[edit]

Does anybody know which one of these apes tend to be more intelligent - gorillas or chimpanzees? Fulcher (talk) 12:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC) reduce reuse recycle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.3.63.105 (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Add links?[edit]

Re this: "Appalled by the poaching of the gorillas for their skins, hands, and heads, Fossey complains to the Rwandan government, which dismisses her, claiming that POACHING is the only means by which some of the Rwandan natives can themselves survive." I was wondering if you think it would be OK to add links to the causes of endangered status of gorillas and other species? The links I'd like to add are these: Poaching, Poverty, Gorillas in the Mist: The Story of Dian Fossey, Zoo that "create jobs", & Wage Slavery? Stars4change (talk) 07:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The DNA of gorillas[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}}

The article states that "The DNA of gorillas is 98%–99% identical to that of a human,[2]

A common evolutionary argument gets reevaluated—by evolutionists themselves. Greater than 98% Chimp/human DNA similarity? Not any more.

Even the National Academy of Sciences says that that sentence is flawed. Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5%, counting indels

I recommend that this sentence be changed from "The DNA of gorillas is 98%–99% identical to that of a human,[2] and they are the next closest living relatives to humans after the two chimpanzee species."

to "Gorillas are the next closest living relatives to humans after the two chimpanzee species."

Thegorillaman (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Your first source is not neutral, and your second one only says probally. Please provide more reliable sources. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 20:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
In addition, many of the numbers vary depending on the kind of comparison. Is the whole genome being compared, or just the "active" portion? Chromosomal DNA only, or mtDNA as well? These differences change the numbers significantly. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gorilla/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BelovedFreak 16:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Prose seems to be fairly good, although I haven't gone over it in detail due to other problems.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Citations needed throughout
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Not assessed
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    appears neutral
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Inevitably, a fair amount of recent vandalism
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Look ok.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Lead needs expanding, citations needed throughout.

This needs many more citations. I've detailed a few specific problems that I see below.

Prose/MoS[edit]

Lead[edit]

  • Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should adequately summarise the whole of the rest of the article. It doesn't.
  • Is this article about a genus? That's what I gather from the infobox, but it isn't clear from the lead.

References[edit]

  • Some work is needed on citation formats. For example, what is currently #28, has News.bbc.co.uk; should be BBC News (no italics) with BBC as publisher. All should have author, date, accessdate, publisher, title where available & appropriate. Website names shouldn't be in italics, just book, journal, newspaper & magazine names.

Citations/references[edit]

There are a couple of dead links marked in the references section

Physical characteristics[edit]

  • Citations are needed in this section

Group life[edit]

  • This section is completely unsourced

Intelligence[edit]

  • "Gorillas are closely related to humans and are considered highly intelligent." - needs citation & attribution

source: http://web.ebscohost.com.tproxy01.lib.utah.edu/ehost/detail?hid=108&sid=b25f892d-ad3e-4231-82ff-b6bd4db17a39%40sessionmgr113&vid=1&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=33893405

Economist; 8/16/2008, Vol. 388 Issue 8593, p78-79, 2p, 1

There are more sources I can provide if there is any trouble accessing this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan616 (talkcontribs) 09:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

"can think about the past and future.[52] " This reference makes a totally unfounded assertion. The source cited is not scholarly, and although it does quote some organizations later in the article, the claim that gorillas can think about past and future is in no way supported. Sad, too, because I wanted to use this for school. It would be cool if there were some actual evidence that this is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.52.239.73 (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Interactions with humans[edit]

  • More citations needed

Cultural references[edit]

  • Unsourced

Broad?[edit]

  • I admit I'm not an expert here at all, but I am a little surprised that this article is so short, and uses so few sources, compared to, say, lion. Is it because there is more information in the species articles?

Pass/Fail[edit]

Unfortunately this article does not meet the GA criteria at this time. Would recommend a peer review if you're looking for more feedback before another nomination.--BelovedFreak 16:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Skull[edit]

Okay, on examination of a gorilla skull, there is a visible sagittal crest, but a living gorilla's sagittal crest is all but invisible. The prominent structure is clearly a horizontal, not vertical ridge of bone, that rises up above and behind the cranium. What is this called? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the size of the skull? 18.55.1.64 (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The friendly Gorilla[edit]

Shouldn't there be a reference to Jambo the friendly gorilla at the Jersey zoo. When a small boy fell into the gorilla enclosure and was knocked unconscious by the fall, Jambo came over to look at the boy, realised that something was wrong and prevented the other curious gorillas from causing further injuries.

After that he became world famous with people coming from all over the worls to see him. After he died pecefully the zoo had a bronze staue made which is on display at the zoo. The human perception of the the gorilla had been changed completely.AT Kunene (talk) 07:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Minor typo in Food and Foraging[edit]

Food and Foraging, second sentence from end of first paragraph - change "on in average day" to "on an average day" --108.70.29.0 (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


Also in the food and Foraging section change "further" to "farther". Further refers to metaphorical distances while farther references actual distance. "They travel even further than the other gorilla subspecies" should be "They travel even farther than the other gorilla subspecies".

male/female ratio in newborns[edit]

Came here to find this fact, didn't find it. Interesting because of consequences of their group structure and size. 88.159.64.117 (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

NESTING[edit]

The book referenced in this section does not ever state that night nests are made in trees. It says that nests may be in low trees, depending on the gorilla's size. This information is WRONG. Please change it. I don't really do HTML, so I get lost looking at the edit section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.35.1.66 (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted, I've changed the text accordingly. Cheers, Jack (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

2003 ref #2 accessed 2011 is out-of-date[edit]

Given the later 2012 references to the genome mapping, is it not time for an edit and a newer ref at the revised point in the opening of the article ?

Ref #7 is also 2003 and the largely agreed view in 2012 post-genome mapping, I believe, is now revised.

G. Robert Shiplett 12:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

So go ahead and find the newer sources, find what data in the article needs to be updated, and make the changes. This is your encyclopedia! - UtherSRG (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Conservation status[edit]

There is no section in the TOP right table for "Conservation Status" and we don't see any IUCN RED List Graphics, like we see in all other apes or animals. Also can't see any section CLEARLY saying how many Gorillas are left in the world. I just see a phrase LOST inside the "Evolution" section talking about mountain gorillas. But as we can all see in this article, it looks like there is not much effort to state this point CLEARLY. We all know there are not many and this species is Critically Endangered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.225.245.47 (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Gorilla Intelligence[edit]

Where do Gorillas rank in the animal kingdom for their intelligence ?

For example, are they more intelligent than other monkeys such as baboons and Giant Pandas ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.95.229 (talk) 11:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Although people with high IQs would probably like you to believe they are better in every way, the only thing that's certain is that they know how to pass IQ tests well. Average human IQs have been rising over the last years -- and if the tests were a fair measure of native intelligence, that shouldn't be happening. And there's a whole litany of other issues, such as many famous historical figures are reckoned to have fairly modest IQs. Important creative people do not necessarily have high testable IQs. No big surprise, IQ tests don't measure creativity. Etc.
There are widely available lists of the intelligence of dog breeds, too. Similar problem. One of the leading experts who's published a list of 100 is also a professional trainer. To him, critics point out, the main thing that's important is how trainable and obedient a dog is. Thing is, it's possible the dog couldn't care less about training, but is very intelligent in some other sense.
The problem is much worse for gorillas than for dogs, because we know much less about them.
Recent discoveries of beluga whales and elephants trying to mimic human speech suggest the possibility they have a very considerable intelligence that we can't evaluate. And then there's the dog that's been in the news that reliably, testably understands 100s of human words.
So the answer is still very much open, here. We know relatively little about gorillas, individually or collectively. Leptus Froggi (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Commentary on Cooperation[edit]

Gorillas follow bonobos and chimpanzees as the closest relatives to humans in the animal kingdom. This article frequently refers to cooperative behavior that gorillas have exhibited— grooming, play, alarm calls, defense against predators. I find some of the altruistic measures of these gorillas to be highly commendable; for example, if a troop is attacked by a leopard, the silverback will battle it while the rest of the troop goes to safety. Males and females who have bonded but not mated will cooperate with each other, as seen in male defense of young ones (that are not his own) against infanticide. Related females are also very cooperative and social with each other. I would improve this article by discussing the reciprocity of these acts and what enforcement is taken against free riders. Marklxb (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

ambiguous 1st sentence[edit]

Gorillas comprise the eponymous genus Gorilla, the largest extant genus of primates by size.

By size of the genus (number of members) or by size of the primate (weight or length)?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.86.123.73 (talkcontribs)

add a source[edit]

Can somebody add this source to the paragraph on evolution: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071210212200.htm When I edited as an IP, I was used to not being able to edit certain articles (I'm assuming this one has some Creationsist debate swirling around it?). Now that I'm registered, when will I be considered "established?"--Strangesad (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Spelling[edit]

"streaches" not "stretches" in Physical Characteristics section

Fixed, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

As a food source[edit]

Can someone knowledgeable please expand the material about the practice of eating gorilla as bushmeat? How it is hunted, prepared, what it tastes like, etc? Holdek (talk) 06:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Famous gorillas[edit]

Bua Noi is the subject of "a campaign on change.org aimed at rehousing the 28-year-old primate, who has been confined, alone, in a cage on the top floor of Pata department store since 1988."[1] --Tuboogle (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

(Punctuation mistake) Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2015[edit]

Under the "Cultural references" section, "pulp fiction" needs to be capitalized, e.g.:

Since coming to the attention of western society in the 1860s,[58] gorillas have been a recurring element of many aspects of popular culture and media. For example, gorillas have featured prominently in monstrous fantasy films such as King Kong. Pulp fiction such as Tarzan and Conan the Barbarian has featured gorillas as physical opponents of the titular protagonists.

Demonspectre (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gorilla&type=revision&diff=666717260&oldid=664670588 Cannolis (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)