Talk:Ape/Archive 1

Mystery ape

Moved from article:

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

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

The Bondo Mystery Ape

CNN article: Seeking answers to big 'mystery ape'

Leaky Foundation intro on Elusive African Apes: Giant Chimps or New Species?

National Geographic news: Elusive African Apes: Giant Chimps or New Species?

Drifting meaning of "ape"

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

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

Try yet again! it came from seglea

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

That depends on if you are asking when humans genetically became apes (which would be we've always been apes), or when it was first postulated that the other ape species and humans were descended from a common extinct ape ancestor (which would be about when Charles Darwin wrote Origin of the Species), or when it became a more common understanding than just a scientific one. - UtherSRG 18:24, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

more of angry sarcasm, sorry. i suppose what i meant was when was it that humans ceased being in a clade analogous respective to apes as apes were to monkeys, for that is how i remember it being said.

So you mean this? - UtherSRG 21:44, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

When you are speaking of apes here you cannot redefine the English word ape to include man. It is always "the great apes and man." You can study clades all you want and you can make Hominidae, Homininae, etc., mean whatever the scientific evidence warrants at the moment. Ape however is not and never was a scientific classification or a scientific word and the Hom- group of words doea not mean "ape" or "great", it means "man." There is no justification at all for calling Hominidae "great apes" and this would be a serious breach of the English language, especially as we are going to talk about apes and true apes. And just what are we, the truest of the true apes, faithful to our apish nature? No, I understand why the Wikipedia author who used ape to mean us did so, but I would point out that it is an ordinary English word, not a scientific word, and we cannot use it to mean us without a serious contortion of all the rest of philosophy, and who is Wikipedia to do that? Who are palaeoanthropologists to do that? But I do not think they are. I think this is strictly Wikipedia so we better get rid of the idea. We can say it without implying men are apes. They may be Hominidae along with the apes but they are not apes. Is there anything more to be said on the subject? So, I have changed a few words (only a few) in the leads of three articles to remove man from being an ape. In general however I understand and sympathize with cladistics and the desire to keep up to date. I don't see any apes trying to keep up to date. Seriously, even if you conclude (as seems to be the case) there is no scientific justification for breaking out man from the great apes, when you use "man" and "great apes" you are not being scientific. Science adopted the Greek and Latin vocabulary to avoid such conflicts as this. We cannot render scientific language into ordinary language. It does not compute. If you want science then you have to learn the language of science. Meanwhile, we need to keep out vernacular English so that we can communicate. I am not an ape, you are not an ape, he, she and it are not apes, we are not apes, etc. I could claim that the author is calling me names on Wikipedia; to wit, "great ape." (joke). By now you must surely see what I mean and agree.Dave 01:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No original research. Apes include humans. This is verifiable and factual. End of story. Malamockq 05:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"Although the superfamily of apes has always included humans, in its taxonomical definition, a more specific connotation of the word "ape" has found its way into the vernacular. This common usage of the word excludes humans when referring to apes." Ummm, no! Ape is vernacular English word in use for more than 400 years ( Shakespeare used it ), which does not include humans. Can anyone cite a scientific definition of the word, including humans, which is older than the common usage. I don't think so. I agree with Dave.Merkanmich 05:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"True apes"

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

What are "true apes"? Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 08:02, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

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

Actually, I also find that slightly odd -- I would consider humans to be agile climbers of trees as well. -- 68.35.154.196 18:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that humans are agile climbers of trees. Additionally, tho it might be origional research (I'm not clear on the rules for that), I was at the zoo last weekend when the gorillas were feeling frisky, and they were climbing up limbless trunks of trees that were prehaps three inches diameter and twelve feet tall and they were certainly agile.Pdarley

Pierolopithecus

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

The correct spelling: Pierolapithecus. El PaleoFreak--213.60.21.111 01:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

reorg

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

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

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

I changed News to New Species? for the time being; it could be incorporated into one of the other sections but I couldn't decide where. Do you know of any follow-up info on that? Also added a pic. Gibbons don't get no respect.

I also noticed that Cultural Aspects are odds and ends from human culture not a discussion about culture amongst apes. Marskell 12:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

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

Humans are not apes

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

"Taxonomy notwithstanding"??? Taxonomy's the whole point! That's like saying "Economics notwithstanding, so-and-so's a really good investor." — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 03:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Please do not feed the trolls. Let them fall into the traps they set up and help them to move along, but please don't feed them. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you. ;). Marskell 12:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

No trolling here. And no, taxonomy is not the "whole point". Common usage is the "whole point" (my bad for bringing "academia" into this). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an anthropological journal

Admit it: no one, but no one, uses the term "great apes" in conversation to mean humans. Well, maybe a few odd people in the anthropology community. But the term "great apes" MEANS "large, non-human primates". That's what it was invented for. That anthropologists may have taken the term and redefined it for their own use is completely irrelevant.

Wikipedia is not a collection of common usage information. It's a full, general, encyclopedia. This means being a bit more technical than just plain common usage would allow, so that its use as a reference can improve individual knowledge, not lower it. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Calling humans "apes" doesn't "improve individual knowledge", it merely ambituates terminology. You folks really need to set aside your religious fervor for a moment and acknowledge that, among 99.9% of the population, "ape" does not now, never has, and never will refer to humans. I'm amazed that there appears to be no one editing this topic who has the capacity to see that this is a matter of definition. I would have thought the collective IQ high enough to understand a simple argument of definition, rather than running to quasi-religious arguments such as below:

It took about 300 years for some folks to accept the idea that the Earth is a moving planet rather than the stationary center of the universe. We probably have about another 150 years before everyone will accept the idea of wikipedia including humans in the ape clade. --JWSchmidt 19:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, this is pure bull. The earth moving is an observation. What "ape" means is a definition. The poster above is correct: "ape" does not and never has meant "human", except perhaps among a very, very tiny minority of people. Among Scientologists, "power" has a specialized meaning. Shall we redo the Wikipedia discussion of "power" to be from the Scientologist viewpoint? (I bet there are ten times as many Scientologists as there are anthropologists who refer to humans as "apes".) 71.102.98.219 22:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)SB

I take it back. Apparently there is one person capable of understanding the argument. Thank you, SB, for not being another lemming.

Technically, not everyone believes the Earth is a moving planet, so the snarkier part of me wants to say that 150 years is too short an estimate. *grins* However, everyone isn't what's needed anyway. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

You said don't feed the troll, so don't feed the troll. Revert him/her. Ape includes humans, end of story. Marskell 23:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Since Darwin, there has been a continual effort to keep a barrier between humans and other apes. For those who feel that the biological fact of humans being apes is irrelevant, there is at least one group outside of the scientific community that accepts humans as apes: those non-scientists who are working to protect the non-human apes. first Google hit --JWSchmidt 23:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Marskell (and Schmidt, and Uther), why are you being so anal-retentively proscriptive in your definition? This is not a personal attack on your man-ape religion. It is a fact of word usage. A "lion" is not a "tiger" and a "mouse" is not a "rat", regardless of how closely the two species might be related. A "human" is not an "ape" in any normal definition of the word. Throw as big a tantrum as you like, but kicking and screaming doesn't change the fact of how the word is used among English speakers. Why must you proselytize your own religion?

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

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

Humans are apes, and I think this person arguing otherwise is the one with religious problems keeping them from seeing the truth. Why is everyone so resistant to the idea that humans are part of the natural world? Also, comparing a technical definition in anthropology to a technical definition in Scientology is a huge fallacy, since anthropology is actually a scientific discipline, whereas Scientology is a cultish religious group. In other words, anthropologists are experts regarding humans and apes, but Scientologists are not experts regarding "power" (except as they define it, which has no bearing outside of their group). Common understandings of scientific ideas and concepts are often very different from the realities, but you don't see anyone trying to say we should only have articles on the layperson's interpretations of things, which would be ridiculous for an encyclopedia. Anyways, some taxonimists actually label chimps (and possibly other great apes) under the genus Homo, which makes them HUMANS! The Ungovernable Force 07:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Finally, a glimmer of understanding begins to peek through. Yes, that is what I am saying. The word "animal" is a term used (by humans) to describe other "animate" beings that are NOT human.

For if we aren't animals, then we surely can't be apes. Yes, we are animals.

No, we are not.

We are mamamals.

Yes, that we are.

We are primates.

Yes, that we are.

We are apes. We are great apes.

No, see, there you go, falling into your pattern of misusage. We are "mammals" and we are "primates", which are both taxonomic categories. We are not, however, "apes".

---

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

Agreed. Yet we still maintain separate terms for "Moon" and "apple", despite their inherent sameness.

This misses the point. The point is, we do not have both "apple force" and "Moon force", all we have is gravity that applies to both apples and the Moon. --JWSchmidt 15:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

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

I would guess that any careful scientist would never be so brash as to proclaim that we have found "our actual place in the tree of life". Be that as it may, this is not a religious argument about whether or not humans are related to chimpanzees, which you seem to want to make it. This is a matter of definition.

Apply this attitude to gravity. You could try to define "apple force" as being distinct from "Moon force". Your definition would not make it true that there are two different forces. We have to let the evidence decide the matter, not tradition or anything else. --JWSchmidt 15:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

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

Here, you betray your inability to write from a NPOV. You wrongly assume that anyone who wishes to define the term in context of its actual usage must be "attempt[ing] to promote [exclusive] use [of] the term 'ape'". Of course, this is absurd, somewhat like saying that "many people still attempt to promote use of the term 'dolphin' so as to exclude its applicability to blue whales". Well, duh. Blue whales AREN'T dolphins, any more than humans are apes.

The point is, word meanings do change. Concepts evolve. At first, people had the idea that there is a force that applies to falling objects on Earth. People like Galileo performed experiments and quantitatively described the force of "(Earth) gravity". Later, Newton recognized that the orbit of the Moon could be accounted for by the same force. Previously, people had imagined that something other than "(Earth) gravity" was needed to account for the movement of the Moon. The meaning of "gravity" was changed by recognition of the universal nature of gravity. This is now celebrated as a "law". People have given up on the ancient biases that in the past led people to imagine "celestial spheres" or an ethereal force that might apply only to the celestial objects like the Moon and not apples. People just expanded their concept of gravity to include both celestial and Earthly movements. Similarly, there is now no reason to resist expanding your concept of "ape" to include humans. --JWSchmidt 15:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

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

Wrong. It's like trying to claim that blue whales aren't dolphins. Which they aren't.

What you are saying here is the equivalent of "humans aren't gorillas" or "humans aren't gibbons" or "humans aren't Old World monkeys". No one here is saying that humans are gorillas. However, dolphins are a group of cetaceans that don't include the cetacean species Blue Whale; apes are a group of primates that does include humans. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

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

Except for one thing; "we" humans aren't apes. We're humans. Why is this so hard?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

I just wanted to note that an Answers.com search reveals that the American Heritage Dictionary and Britannica Concise Encyclopedia does not name humans in their initial definition of apes, though the Britannica uses the term nonhuman apes later in the article. Even more interestingly, the Columbia University Press Encyclopedia defines ape as "any primate of the subfamily Hominoidea, with the possible exception of humans". 71.167.118.253 18:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistency among the quasi-religious

Marskell: I also noticed that Cultural Aspects are odds and ends from human culture not a discussion about culture amongst apes. Marskell 12:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

Leave off

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

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

Not helpful

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

Yes, SB, I am at MS, but no, I don't particularly care to meet with anyone, no offense intended. I'm busy and only post between builds and such.

You think I'm bad? Check out the responses below. Are these people stupid, or are they liars? Because I don't see any other possibility.

Are you UC on talk.origins on usenet? This is the same argument he uses on usenet _in the middle of a discussion of evolutionary matters_ In that context "men are apes" is simply the easiest and best way to get an important point across and UC's objections are simply moronic. In general usage, his (and your) points are more reasonable. - Will in New Haven —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.79.173.135 (talk • contribs).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anonymous, this is not helpful. You will simply get yourself banned along with everyone else at MS (which I am, at the moment). You're listed at the 3RR page. Request arbitration or something, but forcing the issue won't solve anything. It will just get you and other MSers banned. 131.107.0.80 18:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)SB

Suck it up, SB. These three are bullies. They refuse to acknowledge the point or even discuss it. You said so yourself. I'm not going to just take this lying down.

Moving on

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

The thing is, humans are apes in every biological sense of those two words. What can and should be done is, as has been said, to note the misunderstanding in common usage (and I balk at calling it common usage) and move on. However, the "Historicl terminology" section already accomplishes this to some degree. I will endeavor to address this. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I will second Uther and repeat my above point for the third or fourth time: this is not an encylcopedia of convential usage. If it were, AIDS could be listed as a "gay disease" and wives could be listed as "chattle." Yes, "ape" can be described as distinguishing humans from our relatives (though again, I second Uther as to whether this is "common" usage—my kid brother knows we're apes even if my older brother doesn't (no joke)) but the seperation is not what ape means. Ape means Hominoidea. I mean that's it, in a verifiable this is it sense. Yes, you can say "I was talking with a number of so-and-sos and they only use ape to mean non-human." Well, good for you; we are not obligized to apologize to the people who don't understand the rudiments of taxonomy. We should not split the two terms and ultimately introduce more ambiguity. Marskell 01:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Anon showed his hand when he started making statements such as "You folks really need to set aside your religious fervor", "your man-ape religion", "Why must you proselytize your own religion", "this is not a religious argument about whether or not humans are related to chimpanzees, which you seem to want to make it", "some quasi-religious types insist on modifying the current usage of words". People often ascribe their own motivations to other people, and this is exactly the same language as used by those who refer to Darwinism as a religion. Anon wishes to separate humans from animals, as he has said above. This is his motivation, and he is clearly not interested in the science of the issue. Anon's point that the word "Ape" is sometimes incorrectly used has now been added the article by UtherSRG, just like the Whale article mentions that some people referred to the animals as fish. Well done, now it's said. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 04:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

You obviously have no idea what Anon's point was. Though crudely put, he made it perfectly clear: The word "ape" does not mean "human". It's not an incorrect usage to say that "ape" means "non-human", since it very obviously means exactly that. (Why else would calling someone a "big ape" be considered an insult?) I am very well aware of the scientific arguments stating that humans and apes are of the same general type, and that in fact that some apes (e.g. chimps) are more similar to humans than they are to other apes. If you read Anon's stuff carefully, it seems he was well aware of that, too. He simply pointed out (correctly) that the word "ape" does not now and never has meant "human".

And frankly, though I disapproved of his tantrum and his getting all of Microsoft banned, I think he's absolutely right about the religion thing. There is no other reasonable explanation for why people would simply refuse to recognize what a word actually means. (As for the specious comparison below (above), "fish" hasn't included whales in over a century, so the comparison is nonsense.) As Marskell and others seem unable (or more likely unwilling) to grasp, this is not a question of taxonomy, it's a question of linguistics. 20:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)SB - moved by UtherSRG (talk) to prevent breaking the existing text

Sorry, but you are incorrect. During the debate I asked a bunch of folks here at work, just to see if I was being stubborn. I asked, "Are you an ape?" Without fail, everyone was able to reply with some form of affirmative answer. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

Humans are not apes. Stop trying to redefine the word ape to include humans! 64.200.124.189 22:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Please read this page. The issue you raise has already been discussed. --JWSchmidt 00:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

No, it has not been "discussed". Some anonymous poster tried to discuss it, and when he was shouted down, he threw a tantrum and got kicked off. But his point was never addressed, except by those unable to comprehend that it wasn't an issue of taxonomy, but of definition.

64.200.124.189 and the MS Anon poster are both right. "Ape" doesn't mean "human" and never has. I'm surprised and more than a little disappointed that so many people utterly refuse to recognize this obvious truth of linguistic usage. 20:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)SB

Disagree. Different usage has already been noted in the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. Different usage has been disparaged in the article, which still maintains (wrongly) that "ape" means "human".18:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)SB

This issue has already been discussed, please read the discussion, above. --JWSchmidt 23:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I have read it. I even participated in it. There was no discussion. There was Anon telling other people they were wrong, and there were other people telling Anon that he was wrong. No actual discussion took place, though Anon did at least make his point clear. But you, Uther, and whoever else simply ignored his point, for which he threw a fit and got tossed. Shame, too, because as bad as his presentation was, he is right.18:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)SB

You are making a persistent attempt to insert factually wrong information into an article. Your error has been discussed repeatedly on this page. The wikipedia article already explains in great detail why you are wrong. Under wikipedia rules, I am supposed to assume that you have good intentions. Making that assumption, I assume your argument is that since some people do not think that humans are apes, you think that wikipedia should ignore the fact that humans are apes and say that human are not apes. As has been pointed out before on this page, such an argument is not the basis upon which wikipedia articles are constructed. To resolve this dispute, I propose that you find some experts on apes who support your position. By expert, I mean someone who has done research on ape cladistics and published peer-reviewed articles on the topic. If you can find some ape experts who say that humans are not apes, then we can continue this discussion. --JWSchmidt 19:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

Ok, humans are apes.

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

El PaleoFreak

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

I'm not sure what the point of that statement is? Wikipedia follows facts, not common usage. Most people believe humans aren't animals at all, that doesn't mean it's true. Lengis 05:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it may be true many people in a number of countries don't believe humans are animals but I hope that's not true of most people. Not all nations are having the same trouble with religious doctrine attemptng to subvert science. Yet.

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

talk to an anthropologist. Humans are definetely considered apes (Hank Wesselman said this in a lecture to one of his anthropolgy classes today in fact). The Ungovernable Force 07:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Some anthropologists reckons that we are apes; some not. And it's their opinion, not 'The Science'. Paleofreak 14:20, 18 march 2006 (UTC).

I've never met a modern anthropologist who didn't consider us apes. The Ungovernable Force 06:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Again: that's the opinion of the anthropologists you've met, and not "The Science". PaleoFreak 09:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

About the new species

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

So this indicates that they are actually a subspecies (aka race) of chimp. As per the definition of a subspecies, they are physically different due to geographical location, but are able to reproduce with other members of their species and produce fertile offspring in the form of a crossbreed. I changed the name of the section to reflect this. Lengis 05:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

They may be a subspecies, or they may not be. It's not for us to declare them as such, that's a job for the scientists in the field. It's up to us to simply report the known information and such. I've modified your edit to keep us from crossing that line. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Bonobo

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

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

Why aren't bonobos listed in the article? Old Nick 15:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The Bonobo is a species of chimpanzee. The other species of chimp is the Common Chimpanzee. The article talks about the various apes on a level above species, so the Bonobo is not directly mentioned, nor is there any need to directly mention it; the mention of chimpanzees covers the Bonobo and the Common Chimpanzee equally. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Are dogs wolves? Afe birds dinosaurs?

Yes, and yes. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about birds and dinos, but dogs are a subspecies of wolf. The Ungovernable Force 07:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Dogs aren't wolves; 'Wolves' is not a valid taxon name. Birds do are dinosaurs, because they belongs to the clade Dinosauria (which means, literally, dinosaurs. Humans and apes are Hominoidea (which means something like 'humanoids') Paleofreak 14:20, 18 march 2006 (UTC).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) 20:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ape → Hominoid

Humans are not apes. Humans are hominoids. Ape is a term used to refer to nonhuman hominoids. So this article should be moved to hominoid. I've already done that, but somebody reverted it, so I'm discussing it here. CarLot 00:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~

• Oppose. "Ape" is a much more well-known term. Georgia guy 00:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It's well-known to refer to nonhuman hominoids though. Not hominoids which include humans. Humans are not apes. CarLot 00:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• oppose You are incorrect. Humans are apes, scientifically speaking. This has been dscussed on this page already, and explanatory text is included in the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Science does not determine the meaning of words. We are by the most common definition not apes. Try calling your teacher or your boss a big ape and see if they don't get offended. They most certain will. They will because humans are most certainly not apes. CarLot 01:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Read up above. During a previous debate on this topic I polled my workmates. They all agreed that we are apes. Yes, one can use the word ape derogatorily, but that doesn't change the fact that we are indeed apes. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
      • If we are apes, then ants must be wasps. But ants are not wasps, and so humans are not apes. As I've said, science does not determine the meaning of words. Humans are though hominoids along with the apes, and so "hominoid" makes the perfect title for this article. Google gets over 88,000 results for "humans and apes" clearly stating that we are not apes.CarLot 01:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Ants are not wasps, and so humans are not apes... sounds logical. Ucucha (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, and it looks like CarLot tried a copy and paste move, which probably should be spliced. --William Allen Simpson 08:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose and CarLot is wrong, Ape can include humans, as evinced by people conversing on this page. 132.205.45.148 19:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support, as "hominoid" is much clearer ("ape" apparently confuses lots of people) Ucucha (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support, we are apes and we are also monkeys in terms of cladistics, but not in the common, public, usage of either term. Ape is the more common word, but the most common definition of it is the incorrect one. --Aranae 20:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I just want to clarify that I do not oppose the wording in the article that defines humans as apes. I just think that an article title of ape generates confusion since it is the less common usage of "ape" that is applied here. It is the more accurate definition and I think accuracy trumps common usage in the text of an encyclopedia article. I do also think monkey is more accurately defined as including OW monkeys, NW monkeys, apes, and humans, but I'm not going to press the point at that article. I think it's important to note that there is an agenda pushed for the use of any common names. Retention of "ape" as non-human hominoids advocates for a certain specialness of humans as a variety of ape so special it deserves a new category. Retention of monkey for non-ape simians advocates for a position of ape as a monkey so special it deserves likewise. --Aranae 19:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support, less confusing than including humans in an article titled "ape". Science3456 20:39, 1 March 2006
• Oppose. Ape is a term used by some to refer to non-humans. The article explains why it makes ense to think of humans as apes. --JWSchmidt 02:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, completely. Bear takes us to Bear, not Ursidae. Ape should take us to Ape, similarly. Given that we are in fact apes, the initial argument has little merit. Where conventional usage is wrong, how does it make sense to perpetuate the error? Marskell 11:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Should we also then merge the simian article into monkey? Apes (including humans) are monkeys (in spite of what the monkey article says) since they are more closely related to Old World monkeys than monkeys are to each other. --Aranae 16:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "Monkey" isn't synonymous in any fashion with "simian". "Ape" is synonymous with "hominoid". - UtherSRG (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Why not? Monkeys are Simiae, Anthropoidea or something like that that are not Hominoidea. Apes are Hominoidea that are not Homo (though not everyone thinks so). What's the difference? Ucucha (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
      • All of the monkeys are contained within the lump of simians, but there are simians that are not monkeys and there is no dispute that they are not monkeys. The monkey lump and the simian lump are not entirely the same. All of the apes are contained within Hominoidea, and there are no hominoids that are not apes, even though some people don't understand that. The ape lump and the hominoid lump are identical (not just similar but exactly the same) even though common usage sometimes (and less frequently as people are educated) makes a distinction. The fact that the expression "non-human apes" exists means that the folks using that expression understand that humans are indeed apes. We should not pander to the lowest common denominator. Our job as an encyclopedia should not be to just document common understandings. We should work to be an educational tool. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
        • While Uther has made the point that needs making, I would suggest the following: go to monkey and drum up support for inserting the caveat about clades you are arguing (if it doesn't exist already). Here, it doesn't actually support your point. Humans were (re-)classified as apes in part because it was realized that they and chimps (an ape, yes?) were more closely related to each other than to the other apes. If you want to say that "Apes are Hominoidea that are not Homo" you're actually saying "Ape has no logical reference point." If humans are not apes, then ape has ceased to be a meaningful term.
        • And I would add this: if we change this to Hominoid nothing will actually change except a flip around of terms... "Apes (or hominoids) are a primate superfamily including humans" versus "Hominoids (aka Apes) are a primate superfamily including humans..." Nothing is going to change the fact that humans are a part of this taxonomic group. Marskell 21:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Paraphyletic isn't the same as "meaningless", I think. "Reptile" has not become a meaningless word because the taxon is paraphyletic. Ucucha (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
            • From our own page: "In most cladistics-based schools of taxonomy, the existence of paraphyletic groups in a classification is regarded as an error." Separating Homo from the other Apes is just such an error, and I see no reason why Wikipedia needs to perpetuate it. Marskell 14:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
              • That's in formal classifications. Paraphyletic groups are often used indeed. The same argument would go for "humans & apes are monkeys". By the way, the Oxford English Dictionary gives the following definition for "ape": "1 a large tailless primate of a group including the gorilla, chimpanzees, orang-utan, and gibbons. [Families Pongidae and Hylobatidae]". This evidently excludes Homo sapiens. Ucucha (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
                • Ah, but are we attempting to be scientific, common, or educational? The OED is fine for just common usage. In fact, dictionaries attempt to document common usage. Note that "d'oh" is in the OED now. An encyclopedia should try to strike a balance. We should show the scientific reality of humans being apes. We fail to do that if we allow common usage to override science. By saying that humans are not apes, we are pandering to the lowest common denominator and not working towards education. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Humans are hominoids, but not apes. Apes are nonhuman hominoids. 169.157.229.69 15:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Anon. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Ape-pose. As per UtherSRG. --Rockpocket 18:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Sockpuppet. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support. 64.194.44.220 02:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC) Anon. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support much clearer title. "ape" in common usage does not refer to humans. Snowball Earth Hypothesis 13:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC) Sockpuppet. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support. Hominoids include humans and the apes. Gardgate 17:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC) Sockpuppet. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support per above. StarTrek 21:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC) Sockpuppet. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support as per Ucucha. Fargo3455 15:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC) Sockpuppet. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as per UtherSRG. Humans are apes. And "ape" is much more commonly used than "homonoid". — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, common naming. Rhobite 21:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support per above. StuRat 00:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC) This vote was forged by User:CarLot [1] [2]. I have temporarily blocked him. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Strikeouts

I've struck out the two anonymous voters. I've also struck out a number of voters whose edit histories are questionable, leading me to believe they are sockpuppets. Note that I believe I did ths in a fair manner, striking out votes both pro and con and not just on one side of the arguement. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you please explain to me your justification for labelling me a "sock puppet" or questioning my record? I'd like my vote re-instated please. Rockpocket 19:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry... Yours was based solely on your name which, you must agree, bears a certain resemblance to the class of user I accused you of being. My apologies. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. I hadn't thought of that before. The "clever" play on words probably didn't help either. Thanks for re-instating. Rockpocket 21:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

UtherSRG keeps being a fool and removing my edits

User:UtherSRG keeps on being an idiot and removing my edits. User:UtherSRG is does not own this page and so shouldn't revert whenever someone makes an addition to the article. Doing so is plain stupidity. 64.192.107.242 19:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Make edits that make sense, and the edits will stay. As it is, you are blindly removing changes other than the ones you inted to make. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

And please see WP:NPA. The Ungovernable Force 19:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR Violation

How do we block 64.192.107.242 for 3RR? The Ungovernable Force 20:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, admins do that, but only after deciding where 123.456.789.012 comes from (WP:AN). You can't block "A user" without blocking their proxy, which may block other (legitimate) contributors (far as I understand it). I think as important as blocking on the Wiki is watching the pages. You're watching this one...keep doing so, so that some ridiculous point doesn't get inserted without anybody noticing. Marskell 23:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

history section

Nice work, Gdr! The data you added is nifty! However, I'm not really a fan of {{cquote}}. Can we fix that up? - UtherSRG (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like it, change it! Gdr 17:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

This is getting absurd

I was looking to see how many chromosomes various species of primates have. If you read the page on chromosomes at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Chromosome#Number_of_chromosomes_in_different_species you see that it says there humans have 46 chromosomes while apes have 48. I clicked on the hyperlink to Ape to see which species they mean when they say ape, and I find this page telling me humans are counted as apes. This is internally inconsistent. You need to reconcile this page and the page on chromosomes, and looking at this page, it seems like most people agree that apes and humans are two different things. I'm not a fundamentalist opposed to evolution. Quite the contrary, I knew that humans and chimps had different numbers of chromosomes, and I was hoping to compare the number of chromosomes in closely related species to see if the difference was a reduction in the number of chromosomes in the evolution of humans or an increase in the number of chromosomes in the evolution of the ape. So why are people trying to force an agenda by calling humans a type of ape? This seems to serve no purpose whatsoever, apart from trying to antagonize the opponents of evolution. Fundamentally, this is not only in violation of NPOV guidelines, but it is unnecessarily confusing. It only makes the terminology ambiguous. We do not need to call humans apes just because the group of humans + apes = a monophyletic grouping. "Ape" does not need to be a cladistic term.

It has since been changed to gorilla. However the terminology was confusing because gibbons which I think are accepted as apes even by the humans are not apes crowd don't have 48 chromosomes and indeed are variable depending on genera. So we would at the very least need to correct it to say great ape. However we might as well say non-human great ape or simply give a specific example like someone else did. Also, the same argument could be made about calling humans animals. Sure it's a lot more convient in some ways to not call humans animals, after all how often do people say someone's an animal (which is intrinsicly true but not in the way that was meant). But we do because it makes much more sense. It also avoids the confusion that a lot of people, especially religious people, but even non religious people have that humans are special (which gives rise to silly things like the claim every ape should evolve to be a human). They're not. Nil Einne 20:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

more refutation

-- Humans didn't evolve from apes, no Darwinist ever suggests that. We evolved from a proto-ape many millions of years ago, and the modern apes are a seperate branch of the evolution of that species. -- Hence, we closely related, but not considered in the same group. However, we are Hominidae (Great Apes), and that bracket is wide enough to include homo sapiens as well as the modern apes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.7.74.130 (talk • contribs) .

Actually, humans are more closely related to either of the two chimp species than we are to the two species of gorilla. Chimps are more closely related to us than they are to gorillas. Humans, chimps, and gorillas are all more closely related to each other than any of those three are related to orangutans. Your notion that humans are somehow not within the group of apes is outdated. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The problems with anon above appears to be with a misunderstanding of evolution and with the misleading term proto-apes. The so called proto-apes were apes. Humans and chimpanzee has a common ancestor however this doesn't mean humans evolved from chimpanzee. The ancestor of humans and chimpanzee was neither human or chimpanzee, it was a different ape all together (a proto ape if you want to call it that). I'm not sure whether this holds true for anon but there appears to be this common misconception that non-human apes have stopped evolving which is of course just plain silly. All apes have been evolving including humans and humans haven't necessarily evolved more then other apes, just in a different direction (just as each ape other species also evolved in a different direction). Also, although I use the term direction, it's important to remember evolution is not goal-setting and humans are not the desired outcome (again this often appears to be a problem where people think all apes or all animals 'want' to be humans) Nil Einne 19:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ape Art

I'm having a debate on a philosophy forum about the ability for apes to create art. I'm maintaining that apes neither have the biological or cultural equipment to deliberately produce abstract or figurative images, but with all these ridiculous "Gorrilla Art" websites selling "portraits" by Gorrillas for over $300, not everyone believes me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.7.74.130 (talk • contribs) .

Is there any decisive proof? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.7.74.130 (talk • contribs) .

Art is in the eye of the beholder. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

But surely there's no way they are actually deliberately creating symbollic images. That's too advanced an cognitive capability.

The first step is to get everyone to state their definition of art. If art must be symbolic, then it's a matter of deciding if the object created is symbolic. If art is defined as an object purposefully created for visual/tactile pleasure (a rather broad definition), then it becomes more likely that "gorilla art" is actually art. I've seen this type of debate before in the context of the question "Are video games art?" Just remember that the problem is usually one of communication. Good luck. Ladlergo 15:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

But they aren't deliberately creating art. That's impossible.

Why is it impossible. Just because you don't understand how it is possible, doesn't mean it isn't. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Humans are not apes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm so sick and tired of people on wikipedia redefining words. True DNA says that chimps are closer to humans than they are to other apes, so now we have to redefine ape to include humans. Why not just redefine humans to include chimps, it would make just as much sense, and than we could describe ourselves as non-chimp humans. Ape is a physical category not a genetic category. If you want a term that describes the broader group that only humans and apes belong to, then find or create such a word. That's how language progresses. But redefining words that have existing meanings does nothing but create confusion and destroys the English language.--Zalgebra 03:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read the article. It explains why objective cladistic analysis supports the practice of calling humans "apes". The meanings of words change all the time without language being destroyed. --JWSchmidt 05:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand that the decision to exclude humans from the ape family was arbitrary, and that it makes more scientific sense to include them, but neologisms like "non-human ape" are not the solution. That will confuse the living hell out of anyone who reads a biology book written before the neoligism was created. Instead just accept the fact that apes are an arbitrary classification that has been debunked by modern genetics and find a new term that unifies both humans and apes into a single category. As we see on the monkey article, it's hard enough for people to agree when multiple definitions of one word actually exist. Making up own definitions makes consensus impossible --Zalgebra 05:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• The situation is not really all that confusing. I'm not sure it is fair to say that, "to exclude humans from the ape family was arbitrary." It is probably better to say that natural human biases about how to classify humans resulted in classifications that later had to be abandoned after objective cladistic analyses were possible. "Scientific authorities" at one time went around saying that the Sun could not be very old because no chemical fuel source could last very long. Once fusion was discovered, it became clear that the old view was wrong and that a nuclear fuel could last for billions of years. I do not accept the argument that we are creating problems by recognizing in this Wikipedia article that it makes sense to think of humans as apes and that we can start using terms such as "non-human ape". The "problem" was past errors in thinking otherwise. When new information becomes available we change our thinking, change our way of talking about the subject and we move on. Really, it is not that hard to do. --JWSchmidt 21:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Trying to cut back wordiness

Changing "Most non-human ape species are rare or endangered" to "Most ape species are rare or endangered" seems a reasonable stylistic change to me. Consider the following sentences:

Most bears are brown or black in color.

Most non-polar bears are brown or black in color.

Most continents are inhabited by frogs.

Most non-antarctic continents are inhabited by frogs.

In each case, the second is unnecessarily wordy. I'm not sure why the change was reverted, due to lack of an edit summary (and marked minor?). --Yath 00:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The "non-human" bit was only added the other day; I've removed it again. --Emufarmers^(T/C) 04:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Specifying "non-human ape" is not a matter of "style", using the phrase is not "wordy"; it is a reasonable way to distinguish between non-human ape species and humans. The "non-human bit" has been used in this article for many months. --JWSchmidt 05:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right: It has indeed been in there for a while. It seems to have been variously taken out and re-added, however. At any rate, it is unnecessary: "Most ape species are rare or endangered" is just as accurate as "Most non-ape species are rare or endangered," because it already says "most," and it's "most ape species," not "most apes." Humans may vastly outnumber all the other apes on this earth, but we're only one species. --Emufarmers^(T/C) 05:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

JWSchmidt, this has nothing to do with the dispute over whether Humans are apes. It's about brilliant prose. --Yath 06:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yath is correct. I get a bit rigid with folks who make edits to try to say that humans aren't apes. In this case, the edit doesn't do that, the meaning is unchanged, and reads better. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

References in 'Cultural aspects of non-human apes'

I wish we could find references for the section documenting various religious folklore interpretations of apes and their similarities to humans. I can imagine it'd be difficult to find references for folklore, but I think some citations would be valuable. Also, wouldn't it make since to split up human cultural interpretations of non-human apes and the section on non-human ape culture? -Brandon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.234.198.197 (talk • contribs) .

Humans, Apes or not? can finally be put to rest

I've taken the liberty of creating a section on whether humans are apes or not (geez, that debate was on for years and no one thought of this). Let's just keep it neutral. No one can say that humans are apes, and no one can say that humans are not apes. However, you can add information supporting one side, as long as it's true! Hopefully, this will end all the fits over the human ape debate. 84.173.30.96 01:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No. Humans are apes. It's been put to rest. Stop trying to dig up trouble. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It is still debated, so don't be so head strong. if you want to support one side then fine. But remember that it's still debated, and it was not put to rest, as you notice continuous comments, and you can't ever, ever, prove that humans can be called apes. It's merely a term. A term does not have DNA. If you consider humans to be apes, fine, but please don't force your unprovable opinions on others. 84.173.30.96 01:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Show me some legitimate scientists who are debating the issue and I'll agree.... but given all the primatology work I've read, scientists are not debating this. They are firm that humans are apes. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Scientists are not debating the issue, because they're ignorant of the actual meaning of "ape". "Ape" cannot refer to humans, any more than "wasp" can refer to ants or "Caucasian" can refer to Japanese people. Wii gok 18:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

"Scientists...are ignorant". Oh, this is rich. Joelito (talk) 18:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Referring to humans as "apes", is like referring to ants as "wasps", or Japanese people as "Caucasians". It's simply incorrect. Wii gok 20:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Scientists are the ones who determine what the terms "ape" and "human" mean (from a scientific perspective), therefore if scientists say humans are apes, then that is what we are taxinomically. If you are going to argue we are not apes, don't try to do it from a (quasi) scientific perspective. You have a whole lot more of a chance from a non-scientific perspective. But since wikipedia tends to be biased (rightly or wrongly) towards an academic (and in this case, scientific) world view, I doubt that would work too well either. As far as I know, there isn't any debate in the scientific community as to our classification as apes, and any one who does debate it would surely be in an extreme minority position (and therefore not really important to us). Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 01:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

All of the members of the superfamily Hominoidea are apes. The human species is a member of the Hominoidea superfamily. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, humans are apes, in the sense that on all the evidence (palaeontological, genetic, morphological, etc) we are more closely related to two of the species of ape (chimpanzee and bonobo) than they or we are to the remaining apes (gorilla, orangutan, gibbons); we therefore fit within the group, and without us it does not make sense as a group. Now, of course there are other cases of such situations where we would not put one group inside another; for example, birds may well be more closely related to some reptiles than remaining reptiles are to one another. However in such cases (a) the distinct group contains many species (in the case of birds, thousands) not just one; and (b) there has been a long period of separation (in the case of birds, perhaps 200 million). Whereas in the case of humans' separation from the rest of the apes, we are talking about a single species, and the time of separation is about 5 million years, a twinkling of the eye in evolutionary terms. I can't think of any remotely similar case where we would say that a species with such a relationship to a group was not a member of that group. seglea 05:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahhhhhhhhh, but where are the documents that show proof that scientists consider humans apes? I don't see any. And most science based websites don't include humans as apes. Please also be aware that it was the SCIENTISTS to say humans are apes, AND you forget the fact that a minority of scientists disagree. Scientists can say anything they want and people are forced to believe it. Also, seglea, you should note the fact that EVERY OTHER non-human PRIMATE has diferent qualities than humans, which should seperate humans from apes. 1. hair doesn't cover our bodies everywhere (or do you have hair everywhere?), 2. Humans can stand upright, unless they have a disability, 3. Uhhh, we're not ugly retards that knuckle walk (at least I'm not), 4. Shorter arms and longer legs, 5. apes have feet with thumbs, making them look similar to hands (do you have any?), and 6. S-curved spine (or is yours a simple c curve?)

So bear with me. Let's just show both sides, stating that what scientists claim, and leave it at a neutral POV. 84.173.17.84 17:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen a scientist that debates humans are apes. I'm an anthropology major, and every anthro teacher I've had says humans are apes (that would be a total of 4). So have my textbooks. There may be a few scientists who debate it, but wikipedia policy is that extreme minority positions (and I'm sure that would be one) don't have any place on wikipedia. Unless you can show with reliable sources that a significant number of scientists disagree that we are apes, then the issue is pretty much over from a scientific stand point. As for your specific examples, 1) we do have hair all over our bodies, most of it is sparse, short and usually light-colored (why do you think women shave their legs? For the fun of it?). 2) All apes have a tendency towards upright posture and most (and I think all, but can't remember for sure) are capable of limited bipedalism. That is what seperates us from other apes--we are predominantly bipedal. 3) I can't judge whether you're ugly or not, I can't see you. Also, it's true that we don't knuckle walk. Neither do gibbons or siamangs, but they're still apes. Besides, we've already established that we have a different form of locomotion than other apes. 4) That's due to the difference in locomotor patterns, which is already discussed. And guess what, chimps and gorillas have shorter arm-to-leg ratios than gibbons and siamangs because they don't brachiate as much. And we brachiate less than chimps and gorillas, so ours our even shorter. 5) Also due to locomotor patterns. You're basically just repeating yourself on all these last ones. You have only identified two real differences--hair and movement. All the others relate directly to the different ways of moving. We are the only (relatively) "hairless" bipedal apes, but we're still apes. Just because there is variation between us and some of the other apes does not mean we aren't apes. We still fit the basic description. If anything are an exagerated caricature of the other apes, since we take many of the tendencies they have (increased intelligence, upright posture, less facial prognathism etc) and take them to an extreme. It's like when a cartoonist draws extra big ears on Bush--he doesn't really have ears that big, but he does have larger ears than most. We're like a cartoon of the other apes--they're not as intelligent or as upright, but they do have those a tendency for those things, and the farther you go evolutionarily, the more they are exhibited, until you get to us and get a really exagerated form of ape. Interesting side note, one of my anthro professors made the interesting observation that the grey aliens seem to be even more exagerated in some of those ape tendencies (absolutely no hair, even more slender and upright, super-intelligent with really huge heads). Not to say they are apes too (or even real), it was just interesting to notice. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 01:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

UtherSRG, that citation you put in does NOT say humans are apes. Put in something that does instead of confusing people. 213.103.238.165 20:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

READ THIS! Okay, I know for a fact that recent textbooks (from this decade) do not say humans are apes. We are primates, I acknowledge that, HOWEVER, the books say humans aren't apes. SECOND: I've never heard Hominid be dubbed Great Ape. I'll talk later maybe tomorrow since I must leave for the barber. 84.173.10.62 15:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's start with something simple... "where are the documents that show proof that scientists consider humans apes?". Here are just a few, going from the trivial to the biblometric:

• (i) I, personally (user:seglea), am a scientist (BSc, PhD, over 100 publications in scientific journals); I consider that humans are apes. This is a document.
• (ii) Jared Diamond, who is also a scientist, entitles one of his books "The third chimpanzee". It's about humans. Clearly he considers that humans are not only apes, but that we are chimpanzees (a defensible position since humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos form a clade, and bonobos are often referred to as "pygmy chimpanzees".
• (iii) I used Web of Knowledge, which records essentially all scientific literature, and did a topic search for "hominidae" and "great ape". The 2nd and 3rd articles I turned up contained the following quotes in their abstracts:
  • "...the great ape/human clade (Hominidae)" (Sola & Kohler, 1993, Nature, 365, 543-545
  • "Miocene hominoids from Europe are among the earliest members of the great ape and human clade (the Hominidae)" (Begun, 1992, Science, 257, 1929-1933.

These two articles are in the two most prestigious scientific learned journals in the world, the ones where every scientist wants to publish.

• (iv) One of the earliest results of molecular systematics was confirmation of the pattern of descent within the great apes that had been hypothesised on morphological grounds. Bailey et al, 1991 (Molecular Biology and Evolution, 8, 155-184), showed that genomic analysis, "supports the taxonomic grouping of all extant hominoids into family Hominidae, the division of Hominidae into subfamilies Hylobatinae (gibbons) and Homininae, the division of Homininae into tribes Pongini (orangutans) and Hominini, and the division of Hominini into subtribes Gorillina (gorillas) and Hominina (chimpanzees and humans)". This paper has been referred to (cited) over 100 times in the scientific literature since it was published. I have just looked at the titles and abstracts of a good sample of the papers that cite it and cannot find a single one that challenges its conclusion; indeed Wildman et al, 2003 (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 100, 7181-7188), go further and argue that the chimpanzee and bonobo should be included in genus Homo.

To say "humans are not apes" is on a par with saying "humans are not animals". There is a sense - a nursery sense - in which we use "animals" to mean "non-human animals". Similarly there is a sense in which we could use "apes" to mean "non-human apes". Perhaps some people do use it that way. But nowadays scientists, by and large, don't. seglea 20:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

¿¿To say "humans are not apes" is on a par with saying "humans are not animals"?? OK. Then, to say "ants are not wasps" is on par with saying "ants are not animals". El PaleoFreak 21:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Do a simple search of scientific publications with the keywords "apes" and "humans" (Use scholar.google.com, for example). You'll find tons of papers in which humans are not considered "apes", and they are strictly and rigorously using the phylogenetic taxonomy. It's not "The Science" who consider that we are apes; it's some scientists and some wikipedists. El PaleoFreak 21:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

An exercise. Identify the clade that corresponds to apes. Check to see if humans are in that clade. Hint, use the cladograms in the Ape article. If you still do not think that humans are apes, find a published cladogram that supports a different way to classify humans by placing humans outside of the ape clade. --JWSchmidt 03:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

There's not a clade that corresponds to apes. That's the BIG ERROR. Not all words we use when talking about animals can be assigned to a clade. There is a clade that corresponds to humans and apes: Hominoidea. "Ape" is not a taxonomic term. The taxonomic term is Hominoidea, which means something like "humanoids". Human are not apes; apes (and us) are "humanoids". El PaleoFreak 23:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Then why do scientists such as Todd Rae say things like, "...the superfamily Hominoidea, or apes (including humans)"? --JWSchmidt 04:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ask him about his particular motivations :-) Other scientists simply say: "...the superfamily Hominoidea: apes and humans" El PaleoFreak 18:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, one can ask yours. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, but JWSchmidt seemed interested in Todd Rae, not in me. I don't know why some scientists and some wikipedists are pretending to change the meaning of the word "ape". It's the promoters of that change who should explain themselves. I've talked with some of them, and they told me that calling humans "apes" can be good at fighting creationism, and also can be good for the public understanding of evolution (I've tested this with some people and the results weren't very good: they got more confused). They agreed with me that it's a proposal, not a fact. This is what's wrong with this article: the "humans are apes" is a proposal, or a trend, of some scientists, and not a Fact of The Science.--El PaleoFreak 10:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Then why do primatologists say chimps should stay out of Hominidae? For God's sake, it was in a citation! And who gives a damn about Todd Rae, that's only one person, and you should really show other scientists who say humans are apes. Or wait. Jimbo Wales runs wikipedia, why not let him decide? Or even better, LEAVE IT FROM A NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW!!! GIVE BOTH SIDES IF YOU'RE SO STUBBORN!!! OR MAYBE I DON'T HAVE TO BELIEVE THIS PAGE, SINCE IT'S RUN BY USERS LIKE YOU AND UtherSRG and seglea WHO ARE APES AND NOW WANT HUMANS TRO BE APES.84.173.26.156 15:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Also please refrain from personal attacks. Joelito (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone have the OED definition of the word ape? JPotter 19:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The OED will not give the best scientific answer. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Humans are a subdivision of apes, much like the Ford Pinto is a Ford Pinto and a car, or like Worf is a Klingon and an extraterrestial. Saying they are not leaves not only the question of what category do they fit in, but also violates laws of categorization. To give a final example, Chuck Norris is a TV actor, and a thespian. TV actors are a subdivision of thespians, much like humans are a subdivision of a species of a genus of a family of an order that leads up to Kevin Ba.. sorry, apes.

Lord Patrick 21:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed solution to the debate

This is a long and unresolved debate. How about a simple disclaimer line at the top in italics explaining clearly what the article takes to mean 'ape'.

This article is about the biological superfamily. For a discussion of the inclusion of humans as apes see the cultural section below. For the acronym see APE.

There is not a superfamily named "apes". That's the big error here. El PaleoFreak --213.60.21.111 10:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This clearly outlines where the article stands on the issue. I can understand the arguments raised above by some of the less scientifically minded readers, though let's be honest - there isn't a lot to write about for the generic term 'ape' if we aren't going to deal with it biologically. This disclaimer should be a fair compromise to all parties involved. Richard001 08:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I like it. Joelito (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

A question to those who don't accept that humans are apes.

If they aren't apes, what are they? Reptiles, plants, birds, fungi, extradimensional beings? Saying that humans aren't apes is like saying that sparrows aren't birds, or that Muslims are an ethnic group. Its categorically and logically absurd. Lord Patrick 17:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's absurd and appreciate the sentiment but you might be confusing things here. I think even most people who believe humans aren't apes still accept that they are mammals. My point is, there might be better examples or ways to explain this Nil Einne 18:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake. I thought, based on my reading, that it was a debate between those who acknowledge evolution and creationists, who generally categorize humans as seperate from animals for some bizarre reason.

VERY BAD reading :-( El PaleoFreak--213.60.21.111 10:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Lord Patrick 19:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

"If they aren't apes, what are they?" We are mammals, primates, anthropoids, hominoids, humans. What's the problem with this? "Saying that humans aren't apes is like saying that sparrows aren't birds" - No; it's like saying that ants aren't wasps (see above). Sparrows are birds, of course, but humans aren't apes. "Its categorically and logically absurd" - You haven't shown why. And read our arguments, please. All pro-humans_are_apes arguments have been refuted, with the sole exception of the "Science says it" one, which is hardly refutable ;-). El PaleoFreak--213.60.21.111 10:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is the full scientific, taxonomical description of humans; Eukaryota Animalia Eumetazoa Bilateria Deuterostomia Chordate Craniata Vertebrata Gnathostomata Teleostomi Tetrapoda Amniota Synapsida Mammalia Eutheria Euarchontoglires Euarchonta Primates Haplorrhini Simiiformes Catarrhini Hominoidea (Apes) Hominidae Homininae Hominini Hominina Homo Homo sapiens Homo sapiens sapiens So, is the Ford Pinto not a car, despite being in that category? Is Worf not a non human, despite being in that category? Is Earth not a planetary body, despite being in that category? If something is in subdivision A of category B, then quite logically that something is in category B. Its simple common sense. Lord Patrick 02:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh! Again.... The correct taxon is Hominoidea, not Hominoidea (Apes). We agree about taxonomy, but disagree about what you've add in that parenthesis. What if I write "Here is a scientific taxonomical description of humans: Mammalia, Eutheria, Euarchontoglires, Euarchonta, Primates (lemurs)"? Or This one: "Hominidae, Homininae, Hominini (chimps)"? Or "Hominidae, Homininae, Hominini, Hominina (australopithecines)". What's your opinion about these scientific and taxonomical descriptions? El PaleoFreak 213.60.21.111 20:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hominoidea IS the ape family, much like Plantalia is the plant family. And much as William Shatner is a TV actor and a thespian, humans are hominids and apes. Hominidae is a family under apes, and homindae includes a chain leading directly to humans. Humans are Eukaryota, Animalia,Eumetazoa, Bilateria, Deuterostomia, Chordate,Craniata, Vertebrata, Gnathostomata,Teleostomi, Tetrapoda, Amniota, Synapsida, Mammalia,Eutheria, Euarchontoglires,Euarchonta, Primates, Haplorrhini,Simiiformes, Catarrhini, Hominoidea,Hominidae,Homininae, Hominini, Hominina, Homo, Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens sapiens. They are all of those things above. Give me ONE peer reviewed journal doubting humansa are apes. Lord Patrick 20:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hominoidea is the ape family and the human family, much like the Hymenoptera clade is the wasp clade and the ants and bees clade :o) There are lots of papers where humans are not considered apes. The expression "humans and apes" is very common in today science. Asian Elephants [have been discovered http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0608062103v1] to recognize themselves at the mirror. The abstract says: Considered an indicator of self-awareness, mirror self-recognition (MSR) has long seemed limited to humans and apes and: Apart from humans and apes, dolphins and elephants are also known for such capacities. El PaleoFreak--213.60.21.111 09:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of these articles are edited and retouched for public consumption. Humans and apes is a term much like the similar term humans and animals. Although they are the same thing, they are not referred to due to public unfamiliarity with humans being called apes or animals. Its hyperbole for familiarities sake. For another example, on the General Grievous page, it refers to him by his best known name, and not by his real name, Qymaen Jai Sheelal. However, it explains early on his real name in the article itself. Humans are one of the great apes, not seperate from other apes. There is no logical reason, other than anthropocentrist delusions of grandeur or religious fundamentalism to not accept that humans are apes. Lord Patrick 01:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It's easy to see biases and stupid "-isms" in the others' heads instead of discussing their arguments, isn't it? I know how to play: I could say you are illogical "apecentric" people, or platonic idealists, or even anti-evolution fixists, unable to accept the fact of evolutionary transformation and divergence. But that's not a fair way of discussing. El PaleoFreak --213.60.21.111 20:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright then. What about the fact that the only major difference between humans and other apes is size, fur, bipedality, and sapience. Wasps are highly different, socially and anatomically, from bees. Both humans and chimpanzees, orangutans, lemurs, bonobos etc are group animals, that collaborate in structured hierachy based societies that are often gender segregated. Both are omnivorous, and capable of organized warfare between groups. Both have two five fingered hands and two five toed feet. Humans are apes. Why is it so hard for you to accept this? Lord Patrick 01:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

¿"Size, fur, bipedality, and sapience"? I count four differences, not "one major difference" :-) (I'd remove "size" and add some other things instead). The number and the importance of the differences between humans and apes (or between wasps and bees and ants) would bring us hours of interesting discussions. The fact is, the term "ape" doesn't include "human" except for *some* scientists and *some* people, and they have failed at giving us a good rational or scientific supporting argument. Why is it so hard for me to accept your claims? Because you continue repeating it dogmatically: "humans are apes. Humans are apes. Humans are apes. You have to accept this. You have to accept this". That's not convincing, sorry. El PaleoFreak --213.60.21.111 16:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that it's some scientists? I would say it's the vasy majority, or at least the vast majority that count (physicists, chemists etc don't count any more then the opinion of biologists about whether the theory big bang is likely to be true or false). Note just because scientists may no bother to make the distinction between apes and non-human apes in some instances doesn't mean they don't believe humans are apes Nil Einne 05:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If I say "some scientists" and you say "the vast majority", I think you should first bring evidence for your claim, because it is more radical. I repeat: you can easily do a search and find lots of recent scientific papers where humans aren't considered apes. You only have to read titles and abstracts. El PaleoFreak.--213.60.21.111 11:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the points I was making. I was simply giving my point of view which is that it's the vast majority of scientists. I am not asking you to believe me but I am saying if you want me (or anyone else) to believe you you'll need some evidence to convince me. As a biologist myself, I find it hard to believe that it isn't the vast majority but again, I'm not trying to prove this to anyone. I'm simply expressing a POV which is contrary to what you have stated (and you were the first person to try and quantify how many scientists believe humans are apes). My second point which you also appeared to have missed is that there is a big difference between a scientist failing to distinguish between non-human apes and apes in a paper (or whatever) and a scientist who believes humans are not apes. The only way you can know whether or not a scientist believes humans are not apes is by asking them. Finally IMHO you suggestion is more radical. Since there is no strong evidence either way, whichever suggestion is more radical is irrelevant. However as the first person to make the claim and as the person who is trying to convince others to believe you, it is up to you to provide evidence Nil Einne 13:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't offer any evidence to convince me, you are simply giving your point of view, but I should, on the contrary, give evidence to convince you. That's superiority! ;-) A person wrote (see above) that "Science" says humans are apes. That was the claim I'm replying. Evidence should be given to prove THAT claim. I'm not triying to "quantify" anything. I can find a lot of actual science examples where humans are not considered apes (I think what scientists "believe" is not relevant: "The Science" is not about polls; it's about scientific publications). I can also find examples of the other side. I don't know what percentage of "The Science" states that humans are apes, but I have provide a way to see there's not agreement or consensus at the scientific community on this particular issue. And this is a "jargon" issue, not a philogeny or taxonomy issue. In other words, it's not a very "scientific" issue. El PaleoFreak --213.60.21.111 19:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with superiority. It has to do with the fact you are trying to convince me of your POV. I am not trying to convince you of my POV. I simply mentioned what I believe to illustrate why I don't believe you. If you can't offer any evidence for what you believe, then there is no reason for me to believe you. I do have reasons for what I believe, specifically because of my experiences and interactions. As I've mentioned I am a biologist. Therefore, it would take good evidence for you to convince me otherwise. Again, I'm not trying to convince you of my believe, so whether or not you believe me is irrelevant and this has nothing to do with 'superiority'. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the original statement. Whether or not the statement you were replying to has any evidence is irrelevant (as I'm not debating that issue here). You made a statement and I'm challenging you to prove it. If you are unable to prove it, or offer any evidence then just say so. Nil Einne 15:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, you don't seem to understand the issue at all. You stated that 'some scientists' believe something. This is a believe and has nothing directly to do with science. Scientists believe all sort of things and the only way you can know what they believe is by asking them. I hate to repeat myself but as I've said time and time again, THERE IS A VERY BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SCIENTIST FAILING TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN NON-HUMAN APES AND APES AND A SCIENTIST WHO BELIEVS HUMANS ARE NOT APES. Sorry for the bold caps but since I've said this 3 times, drastic measures were called for. So far, all you've tolds us is that scientists sometimes fail to differentiate between non-human apes and apes. This doesn't prove scientists don't believe humans are apes or that the paper was intended to claim humans are not apes. Unless you can quote a specific statement in a paper where it was said "humans are not apes" then your evidence is meaningless. Nil Einne 15:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I repeat: someone claimed "Wikipedia is following the science, and the science says that humans are apes". He didn't provide any evidence for that claim. I know (and you know, and we can prove easily) that some scientists believe humans are apes. That's not "my belief"; it's a fact that some scientists believe that humans are apes. "Science" saying humans are apes, is NOT a fact; it's an unproved claim, it's someone's belief. I'm not "believing" things here; I'm been skeptic about others beliefs and claims. It's you who seem to not understand the issue at all. El PaleoFreak--213.60.21.111 11:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, I am not arguing about the original sentence. As I stated above, it's completely irrelevant. You seem to believe it is only a small proportion of scientists who believe humans are apes. I believe it is the vast majority. Neither of use are offering any evidence of our claims. I asked you to provide evidence but you are unwilling or unable. If you don't want to, you should have just said so in the first place rather then getting into a heated argument over nothing. This was and is the main issue that I'm discussing here. I think I've made that clear from the start but you appear to have misunderstood me either on purpose or by accident. The second issue I will discuss below Nil Einne 11:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't believe it is only a small proportion of scientists who believe humans are apes. I believe it is a proportion; some proportion :o). I don't know what is the percentage, and I'm not discussing percentages of "belief" among scientists. El PaleoFreak--213.60.21.111 01:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If it walks like a duck, if it looks like a duck, if it sounds like a duck... its a duck. Not a nonduck. Explain to me the differences between humans and other apes. Lord Patrick 05:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

But humans don't walk like an ape (we are bipedal), nor look like an ape (erect body without fur, often clothed), nor sound like an ape (we speak... and sing!). Poor arguments :o/. El PaleoFreak --213.60.21.111 11:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you've made your point, Lord Patrick. There's no need to keep repeating the same argument - remember that this is a discussion page and not a forum. It's both fully clear that there are vast differences between humans and other apes, and that humans are biologically apes. The issue has been resolved as far as the article goes, and any further discussion here is little more than turning Wikipedia into a soap box. Let's keep the discussion constructive and related to improving the article, or take it to a more appropriate forum elsewhere. Richard001 07:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely not "fully clear", in this article or other articles, that we are "biologically apes" . What does "biologically" means? Are ants biologically wasps? Thanks in advance. El PaleoFreak--213.60.21.111 11:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This argument will continue for all eternity unless the Wikipedia article "ape" is corrected in not saying that humans are apes. We are mammals, primates, anthropoids, hominoids, humans but not "apes" or "animals". The other hominoids are also apes and animals, but not humans. You all are failing to see that evolution creates divergence. Humans are extremely different from the other members of the Hominoidea superfamily. Voortle 18:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

We're not animals??? What are we then? Plants? - UtherSRG (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

People. Voortle 18:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, carbon-based, semi-liquid life forms to you, but still animals. CMacMillan 18:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, and where do people fall in the tree of life? What taxonomic Kingdom are we in? - UtherSRG (talk) 18:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

We're in the Kingdom Metazoa, which includes humans and animals. Voortle 18:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Try again. Look furhter up in this discussion for the full list. We're in Animalia, along with all the other primates, along with all the other mammals, along with all the other vertebrates. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

We're in the Animalia, or Metazoa (same thing) but we're not animals. "Metazoa" and "Hominoidea" do not imply that all of the organisms in these categories are animals and apes any more than the "Hominini" implies that all the organisms in that category are chimps. Topses 02:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought this thread was a joke. Are you seriously arguing that humans are not animals in the real sense, rather than the connotational sense? (Although that can sometimes apply.) Wow, how arrogant. I don't know if you're religious, but I'd watch that pride. CMacMillan 02:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"Humans and animals"? Last time I checked, humans weren't exempt from laws of taxonomy. Give me even one reason why humans shouldn't be considered animals, that DOESN'T cite any religious text.

Because that's not how the word "animal" is used in general conversation. We should describe "human" and "ape" by the way the words are actually used, not the way that scientists think they should be used. Say "humans are animals" or that "humans are apes" is like saying that the Japanese are Caucasions, it's simply wrong by definition. Voortle 03:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Lord Patrick 07:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Why are we extremely different from other members of the Hominoidea superfamily? You're right that evolution creates divergence, but human and chimpanzees are less diverged from each other then chimpanzees (and humans) are from gorillas (as we have discussed oh so many times) Nil Einne 14:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we are animals. That's well stablished for several centuries. Saying the contrary is not helping. El PaleoFreak--213.60.21.111 19:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Voortle, the Japanese/Caucasian argument has been brought up nearly ten times on this page alone, and has been repeatedly refuted. I coudn't care less what the "common usage" is. I care what scientists say about the matter, since they are more qualified to comment on it than the layman. It's like saying that we should redirect HIV to AIDS.

Lord Patrick 08:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

What I don't get is why does the argument always end up being Japanese/Caucasian? Why not Korean/Caucasian or Chinese/Caucasian or whatever? Nil Einne 15:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

ElPaleo-Why are we animals? There is just as much reason to say we're not animals as we're not apes. Neither are scientific terms per se and if we're in your apparent opinion, particularly different from other apes then we're also particularly different from other animals... So why not have humans as distinct from animals and apes? BTW, your argument about paper titles also applies here. If you do a search, you will find A LOT of papers where scientists talk about humans and animals. Of course, the same issue which I keep bringing up applies here. It doesn't in any way show that the writers of said papers are saying that humans are not animals or that they are trying to show humans are not animals in the paper Nil Einne 16:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. The argument "if we are animals, then we are apes" is a fallacy. A similar one can be formulated this way: "If we are animals, then we are lemurs". Or "if apes are animals, then apes are humans". You are right about those papers about humans and animals. I'm a bit surprised :o) What can I say? Humans have been classified as animals (Animalia) since the origins of Taxonomy. This doesn't apply for "apes", a non taxonomic term but a common term that never meant humans. El PaleoFreak--213.60.21.111 11:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, you seem to have completely missed my point (and also came up with a silly argument). I wasn't saying if we are animals, we are apes. I was asking you why you believe we are animals. Animals and apes are not taxomonic terms per se. Animalia is but animals and Animalia ARE NOT the same word. Therefore, the question remains what does the word 'animals' mean? To you, it mean's Animalia. However to Voortle it does not. This is just a valid argument as your argument that apes does not mean Hominoidea. If apes doesn't mean Hominoidea then waht does it mean? To you, it means non-Homo sapiens Hominoidea. Similarly, to Voortle animals means non-Homo sapiens Animalia. In both your views, humans are unique among other Hominoidea. In Voortle's view, humans are unique amongst Animalia. Now obviously you don't have to believe both. However both are equally 'valid' arguments and come from the same basic idea. Nil Einne 11:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Animalia means "animals". Literally. And Vertebrata means "vertebrates". And Dinosauria means "dinosaurs". And Tetrapoda means "tetrapods". We are animals, and birds are dinosaurs. But Hominoidea doesn't mean "apes". Hominoidea means something like "humanoids". I repeat: we were considered animals since the very first origins of Taxonomy. We have never been considered "apes". That's a relatively new claim. El PaleoFreak --213.60.21.111 00:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no intrinsic reason why animalia must mean animals. Nil Einne 20:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As for the papers. I was not surprised at all. Indeed it was what I expected. As I've stated, this has nothing to do with said scientists believing or trying to suggest humans are not animals. Indeed if you were to suggest that to the authors of the paper they'd probably think you were an idiot. The reality is the words apes and animals are English words not taxonomic terms. As such, they are often used in certain contexts to mean different things. It's much simpler to talk about humans and animals rather then humans and non-human animals. Similarly, it's easier to talk about humans and apes rather then humans and non-human apes. The meaning is understood and it's usually not a problem. Scientific journals are only really read by scientists and rarely are scientists going to think the title is suggesting humans are not apes or humans are not animals. Nil Einne 11:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

One of the meanings of the word "animals" is a taxonomic meaning, identical to the term Animalia. Some common words for living beings have exact equivalents in Taxonomy. Some not. El PaleoFreak--213.60.21.111 00:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Agaim, you have failed to provide an explain as to why that has to be so. Animals could mean animalia, it could not mean animalia. Both are English words. Similarly ape could mean hominoidea, it could mean something else. This of course has nothing to do with the specific point I was making here. The specific point I was making is that scientists use the word animals to exclude humans in some contexts and they also use the word apes to exclude humans in some contexts. Neither means the scientists believes humans aren't animals. Nil Einne 20:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence that there are still a resonable number of scientists who dispute that humans are apes

ElPaleo (and possibly others), you seem to be convinced that there are still a resonable number of scientist who dispute humans are apes. I'm asking for evidence for this. If you don't want to provide such evidence, that's up to you. Please don't get sidetracked here or bring up other issues. These are not issues I want to discuss here. If you want to discuss them, do so in a seperate topic. I am simply asking for evidence. If you don't have any or don't want to provide it, just say so.

I will repeat the statement I've made. Evidence that scientists sometimes fail to differentiate between non-human apes and apes is not evidence scientists don't believe humans are apes

Nil Einne 11:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think evidence must be provided for the claim "science says humans are apes". I know there are scientists that believe humans are apes (and scientists that don't). But the scientists' beliefs is not "the science". Science is not about beliefs nor about polls. I'd prefer scientific and rational arguments, not authority arguments or dogmatic statements.

El PaleoFreak --213.60.21.111 01:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to the point I was making. If you wish to discuss this, please do so elsewhere. If you have no response to what I was saying, just don't respond Nil Einne 20:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

English vs. science

I'm seeking some consensus here. It seems to me that one of the reasons we keep getting in to arguments is because an apparent believe by some that scientists are trying to change the English language. I don't believe this is the case. To the vast majority of scientists, in a scientific sense ape means Hominoidea and animal means Animalia. There is no other sensible definition since we are not unique, despite what some people like to believe. However I also think most scientists don't have a problem with the fact that both these are English words and so are used to mean different things in different contexts.

Specifically, ape and animal are used to mean non-human Hominoidea and non-human Animalia. We are human and so there are a lot of reasons why we often want to refer to these groups excluding humans. Especially in titles and the like it's simpler but the meaning is usually understood. Even on wikipedia, we have a list of apes. In the article, we point our humans are apes but excluded, however I don't think anyone is likely to propose the list be renamed to list of non-human apes. These words are also used within context to convey certain meanings. For example, if you say "person A is an animal in bed" few scientists are going to come out and say "well person A is an animal, duh!" (and when they do, it would usually be in an attempt to be funny). Or if you say "person B is behaving like an ape" few scientist are going to come out and say "well person B is an ape, duh!".

The problem arises when people start saying humans are not animals/apes. To most scientists, this is just plain silly since as I've stated, there is no scientific reason to say were not. These ideas smack of misguided superiority notions and/or religious fundamentalism opposed to key scientific concepts such as evolution. When it comes to wikipedia, we are an encyclopaedia not a dictionary. While there are probably merits to point out the words ape and animal are used to mean Hominoidea and Animalia excluding humans in a dictionary, there is no reason to do so in an encylopaedia.

I don't think this is going to settle ElPaleo or Voortle concerns but does this help to address the concerns of others who keep wanting us to say humans are not apes

<<There is no other sensible definition since we are not unique>>

Nil Einne 12:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

When people (and scientists) start saying ants are not wasps, is it plain silly? Are these ideas smack of misguided superiority (ant-centric) notions and/or religious (ant-theist) fundamentalism? Are they oppossing evolution? Please, stop repeating those "you are anti-evolutionists" fallacies. Thank you.

Apes as Food?

I happened to stumble across this article and noticed that there is no section on apes as food. Anyone want to add this? All I know is that ape meat is supposed to be very sweet and difficult to digest. There's a book out on it (called "Eating Apes"... around on Amazon). Apparently the eating of apes is quite common in West and Central Africa. Unfortunately I've never had the chance to taste such a dish myself! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.252.48.30 (talk • contribs) .

Bushmeat and Cannibalism should provide all you need on the subject of edible apes. Lord Patrick 01:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The encyclopedia referring to humans as apes is a personal attack

One that should be removed. "ape" never refers to humans. "ape" refers to hominoids that are not human. When someone calls someone a "ape", it's an insult. Saying in the encyclopedia that humans are apes is no less offensive than if the encyclopedia were to say that black people are niggers. Voortle 14:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Nigger is a bigoted and racist term used by people with no scientific qualification to comment on black people. Ape is a biological term used by scientists and biologists to refer more easily to "Hominoidea". When we are using ape in this article, we are using it in the scientific sense, not the derogatory sense. Saying humans aren't apes or humans aren't animals is as silly as saying fish aren't meat. A common yet completely unscientific position. It is 99% of the time motivated by either egoism, religious fundamentalism, or both.

Lord Patrick 00:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Ape is a term used by some scientists to biasely refer to "Hominoidea". Other scientists simply say "Hominoids" when they refer to Hominoidea. Easy, unambiguous and not biased. They also use the word "apes" to refer to... the apes (four handed, speachless furry hominoids: Orang-outans, gorillas, chimps). This wiki article is hiding the second use.--91.117.8.46 14:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC) El PaleoFreak

Suppose some scientists were to group certain people (including black people) under a group which they called "niggers" and then claimed that black people were technically niggers and that they were using the word in a scientific sense rather than a derogatory sense. I'm pretty sure their would be plenty of arguments from people that that was a personal attack. It's the same with scientists using "ape" to refer to humans. It's a personal attack. Grouping people or certain groups of people under a derogatory term is a personal attack. Since scientists have the word "hominoid", why not use the to group humans with the chimpanzees etc. rather than using the derogatory term "ape" which is no less bad than grouping certain humans using the derogatory term "nigger". Voortle 03:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If you object to being called an ape, just call yourself a "hominoid" instead... AnonMoos 01:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, your definition of personal attack is skewed. A personal attack is, according to Roget's New Millenium Thesaurus, "attack someone's reputation" or "attempt to defame another". Scientists have placed humans in Hominoidea for decades. Why would they want to insult their own species? Lord Patrick 05:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You haven't been listening to a word I have been saying. I'm not saying we're not in Hominoidea, I'm saying we're not apes. "ape" and "Hominoidea" are different words, though you may think they're the same word. Is your English poor or what? Voortle 14:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=ape "any of various primates with short tails or no tail at all". As humans are primates: http://sciencenorth.ca/chimp/glossary.htm "The Order of Primates is made up of 12 Families. Primates are athletic and intelligent. Most eat plants, but a few are hunters. They also display intricate social behaviour, especially in apes like the gorilla and chimpanzee", and have short or no tails in nearly all cases, they are apes. Lord Patrick 20:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

They aren't the same word. But in the scientific context, ape means hominoidea. Just as similarly as animal means animalia. So we are both apes and animals. Some may find this offensive. If you don't want to consider yourself an ape, that's up to you. Also, I should point out that most scientists think that biologically/genetically, race is a meaningless concept. So it's rather unlikely biologists will decide to call anyone a nigger (this isn't the only flaw in your suggestion but it's a key one) Nil Einne 20:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Under your logic, Christianity isn't a religion because "Religion and Christianity are different things!1!1!". The delicate sensibilities of egotistical individuals (not saying you are, merely some) do not change the facts. Science is not a public opinion poll, else gravity would be abolished by people who hate falling, and homosexuality would be declared a myth by fundies.

Lord Patrick 03:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Africa vs. Asia

I remember reading that most ape diversification happened in Asia, and that Chimpanzees, Humans, Gorillas probably descend from ape lineages that moved back from Asia to Africa.[3] If correct, this should be mentioned in the article... AnonMoos 02:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Page broken

The article does not seem to correspond to the code on the edit page, namely the Miss Ford nonsense is still tacked on at the end of the introductory paragraph, and the Historical and Modern Terminology section is completely missing. I can't figure out how to reverse this. {{subst:unnsigned|24.79.79.76}}

Looks fine to me. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No, there is definitely something wrong with the page. I was going to delete the paragraph referring to "Miss Ford," but couldn't find it in the edit page.147.222.24.23 20:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just reloaded the page, and the Miss Ford stuff disappeared.147.222.24.23 20:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Behaviour and cognition

(I've modified this comment of mine after doing some more editing on the article)

I have removed the following section from the "Cultural aspects..." section. It isn't about cultural aspects in the sense of the rest of material in that section, and it is well below the quality standards of Wikipedia (and of most of the rest of this article). I will add some quick notes on scientific work on ape cognition to replace it.

Humans and the other apes share many similarities, including the ability to properly use tools and imitate others. Recent studies at Yale test some of these similarities. A professor and his/her students gave a challenge to baby humans and baby chimps. Both groups were shown a way that might solve this challenge. However, neither group knew that the solution they were shown was incorrect. Both times the baby humans tried to complete the challenge, they imitated what they were shown and failed at the attempt. The chimpanzee babies also failed their first attempt, as they too mimicked what they were shown. However, on their second attempt, they created a novel solution, and thus completed the challenge. The professor interpreted this as meaning that baby chimps learn from experience, while baby humans just imitate what they are shown. This gave scientists key information in understanding the cultural aspects of ape life and evolutionary similarities between humans and apes.

There have also been recent breakthroughs in evidence of ape culture that go beyond what was explained above. This was further explored by scientists at the convention in St. Louis.

Instead, I have added some very brief notes outlining some main findings on behaviour and evolution. It obviously could be greatly expanded, but most of what might go in it is probably better placed on other pages (for example, the social behaviour has so little coherence that it is much better placed with the individual species or groups). Cognition has more uniformity, but could become enormous; perhaps we should have a page on "Ape cognition". This whole section could do with a lot more referencing, though the links to other pages will lead to references - I don't have time to do it at the moment.

seglea 19:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I made a few minor edits. Why did you move the section to near the end of the article? - UtherSRG (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Heed the warning - get back to Wikipedia

The furor over humans as apes basically derives from the unaccustomed use of the term ape to mean human. Now, it can only be unaccustomed for one of two reasons, either it is something new, or it was invented for this article only. If some palaeoanthropologists want to call us apes and Wikipedia wants to report that fact then let us have the citations on BOTH sides of the issue. Without those citations this track is either wrong or is original research and in either case does not belong on Wikipedia. We have had plenty of discussion, so much so someone has seen fit to warn us. I think we are over the discussion phase and some of you do also, one way or the other. Now it is time to settle this properly. There is no point at all in taking a vote. It is NOT up to us to decide the question, only to report what palaeoanthropologists are doing. And beware, stop drawing your own conclusions from what they are saying in scientific language. What I want to see is, some palaeoanthropologist of repute who classifies man as a great ape explicitly: "the hominidae are great apes", "man is a great ape.". Nothing less will do. And then I want to see some statement that other palaeoanthropologists do NOT use this terminology. Find me a scientist who translates Hominidae or Homininae as "Great Ape." In blunt terms, put up or shut up. Now, others have already put citation requests in here, as this is the next logical step. Well, if that is not enough, we can escalate to accuracy and original research tags and pop this into the lap of the administrators. As this is a major educational issue, to promulgate an encyclopedia to impressionable youngsters calling us great apes, and to put it on a CD, I think we owe it to ourselves as public to be sure of what we are talking about, don't you? What also might happen is, Wikipedia will lose whatever credibility in this field it had and the article will slide into chaos, like so many others.Dave 02:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

UtherSRG deletions

Hello Uther. You seem to keep deleting whatever I do. I see also you are on the committee for this and also you have a barnstar. And I must say there is a lot about the artcle that is right. That does not mean you are always right. Here is what I think the article needs and what I propose:

• Split it into ape and Hominoidea. The two are not identical and people want to know what Hominoidea are without being told they are apes.
• Stop calling humans great apes. That is contrary to the English language. Look it up in any dictionary.
• Remove "Cultural Aspects of non-human apeas" as being unsupported opinion and original work.

I appreciate the "Changes in taxonomy over time" with the nice tree diagrams and that Homo and Pan come out to be Hominins. Sounds reasonable. That does not make humans great apes any more than it make great apes humans. An ape will never be a human in the English language and Wikipedia's attempts to make them so are original research.

There is one more issue. You keep deleting my requests for citations with the simple note "ridiculous." By what authority do you do that? And quit calling me "ridiculous." I appreciate that in order to get a good article someone has to take charge of it. I wouldn't want you to get frustrated and quit. So, I will just leave this up to your conscience. But, here is a question for you to ponder: are you insisting on the ape=human equation to shock the public or to inform them? I'm leaving this article now as I have other things to do, but I'll be checking back to see what it looks like later. After all, we do have a public. Let's see what they say.Dave 05:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If people don't want facts, then they shouldn't of come to a damn encyclopedia. Should we split our Terra article to avoid offending creationists? Lord Patrick 05:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is not factual. It acts as if people use "ape" to include humans, which they don't. Voortle 17:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is not a dictionary. A dictionary is concerned with documenting how language is used commonly. An encyclopedia puts facts as more important than usage. Humans are apes, that is a fact. That fact is more important than the common usage of the word "ape" to not include "human". A more technically correct phrase for that would be "non-human apes". - UtherSRG (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust denial is nonsense. That's a fact. Yet that's not included in the article. If humans being apes were a fact, people would use "ape" to include humans. They don't. Voortle 00:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Most people use animal to mean non human. Does that make taxonomy incorrect? Lord Patrick 21:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it means common usage is incorrect, or at least, imprecise. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

"ape" refers to nonhuman Hominoidea. The term "nonhuman ape" is redundant and cumbersome and is something up of which we shall not put. Voortle 16:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I know anyone who would say humans aren't apes Nil Einne 16:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The term ape includes all homonoids, including humans. I agree with UtherSRG's statements. — Knowledge Seeker দ 17:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That's like saying you can't end a sentence with a preposition. It's ridiculous. Words are defined by how they're used and nothing more than that. "nonhuman ape" is a term up of which Wikipedia should not put. It's a redundancy like "ATM machine" and "month of February". Voortle 13:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That comparison is not quite accurate. The preposition rule is relatively arbitrary. However, while ape tends to be reserved for nonhumans in lay usage, it has a relatively strict meaning in biology. In general, biological groupings tend to follow clades (not all are, though the trend is towards increasing use). That is, a group should consist of an organism and all of its descendants; a portion should not be excluded (this would be paraphyly. From a biological standpoint, there are several good reasons to consider all descendants within the grouping, and that's why ape is usually used to refer to the entire superfamily; excluding one genus (or one species!) from the superfamily doesn't make a whole lot of biological sense. The article should certainly reflect, though, that common usage differs from the biological usage (as it does for many things). Finally, I would suggest that when you keep reusing the (possibly) Churchill quotation, it loses its effectiveness. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess we shouldn't call humans animals either since when most people say animals they don't mean humans Nil Einne 16:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Humans are not apes, humans are not animals and birds are not dinosaurs. That's not what the words refer to. Dinosaurs are extinct. Voortle 11:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for showing your ignorance. Humans are indeed animals. Humans are indeed apes. Humans are indeed great apes. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for showing your ignorance. Humans are indeed not animals. Humasn are indeed not apes. Humans are indeed not great apes. Voortle 00:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You make me laugh. If we are not animals, what are we, plants? No, of course not. We're animals. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, sorry to interrupt. There has also been a discussion of this sort (yet another one) in the talk page of Hominidae (under "Humans/Great Apes"), which may be worthwile to take a look at. Iblardi 06:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Cultural aspects

In general, I am of the opinion that vernacular terms denoting certain animals in everyday usage should not be treated as if they are equal to well-defined taxonomic labels. Having said that, I wish to comment on this passage:

Although the superfamily of apes has always included humans, in its taxonomical definition, a more specific connotation of the word "ape" exists in the vernacular. This common usage of the word excludes humans when referring to apes. This linguistic phenomenon is similar to the common usage of words such as "animal", "attitude", "behave", and "temperature", to convey a commonly accepted meaning that is more specific than the precise definition of the word. Just as people with a good disposition are commonly excluded from being defined as having "an attitude", children who are disobedient are commonly said to "not behave", and healthy people are commonly told they do not have "a temperature", humans are often excluded from the groups commonly called "animals" and "apes".

The examples given (except for animal) are all elliptical forms, suggesting that colloquial usage of ape was somehow derived from an original form non-human ape, which is obviously not the case. Better examples of non-corresponding colloquial terms would i.m.o. be butterfly (not a member of Diptera), ladybird (not a member of Aves) and jellyfish (not a fish). Iblardi 12:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, "attitude", "behave" and "temperature" are completely different from "animal" and "ape". In the first three cases, the "bad" form (bad attitude, bad behaviour, bad temperature) has become the most important form and therefore "bad" is omitted (as Iblardi says, an ellipsis). In the latter two cases, the words originally did not include humans. A few centuries ago, no one would have said that humans are apes, let alone animals, and even now many people would argue that these terms do not include humans. Therefore, this "similarity" is, as far as I can see, nonexistant. The only similar example to "animal" and "ape" I can think of is "star", which now includes the Sun. Ucucha 19:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Even the creationist Linnaeus listed humans as animals. Several centuries ago, at that. Lord Patrick 21:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Animal, of course, being used according to its classical meaning as any being that breathes, as opposed to plants, which is different from colloquial usage. Iblardi 05:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hominoidea and Hominoidae

Both of these redirect to Ape. I assume the latter is a type, and that you want to remove it. Lavateraguy 10:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit

Can someone with knowledge check this edit if it's not already sorted. Not sure if it's good or bad. Is user's only contribution. --h2g2bob (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted their attempt to avoid the term "non-human apes". - UtherSRG (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This is spillover from Usenet. Uranium Committee is determined to prove that the word "Ape" cannot refer to humans, ever, because it is a vernacular term and not a scientific term. Everyone else at talk.origins thinks Uranium Committee is ... not clear on what he is talking about himself. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 15:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think I had it backwards. Talk.origins is receiving spillage from Wikipedia. I see now, after examining the history, that this debate (with sockpuppets of Science3456) (Uranium Committee is probably one of them) has been going on much longer here. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 19:21, 2 July 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)

---

The book "Almost Chimpanzee" by Jon Cohen (ISBN 978-0-8050-8307-1)) goes into great detail about how chimpanzees do not swim and cannot be taught to swim (though a few have occasionally been able to cross over a water channel by walking along the bottom, if it's not too wide or deep). Have no idea about the other apes, but some monkeys (such as proboscis monkeys) do swim... AnonMoos (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2013 (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 :

... with this other one :

... 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)

The major argument against this section is that if we are to allow myth, we shouldn't have a double standard. Throw in all the non-wisdom of children's books. They're myths too. It should be obvious that this page should be about the class of animal and not ancient or modern speculation about it. The reason is that when myth-makers speak of apes, they have no idea what animals they are talking about, and that authors of an encyclopedia usually does. If you argue against this, there should be nothing depreciative about adding any number of misconceived artist's conceptions about what an ape is and create even more confusion. I agree with Richardson that the section shouldn't be there, but I can see a link to an 'apes in myth/cultures throughout history' page. HenrikErlandsson (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Vanished section on terminology

The section on the origins of the word ape vanished in this vandalism edit [4] 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:

1. Gave some etymology and context for the word ape, including similar equivalents in other languages
2. Nicely dealt with "humans aren't apes/yes they are/you can't dictate language"
3. Gave an accessible entrance to an occasionally formidable (but bursting with tasty information) article

I didn't like that it was:

1. Unsourced
2. 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:

1. 1. Unsourced. Add aN {{unreferenced section|date=January 2010}} template at the beginning.
   2. 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)

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)

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 [5] 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)

There are two quite different issues here. (1) There is no dispute that the monophyletic group which has a single common ancestor consists of what are traditionally called "apes" plus humans. There is no dispute that within this monophyletic group humans are more closely related to chimpanzees and gorillas than to orangutans or gibbons. (2) There is not yet a consensus on what the monophyletic group should be called. Some people expand the meaning of "ape" to cover humans; others do not; many sources are inconsistent, switching between senses in different places (see the reference to Benton at Primate#Historical_and_modern_terminology, but I could give other examples, including from Dawkins).

The names used do not alter the evolutionary relationships. Whether you say that "apes" and humans form a monophyletic group of hominoids, or say that "nonhuman apes" and humans form a monophyletic group of "apes", doesn't one bit alter the phylogeny or the cladogram. Wikipedia must reflect usage in reliable sources, and at present there is no consensus. So we have to explain both usages. I think it's then clearer, and more consistent with WP:NPOV, to try to avoid either usage where possible, e.g. use "humanoid" rather than either "apes" and humans or "nonhuman apes" and humans. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:11, 13 July 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[6]. 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)

Your claim that old world monkeys are closer to gibbons than humans are is actually shown to be a wrong statement by your graph. It's pretty clear, from your linked graph, that the last common ancestor between humans and gibbons is more recent than the last common ancestor between gibbons and old world monkeys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.21.191.242 (talk) 01:09, 31 August 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[7] 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)

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:

• [8] "The apes, Hominoidea, today include the gibbons and orang-utan..., the gorilla and the chimpanzee..., and humans" (Vertebrate palaeontology)
• [9] (Human evolution: an illustrated introduction, which seems to distinguish apes from humans)
• [10] (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.)
• [11] (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)

Why humans are apes

Taxonomy doesn't work the way language does. But the wonderful thing about language is that it is constantly changing. Most people today would argue that humans are not apes because the way they learned about evolution was different then than what is taught now. Back in the 1960s and 1970s it was thought that humans split from other primates prior to the evolution of apes. Thus making apes a sister family to humans and extinct human-like primates. Then It was changed to where humans evolved after lesser apes but before great apes. Making humans a "unique" ape species. When genetic testing and palenotology was added to the mix it was proven that humans share a more common ancestory with chimpanzees and bonobos than any other animal on this planet. The way taxonomy works is Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. Humans are in Kingdom: Animalia, Phylum: Chordata, Class: Mammalia, Order: Primates, Family: Hominidae, Genus: Homo, Species: Homo sapiens. There is also the inclution of super and sup taxonomy classifications ex: Superfamily - Hominioidea (apes). So humans are a species of great apes in the clade primates, a type of mammal. Yet still people refuse to believe we are apes, yet alone primates. Yes there are people out there today that argue that we are not primates, even going as far as saying we are not mammals or animals. Then what are we by their standards? Aliens? Devine god-like beings? This agrument has to stop and people just need to learn to accept it.Westvoja (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

As I've argued above, I think you are confusing two different issues here. (1) If someone disputes that humans are members of the clade Hominoidea, then there are good sources of evidence which show that they are wrong, and the Wikipedia article has no reason to take their views seriously, and it doesn't. The article is quite clear that humans are members of the clade Hominoidea. (2) If some sources still use "ape" for the paraphyletic group of hominoids minus humans, and some don't, then since neither is provably right or wrong – these are matters of language use, not facts about the world – the Wikipedia article has to present both usages, and not try to push a point of view, since this is the Wikipedia policy.

I would also point out that this issue is not confined to "ape". The same issue arises with the word "monkey", which also refers to a paraphyletic group. The monophyletic group is Simiiformes (called Anthropoidea in some classifications). It's a matter of fact that humans as well as baboons are members of the Simiiformes. Should the whole group be called "monkeys"? Should the whole group be called "simians"? Should the whole group be called "anthropoids"? The books and articles I've looked at do not show any consistent usage. Peter coxhead (talk) 05:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No I don't quite think you understand what I am saying. The first point I was trying to make is that language evolves. I admit I should have been more clear about that. Eventually "ape" would change to a more accurate definition then what is currently in the dictionary. Also with the rising youth now who were raised in believeing that chimps and bonobos are our next of kin they will be a whole generation using these debated terms in a different sence. But when it comes to the baboon thing you don't understand. The group that you mention is not just for monkeys but all apes and monkeys. What you don't understand is that "ape" is now used as an informal term for Hominoidea. It's just a lot easier to say ape. Now think in this sence a baboon is a baboon but it is still a monkey. It did not evlove before monkeys did so it's not separate but it's a type of monkey. And monkeys are a type of Simiiformes, so are apes but that doesn't make apes monkeys. Humans are a type of ape which make then a type of Simiiforms as well (by inclution of being apes). Taxonomy is a medaphorical gigsaw puzzle and your trying to put a piece where it doesn't belong. You need another piece for them to connect. This is why you cannot call humans Simiiformes without calling them apes. And why need a double meaning when humans are involved? It makes no sense really. I mean the horse family isn't called the horse family plus donkeys and zebras. No just one name is used. So why call the great ape family: great apes and humans? It's redundant.Westvoja (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you are trying to say. But I'm not sure that you do, because what you have written above is inconsistent.

Look at the diagram at Primate#Historical_and_modern_terminology.

• The scientific groups are all monophyletic, i.e. consist of all the descendants of a common ancestor.
• Some of the traditional groups shown on the right are not monophyletic, because they exclude some of the descendants of a common ancestor. "Monkeys" are not monophyletic because they exclude "apes". If we define "monkeys" only using the scientific groups, then "monkeys" consist of infraorder Simiiformes minus superfamily Hominoidea. In exactly the same way, the traditional "apes" are not monophyletic because they exclude humans. If you define the traditional "apes" only using scientific groups, then "apes" consist of superfamily Hominoidea minus genus Homo. (Ignoring extinct species; it should really be 'minus subtribe Hominina'.)
• So the question is 'What should we do about the traditional terms "monkeys" and "apes", now that we know that they refer to non-monophyletic groups?' There are two answers. (1) Continue to use them, but be very clear that they do not correspond to the currently accepted monophyletic scientific groups; use different common names for the scientific groups. (2) Change their meaning so that they do correspond to the currently accepted monophyletic groups, or stop using them. You seem to want to change the traditional meaning of "ape" but to keep using "monkey" in its traditional way. But this is illogical because it is inconsistent.

However, actually none of this is relevant to Wikipedia! What is relevant is that reliable secondary sources use "ape" in BOTH senses, both traditionally for hominoids minus humans AND in the new sense for hominoids as a whole. You wrote "What you don't understand is that "ape" is now used as an informal term for Hominoidea." Of course I understand this. But it's also still used as an informal term for Hominoidea minus humans. So Wikipedia cannot choose one over the other. In 10-20 years time, perhaps there will be a consensus, and we will only need a short note on the old historical use. But right now there isn't.

By the way, even writers who try to use "ape" to mean "hominoid" fail to do so consistently. In The Ancestor's Tale, Dawkins is clear that humans are "apes". He writes, for example, "Humans are the odd ones out among apes, both living and fossil." (p. 105 in the Phoenix paperback edition). But he also writes "The rise of Darwinism ... polarised attitudes towards the apes" (p. 113) and "gibbons are faithfully monogamous, unlike the great apes which are our closer relatives" (p. 126), where if he was consistent he would have written "The rise of Darwinism ... polarised attitudes towards non-human apes" and "gibbons are faithfully monogamous, unlike the non-human great apes which are our closer relatives". So in Wikipedia, we must explain BOTH uses of "ape" so that readers are prepared for both of them. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point but wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a dictionary or thesaurus (yes it has those elements but they are irrelivant to this issue). Thus it should support the scientific view and discourage common useage. I for one get tired of uneducated people pointing something out in a dictioary (or even worse a bible) to prove their point. If they're only "proof" was discouraged then there would be not much argument (yes I know people always have their own opinions). You run into the same issue with dinosaurs. Their scientific definiton is much different than the dictionary terms. Now when it comes to monkeys and apes its a jumbled mess. There are tailless monkeys who are refered to as "apes" when they're not. Also old world monkeys are more closely related to apes then new world monkeys making the term "monkey" obsolete. But "ape" is different, it focuses on a more concentrated group of primates. Yes the dictionary term excludes humans but the taxonomy use of it put's it to better use. And I agree author's have difficulty in staying consistent. I believe any future publications on the matter should be more consistent when refering to humans as apes.Westvoja (talk) 02:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

My last comment! Yes, what you have written is the key: you believe that any future publications should consistently refer to humans as "apes". I can only repeat, what you or I or any other editor believes is not relevant to Wikipedia. Attempting to use Wikipedia to put forward a position is expressly forbidden. Please stop doing it and try to work with other editors to agree how to handle this tricky area in a way which respects the literature as it is not as you would like it to be. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Westvoja holds that an encylopedia "should support the scientific view and discourage common useage." Diderot, quoted in Wikipedia:Purpose, held that the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect and disseminate knowledge "so that our offspring, becoming better instructed, will at the same time become more virtuous and happy. . . ." Perhaps, if encyclopedias would only support the scientific view and discourage common usage, our offspring would become more virtuous and happy. In any case, Westvoja needs to provide some support for the thesis offered as to the approach that encylopedias should take. Peter M. Brown (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

THIS HAS TO STOP!

I am studying to become a Anthropologist, I can tell you damn well that humans are reguarded as apes, great apes in particular. I see way too much separation between humans and other apes. This needs to stop NOW! I request that the article be revised to include humans as apes!Acdcguy91 (talk) 03:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I can only make the same reply to the same comment at Talk:Primate. The article is very clear that humans and members of the group traditionally called "great apes" are in the same monophyletic taxon. That is not disputed. The only issue is whether the overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources use the term "great ape" to include or exclude humans. The answer seems to be that reliable sources do both. Wikipedia does not aim to reflect what you think or what I think, but what reliable sources say. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, that Humans are Apes. Using a book from 1981 which predates gene sequencing and somehow separating humans from apes is intellectually dishonest at best.

This is what is being currently taught:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_07

To begin with, let's take a step back. Although the evolution of hominid features is sometimes put in the framework of "apes vs. humans," the fact is that humans are apes, just as they are primates and mammals. A glance at the evogram shows why. The other apes — chimp, bonobo, gorilla, orangutan, gibbon — would not form a natural, monophyletic group (i.e., a group that includes all the descendants of a common ancestor) — if humans were excluded. Humans share many traits with other apes, and those other "apes" (i.e., non-human apes) don't have unique features that set them apart from humans. Humans have some features that are uniquely our own, but so do gorillas, chimps, and the rest. Hominid evolution should not be read as a march to human-ness (even if it often appears that way from narratives of human evolution). Students should be aware that there is not a dichotomy between humans and apes. Humans are a kind of ape.

This is current science and verifiable. Books from 1981 are not valid, because Taxonomy, like all science, changes over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.195.128.195 (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Need help editing

How do you make the charts include humans in the great ape family?Acdcguy91 (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

If you go to {{barlabel}} (which is the template which produces the bracketting showing the traditional interpretation of "great ape") it explains how it works.

Naturally, if there were a consensus that the diagram should change, I would do it for you. So discuss here why the diagram as it is should not be in the article. Note that the purpose of the diagram is to explain the relationship between the traditional use of these terms and the current scientific classification, which is different. Even if it were the consensus of reliable sources that "great ape" is the correct common language term for "hominoid", there would still need to be an explanation of how the previously used terms related to the new ones. Wikipedia describes, it does not preach. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

this article is ridiculous. Humans are NOT apes

Even a 4 year old can tell you humans are NOT apes. Apes have fur, humans don't. Humans can talk, apes can't. Apes swing from tres, humans don't. Apes live in the tropics, humans can live anywhere. I can't believe I have to explain this. This article is an embarrassment to wikipedia. We need intelligent people to edit this article, because as it stands now, it's a joke. 76.70.109.183 (talk) 05:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Please read the section Ape#Historical and modern terminology carefully. If it's not clear, maybe you can help to clarify it. I personally would prefer this article to be called by the scientific title Hominoidea, because "ape" is currently ambiguous. The older use is as you have used it above, i.e. to distinguish non-human hominoids from humans. A newer use is to call all hominoids "apes".

What would be embarrassing to Wikipedia would be to fail to include the full variety of uses of the term "ape", both the traditional and the newer. It's not "unintelligent" to include humans in "apes", just a different use of language. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

76.70.109.183 -- According to the definitions and methods of cladistics, humans are in fact apes, just as birds are also dinosaurs. Non-cladistic classifications may be useful in some cases (and more in accord with laypersons' "common sense" understandings), but they don't invalidate cladistic classifications... AnonMoos (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't confuse clades with names. Cladistics shows, conclusively by scientific standards, that humans and "traditional apes" form a single clade. What that clade is to be called is a different issue. The scientific name is currently Hominoidea. Some people use "apes" to refer to this clade, others use "apes" in the traditional sense for Hominoidea less humans. Eventually there may be an overwhelming consensus, but at present reliable sources can be found for both uses (and also for inconsistency). Thus Wikipedia must maintain a neutral point of view on names, reporting usage in reliable sources, although not being neutral on whether humans and "traditional apes" are in the same clade. (This also applies to the word "dinosaur". That birds are in the same clade as dinosaurs is almost undisputed. Whether that clade is called "dinosaurs" in everyday language is another matter.) Peter coxhead (talk) 08:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, but it comes to pretty much the same thing -- if "ape" is defined cladistically, then humans are unequivocally apes. If "ape" is defined non-cladistically, then the term "ape" has only limited scientific usefulness for many purposes... AnonMoos (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but "ape" isn't a scientific term, so its scientific usefulness isn't the issue. (Speaking personally, I think it's a mistake to try to re-define commonly used terms; after centuries, "velocity" and "weight" still have diffferent common and scientific usages. However, my opinion is irrelevant; reliable sources are what matter here.) Peter coxhead (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, many scientists do, in their speaking and writing, use the term "ape" in a way that unambiguously includes humans, so it isn't completely accurate to say the term is used non-scientifically. Especially in popular science writing, the term is often used synonymously with "Hominoidea", if a lot less so in the peer-reviewed literature. Desmond Morris's The Naked Ape established that exact usage some 45 years ago: it is hardly a novel usage, or unheard of. --Jayron32 13:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

desmond Morris was being provocative. He didn't think humans are actually naked apes he was just trying to get people to think of humans as just another primate. You're taking him too literally. It would be like writing a book about snakes and calling it "the legless lizard". It's just a gimmick Historyhorror (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Distinction from monkeys

Most monkeys of the old world have a tail stump, which is unsuitable for use for balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokem (talk • contribs) 16:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

apes ARE monkeys and humans are NOT apes

You people just don't get it.

The term monkey and ape are just crude rough labels for non-human primates. You keep trying to give these terms a scientific taxonomic precision that they simply don't have.

It's like the term "beast". It refers to non-human animals and the fact that humans are part of the animal kingdom is not an excuse to redefine the word beast to include people.

Both this article and the monkey article require severe revision.

And if you want to talk genetics, there's a HUGE genetic difference between humans and all non-human primates. You just don't see it because you only look at chronological genetic distance (splitting off dates) not FUNCTIONAL selected genetic distance. Historyhorror (talk) 06:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

All this is well covered in Ape#Historical and modern terminology. Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Great. That one section is very balanced. Now if we can just move the rest of the article to the Hominoidea page, we're on our way to creating an encyclopedia!Historyhorror (talk) 12:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The lead section also draws the clear distinction. It gives a clear picture of the fuzziness of the term ape, from the common usage which excludes humans, to the cladistic definition which includes humans. So it does give as clear a picture as possible by including both the taxonomic-cladistic definition (by which humans are a subcategory of apes) and the common language usage (by which they are not). The rest of the article spends very little time, if any, on humans, which are dealt with in more detail in other articles. Since you, Historyhorror, seem to be singular in your stance that this article gives an undue weight to what you consider to be a fringe viewpoint, perhaps you could either a) indicate which sentences, paragraphs or sections contain statements you think are inaccurate or misleading or b) indicate what additional text you think is missing from the current article that needs inclusion. In other words, since you are so insistent that there is a problem, it is incumbent upon you to indicate what that problem is, specifically, and what can be done to solve it, specifically. No one else can read your mind and so can't know what your issue is unless you tell specifically. --Jayron32 13:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I just told you what should be done to solve the problem. Move everything EXCEPT Ape#Historical and modern terminology to a new article called "Hominoidea". The article as it stands now is imposing the extreme minority eccentric view that hominoidea = apes and giving this view huge undue weight with only occasional token lip service to the majority mainstream view that ape = non-human Hominoidea. The solution is to separate the ape article from the Hominoidea article, and then within BOTH articles we can mention that some scientists equate the two terms but this is not common usage Historyhorror (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

In other words, merge "Ape" with "Quadrumana"? AnonMoos (talk) 14:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Except, that isn't the "minority view". You have presented no sources, no peer-reviewed journal articles, no books of well-respected popular science, no evidence at all that the classification of humans as a subcategory of apes is eccentric or in the minority. There are some people who don't classify them that way, and the article notes that. But very little of the article deals with humans. You're going to have to do better, since I don't see many sentences refering to humans outside of the section you note should stay! --Jayron32 19:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The fact that this article's definition of "ape" is completely ignored by the Webster dictionary (the ultimate authority on English word usage) is proof that your pushing an extreme minority POV:

Definition of APE

1

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 [12]76.70.109.9 (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

76.70.109.9/Historyhorror -- dictionaries are nice for some things, but they can't override the scientific meanings of words as used by scientists. The dictionary has to account for both the backwards-looking meaning of "ape" (tailless primate) and the modern meaning (Hominoidea excluding Homo Sapiens), and hasn't yet caught up with the forwards-looking meaning (cladistics-based). AnonMoos (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

P.S. The details of the terminology used in the dictionary definition ("Pongidae") reveal that it's working with a 1960s-era taxonomic model, so it can hardly be claimed to be up to date! AnonMoos (talk) 07:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

lots of words in the English language are based on outdated modes of thinking. That doesn't make the words incorrect, it just means that language preserves our heritage. Historyhorror (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Your source provides one definition, but it doesn't disagree with the others. That is, it doesn't state that classifications which consider humans as a subcategory of apes are incorrect. Do you have a source, preferably from a scientific publication which is held in high regard in the field of modern taxonomy, which states unambiguously that humans are not apes? Wikipedia is not merely based on dictionaries, you know! --Jayron32 00:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Historyhorror -- I don't know that genetic studies have shown that there's a "HUGE genetic difference between humans and all non-human primates". Rather, there's a relatively large phenotypic difference for a relatively normal genotypic difference (number of base-pair differences given estimated species separation times). Since the rise of cladistics, the tendency in science is to avoid the use of paraphyletic terms (except in certain special cases), so that if terms such as "monkey" or "ape" are to have any relationship to science at all, then there's a natural tendency to try to give them monophyletic meanings... AnonMoos (talk)

there are two different ways to classify life forms. You can classify them based on chronological genetic similarity (how recently they shared a common ancestor) or REAL genetic similarity (how much of the common ancestor their phenotypes have preserved). This article is pushing the former while the mainstream public invokes the latter, at least with respect to apes. We already have a term for the cladistic definition of ape: hominoidea. Why not just use that term instead of trying to redefine a well established important term like "ape" and creating confusion for everyone who reads anything about apes written before the rise of cladistics. Should we go back and rename all the planet of the apes movies planet of the non-human apes. It's ridiculous and incredibly arrogant to expect the whole language and generations of culture to change just because scientists have a new way of classifying. It's those scientists that should adjust their terminology, not everyone else Historyhorror (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, speaking of arrogance, so far you are singularly supporting a change and providing no external, reliable sources which support it. Wikipedia doesn't work on the "because I say so" principle. Put up some well-respected, peer-reviewed sources, or well-respected popular science sources which make it clear that your stance is well supported, and we can discuss them. Merely saying something vehemently doesn't make it so. --Jayron32 19:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no more well-respected peer reviewed source on the use of English words than the authoritative Webster dictionary and it makes clear that the human species is NOT an ape:

Definition of APE 1

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 [13] -- 20:57, 16 November 2012‎ 76.70.109.9

And that definition is in the article. There are also other accepted definitions, and are not eccentric, minority, or fringe. They are well established in respected literature. Finding one definition doesn't make others wrong. --Jayron32 00:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Webster dictionary is a reliable source on common usage so if the so called scientific definition is not in the dictionary it's a minority view. It's as simple as that. I'm glad the dictionary definition is in the article, but that's not enough. It needs to be the dominant perspective of the article because it's the mainstream perspective and this article are relegates it to a footnote in order to give an extreme minority view point extreme undue weight. That's a violation of wikipedia policy Historyhorror (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

"if the so called scientific definition is not in the dictionary it's a minority view", only a very silly person would look to a dictionary for a reliable categorization of apes and think it is definitive. Look to the peer reviewed literature. IRWolfie- (talk) 02:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Only a very silly person would look to a science book to decide whether a scientific definition is mainstream. Scientific definitions are by definition mainstream in science books so if that's all one reads, they'll have a skewed perspective. But the article is called "ape", not "scientific definition of ape". The problem is it's been monopolized by science types who have been successful is shutting out the majority perspective on a very mainstream construct Historyhorror (talk) 02:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Uh, yes, I suppose the people who are experts on zoological topics do tend to be "science types". If traditionally most non-experts consider dolphins as a type of fish, should wikipedia frame as "fringe" the notion that they are mammals? Cesiumfrog (talk) 05:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

If the overwhelming majority of the public, the major dictionaries, the popular culture, books, movies, and TV shows and even the majority of scientists until at least the late 20th century regarded dolphins as fish, then yes, of course wikipedia should reflect that and the notion that they are mammals should be regarded as fringe. Words Have no intrinsic meaning, they simply reflect the meaning humans assign them. Dolphins will always be part of the same evolutionary branch as land mammals, but if the public only refers to land mammals as mammals, then dolphins are not mammals. Our job at wikipedia is to report the facts as they are, not as they should be. But unfortunately this article is monopolized by people who see themselves as advocates not as journalists. They want to discourage what they consider unscientific thinking, so they've decided to just not report on it in a proportional way Historyhorror (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

On wikipedia, the scientific mainstream defines the mainstream, see WP:FRINGE. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

the scientific mainstream defines the mainstream in science articles, but the construct of apes transcends science. It's a huge part of the popular culture so the scientific view should not monopolize the article and be presented as the correct view, while the majority view is relegated to a subsection. If anything it should be the other way around. Scientists (like any other expert) are only authorities because people listen to them but if the public has ignored them on a certain topic (as documented by the dictionary) then by DEFINITION, they are not authorities on that topic. Now it takes times for scientists to reach a consensus and for that consensus to trickle down to the masses, so it's likely that in the future, the general public will define humans as apes. And when that day comes, this article as it's currently written will be correct. But as it stands now, it's premature, and it's premature because editors here are activists trying to to speed up the process of linguistic change when they should be reporters, documenting constructs as they are currently definedHistoryhorror (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Historyhorror (in reply to remarks of "14:36, 16 November 2012") -- Either terms like "monkey" and "ape" will be given meanings which align them to some extent with the results of current science, or they will go the way of terms like phlogiston and N-ray -- and the current mainstream of the relevant area of science is cladistics, which favors monophyletic terms. I'm sorry if the resultant ambiguities or polysemies strike you as disturbing, but a lot of words have such multiple meanings in the English language... AnonMoos (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

the word "beast" defined as non-human animal does not align with cladistics yet it's still a useful word. The term monkey, even as defined by wikipedia does not allign with cladistics. So what word are we allowed to use describe non-human higher primates? We can't use apes, we can't use monkeys, we can't use simian. I guess we're just not allowed to talk about them because every word we use is hijacked and redefined by wikipedia's POV pushers Historyhorror (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

You CAN use the word "ape" to mean "non-human hominoidea", but you will have to do so in the knowledge that some scientists feel that a strictly cladistic definition of the word is more technically correct. I'm sorry if this profoundly unbalances your mental equilibrium, but that's the way life is sometimes. AnonMoos (talk) 07:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Biologists have no special authority to tell us what the words "ape" or "monkey" mean and hence whether a particular usage is "more technically correct". They do have special authority to tell us what the currently accepted scientific classifications are and hence whether taxon names like Simiiformes or Hominoidea are technically correct. It may be that at some time in the future the terms "ape" and "monkey" will be aligned with scientific classifications, but at present the situation is that reliable sources vary and that many sources are inconsistent between usages (I've collected some of Richard Dawkins' inconsistent uses at User:Peter_coxhead/Work_page#Dawkins' use of "ape"). Where reliable sources differ, Wikipedia must neutrally report them. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The entire point is, This article already does that very well. The argument being made by Historyhorror is that no coverage at all should be given to the notion that some classification schemes consider humans do be apes. I only take that to be his stance, since this article already spends very little text on the idea anyways, the article has maybe a half dozen sentences or so which discuss the difference of opinion on whether humans are or are not apes; the rest of the article deals with apes without addressing the question. If anything else is removed from the article about this, there will be no mention at all of those schemes of classification that consider humans apes. That wouldn't be right, because clearly many schemes do so. --Jayron32 19:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

No my preference is that the "ape" article should just become an expanded version of the terminology section, and then we could have subsections for how the construct ape is used in pop culture, how it's used in science, religion etc. The problem with the article now is it takes the POV that ape = hominoidea. In fact the hominoidea article redirects to the ape article. You can't get anymore POV than that. You guys are pushing the POV that ape = hominoidea to such an extreme that you wont even let them exist as separate articles. You are writing this as a science article, but science requires very precise definitions, but as Peter Coxhead has brilliantly documented, scientists don't even agree on a definition (let alone non-scientists), that's why I feel it's better for "ape" to be a terminology/social construct article (which includes the full range scientific perspectives), but for "hominoidea" to be the MAIN science article. Historyhorror (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not pushing anything. Tell you what. Create a mock-up of what you want this article to look like in your userspace as a draft, and perhaps it would be a good idea to move this one to the proper latin name of the clade. I wouldn't be opposed to that at all, but let's take a look at what you want to do first. I think that your proposal to have two different articles, one for ape and one for hominoidea has merit, as you've just explained above, so lets look at this. However, it should be noted that the combative tenor of your comments before the one immediately preceding is why you haven't gotten any traction. Prior to this, you haven't even given credence to the possibility that humans could be considered apes, you merely make claims that such an idea is so ridiculous it doesn't belong at Wikipedia. It does, since the term is used to describe humans in many reliable contexts. However, your proposal to have two different articles, one for apes and one for hominoidea holds water as far as I am concerned. So, create a draft article that you would like to see under the title "Ape", and if it looks better suited to the title than this one, we can move this one to the more appropriate Hominoidea and have an "ape" article that deals with the term more specifically; perhaps similar to how we deal with Monkey or Reptile in the way we handle a paraphyletic classification like "Ape". --Jayron32 20:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I admit I was too combative in earlier comments, and I regret giving the impression that humans should never be categorized as apes by wikipedia. Obviously they should. It's a well documented scholarly viewpoint, and since humans are part of a genetic cluster where every non-human is an ape, it's only logical to call humans apes too. However language and social constructions are not always logical and not always based on the logic of a certain kind of genetic analysis, so separating the ape article from the hominoidea article can give the ape article a chance to compare and contrast the various scientific and non-scientific ways the ape construct has evolved and continues to evolve in various contexts without imposing one definition as correct. So I'll use my userspace to create a mock-up as you suggest, and then report back to this talk page when it's done, to get feedback. Historyhorror

(talk) 21:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

@Jayron32 – I agree that the content of the article does a pretty good job of explaining the situation in a neutral way; my comments were in support of maintaining this situation. However, I do agree with Historyhorror that the title of the article expresses a POV. The most neutral title would be the scientific name. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies say that we generally go with the most common name, not necessarily the most neutral name (with partial exceptions for long multi-word titles and contentious issues such as Gdansk/Danzig). AnonMoos (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

well ape is a common name for non-human hominoids, but a much less common name for ALL hominoids. Since this article is mostly about ALL hominoids, some of us argue it should be renamed, or rather divided into 2 separate articles so that the hominoid article can speak collectively about all hominoids without pushing the POV that all hominoids are apes. Also hominoid itself is a pretty common name that is worthy of an article, especially since it's important to distinguish it from similar terms.Historyhorror (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Why do we need two articles? We already have an article separately on each of: gibbons, orangutans, gorillas, chimps, and humans. Lets say we continue to have an article on them all as a set (named.. whatever the common name is for that clade). Why would we also additionally need another article on virtually the same topic but just excluding humans? As a rule, WP:POVFORKing is undesirable, and I'm not sure you're following the WP:DICTIONARY policy. What different content would you have at your "apes excluding humans" article that could not be incorporated into the "apes including humans" article? Won't it just end up as a dab/redirect to the former article anyway? Cesiumfrog (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, however, there are articles on Monkeys, which is a clade that should also include humans and apes but usually doesn't; though the two groups are monkeys aren't any more related to each other than they are to other simians. There are distinctions drawn between different classification schemes, and we don't ignore the classification of "monkey" even though taxonomically it is a fairly meaningless grouping. I really don't see it as a POV-fork to have two articles here: one for the (non-taxonomic) grouping known as "ape" and one for the taxonomically sound grouping of Hominoidea. Historyhorror is correct in noting that they are not perfect synonyms. Some reliable sources do consider them synonyms, but not all do, and as such there is room for two articles. Just as the word "monkey" as a single taxonomically meaningful group of animals is "wrong" doesn't preclude the need for different articles on Simians (the smallest taxonimically meaningful group to include both groups of monkeys) and Monkeys, there seems to be no real need to force only a single article to cover both Apes and Hominoidea. --Jayron32 14:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Rough draft for a possible new ape article

As discussed above, some editors, especially me, feel it might be a good idea to rename this article hominoidea or hominoid and then create a separate article called ape, since the two terms have often been used in different ways. In order to demonstrate how a separate ape article might look, I was asked to create a rough draft of such an article in my user space. I accomplished this by taking the excellent terminology section that other editors very skillfully created, and just expanded it to a full blown article adding several new references to elaborate on points. It's still extremely rough and will require a lot more revisions, but if you like where I am going with this, feel free to make edits [14] Historyhorror (talk) 09:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that looks fine; it nicely parallels our coverage of other similarly non-taxonomic terms like Monkey. --Jayron32 14:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Great! So I'll continue to improve the rough draft and welcome the improvements made by others, and if and when you feel it's acceptable to replace the current ape article with the rough draft, simply do so. It's probably better if you do it than I, given that your high credibility in the community. Meanwhile no one should hesitate to make improvements to the rough draft and we can discuss specific issues regarding the rough draft on its talk page[15]Historyhorror (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, I am but one person. If we're going to do this right, we should at least get a variety of opinions and feelings on this. We should probably do a proper WP:RM discussion and seek as much on this as we can. --Jayron32 17:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds sensible.Historyhorror (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Changes to "Historical and modern terminology" section

The section Ape#Historical and modern terminology attempts to explain to ordinary, non-biologist readers, the relationship between traditional, and still very widely used, terminology in which "ape" does not include "human" and modern scientific nomenclature. The section was recently substantially changed so that it no longer did this, so I have undone the changes. Please discuss them here before making them again. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Etymology

"Ape" from Old English apa, is possibly an onomatopoetic imitation of animal chatter.

Rather than copying from a 1911 encyclopedia, we can doubtless do better:

ape (n.) Old English apa "ape, monkey," from Proto-Germanic *apan (cf. Old Saxon apo, Old Norse api, Dutch aap, German affe), perhaps borrowed in Proto-Germanic from Celtic (cf. Old Irish apa) or Slavic (cf. Old Bohemian op, Slovak opitza), perhaps ultimately from a non-Indo-European language.

-- 18:19, 22 January 2014‎ User:Kortoso

Which source is that from? Anyway, the 1880s 1st. edition OED says "Prob. an adopted word in OTeut.", and it seems there are only speculations... -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. It's from http://www.etymonline.com/

Kortoso (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

extinct hominoids?

Could someone please add material about the basal hominoids? Maybe include extinct lines in the outline? Leadwind (talk)

I second this suggestion. Chrisrus (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Meat: Citations needed

"Their diet is best described as frugivorous and folivorous, consisting mainly of fruit, nuts, seeds, including grass seeds, and in some cases other animals (consumed primarily for social purposes not dietary), either hunted or scavenged (or farmed in the case of humans), along with anything else available and easily digested. Meat is rarely consumed and not by every member of a species, and when it is usually the juice is extracted and main parts spit out ."

This section is entirely missing citations, dubiously worded, and large portions of it appear to be original research or opinion. Unless someone can provide sources for the bolded, in my opinion it should be deleted. Shralk (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2014 (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)?

Please feel free to comment there. SPACKlick (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 28 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Ape → Hominoidea – A while ago, several users at Talk:Hominidae#Requested move 7 May 2015 decided that Hominidae should not to be moved to great ape, discarding the argument of common usage. If Hominidae cannot be moved to great ape because "the two terms are not equivalent", then ape should be moved to Hominoidea, since more people will include humans as great apes than humans as "apes". Editor abcdef (talk) 10:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. Khestwol (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The nomination presupposes that the page title Ape is correct, which cannot be a reason to change it. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
• Question: Is that pronounced "homo no idea"? Is the spelling intentional? —BarrelProof (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

  – Hmm. I guess it is. I had no idea. Learn something new every day, I suppose. I thought it was a typo. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per COMMONNAME. Calidum T|C 22:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
• Question: Why didn't you support my requested move at talk:Hominidae then? Editor abcdef (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, commonname and much more. A wordy lead and a diagram which seems to go out of its way to confuse the issue of humans as apes (why cut humans out as apes and Great Apes on the diagram? Can someone fix that please). I've never read this one. Randy Kryn 23:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose WP:UCN, WP:JARGON -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Common uses of term

"Thus, there are at least three common, or traditional, uses of the term "ape": non-specialists may not distinguish between "monkeys" and "apes", that is, they may use the two terms interchangeably; or they may use "ape" for any tailless monkey or non-human hominoid; or they may use the term "ape" to just mean the non-human hominoids." What is the difference between the second and third? TomS TDotO (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

A "Barbary ape" has a very small, often hardly visible tail, which is why its common name includes the word "ape". This is an example of the second sense: "apes are tailless non-humans, monkeys have tails". Peter coxhead (talk) 06:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Nested Hierarchy of Apes

This article seems to be making some sort of distinction between Apes and Monkey. But in Evolution, aren't Apes just another type of Monkey? Maybe I missed something in the article, and I'm just spouting bullshit here. I hope I can get a reply on this soon then.

Thank you, Kyle Tatum 17:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylet345 (talk • contribs)

This is contentious, unfortunately, because of the history of the terms in the English language. The word "ape" was the only word to designate (non-human) primates. And the only (non-human) primates known to English speakers were the Old World monkeys of Africa and nearby territories. There was no knowledge of the chimps, gorillas, or the primates of Madagascar, Southeast Asia and South America.

For some unknown reason, the word "monkey" was introduced to the English language and this caused confusion as explorers discovered new primates. At some time, it was decided that the word "ape" should be restricted to the chimps, gorillas, orangs, gibbons, and siamangs (and, for obvious reasons, not for humans); while the word "monkey" for the two groups: Old Word monkeys and New World monekys. We seem to be stuck with that decision, as pointless as it seems now. For the "apes", as well as humans, are more closely related to the Old World monkeys than New World monkeys are related to Old World monkeys. What the upshot is, that one has to be long-winded when ever talking about the relationships among primates. TomS TDotO (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Maybe at some time in the future, popular usage will align itself to the scientifically recognized taxa, but there's no sign of this at present, and as noted in the article, even such eminent and usually careful writers such as Richard Dawkins often use "ape" and "monkey" in the popular sense. Peter coxhead (talk) 05:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe this should be somewhat reflected in the article? A notation of some sort to show the colloquial and scientific uses of each term, and then correct the article where it needs to be corrected to make it more scientifically accurate. Maybe in the 'Disctinction between Apes and Monkeys' section, make it a bit more clear that it only refers to the modern predecessors of these two groups. I'm sure there are ways where we can make this article more accurate in this respect, while also making it simple to understand for the average reader that may not be knowledgeable in the area of Evolution (or in this case, specifically Taxonomy and Phylogenetics). Kyle Tatum (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the appropriate treatment is the one in the article Monkey#Historical and modern terminology? I've added a link. TomS TDotO (talk) 23:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

That section does seem to acknowledge Ape ancestry being Catarrhines, so something that effect could be done with this page as well.

This article begins with "Apes (Hominoidea) are a branch of Old World tailless anthropoid catarrhine primates native to Africa and Southeast Asia." The technical language is no problem. Hominoidea are catarrhine primates. The problem arises when that is translated to non-technical English, "apes are Old World monkeys." (And, BTW, although Homo sapiens is a member of Hominoidea, many people shy away from saying that "humans are monkeys.") TomS TDotO (talk) 04:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Precisely right. In current non-technical English, "apes" are not "monkeys", and "humans" are not "apes". This may change one day (though I doubt it); until then, Wikipedia's task is to report the world as it is. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia redirects an inquiry about the traditional name "Barbary ape" to "Barbary macaque"; and "ladybird", "ladybug" and "lady beetle" to "Coccinellidae". On the other hand, "sea stars" and "Asteroidea" are redirected to "Starfish". What's an editor to do? TomS TDotO (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Grin (or grimace) and bear it, seems to be the answer. The problem lies deep in the philosophy of the English Wikipedia, which favours consensus reached at individual articles over consistency across articles, most especially if that consistency is supported by a WikiProject. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Geographical distribution?

Any chance we can get a small section about where apes are found in the world, ideally with a complementary map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.226.62 (talk) 13:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Basically central Africa and Southeast Asia / Indonesia. Details are probably better on the individual articles. AnonMoos (talk) 06:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 25 June 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved  — Amakuru (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

---

Ape → Hominoid – The word "ape" is ambiguous, used in many different ways (Barbary ape). We should have this article at the clearer word "hominoid". Fish567 (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Opposed, this was pretty much the same discussion that happened on 28 May; the same counterarguments exist, WP:COMMONNAME WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, that discussion snowed. Most names are ambiguous that's what top notes are for.GliderMaven (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Opposed - *entirely* agree with the *Excellent* comments made above by User:GliderMaven - hope this helps in some way - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

• VERY VERY VERY STRONGLY SUPPORT Humans are not apes so why is a category that includes humans being called "apes"? I understand the classification system has been revised, but "ape" has entered the common lexicon and refers to an anthropoid monkey, even if that meaning has become obsolete in technical science. Stop changing the definition of words. Humansarenotapes (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

  — Humansarenotapes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Andy W. (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Still the common name and the common topic for the word. Nothing has changed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

But ape is NOT the common name for all the species in this group. Humans are in this group and we're not commonly known as apes. There are even movies like "Planet of the Apes" which are specifically about the planet being taken over by non-human primates. Just because we're as closely related to apes as apes are related to each other doesn't mean we're apes, because ape refers to a certain phenotype that we lack. Humansarenotapes (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Arguments for and against article title changes should reflect WP:AT as a whole, and not just WP:COMMONNAME. "Ape" is strongly supported as the common name, but does fail the precision test, as Fish567 notes. Balancing the five tests at WP:AT is always difficult. Personally I favour the approach adopted by WP:FLORA: in cases of ambiguity, use the scientific name. However, it's clear that this is not the consensus for other taxonomic groups in the English Wikipedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• OPPOSE -- the idea of a taxonomic group of all tailless primates has been strongly scientifically discredited for 150 years or more, so should have no influence on the name of this article. It does appear in certain semi-old-fashioned variants of common names of species (such as "Barbary ape"), but a lot of strange things appear in such common species names -- for example, a "horseshoe crab" is not remotely a crab according to any taxonomic definition of crabs. We are not going to change the name of our Crab article based on the name of the "horseshoe crab", so we shouldn't change the name of our Ape article based on the name of the "barbary ape"... AnonMoos (talk) 11:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Apes are a paraphyletic taxa so why are you trying to impose the term on Hominoidea which is a monophyletic taxa? It's trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It doesn't make sense. Just rename this article Hominoidea and create a new article about apes which explains that only non-human hominoidea are apes. By changing the name of well established taxa and common term, all Wikipedia is doing is creating confusion. Humansarenotapes (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Apes and hominoids are different, like fish and vertebrates. "fish" is a paraphyletic taxa and "vertebrate" is a monophyletic taxa. 2602:306:3653:8440:D90A:CC47:4CAC:C320 (talk) 02:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support. "Hominoid" and "ape" are different things. This article discusses hominoids. Redirecting hominoid to ape is like redirecting vertebrate to fish. They're different things. 2602:306:3653:8440:D90A:CC47:4CAC:C320 (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not quite so simple. "Ape" is sometimes used by biologists as a synonym for "hominoid", although often it's used in the traditional sense – as the article explains. "Fish" is no longer used by any reliable scientific sources as the name of a taxon. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ape. 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/20110726104027/https://www.watsonia.org.uk/Wats28p103.pdf to http://www.watsonia.org.uk/Wats28p103.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

New species of orangutan is the rarest great ape on the planet

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/11/03/new-species-of-orangutan-is-the-rarest-great-ape-on-the-planet/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.107.138.172 (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Cladograms

The point of the first two cladograms is not to show the currently understood phylogeny but to contrast it with the traditional use of the term "ape" (and the current informal use, including by people like Dawkins). This purpose has been subverted by the addition of dates and images to these cladograms, that should properly be put on the following cladogram. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I've made some changes to try to make it clearer that the section is about terminology. More changes are needed – the section I've now called "Phylogeny" needs expanding. The informal use of terms like "ape", "great ape", etc. is different from our current understanding of phylogenetic relationships, but it's a usage that shows no signs of going away. Wikipedia needs to describe, not prescribe. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, the second one is definitely better for dropping the misleading upward ladder of species. The first one is still somewhat "Man at the top of creation". It would be a lot better for being more richly branched to avoid the implication of some groups being more advanced than others. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Um, but that's exactly the point. The traditional terminology encorporates precisely that viewpoint. What the article tried to do is to explain traditional usage and then contrast it with the reality of modern research, but editors have mixed up these two. All current phylogeny stuff needs to be moved out of this section. (See e.g. User:Peter coxhead/Work page#Dawkins' use of "ape" as just one illustration of why the traditional terminology needs to be explained.) Peter coxhead (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see why we need a cladogram to explain the differece between a vernacular and a systematic name. This article is focussed far too much on terminology as it is. We need a separate "hominoid taxonomy" article, or all related articles will continue to suffer from this. "Ape" is a simple English word with a dictionary definition. There isn't a "traditional" vs. a "modern" meaning. What you mean is that under "ape" there is a special taxonomic usage, found only in contexts of taxonomy and primate evolution, that uses it synonymously with "hominoid". This is a valid usage of "ape" in specialised contexts but it doesn't supersede all other usages. This page needs to move away from this terminology mess and start introducing proper references on evolutionary history and phylogeny. --dab (𒁳) 11:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Dbachmann: in principle I agree with you entirely, but the problem is that over a long period this (and other comparable articles) have been constantly changed by editors determined to impose the scientific use of terms like "ape", "great ape", etc. on the article. So the article does need some explanation of why the vernacular name "ape" doesn't correspond to a scientific taxon any more. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2018

45.124.4.191 (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2018 (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. L293D (☎ • ✎) 11:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Changes in taxonomy and terminology ("hominid" v "hominin") These are a very nice display of the "evolution of Hominin taxonomy I don't have the computer chops to fix them, but will some fellow Wikipedian please italicize the Genera in all of these graphics (files)

File:Hominoid taxonomy 1.svg|right|550px

File:Hominoid taxonomy 2.svg|right|550px

File:Hominoid taxonomy 3.svg|right|550px

File:Hominoid taxonomy 4.svg|right|550px

File:Hominoid taxonomy 5.svg|right|550px

Thanks - and Happy New Year! Tiptopper (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the branch of primates

I took out the "which includes humans" in the hat note. Someone restored it. There's no need to mention the inclusion of humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, or orangutans. There is only one branch of primates called apes. Saying "this article is about the branch of primates" is good enough. Giving examples of what it includes is unnecessarily wordy.Fish567 (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. SamanthaG (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't and neither does anyone else - see above. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

No need for the "which includes humans." part. There is no other branch of primates that shares the name apes. I am not debating whether or not humans are apes. I'd object to "which includes gorillas." as well. No need to give examples of what the branch includes. 172.58.171.245 (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Elmidae -- Whether saying that humans are apes should be included in the article is a completely different issue than whether it should be included in a brief disambiguation note... AnonMoos (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Article is POV pushing that humans are apes

Webster's dictionary (the authority on defining English words) primarily defines apes as any of various large tailless semi-erect primates of Africa and southeastern Asia (such as the chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan, or gibbon)[16]. None of the definitions of ape group humans with other primates. I understand that humans are as related to apes as apes are to each other, but humans did not inherit the defining ape phenotype shared by our cousins, and so attempts to redefine us as apes have not caught on. Note there's a parallel debate on whether birds are dinosaurs and here Webster added a note saying some people consider birds dinosaurs.[17] but this "humans are ape" POV is so fringe, Webster ignores it completely. And yet despite being an extreme minority view it is the DOMINANT view of this article, with someone reverting even my very tepid attempts at making the article more neutral.[18]. This is a clear violation of WP:NPOV and gives undue weight to fringe views. SamanthaG (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

We are apes. However unpleasant a notion it may be, it's not "fringe" or POV-pushing. - Sumanuil (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I totally forgot that we are Webster's online branch, and can only put stuff into articles if that dictionary deigns to do so. Thanks for the heads-up, and let us know what we should do about Riemann zeta function to bring it in line with that source... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@SamanthaG:, are you aware that A) it is actually Wikipedia policy to lean towards, or "push the POV" of whichever view is most heavily corroborated by known and given evidence, and B) Webster's Dictionary is not a definitive, or appropriate, if not outright unreliable source for primate taxonomy? I mean, your insistence on relying on Webster's dictionary to countermand the obvious observation that humans are apes due to an overwhelmingly obvious relatedness founded in both anatomy and genomic comparisons is actually the opposite of your alleged claim of wanting to make these articles more neutral.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

But the dictionary is an authority on the definition of common words. If you only want to use taxonomy sources then you should rename the article "hominoids". But by insisting on using the common man's language, you must cede to their definitions. SamanthaG (talk) 03:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Please be aware that word-lawyering to disguise the fact that you can not be assed to produce a reliable source supports your claim that Webster's (online) dictionary magically vetoes what basic biology has said about humans being apes for centuries will not convince anyone other than yourself that you're right, let alone convince anyone that there is a magic super majority of scientists and experts in addition to yourself and Webster's dictionary that states that Hominidae is a paraphyletic group consisting of apes and the magically distinct humans.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

This is partially an artefact of the rules of Wikipedia- it's mostly because WP:Wikipedia isn't a dictionary so we don't normally have an article on words. The article isn't about the word 'ape' it's about hominoidea. The users look for that, most commonly using 'ape', so WP:COMMONNAME says that's what the article is called. This article does include what you're saying anyway. GliderMaven (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

SamanthaG -- the logic of cladistics when applied to species-relatedness trees deduced from genetic analysis basically requires humans to be apes. Of course, you could say that cladistics also requires birds and mammals to be reptiles, but those are very major transitions at the biological "class" level, while distinctiveness among humans and closely-related species is much less (which is why biology rejected the term Quadrumana). In any case, when scientists propose theories, they often aren't too concerned by definitions in general-purpose (non-specialist) dictionaries, which can lag far behind the latest scientific evidence. AnonMoos (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The logic of cladistics requires humans to be in the same clad as apes but what we call that clad is entirely arbitrary and so is the insistence that all taxa be monophyletic. And cladistics is only one of several ways taxonomists organize life. If an alien came to Earth and saw a chimp, gorilla, orangutan, and a human, it would be immediately obvious that the human was the odd-one-out.SamanthaG (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Explain to us, then, your logic about why, since cladistics is arbitrary and thus, can be dismissed as wholly irrelevant, but Webster's (online) Dictionary is not, therefore is unimpeachable holy writ.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Cladistics simply identifies clades. It does not tell us what those clades are called. Scientists and dictionaries tell us what they're called and the article should just report on their definitions in a neutral way. Should we revise the fish article to include humans since humans are part of the fish clade? Should we edit the Homo Erectus article to include Homo Sapiens since our species is part of the Erectus clade? Should we edit the Europe article to include Asia since geology tells us that Eurasia is a single land mass? Are you aware that science is the not the only criteria when naming constructs and are you aware that cladistics is the not only criteria by which scientists name taxa? Have you heard of evolutionary taxonomy which allows for paraphyleyic groups? Cladistically humans are apes but morphologically we're not. There's a difference right? If everyone in my family is short but I'm over six feet tall, does that mean I'm short because I belong to a clade dominated by short people? SamanthaG (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Your use of the "Whataboutism" and "slippery slope" logical fallacies are noted. Your failure to provide a reliable source stating that Webster's (online) Dictionary supersedes the findings of taxonomy and cladistics is also noted, as is your inappropriate capitalization of the specific epithets of binomial names.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, cladistics is only one type of taxonomy and cladistics only claims that apes and humans share a specific taxon. Some scientists call all members of that taxon apes but other scientists and online Webster do not. The article should cover both definitions from a neutral point of view by avoiding POV terms like "non-human apes". SamanthaG (talk) 05:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, you're obfuscating the fact that you still can not be assed to provide a reliable source about who this magic super-majority of scientists who irrevocably insist that humans are not apes are, or that states the Webster's (online) Dictionary irrevocably countermands the statements made by the alleged minor minority of scientists who state that humans are apes.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Never claimed there was a super-majority of scientists denying humans are apes but it's not unusual for scientists to treat humans and apes as separate categories. In the The Great Human Diasporas by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza and Francesco Cavalli-Sforza there's a section called The Kinship of Humans and Apes (pg 34). When describing Australopithecine it says "These creatures are very apelike, but also have some decidedly human features" (pg 30). Scientific American states "The most complete extinct-ape skull ever found reveals what the last common ancestor of all living apes and humans might have looked like, according to a new study."[[19]]BBC says "We still have not found the missing link between us and apes."[[20]] Paleoanthropologist John Hawks states "Humans aren't monkeys. We aren't apes, either."[[21]] SamanthaG (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

SamanthaG -- Cladistics isn't everything, but it's been the major organizing principle in biology for almost the past 50 years. In recent decades, except for a very few words covering very major "grade" levels ("fish", "amphibian", "reptile"), there has been a strong tendency for most classificatory words to either have their meanings brought in line with cladistics, or to be relegated to the realm of unscientific popular misnomers. These two alternatives apply also in the case of "ape"... AnonMoos (talk) 07:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the clear point is that both usages apply (I've pointed out before that Dawkins clearly uses both senses in his writings: see User:Peter coxhead/Info#Dawkins' use of "ape". NPOV requires that we clearly explain both usages: the traditional and still widely used one and the more recent scientific one. (We should not, of course, be neutral as to the placement of humans in the same clade as the "traditional apes".) The same broad issue arises in less emotive areas; for example, botanists use "berry" differently to the everyday use of "berry". It's not for Wikipedia to say which is 'correct', but to report all reliably sourced usages. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: language like "unscientific popular misnomers" is not helpful, and shows very clearly a lack of commitment to a neutral point of view. I could equally say that calling a "strawberry" a "berry" is an unscientific popular misnomer - which it is, in that it's popular and not in line with scientific nomenclature (i.e. it's an "unscientific .. misnomer"). But both "berry" and "ape" have dual uses both of which are perfectly rational and clear in context and which should be neutrally presented. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Am I supposed to respond to the Jekyll Peter_coxhead of yesterday or the Hyde Peter_coxhead of today?? In any case, when people call whales and dolphins "fish", that's an unscientific popular misnomer (if it's meant to imply that those animals are more closely related to fish than other mammals are). Not sure what more delicately euphemistic term you think I should use instead. Anyway, there's no "neutrality" involved when it comes to deciding whether a specific meaning of a word is compatible with cladistic principles when the taxonomy is established -- the answer is 100% "no" or 100% "yes"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: bad example: as Fish rightly says "Tetrapods emerged within lobe-finned fishes, so cladistically they are fish as well." "Fish" is actually a good example of a sensible use of a term for a grade. We are no more likely to stop using "fish" in this sense than to stop using "ape" for non-human hominoids. If I overhear a visitor to a zoo call a chimpanzee a "monkey", do I assume they know that Hominoidea is nested within Catarrhini, so chimpanzees are cladistically monkeys, or do I assume that they are wrong, as Dawkins says in the work I referred to above? Peter coxhead (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The very assumption that words must correspond to cladistic principles violates neutrality. Taxonomy is only one way of classifying and cladistics is only one form of taxonomy. If a reliable source says trees are fish, then that's a legitimate POV that should be included in the fish article. Words only have the meaning the culture assigns them; they don't have to correspond to genetics, science or even logic. SamanthaG (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@SamanthaG: your last sentence isn't quite right, I think. There isn't one "culture", one context. To keep to my less contentious example, "berry" has an everyday and a botanical meaning. If I'm giving a botanical description of a plant, I have to use "berry" in its technical sense. If I'm buying frozen mixed berries, I can't complain to the seller if I find strawberries, which are not botanically berries. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Good analogy, but I'm not sure if even the technical people agree humans are apes. From a purely scientific perspective, one could argue humans are not apes if one believes apes are a grade and not a clade or one may wish to use the term "ape" to describe what was once considered a clade. SamanthaG (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of scientists agree that humans are in the clade hominoidea, and that humans are descended from apes, that's why both are covered by this article. GliderMaven (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Humans are apes. Get over it. Clean Arlene (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the issue. No-one with any scientific knowledge disputes that humans and the group traditionally known as "apes" are placed in the same taxon and that traditional apes are a paraphyletic group. The issue is how to name such non-monophyletic groups. Some sources would prefer not to give them names, reserving names for monophyletic groups. Others see value in naming non-monophyletic groups. Since there are reliable sources taking each view, the article must abide by WP:NPOV.

As an example, Dawkins is well aware of the relationship between tradtional apes and humans, but he still uses "ape" in both ways – see User:Peter coxhead/Info#Dawkins' use of "ape". Peter coxhead (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

We are apes! You are an ape! Better an ape than … Common names are fine in context, scientific names refer to a verifiable description. ~ cygnis insignis 06:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

What "non-monophyletic group"? Apes/Hominoidea *are* a monophyletic group (clade), by definition: "a group of taxa composed only of a common ancestor and all of its lineal descendants". The person who refuses to consider the human genus as belonging to the group of Apes/Hominoidea, cannot consider Apes/Hominoidea a paraphyletic group either, since paraphyletic groups exclude a monophyletic subroup, not a single genus. Therefore, refusing to acknowledge the human genus as belonging to the group of Apes/Hominoidea is a refusal to acknowledge that we are subject to taxonomic classification and phylogeny. There may are philosophical grounds for considering us distinguished among the animal kingdom, but there are no grounds on which to deny that our bodies are biological. Cyrthazil (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Cyrthazil: actually the paraphyletic group that the common name "apes" applies to is not Hominoidea minus Homo but Hominoidea minus Hominina, but both would be paraphyletic, assuming that Hominina and Homo are monophyletic: a monophyletic genus is a monophyletic group. But the core point remains, as has been stated repeatedly: there is a scientific use of "apes" to refer to Hominoidea, and a common use of "apes" to refer to non-human hominoids, and reliable sources can be provided for both uses (the same one in the case of the Dawkins reference noted above). So to maintain WP:NPOV we must report both views. Humans are apes_scientific but not apes_common, so it's always important to be clear which sense is being used in any context. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Excellent. I'm glad we agree that the scientific use of the word "apes" refers to Hominoidea. So let's not try to scientifically justify the common and inaccurate use of the term. Cyrthazil (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Cyrthazil: inaccurate may be your view, but it's not a judgement for Wikipedia to make. To take the less emotional example given above, I could, but wouldn't, write that it's inaccurate to call a strawberry a berry. It would be inaccurate in a strictly botanical context, because a strawberry isn't a berry (botany), but botanists can't dictate how words are used in everyday language. Just as with berry, ape has two uses, and our task is to report on both maintaining WP:NPOV, and certainly not saying that one use is inaccurate. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Apes are monkeys

Correct? I heard this from some scientist, but when I come to this article to check, it's not clear. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

It all depends on what you mean by the terms "monkey" and "ape". In everyday English, the term "monkey" refers to a combination of Platyrrhini (New World monkeys) and Cercopithecoidea (Old World monkeys), which are not a 'natural' (i.e. monophyletic group). If by "monkey" you mean a member of the Simiiformes (simians), then New World monkeys, Old World monkeys and Hominoidea ("apes and humans" in everyday English) are all simians, so in this sense are all monkeys.

The reality is that the terms "monkey", "ape" and "human" are now used in different senses in different contexts, sometimes by the same author. So if "apes" = "hominoids" and "monkeys" = "simians", then apes are monkeys. But if "monkeys" = "New World monkeys" + "Old World monkeys", then apes are not monkeys.

Efforts to explain this properly in the relevant articles are constantly frustrated by editors who seem determined that only the strictly monophyletic sense of "monkey", "ape" and "human" are acceptable, and that the everyday English uses should be downplayed, or even declared wrong. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

That's too bad. Good explanation though. Descriptive vs. prescriptive language. Have to wait 100 years for those people to die out I guess. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah, but those people are immortal. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Peregrine Fisher and Gråbergs Gråa Sång: nice link! Indeed, it is a descriptive vs. prescriptive language issue. I can also point out Richard Dawkins' statements in The Ancestor's Tale (he of all people cannot be accused of being anti-evolution, and knows the phylogeny perfectly well):

• "To call a gorilla or a chimpanzee a monkey is a solecism." (p. 114)
• "the most obvious difference between apes and monkeys is the presence or absence of the tail" (p. 144)

(Page nos. are from the 2005 p/b edition.) Peter coxhead (talk) 09:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure he can be, this is the internet after all ;-). This reminds me of Nut (food). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Peregrine Fisher -- in strict cladistic terminology, an ape is a monkey (just as a mammal is a reptile, an amphibian is a fish, a bird is a dinosaur etc. etc.), but in traditional "grade" terminology (not strictly cladistic), an ape is not a monkey... AnonMoos (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: the point is not what the relationships of the clades are, but what they are called. Everyday and legal definitions of "fish" (e.g. when treated as food) do not include mammals, even though the clade that includes all kinds of fish includes mammals. (And WP:WikiProject Fishes does not include all them either.) The overwhelming usage of "fish" is not for the largest clade including all organisms that are traditionally called "fish" (which is Craniata or Vertebrata, depending on your point of view). Insisting on only using the everyday grade-based terms for the clades is not reflective of real world usage, and is as non-neutral as would be denying the clade relationships. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Birds seem to be becoming dinosaurs in descriptive language, so maybe Apes will be monkeys sooner than we think. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Dawkins, I gather, is being prescriptive, in saying that it is a solecism to say that apes are monkeys. What is wrong with saying that apes are monkeys? TomS TDotO (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@TomS TDotO: there's nothing wrong with saying that in one usage of the terms, apes are monkeys, so long as you say that in another usage they are not. What is wrong is to attempt to impose one usage, which violates WP:NPOV. Wikipedia's task is to report, not innovate. If and when everyday English overwhelmingly treats apes as monkeys without qualification, then we should too. But not until then. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll tell you what, I wish this article would state early in the lead that apes are monkeys, or apes aren't monkeys, or that apes may or may not be monkeys depending on how you look at it. I heard that scientist say apes are monkeys, and I went straight to wiki to double check, and wiki let me down. Monkey says apes are monkeys in the fourth para of the lead. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Both articles used to be clearer as to the different usages, but determined editors kept removing the non-cladistic usage. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Let's fight for what's right then! The lead! Huge paragraph, two huge bullet points in a row, and then two more huge paragraphs, that's redic! Starting from the beginning.

This current lead were the first para has 5 sentences, 4 commas, a colon and a semi colon.;: Ain't right! The quotes around "ape" are probably OK though. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

So, how does treat a statement from an authority like Dawkins that it is a solecism to say that apes are monkeys? Is it worth a separate article to explain that some people are adamant on one side or the other, and one is apt to be called ignorant in being on the wrong side. BTW, in the news i have often heard that a fish market was also selling animals. TomS TDotO (talk) 10:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

If we could find the correct info it would be cool to make a page just about how people disagree about the ape monkey thing. Then we could add a small link in the lead. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Notice that there's no disagreement about biological facts here, just disagreement about how far the usage of common English words should be modified in order to reflect the scientific perspective of cladistics (i.e. a purely terminological disagreement). There's already something about this at Phylogenetic nomenclature#Philosophy... -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

AIUI, this particular case is confined to English. English introduced a new word, "monkey", when we had a fine word, "ape". And somebody decided to be a prescriptionist: don't say "Barbary ape", don't call a gorilla a "monkey". Oops! TomS TDotO (talk) 05:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

It's perfectly true that before 19th-century collecting and taxonomic work, most English-speakers were doing pretty good if they could manage to distinguish "apes" (tailless) from "monkeys" (tailed) -- and also perfectly true that gibbons/siamangs/orangutans/gorillas/chimpanzees/humans form a valid taxonomic group, whether considered by cladistic or non-cladistic criteria. The grouping of barbary apes (macaques) alone together with gibbons/siamangs/orangutans/gorillas/chimpanzees/humans does not form a valid taxonomic group... AnonMoos (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

At one time, the English language didn't have the word "monkey". I assume that Europeans knew about Barbary "apes", and other Old World primates which they called "apes". It was a matter of centuries before they knew about chimps, gibbons, etc., or about lemurs, etc. When, how and why did English-speakers decide to distinguish between monkeys and apes? And to include New World monkeys with OW monkeys? When was it discovered that OW monkeys were more closely related to chimps, etc. than to NW monkeys? When did English speakers decide to care about that? TomS TDotO (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm starting to get confused again! Wish our articles made it clear. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The article "Monkey" has a discussion on terminology. It seems to be correct. The question is whether it is clear. It is complicated. I'm no

expert, but my personal opinion is that too often prescrptionists don't know what they're talking about. TomS TDotO (talk) 07:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

A paragraph in the lead was moved as second paragraph under Name and terminology (7 January 2017 9:17), creating some repetition. These two first paragraphs have been edited since, but remaining quite repetitive. Most obvious is

• synonym for "monkey" … tailless … in particular.[ref name=EB11Ape, Encyclopædia Britannica]
• synonym for "monkey" …, particularly those without a tail.[ref name=EB11Ape, Encyclopædia Britannica]

--Dominique Meeùs (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Donnahanke75@igmail,com isnt apes and monkey in the same family 2603:7000:DB00:43D1:ACFB:4FFF:FEFB:C618 (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Prefer preferred spelling

The preferred spelling of "catarrhine" is with two Rs. Please fix. 2601:200:C000:1A0:50A5:DDF:73A6:A4D3 (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done Peter coxhead (talk) 05:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

How are apes native to Africa and Southeast Asia?

The first sentence in the article claims that apes are native to Africa and Southeast Asia. Since humans are also apes (which is how it is treated in the article), the first sentence cannot be true. It is true that humans originated in Africa, but that doesn't mean they're native to Africa Pajo96 (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC) Pavle

I assume the article is using the term "ape" to exclude humans.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

A native species is a species that is found in a certain ecosystem due to natural processes, such as natural distribution and evolution. So humans originating in Africa, does mean that they're are native to Africa. But since it is unclear what exactly natural means when talking about ecology of humans their range outside of Africa is left out. The natural range is about the other extant species of apes besides humans - gibbons and orangutans in Southeast Asia; Chimpanzees, Bonobos and Gorillas in Africa.Kardoen (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the term "native" in the biological sense is useful applied to humans, since it is opposed to "introduced" meaning 'introduced by human agency as opposed to the species' own agency'. This makes no sense when "species" = "human". Peter coxhead (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Threatened extinction

I expanded the last paragraph of the lead, and removed the citation needed tag. Citing references would put 27 tags here, one for each of the non-human species. This seems like overkill, when the references can be found on the relevant species articles. I think my expanded text will help the reader reach the references more applicably than just inserting a large block of references. However, I'm not opposed to finding a better way. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2023

Request to remove "(though this is the subject of much debate)" in refrence to apes also being part of the clade catarrhini and therefore called monkeys in addition to apes. There is no debate in the scientific community that we are part of the nested hierarchy that includes both apes and monkeys. 2600:1700:72A5:C010:CCCC:1D9F:3D90:42DA (talk) 00:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually, it has already been done by GliderMaven. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

There's no debate that it's correct according to strict cladistics, but there's sometimes debate as to whether strict cladistics is always useful for practical terminology. AnonMoos (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)