![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Why use such informal, unacademic terms? Why not Eastern Hemisphere and Western Hemisphere? The terms Old World/New World are American-centric, and really don't need to be in a Wikipedia article. Certainly, as a Briton, I don't consider myself to be living in an Old World. Neither would the majority of Chinese and Indians whose nations are amongst the most upcoming, emerging societies.
I'll leave you a week to do the necessary corrections yourself before I do it myself.
From the article:
I think this is a pretty bad definition. First, it mainly tells you what monkeys are not, instead of what they are, which is always a bad idea if you can avoid it. Secondly, haplorrhine (half nose?!) is a pretty obscure word, so we immediately follow the link and discover that:
Oops. Haplorrhines are tarsiers, monkeys, apes and humans, and monkeys are haplorrhines less tarsiers, apes and humans. These definitions are circular!
Thirdly, this definition is incomprehensible! Imagine some twelve year old kid trying to use Wikipedia to research a project and finding this stuff. Come on, primatologists, please fix this up or I might be forced to write something you won't like, like "monkeys are mischievous little furry humanoids with tails". 8^) -- Securiger 09:48, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Even Merriam-Webster uses an exclusive and general definition of monkey: 1 : a nonhuman primate mammal with the exception usually of the lemurs and tarsiers; especially : any of the smaller longer-tailed primates as contrasted with the apes
However, M-W's definition is both broader and less accurate than the one we currently offer. (It doesn't exclude enough of the prosimians, and the broadest view can also include the apes.) 'What do monkeys eat? Where do they live?' aren't questions that can be easily answered because monkeys aren't one group, and the general answers you get does not distinguish them at all from the other primates any better than "they aren't apes or tarsiers, etc". You seem to want an answer that will accurately and simply distinguish a monkey from other primates, or from other creatures in general. The general answer is that it is a kind of primate. The more specific one is that it is a creature from one of two groups: Old World and New World. At that point, any feature which distinguishes a monkey from the other primates is unique to one of those two groupings.
As for Pongidae, that classification is defunct and needs to be removed from all the articles (except in a way that shows it is defunct).
- UtherSRG 17:22, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I went and looked at the ape article. It is a great article. But 'ape' refers to one easy classification of creatures that gets subdivided. The distinctive commonalities of apes excludes all non-apes. The distinctive commonalities of monkeys includes some non-monkeys. I agree that a more expansive monkey article would be good. I'm just not the guy to do it. - UtherSRG 17:45, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I think you did a fabulous job! - UtherSRG 05:11, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The links to the smallest and largest monkeys provide different information on their sizes than the monkey page does. I don't know which is correct, but they should match up.
I've protected this page because it is a frequent target for dynamic IP anon vandalism. Please feel free to contact me or another admin if you wish to make (real) edits. - UtherSRG 14:03, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
-- J7 22:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
There should be a link to the Hartlepool Monkey storey on the page. When the page is unprotected again, the link should be added. - 219.78.68.64
the word "prehensile" on the Monkey page should be a link. - Brassrat
Words: chimpanzee(s), gibbon(s), and gorilla(s) could also be links. - Anonymous
I've once again protected this article so that the vandals can be thwarted. Let me know if y'all have any changes here and I'll make 'em. - UtherSRG 19:58, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
If you look up this talk you'll see the vandalism is an ongoing event. I too have this page on a watchlist. While I agree that catching vandals in one place sometimes helps find other incidents of vandalism, I would much prefer a stable article that folks can deal with. When vandalism & reversion is happening as often as it does here, it increases the chance of an edit conflict - which I believe serves to dissuade newbie editors more than having to place the change request here on that talk page does. - UtherSRG 20:19, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
I know. But let it sit for a few days or a week, and the vandalism will decrease for a few weeks. It's just a few kids with dynamic IPs. Once they get bored hitting their heads against the protection, they go away for awhile. - UtherSRG 20:33, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
I've unprotected this page. Let's see how long until the vandals return.... - UtherSRG 14:20, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
3 hours, 47 minutes. *sigh* - UtherSRG 18:29, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I edited the page before noticing that it was protected, so I reverted my own edits. Is there any chance of it being unprotected soon? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:09, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
There is a link to savannah (placename). It should be changed to link to the grassland savanna.
I added the next time the monkey will appear in the zodiac calendar. - 64.231.70.46 20:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I do not disagree with everything said in the "In laboratories" section, but I think that it is excessively polemical and that more information on the potential positive aspects of these experiments should be included. - Arsene 23:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Agree - it's a long way from neutral POV. I suspect the picture of the lab monkey was also placed by someone with a similar agenda - it's designed to be emotive rather than informative and so is inappropriate.
I totally agree. The information regarding monkeys in medical expirimentation only states that monkeys are, in fact, used for expiriments, and in what numbers. It says nothing about WHY they are used, nor the benefits of doing so. Furthermore, it only cites the numbers for one variety of monkey, and in only 2 locales, the EU and the US. This section needs some serious revision, as well as a new photograph: the one being used, as mentioned above, plays right into the bias expressed in the article. - Jackmont Nov 3, 2005
Agree. The generalizations of the lab environment are clearly intended to be evocative. Serf 16:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
"The section only states the facts" ( SlimVirgin, above) SlimVirgin, since you are calling the contents of this section "facts", I'd like you to provide documentation of these "facts. Places to start:
"barren cages, with no perch, no bedding, and nothing to stimulate them" <-- In the U.S., this has not been the case for many years.
"the monkeys in the lower tiers spend their lives in the dark" <-- A statement like this needs to supported by evidence. I doubt if any laboratory primates spend their lives in the dark.
The U.S.
NIH environmental enrichment rules state, "research facilities must develop, document, and follow an appropriate plan for environment enhancement adequate to promote the psychological well-being of nonhuman primates. The plan must be in accordance with the currently accepted professional standards as cited in appropriateas directed by the attending veterinarian." (
source, PDF file)
Additional information --
JWSchmidt
13:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Unlike human primates, non-human primates are not regarded as persons in law, and their individual interests are therefore not protected.
Highly sociable animals, monkeys are caged separately in barren cages, with no perch, no bedding, and nothing to stimulate them. Their cages are arranged in double tiers to save space, which means the monkeys in the lower tiers spend their lives in the dark.
I think this section would benefit from an historical outline of attempts to improve conditions for monkeys in laboratories. I think this recent review article: USDA Perspective on Environmental Enrichment for Animals along with the others that I listed above provide useful information, some of which should be added to Wikipedia. I think that the Monkey article should describe the role of the animal welfare movement in identifying problems in how laboratories have handled monkeys and in promoting more government action to regulate laboratories and how they house and handle non-human primates. It would be useful to describe the current system of inspections of facilities and what happens when violations of existing animal care laws are found. It would also be useful if additional references could be found to document regulations/inspections for laboratories outside of the United States. I am reluctant to start editing this article because I wonder if the Monkey article is the best place to put a discussion of regulations for the care of laboratory primates. Yes, most non-human primates used in laboratory research are monkeys, but maybe there should be one wikipedia page about regulations for the care of laboratory primates and all wikipedia non-human primate articles could point to that one central page. I have been looking in Category:Animal welfare and Category:Animal experimentation in an attempt to learn the structure of Wikipedia articles that deal with these topics. -- JWSchmidt 15:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
You could certainly mention that, in accordance with FDA regulations, all drugs must go through clinical trials after completing the mandatory animal test phase of the approval process. These clinical trials are always carried out on humans. That way, you're comparing two instances that are far more similar in that both are legal, both are regulated, both take place with oversight, and both test the effects of medication, not disease, on different classes of primates. In general, if you must resort to bad analogies that rely on negative emotive impact to make a rhetorical point, you might want to reconsider your point. 71.103.148.199 04:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Can we take this section out? Neither ref here seems relevant nor notable enough to be here. Ned Scotland 22:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
This article suffers greatly from vandalism [1]. I suggest a semi-protection. RexNL 00:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
The world map does not show monkey populations in North Africa. Also, I have tried to fix the laboratories section: does anybody still have objections?
Or the monkeys in Gibraltar.
As much as we might not like to remember the monkey being used in baiting it is certainly an historical fact. You might want to vote here:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monkey-baiting
It's not incorrect to describe gorillas and chimps as monkeys. Many dictionaries define monkey broadly enough to include all primates except those on the extremes (humans and lemurs) and it's extremely common in everyday language and pop culture to describe chimps and gorillas as monkeys. You might claim this is based on ignorance, but there's no scientific reason to contradict the popular understanding of the term and I like the idea of calling gorillas and chimps monkeys. Already at the ape article, they're redefining ape to include humans which is bad enough, but at least they're doing so for scientific reasons. Let's not redefine monkey too because it's a useful generic term for all the higher non-human prmates.-- Zalgebra 03:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Here's a reliable source.[ [2]] The definition of monkey from a reputable dictionary:
1 : a nonhuman primate mammal with the exception usually of the lemurs and tarsiers; especially : any of the smaller longer-tailed catarrhine or platyrrhine primates as contrasted with the apes
Now it's true that the term refers especially to long-tailed primates, but the basic definition is any non-human higher primate. Also, the pop-cultural references are everywhere. King Kong was described as a giant monkey. The movie "planet of the apes" was originally called "monkey planet".-- Zalgebra 04:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The dictionary cited above suggests that the reader go to Encyclopædia Britannica for more information.....when I follow the link it says monkeys are, "any of nearly 200 species of tailed primate, with the exception of lemurs, tarsiers, and lorises." -- JWSchmidt 04:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
With respect to "pop-cultural references", I guess you could add more to Monkeys in culture.-- JWSchmidt 05:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The encyclopedia provides more information on the precise definition of monkey, but why should this article be limited to the precise definition? There's no genetic or scientific reason for the precision, as the decision on where to draw the line between monkeys and other primates is arbitrary. And since any definition of monkey is arbitrary, we might as well use the arbitrary definition that is deeply ingrained in pop-culture. Since there are many important distinctions between humans and other higher primates, humanity is a good place to draw the line, hence I advocate the broader dictionary definition of monkey as any higher non-human primate.-- Zalgebra 05:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Monkeys have tails. The two groups of tailed primates are more closely related than they are to tail-less apes. The article says otherwise. It is wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.122.208.51 ( talk • contribs) .
This should be cleared up even more in that monkey is not a natural label, or all apes, included humans are monkeys (which is the method I use) 198.133.139.5 14:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Martin
It seems that a rather important primate was forgotten in the classification: homo sapiens. I don't see any scientific reason not to mention this species here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.58.253.130 ( talk • contribs) .
Humans belong in the ape classification which is in the article as being a monkey. A human is an ape, which is a monkey therefore a human is a monkey. (speaking cladisticly) 11:06 1 March 2007 (MRC)
tarsiers | |||||||||||||
simians |
| ||||||||||||
Bold textAnd if you look at that chart you just put up, you can notice that apes are more closely related to Old World monkeys than Old World Monkeys are to New World Monkeys. Since they are both Monkeys, apes must be monkeys.Bold text Honestly, there are only 3 solutions to this problem. 1. admit apes are monkeys (easiest and most perfered method). 2. get rid of the word monkey (much harder to do because it is such an established word in the English language). 3. Don't use the word monkey, but use New World Monkey and Old World Monkey, never using monkey alone (even harder because adds more words and see number 2.) 198.133.139.5 11:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I also think that if monkey contains new world monkeys, and old world monkeys, it should contain the apes (and us) too. It's much more natural (considering cladistics). I can only find two cons: 1) it is not used this way in common speech 2) PRIDE! ("No matter what, I am NOT a monkey.") Well, I think neither of them is logical. Especially the (I think more dominant) second. Adam Mihalyi 01:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
How do I flag it up for a major rewrite? (I'd try, but I think a primatologist should get involved) It's the sort of niff-naff and trivia that devalues the entire Wikipedia project: there are 593 words on what monkeys actually are, followed by a strange section on monkeys as pets (552 words), some stuff about animal testing (complete with carefully selected emotive picture) and a completely random section on the eating of monkeys which could be an interesting discussion on bushmeat, but instead tells us that the chines don't eat monkey brains, Islamic dietary laws forbid monkey-eating and aids may have been transmitted to humans by eating monkeys (unless the monkeys were eaten raw this seems unlikely.)
After that we have the bane of wikipedia: the trivia section, here disguised as "monkeys in literature". The extent of "monkeys in literature" appears to be that a monkey is a character in a chinese novel, Hanuman is a monkey-like Hindu god (true, but is that literature?). Monkey from the TV series Monkey was a monkey (deliberate repition to indicate the redundancy of the statement, as was Curious George). The triviaists favourite Terry Pratchett makes an appearance. And then there is a misplaced statement about mandrills. And something about the chinese zodiac.
The links section is equally poor (two antivivisection sites, a thing about pet monkeys and a helping hands site). The only two sourced statements are a food article in the guardian claiming that chinese people don't appear to eat monkey brains and a biblical vegetarian site is used for a source for the SIV-HIV claim.
Proposed restructure:
Monkeys and their relationship to people is a valid topic, but is the keeping of pets the most important element?
1.0 Characteristics 2.0 Name 3.0 Classification 4.0 Monkeys and humans 4.1 Monkeys in science (present NPOV of animal testing) 4.1.1 Theories of relationship between SIV/HIV and possible transmission (may simply link to relevant page) 4.2 As food (must discuss bushmeat or the article is pointless) 4.3 As Pets
The trivialists will have to start their own page for "Monkeys in Popular Culture" - there's an argument for discussing monkeys and religion say, but making this a list of monkeys in books and films is the sort f thing that Wikipedia can do without
If you want to see what I mean about the difference between an uncontrolled random page like monkey compare with the entry for ape
Jim68000 22:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, one of the worst Wikipedia pages I have seen. Mwinog2777 05:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I also agree. In response to Jim68000's initial question, to flag it for rewrite I would add both the templates { { cleanup-rewrite } } and { { Expert-subject|Primates } } to the top of the article. I'd do it myself, but I apparently haven't had my account long enough. Bloody semi-protection policy. Gitman 21:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, templates have been added. Gitman 18:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I fully agree that this page is unworthy of Wikipedia. Such an important family of biological organisms deserves a good strong article not one that begins lecturing people about religion. My 12 year old came across this when doing an essay and even she flagged it as incomplete and tending to go off in needless tangents. Why on earth does such drivel merit the special treatement of being exempt from editing. The whole entry should be trashed and someone else start from scratch.
Ok, I'm no biologist, but...last time I checked, a gorilla was a member of the ape family. It is certainly NOT a monkey. Sure, monkeys and apes are related. But, a gorilla is not a monkey. Perhaps the picture should be removed. 24.111.137.236 01:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)anonymous
I don't care about the phuture... i care about the fture and PRESENT. bohandez 19:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC) and yes. You are 'controlers' ... behave urselves :) bohandez 19:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Are there two spellings for the plural of monkey or is the word "monkies" just plain wrong? If it is wrong, then why does it redirect to this page if it's a word that doesn't even exist? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/74.115.48.182 ( talk • contribs).
Personally, I think one of the weaknesses of Wikipedia is that misspellings are not redirected often enough. Think about Google, with their "did you mean _____?" This is an extremely helpful, and timesaving feature which in no way lends validity to an incorrect spelling. When Wikipedia redirects, it is obvious to the reader based on the actual article title and the words "redirected from ____". I think information should be easy to find, whether or not someone can spell "premillennialism", "monkeys", or "hominid" correctly. When someone types "monkies", isn't his or her intention obvious? Why penalize users for "just plain wrong" spelling by forcing them to waste their time trying to find the correct spelling before viewing an article? Don't be so uppity and peddantik. Diego Gravez 01:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
This article appears to be written by a monkey owner or pet dealer, as it barely covers the biological aspects of the species, then they mildly warn of physical dangers of owning a monkey, followed by a blurb of success stories. Then, at the end, someone added the word "opinionated" to a reference that talked about the negatives of monkey ownership, when this is the view of veterinarians throughout the U.S. and Europe. No mention is made of the health hazards that monkeys pose, being able to carry AIDS, hepatitis, plus alot of our common disease, such as measles, etc., let alone the public health threat that can happen with an ebola outbreak (see The Hot Zone, and those were monkeys in a quarantined facility!). I think this article is a travesty, and agree with the previous poster that it should be deleted and completely rewrote by someone who does not endorse monkeys as pets.
Thank you, John Edwards, DVM Audubon Center for the Research of Endangered Species New Orleans, LA
Given the concerns raised above, and since the section is entirely unreferenced and seemed to be unreasonably prominent in the article, I've moved the monkey as pets section here so it can be worked on (or disregarded) as appropriate. If we can develop something that looks good it can be moved back into the main body of the text. -- Siobhan Hansa 19:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
When the British first began to explore Africa, young monkeys were often captured to provide entertainment during long voyages. Some were later transferred to domestic zoos, and in fact many modern captive monkeys in the UK are descended from individuals captured during the Napoleonic and Victorian eras. Kent still to this day has the largest population of monkeys in the UK. According to legend, one of the early British captive monkeys was lost at sea and washed up ashore near Hartlepool, England, where it was mistaken for a Frenchman and hanged. citation needed The people of Hartlepool have since borne the nickname " monkey hangers."
Although they may appear to be friendly, keeping monkeys as pets can be very difficult. While baby monkeys are usually as easy to keep clean as a human infant (by diapering), monkeys that have reached puberty usually remove their diapers and cannot be toilet trained. They require constant supervision and mental stimulation. They usually require a large amount of attention. Monkeys cannot handle being away from their owners for long periods of time, such as family trips, due to their need of attention. Bored monkeys can become extremely destructive and may, for example, smear or throw their own feces. There often needs to be a lot of time set aside for cleaning up messes the monkey might make. Most adolescent monkeys begin to bite unpredictably and pinch adults and children. Any surgical means to stem this behavior (such as removing the teeth or fingertips of the monkey) is widely considered cruel, and it is usually difficult to find veterinarians who will carry out such procedures: even exotic-animal veterinarians may not be familiar with them. Monkeys eventually can become wild and difficult to control upon reaching adulthood. The monkeys may also become aggressive even to their owners. In some cases their behavior can change abruptly, making it hard for the owner to fully understand or control them.
Some people do report having long and rewarding relationships with monkeys. Monkeys are known to get attached to their first owner, so switching from one to another can be traumatic to the monkey and may aggravate behavioral problems. It is not easy for a monkey to get used to a new environment. Monkeys need to be placed in social areas. It is also expensive to care for a monkey — housing, food, and veterinary care can become very costly.
In most large metropolitan areas in the U.S. it is illegal to keep monkeys as pets in the home; even in places where they are legal, a Department of Agriculture permit is usually required. Their legal status as pets varies in other countries. Permits may be issued to those who qualify in the caring of monkeys.
I need simple info on monkeys and all this stuff is to wierd so make it easier for us non tec people all I want is monkeys in general!!! :( - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.106.143.224 ( talk • contribs).
hi it's me again the answer you gave me was exactly what i din't want because i said no to new & old world monkeys so maybe i should go 2 another web site if u don't have the answer to what i want .... so who's with me, i am so not tec MAKE IT EASIER OR I WON'T USE THIS WEB ANY MORE MAYBE I'LL USE ASK.COM NOW!!!!! :( give me a simple answer or i'm gone WHO'S WITH ME!!!!
who care's about new and old world monkeys i just want to know about normal monkeys in general PLEASE so don't give me the same answer again and by the way i want something simple to understand that states the 'need to know' facts.
KED
This article needs an infobox, like all the other animal articles have. Lεmσηflαsh (t)/ (c) 18:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
This article appears to be written by a monkey owner or pet dealer, as it barely covers the biological aspects of the species, then they mildly warn of physical dangers of owning a monkey, followed by a blurb of success stories. Then, at the end, someone added the word "opinionated" to a reference that talked about the negatives of monkey ownership, when this is the view of veterinarians throughout the U.S. and Europe. No mention is made of the health hazards that monkeys pose, being able to carry AIDS, hepatitis, plus alot of our common disease, such as measles, etc., let alone the public health threat that can happen with an ebola outbreak (see The Hot Zone, and those were monkeys in a quarantined facility!). I think this article is a travesty, and agree with the previous poster that it should be deleted and completely rewrote by someone who does not endorse monkeys as pets.Do you not think so?
Thank you, John Edwards, DVM Audubon Center for the Research of Endangered Species New Orleans, LA
Given the concerns raised above, and since the section is entirely unreferenced and seemed to be unreasonably prominent in the article, I've moved the monkey as pets section here so it can be worked on (or disregarded) as appropriate. If we can develop something that looks good it can be moved back into the main body of the text. -- Siobhan Hansa 19:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
what is this silly thing about old and new worlds it is annoying 124.170.244.50 08:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
What does this sentence (from the Monkeys in Captivity section) mean? What is it trying to say?
The best I can figure is that once it made a point, but someone removed enough POV to make it pointless. As it stands, it doesn't seem to say anything at all, certainly not about monkeys in captivity.
Are there objections to cutting it entirely, explanations for its presence, ideas on how to fix it? Gnfnrf 04:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
How-to guide on surviving them: Tsai, Michelle (2007-10-22). "How To Fight Monkeys: What should you do if you're surrounded by angry macaques?". Slate. -- 67.98.206.2 18:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Somebody please improve the map showing distribution of monkeys there are morocan monkeys it does not show the Barbary Macaque. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaharous ( talk • contribs)
"Calling apes "monkeys" is incorrect. Calling either a simian is correct."
I thought that in the Cladistics sense that apes are monkeys? Woland37 ( talk) 18:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I have to disagree. Excluding apes from monkeys is blatant paraphyly - people have been drawn and quartered for lesser crimes. Old world monkeys are more closely related to apes than to new world monkeys. I know that in popular science it's common to distinguish monkeys and apes (probably because humans don't like being compared to monkeys), but from a scientific point of view, apes are monkeys. Edit: as I understand, this page is protected. If the adminstrators want me to, I'd be glad to write a carification note on this point. Toitoine ( talk) 21:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems we're all in agreement that apes should be included in the monkey clade, as there is only a traditional bias to exclude them. So why does the main page still show that exclusion? Of course since humans are now recognized as apes, that would mean we're monkeys too. But I'm OK with that, as I've been associated with much worse. Aron-Ra ( talk) 18:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
You cannot scientifically call an old world monkey a monkey without also grouping humans and other apes into that classification because they are much more closely related to old world monkeys then new world monkeys are to old world monkeys. Unless you want to say, " monkey is a non-scientific term for any cercopithecoid (Old World monkey) or platyrrhine (New World monkey) primate. All primates that are not prosimians (lemurs and tarsiers) or apes are monkeys" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.133.139.5 ( talk) 15:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I prefered the older Monkeys in Captivity heading. It's hard to determine what the moneky's relationship might be with an animal experimenter who might be sacrificing the monkey. Phrased as a relationship makes it appear as if the monkeys have entered into these agreements voluntarily whereas they are functions of being captive. Perhaps this should be a separate section, since there are instances where monkeys do interact with humans - frequently in Asia and India - but using a wild animal as a pet, service animal or laboratory subject has more to do with captivity than relationships. Really, this is a Humans in relation to monkeys section. Bob98133 ( talk) 16:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the evolutionary relationship of monkeys to humans should be discussed here. Miska1 ( talk) 00:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't you think that this article could use a few new sections? I think a section about monkeys in popular culture could be a good section. Like jack the monkry in POTC would be a good one to add. Excitinginterception7 ( talk) 20:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. A section about monkeys in pop culture would be trivial and looked down upon. I wouldn’t bother adding one.-- DavidD4scnrt ( talk) 20:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I added this only video:
How do I flag it up for a major rewrite? (I'd try, but I think a primatologist should get involved) It's the sort of niff-naff and trivia that devalues the entire Wikipedia project: there are 599 words on what monkeys actually are, followed by a strange section on monkeys as pets (558 words), some stuff about animal testing (complete with carefully selected emotive picture) and a completely random section on the eating of monkeys which could be an interesting discussion on bushmeat, but instead tells us that the chines don't eat monkey brains, Islamic dietary laws forbid monkey-eating and aids may have been transmitted to humans by eating monkeys (unless the monkeys were eaten raw this seems unlikely.)
After that we have the bane of wikipedia: the trivia section, here disguised as "monkeys in literature". The extent of "monkeys are the main source of drug dealers in new york city in literature" appears to be that a monkey is a character in a chinese novel, Hanuman is a monkey-like Hindu god (true, but is that literature?). Monkey from the TV series Monkey was a monkey (deliberate repition to indicate the redundancy of the statement, as was Curious George). The triviaists favourite Terry Pratchett makes an appearance. And then there is a misplaced statement about mandrills. And something about the chinese zodiac.
The links section is equally poor (two antivivisection sites, a thing about pet monkeys and a helping hands site). The only two sourced statements are a food article in the guardian claiming that chinese people don't appear to eat monkey brains and a biblical vegetarian site is used for a source for the SIV-HIV claim.
Proposed restructure:
Monkeys and their relationship to people is a valid topic, but is the keeping of pets the most important element?
1.0 Characteristics 2.0 Name 3.0 Classification 4.0 Monkeys and humans 4.1 Monkeys in science (present NPOV of animal testing) 4.1.1 Theories of relationship between SIV/HIV and possible transmission (may simply link to relevant page) 4.2 As food (must discuss bushmeat or the article is pointless) 4.3 As Pets 4.4 Etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.39.84.3 ( talk) 04:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The trivialists will have to start their own page for "Monkeys in Popular Culture" - there's an argument for discussing monkeys and religion say, but making this a list of monkeys in books and films is the sort f thing that Wikipedia can do without
If you want to see what I mean about the difference between an uncontrolled random page like monkey compare with the entry for ape
They're adaptation is their tale.
Jim68000 22:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, one of the worst Wikipedia pages I have seen.
Mwinog2777
05:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I also agree. In response to Jim68000's initial question, to flag it for rewrite I would add both the templates { { cleanup-rewrite } } and { { Expert-subject|Primates } } to the top of the article. I'd do it myself, but I apparently haven't had my account long enough. Bloody semi-protection policy. Gitman 21:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, templates have been added. Gitman 18:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I fully agree that this page is unworthy of Wikipedia. Such an important family of biological organisms deserves a good strong article not one that begins lecturing people about religion. My 12 year old came across this when doing an essay and even she flagged it as incomplete and tending to go off in needless tangents. Why on earth does such drivel merit the special treatement of being exempt from editing. The whole entry should be trashed and someone else start from scratch.
For anyone interested, there's a List of fictional monkeys article; can replace a possible Monkeys in popular culture section (or article), I guess. This article could link to it somewhere...
7h3 0N3 7h3 \/4Nl)4L5 Pl-l34R ( t / c) 04:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Very important. 64.134.28.105 ( talk) 03:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Since this article is being reviewed by Wikipedia Spotlight I have been looking for resources about monkeys.
Irunongames • play 14:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Spotlight has stared to edit this article. You can join by clicking here: #wikipedia-spotlight or get instant access click here-- Cubs197 ( talk) 03:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I have a very good quality and engaging picture of a monkey eating. Can anybody id and incorporate it in the article? -- Muhammad (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
The monkey is not a crab-eating macaque but a toque or bonnet macaque. It also has an eye problem. I could find no information in vervet.za.org that the monkey is a crab-eating macaque. The current photograph at the top of the article is also incorrectly labelled as a crab-eating macaque. I would say, unless you are a primatologist or at least a taxonomist, please refrain from adding species specific names to pictures. Skamnelis ( talk) 00:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I have also asked a question here regarding monkeys being Taxa.-- Gordonrox24 | Talk 18:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but spotlight hasn't done much to this article, and we are moving on. We may or may not come back to this article to try again.-- Cubs197 ( talk) 00:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The introduction has the comment, "Monkeys are usually smarter and/or longer-tailed than apes." Not only is this poorly written, but it's also tough to believe. Does anyone have a source to back this comment up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.202.201 ( talk) 00:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
"Monkeys are generally considered to be intelligent and, unlike ape, monkeys usually have tails." Should be "Monkeys are generally considered to be intelligent and, unlike apes, monkeys usually have tails." Number agreement issue. Randomundergrad ( talk)
I request editing in order to add the Haitian creole equivalent to the list of languages in the left-side column. Rajkiandris Rajkiandris ( talk) 06:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
According to [ [8]], there are four terms for a group of monkeys; 'troop, barrel, tribe, cartload' instead of two that this article states —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metallhue ( talk • contribs) 17:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be more concise to describe monkeys as "any simian that is not an ape"? I don't see why we go to the trouble of saying they are apes 'excluding prosimians' since if you are an ape that is not a prosimian it makes you a simian right? Or am I misunderstanding this? -PAN ( talk) 16:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)but
Previously, the intro said "prosimians (lemurs and tarsiers)". Prosimians include aye ayes and lorises and various groups other than lemurs and tarsiers, so I took out the parenthesized phrase. Ordinary Person ( talk) 14:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
This information seems inappropriately placed. In other articles, this sort of entry would appear at the end, in the standard "In popular culture" heading. Its actual contribution to this article, however, is negligible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.208.254 ( talk) 04:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
monna doesn't mean "female ape" (figure out a "monna lisa":), it just mean "woman" or "my lady" (as the reference says) Martinowiki ( talk) 17:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, if this is not the best place to ask this question. Can anyone tell me what kind of monkey this is? -- Phagopsych ( talk) 22:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
the brief paragraph "monkeys as food" says they are forbidden by Islamic dietary laws, but the article linked through does not mention this. Is there a source? -- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 03:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Isn't monkey a paraphyletic group? Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? ScienceApe ( talk) 17:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
There are lots of technical sources which say apes ARE monkeys, there are lots which say they are not. There are lots of non-technical sources which use the word monkey to include apes and lots which do not. Tarsiers are variously described as monkeys, monkey-like and non-monkeys.
The article should reflect this lack of consensus. As used, monkey more often SPACKlick ( talk) 10:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is an grammatical and linguistic mistake in the reference to Indian monkeys, which I am willing to improve and to remove the cynical remarks and bias about them.
Muktaka Joshipura ( talk) 14:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
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.
Monkey is useless as a taxonomic classification because old world monkeys are genetically closer to apes than new world monkeys, so quit trying to pretend this is is a scientific construct.
Instead the term "monkey" is like term "beast"; just a general label for non-humans. Beast refers to all non-human animals while monkey just refers to most non-human primates
Both this article and the ape 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) 06:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
There is a wrong inter-wiki link to the German Wikipedia. There is no German counterpart for the word monkey, the German word "Affe" describes the sum of apes and monkeys (with or without humans depending on the setting). The German article "Affe" currently points here, but should be redirected to Simian. -- 91.10.13.209 ( talk) 16:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I wish to edit an erroneous part of this page. The first sentence reads - 'A monkey is a primate of the Haplorrhini suborder and simian infraorder, either an Old World monkey or a New World monkey, but excluding apes and humans'. I wish to remove the clause 'and humans', as Humans are Apes (in taxanomic, scientific terms), and this suggests otherwise. Thanks
I have always understood monkeys to be a monophyletic group as taught in school, am I mistaken?
Considering the argument from commonly understood meaning of the word; hominoidea are very commonly understood to be monkeys, you only get the occasional person thinking they're smarty-pants by saying they are 'not monkeys but apes.' 90.195.154.55 ( talk) 15:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
As noted a number of times above, Wikipedia reports reliable sources, it does not decide or dictate. The reality is that terms like "monkey" and "ape" are used in different ways by different authors and often in different ways by the same author (see e.g. User:Peter_coxhead/Work_page#Dawkins' use of "ape". This varied usage must be explained here; something like the wording suggested above seems fine. Peter coxhead ( talk) 15:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
It is only about a very narrow definition of "monkey". There should be a more general article called simply "Monkey" which discusses all kinds of monkeys including non-human hominoids. And then in that article "Monkey (proper)" should be a subsection linking to this article. Similarly, there should be an article called "apes (proper)" which is devoted to only non-human hominoids, and then the general ape article is probably better off being renamed hominoid. Historyhorror ( talk) 16:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Creationists often ask whether someone came from a monkey. Why is it considered such an insult? I don't hear them ask if people came from bacteria. Can the article discuss this? Imagine Reason ( talk) 22:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Monkey brains are not a delicacy in South Asia. This MSNBC article references one line in a cookbook, and I don't think that meets Wikipedia's standards of evidence. You might as well cite Indiana Jones. This is insulting. Gnomewrestler ( talk) 16:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
It's chilled monkey brains, not just any monkey brains. And, yes they are quite the delicacy I hear. Arlesd ( talk) 00:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Nonetheless, due to Wikipedia standards this reference needs to be deleted and a suitable reference added. Otherwise this might appear as a racist sentence, putting those people in a bad light which is certainly offending NPOV! Until there is a suitable reference I would suggest deleting the sentence. Additionally to avoid the above I regard its mandatory to add some statistics how often this is happening in which country/region RMR 92.77.66.249 ( talk) 20:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC) This information is certainly wrong and must be removed. Avinash9587 ( talk) 16:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
"Nonhuman" is not hyphenated in the first sentence, but it is in the second. Just a detail? Maybe. I think it should be hyphenated, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.189.230.101 ( talk) 00:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Edit made. Elemesh Talk 16:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
This article is about the traditional use of the term "monkey", i.e. the paraphyletic group Simiiformes minus Hominoidea. I've edited the taxobox accordingly. Ideally I think we should have:
However, I suspect this would not be acceptable to enthusiasts for WP:COMMONNAME, so we're stuck with the current situation in which e.g. "monkey" does not mean Simiiformes, although editors constantly try to make it do so. Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I think there might be something to be said for making these 'animal' pages simpler in the introduction. The first sentence is a mess that contains: A. a clause that requires advanced knowledge about orders to make sense at all, B. a restrictive clause that similarly requires specialized knowledge, and C. an additional restrictive clause that is simple. Someone who was coming here to learn about monkeys is already in the deep end after the first sentence. In contrast, the Britannica first sentence for monkey is much clearer: "Monkey, in general, any of nearly 200 species of tailed primate, with the exception of lemurs, tarsiers, and lorises." (note: they account for the problems with this definition later on) I'd suggest working on the phrasing of the first paragraph to keep it simpler. One hyperlink (preferably just primate) at most would be great and keep the order stuff for further down. If a A-average high school graduate can't give even a broad definition for a term, then it shouldn't be in the first paragraph. I think this is demonstrated by the fact that the source for the first sentence does not contain the word "Haplorhini." While the author breaks down orders and suborders, he understands that that type of specification is decidedly unhelpful to most readers. Suggestion for a first paragraph: A monkey is a primate species, often with a tail, that are native throughout Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Monkeys are closely related to, though distinct from, other primates such as lemurs, tarsiers, apes and humans. Over 260 species of monkey are divided between Old World monkeys, those native to Africa and Asia, and new world monkeys, those native to the Americas. While most monkeys have tails and live in trees, there are many species who do not. Monkeys are generally considered to be intelligent and have figured prominently in human religious/mythological ideas and in scientific experimentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.7.241.99 ( talk) 15:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Can someone with expertise please fix this? There are problems with this article's mentions of galagos. First it says that galagos are not monkeys. Then, a few paragraphs later, it cites galagos as being among the New World monkeys. Yet clicking through to the articles on galagos those say they're actually from the Old World - Africa, to be specific. So either they're monkeys or they aren't (I don't know the answer, but they sure don't look like monkeys to me - more like lemurs). But they definitely don't seem to be New World monkeys. 170.149.100.10 ( talk) 21:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I propose that Monkey (elasticity) be merged into Monkey. I think that the content in the elasticity article is a stub at present and seems to have very little chance for expansion. It is a very small sub-set of Monkey content and does not seem to require a separate article, and the merging will not cause any problems as far as article size. Dabbler ( talk) 01:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't object to the proposal. I haven't exhaustively looked for material for expansion; I can't comment conclusively on that. I don't have any authority in this subject in any case (I intended it as an article from gymnastics as the primary interest), please do as is felt necessary, whatever that might be. Thanks. Whalestate ( talk) 02:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Monkey has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Peter Duck 2 ( talk) 09:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Why is there a picture of a chimpanzee in this link https://www.google.com.au/search?gs_ivs=1&q=chimpanzee#q=monkey
That is in the lede (although as far as I can tell, it is the only discussion in the article). While generally correct, there's an important nope. According to a 2006 study, Spider Monkeys are the smartest monkey species. Smarter than many apes and certainly smarter than stupid old world macaques. I think simply the omission of the phrase "particularly Old World monkeys" is warranted until a larger discussion is added to the article that can make the distinction clear. 100.40.40.144 ( talk) 12:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Monkey has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
68.186.131.179 ( talk) 04:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC) one time at the zoo a monkey tickled it butt to make itself poop and when he did he threw it at the glass
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.--
Musa
Talk
05:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
These terms are mistranslated in the opening of the article; they come from Greek and mean literally: "single-nosed" (haplorhine) and "twist-nosed" or "turned-nosed" (strepsirrhine). I do understand that the "wet-nose" and "dry-nose" distinction is used by scientists, but the literal meaning of these terms is NOT "wet-nosed" and "dry-nosed." Sorry, wanted to edit; I hope this is the way to request ability to edit the article. Meerkat77 ( talk) 04:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)Meerkat77 Meerkat77 ( talk) 04:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
monkeys can eat lionm
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Monkey. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:02, 21 Ma rch 2016 (UTC)
I must say that monkeys have very large weewees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgdfsdg ( talk • contribs) 21:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I love monkeys they are pretty neat. My mommy told me that monkeys have big tails. One time I ate a school bus it was neat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgdfsdg ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Why are there no pictures of humans in this article? By reading the article one could easily get the idea that humans somehow are not monkeys, which is false. In fact it's probably the most common species of monkey there is. Aaker ( talk) 19:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Paragraph 2 says
Part of this can be cut down to
Someone familiar with the subject matter might want to split this run-on sentence and also remove the self-contradiction. Thanks in advance. Loraof ( talk) 00:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
the monkeys brain is said to be very unique as in the brain was used as a medicine to cancer and other various medicines. it is said that monkeys have tiny brains and are shifty low lifes that have devoted there lives to find ing out who killed jfk and other ancient people and relics but there main perpose it to kill all humans and eliminate human kind they have a dream like martin luther king to be counted as human and not as dumb monkey that dont understand how to speak any languages and love star wars. my favorite kind of monkey looks like this.↓↓↓↓↓ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.179.161.0 ( talk) 21:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Monkey has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Monkeys are a very lovable creature. AnneKite ( talk) 02:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Which grouping?
No, don't tell me the answer, I already know. Just fix the text. 91.10.13.68 ( talk) 15:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Monkey has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
monkeys are alot like humans. somewhere at the start Alpine1000 ( talk) 11:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
"Monkeys are non-hominoid simians"
This is false hominoids are directly evolved from monkeys therefore are moneys! Hominoids are a type of monkey! Which is even said when you move over the simians link.
-- Theapemonkey ( talk) 00:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Jmv2009 ( talk) 05:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC) Agreed. How to fix it?
Remove the none humanoid, possibly put "Catarrhini is one of the two subdivisions of the simians, the other being the plathyrrhine (New World monkeys). The Catarrhini contains the Old World monkeys and the apes"
To explain it.
"Apes (hominoids)—consisting of gibbons, orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans—are also catarrhines but are classically distinguished from monkeys" Who cares if the "classically" (done by people ignorant of the facts! what ever classically means.) distinguished! its wrong is the point and should be removed.
"However, traditionally apes are not considered monkeys," Again still ignorant view. Theapemonkey ( talk) 07:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
See https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/if-apes-evolved-from-monkeys-why-are-there-still-monkeys/ Jmv2009 ( talk) 04:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Barbary macaque only non-ape monkey without a tail? This is true any contradictions it should be used.-- Apemonkey1 ( talk) 07:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I think it might be more clear if the opening said something like: "Monkey is a name given to two groups of primates..." and then explain the New World monkeys and the Old World monkeys excluding the apes. The intro actually does explain this but somehow it could be a little more clear. Most readers of this article are probably not going to be very up to speed on the principles of taxonomy. PopSci ( talk) 15:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Note that there's a separate article at Simian. This article is about the two groups referred to as "monkeys" in English. Our task is to reflect usage and explain it, not to preach or teach, as per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
{{Paraphyletic group | name = Monkeys | fossil_range = {{Geological range|Late Eocene|Present|ref=<ref>{{cite web | url = http://alltheworldsprimates.org/john_fleagle_public.aspx | title = Primate Evolution: John Fleagle and Chris Gilbert | last1 = Fleagle | first1 = J. | last2 = Gilbert | first2 = C. | website = All the World's Primates | editor-last1 = Rowe | editor-first1 = N. | editor-last2 = Myers | editor-first2 = M. | publisher = Primate Conservation, Inc. | accessdate = 18 December 2014}}</ref>}} | image = Macaca sinica - 01.jpg | image_caption = Wild [[toque macaque]] (''Macaca sinica'') in [[Yala National Park]], [[Sri Lanka]] | auto = yes | parent = Simiiformes | authority = {{efn|name=Monkey_vs_Ape|When [[Carl Linnaeus]] defined the [[genus]] ''Simia'' in the [[10th edition of Systema Naturae|10th edition of ''Systema Naturae'']], it included all non-human monkeys and apes ([[simian]]s).{{Sfn|Groves|2008|pp=92–93}} Although "monkey" was never a taxonomic name, and is instead a [[vernacular name]] for a paraphyletic group, its members fall under the infraorder Simiiformes.}}<!-- [[Ernst Haeckel|Haeckel]], 1866 --> |includes = :[[Callitrichidae]] :[[Cebidae]] :[[Aotidae]] :[[Pitheciidae]] :[[Atelidae]] :[[Cercopithecidae]] :†[[Parapithecidae]] |excludes= :[[Hominoidea]] }}
historicaltaxon, but one that is useful now. As per WP:NPOV, our task is to reflect all sources, regardless of our personal views. No-one has shown that the article does not. Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
This article has for a long time been about "monkeys" as a grade/paraphyletic group, corresponding to the main common language use. There is a separate article at Simian.
If we are not to have an article discussing the common language use, then:
I have notified all the WikiProjects involved. Peter coxhead ( talk) 16:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
That apes are monkeys was already realized by Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon in the 18th century. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Catarrhini has always been defined as monkeys of the old world, at least originally, and at least still, by at least some authors. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Jmv2009 ( talk) 18:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: PMC format (
link)
Do you guys think "Any tailed simian primate mammals closely related to the apes" would work as a short description? Mr Fink ( talk) 03:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
People who don't call apes monkeys are not going against science -- they're applying traditional "grade" terminology instead of strict " cladistic" terminology. AnonMoos ( talk) 05:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for adjusting the wording... AnonMoos ( talk) 01:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
jtriojfislfdhgiufnvckajsdhcbuifgnkxizsnjkdodifkcvibghir7ees8ix8yfhgyrufgihxfdjsaijdgybdfyghgdydbxyhgfuhgbuydfxjdoduibhdfcgbyhiudfosdohjso0as9odiufghgovdcsija[zspdjfivdfnurht9djgfickx0o9 i iorthh8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.234.85 ( talk) 17:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Monkey has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
memans eyob monkey Bbvvhgj ( talk) 09:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
The Maya Civilization worshipped Howler Monkey Gods. Maybe someone could put in something detailing this in that religious worship section. Any objections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeaceLoverStephenTrue1111 ( talk • contribs) 02:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
The Maya Civilization worshipped Howler Monkey Gods. Maybe someone could put in something detailing this in that religious worship section. Any objections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeaceLoverStephenTrue1111 ( talk • contribs) 02:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Why? You have two additional levels of classification that most people rarely, if ever use, and are missing the one most commonly refered to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 ( talk) 22:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
i love it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:D603:6D70:A959:A9EC:B24F:7B02 ( talk) 15:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 3 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Lfarthing19.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Monkey has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Need to fix some misspelling 104.189.64.252 ( talk) 02:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Monkey has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Need to fix some misspelling 104.189.64.252 ( talk) 02:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Monkey has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
91.101.245.6 ( talk) 12:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Baby
"Monkeys, including apes, can be distinguished from other primates by having only two pectoral nipples, a pendulous penis, and a lack of sensory whiskers." Has anyone got a better source for this? I'm not sure the sensory whiskers part is true, see Muchlinski, Magdalena N. (2010). "A comparative analysis of vibrissa count and infraorbital foramen area in primates and other mammals". Journal of Human Evolution. 58 (6): 447–473. doi: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2010.01.012. PMID 20434193.. This paper talks of the distinctive characteristics of crown anthropoids, and none of those characters are mentioned: Williams, B. A.; Kay, R. F.; Kirk, E. C. (2010). "New perspectives on anthropoid origins". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107 (11): 4797–4804. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0908320107. PMC 2841917. PMID 20212104.. Cheers, Jack ( talk) 09:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Monkey has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
From Monkey:
"most New World monkeys have prehensile tails"
From New World monkey:
"Monkeys in the family Atelidae," [as opposed to the other four families of New World monkeys] "such as the spider monkey, are the only primates to have prehensile tails."
This seems to need reconciliation. Doctroid ( talk) 01:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Why use such informal, unacademic terms? Why not Eastern Hemisphere and Western Hemisphere? The terms Old World/New World are American-centric, and really don't need to be in a Wikipedia article. Certainly, as a Briton, I don't consider myself to be living in an Old World. Neither would the majority of Chinese and Indians whose nations are amongst the most upcoming, emerging societies.
I'll leave you a week to do the necessary corrections yourself before I do it myself.
From the article:
I think this is a pretty bad definition. First, it mainly tells you what monkeys are not, instead of what they are, which is always a bad idea if you can avoid it. Secondly, haplorrhine (half nose?!) is a pretty obscure word, so we immediately follow the link and discover that:
Oops. Haplorrhines are tarsiers, monkeys, apes and humans, and monkeys are haplorrhines less tarsiers, apes and humans. These definitions are circular!
Thirdly, this definition is incomprehensible! Imagine some twelve year old kid trying to use Wikipedia to research a project and finding this stuff. Come on, primatologists, please fix this up or I might be forced to write something you won't like, like "monkeys are mischievous little furry humanoids with tails". 8^) -- Securiger 09:48, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Even Merriam-Webster uses an exclusive and general definition of monkey: 1 : a nonhuman primate mammal with the exception usually of the lemurs and tarsiers; especially : any of the smaller longer-tailed primates as contrasted with the apes
However, M-W's definition is both broader and less accurate than the one we currently offer. (It doesn't exclude enough of the prosimians, and the broadest view can also include the apes.) 'What do monkeys eat? Where do they live?' aren't questions that can be easily answered because monkeys aren't one group, and the general answers you get does not distinguish them at all from the other primates any better than "they aren't apes or tarsiers, etc". You seem to want an answer that will accurately and simply distinguish a monkey from other primates, or from other creatures in general. The general answer is that it is a kind of primate. The more specific one is that it is a creature from one of two groups: Old World and New World. At that point, any feature which distinguishes a monkey from the other primates is unique to one of those two groupings.
As for Pongidae, that classification is defunct and needs to be removed from all the articles (except in a way that shows it is defunct).
- UtherSRG 17:22, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I went and looked at the ape article. It is a great article. But 'ape' refers to one easy classification of creatures that gets subdivided. The distinctive commonalities of apes excludes all non-apes. The distinctive commonalities of monkeys includes some non-monkeys. I agree that a more expansive monkey article would be good. I'm just not the guy to do it. - UtherSRG 17:45, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I think you did a fabulous job! - UtherSRG 05:11, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The links to the smallest and largest monkeys provide different information on their sizes than the monkey page does. I don't know which is correct, but they should match up.
I've protected this page because it is a frequent target for dynamic IP anon vandalism. Please feel free to contact me or another admin if you wish to make (real) edits. - UtherSRG 14:03, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
-- J7 22:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
There should be a link to the Hartlepool Monkey storey on the page. When the page is unprotected again, the link should be added. - 219.78.68.64
the word "prehensile" on the Monkey page should be a link. - Brassrat
Words: chimpanzee(s), gibbon(s), and gorilla(s) could also be links. - Anonymous
I've once again protected this article so that the vandals can be thwarted. Let me know if y'all have any changes here and I'll make 'em. - UtherSRG 19:58, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
If you look up this talk you'll see the vandalism is an ongoing event. I too have this page on a watchlist. While I agree that catching vandals in one place sometimes helps find other incidents of vandalism, I would much prefer a stable article that folks can deal with. When vandalism & reversion is happening as often as it does here, it increases the chance of an edit conflict - which I believe serves to dissuade newbie editors more than having to place the change request here on that talk page does. - UtherSRG 20:19, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
I know. But let it sit for a few days or a week, and the vandalism will decrease for a few weeks. It's just a few kids with dynamic IPs. Once they get bored hitting their heads against the protection, they go away for awhile. - UtherSRG 20:33, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
I've unprotected this page. Let's see how long until the vandals return.... - UtherSRG 14:20, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
3 hours, 47 minutes. *sigh* - UtherSRG 18:29, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I edited the page before noticing that it was protected, so I reverted my own edits. Is there any chance of it being unprotected soon? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:09, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
There is a link to savannah (placename). It should be changed to link to the grassland savanna.
I added the next time the monkey will appear in the zodiac calendar. - 64.231.70.46 20:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I do not disagree with everything said in the "In laboratories" section, but I think that it is excessively polemical and that more information on the potential positive aspects of these experiments should be included. - Arsene 23:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Agree - it's a long way from neutral POV. I suspect the picture of the lab monkey was also placed by someone with a similar agenda - it's designed to be emotive rather than informative and so is inappropriate.
I totally agree. The information regarding monkeys in medical expirimentation only states that monkeys are, in fact, used for expiriments, and in what numbers. It says nothing about WHY they are used, nor the benefits of doing so. Furthermore, it only cites the numbers for one variety of monkey, and in only 2 locales, the EU and the US. This section needs some serious revision, as well as a new photograph: the one being used, as mentioned above, plays right into the bias expressed in the article. - Jackmont Nov 3, 2005
Agree. The generalizations of the lab environment are clearly intended to be evocative. Serf 16:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
"The section only states the facts" ( SlimVirgin, above) SlimVirgin, since you are calling the contents of this section "facts", I'd like you to provide documentation of these "facts. Places to start:
"barren cages, with no perch, no bedding, and nothing to stimulate them" <-- In the U.S., this has not been the case for many years.
"the monkeys in the lower tiers spend their lives in the dark" <-- A statement like this needs to supported by evidence. I doubt if any laboratory primates spend their lives in the dark.
The U.S.
NIH environmental enrichment rules state, "research facilities must develop, document, and follow an appropriate plan for environment enhancement adequate to promote the psychological well-being of nonhuman primates. The plan must be in accordance with the currently accepted professional standards as cited in appropriateas directed by the attending veterinarian." (
source, PDF file)
Additional information --
JWSchmidt
13:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Unlike human primates, non-human primates are not regarded as persons in law, and their individual interests are therefore not protected.
Highly sociable animals, monkeys are caged separately in barren cages, with no perch, no bedding, and nothing to stimulate them. Their cages are arranged in double tiers to save space, which means the monkeys in the lower tiers spend their lives in the dark.
I think this section would benefit from an historical outline of attempts to improve conditions for monkeys in laboratories. I think this recent review article: USDA Perspective on Environmental Enrichment for Animals along with the others that I listed above provide useful information, some of which should be added to Wikipedia. I think that the Monkey article should describe the role of the animal welfare movement in identifying problems in how laboratories have handled monkeys and in promoting more government action to regulate laboratories and how they house and handle non-human primates. It would be useful to describe the current system of inspections of facilities and what happens when violations of existing animal care laws are found. It would also be useful if additional references could be found to document regulations/inspections for laboratories outside of the United States. I am reluctant to start editing this article because I wonder if the Monkey article is the best place to put a discussion of regulations for the care of laboratory primates. Yes, most non-human primates used in laboratory research are monkeys, but maybe there should be one wikipedia page about regulations for the care of laboratory primates and all wikipedia non-human primate articles could point to that one central page. I have been looking in Category:Animal welfare and Category:Animal experimentation in an attempt to learn the structure of Wikipedia articles that deal with these topics. -- JWSchmidt 15:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
You could certainly mention that, in accordance with FDA regulations, all drugs must go through clinical trials after completing the mandatory animal test phase of the approval process. These clinical trials are always carried out on humans. That way, you're comparing two instances that are far more similar in that both are legal, both are regulated, both take place with oversight, and both test the effects of medication, not disease, on different classes of primates. In general, if you must resort to bad analogies that rely on negative emotive impact to make a rhetorical point, you might want to reconsider your point. 71.103.148.199 04:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Can we take this section out? Neither ref here seems relevant nor notable enough to be here. Ned Scotland 22:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
This article suffers greatly from vandalism [1]. I suggest a semi-protection. RexNL 00:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
The world map does not show monkey populations in North Africa. Also, I have tried to fix the laboratories section: does anybody still have objections?
Or the monkeys in Gibraltar.
As much as we might not like to remember the monkey being used in baiting it is certainly an historical fact. You might want to vote here:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monkey-baiting
It's not incorrect to describe gorillas and chimps as monkeys. Many dictionaries define monkey broadly enough to include all primates except those on the extremes (humans and lemurs) and it's extremely common in everyday language and pop culture to describe chimps and gorillas as monkeys. You might claim this is based on ignorance, but there's no scientific reason to contradict the popular understanding of the term and I like the idea of calling gorillas and chimps monkeys. Already at the ape article, they're redefining ape to include humans which is bad enough, but at least they're doing so for scientific reasons. Let's not redefine monkey too because it's a useful generic term for all the higher non-human prmates.-- Zalgebra 03:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Here's a reliable source.[ [2]] The definition of monkey from a reputable dictionary:
1 : a nonhuman primate mammal with the exception usually of the lemurs and tarsiers; especially : any of the smaller longer-tailed catarrhine or platyrrhine primates as contrasted with the apes
Now it's true that the term refers especially to long-tailed primates, but the basic definition is any non-human higher primate. Also, the pop-cultural references are everywhere. King Kong was described as a giant monkey. The movie "planet of the apes" was originally called "monkey planet".-- Zalgebra 04:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The dictionary cited above suggests that the reader go to Encyclopædia Britannica for more information.....when I follow the link it says monkeys are, "any of nearly 200 species of tailed primate, with the exception of lemurs, tarsiers, and lorises." -- JWSchmidt 04:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
With respect to "pop-cultural references", I guess you could add more to Monkeys in culture.-- JWSchmidt 05:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The encyclopedia provides more information on the precise definition of monkey, but why should this article be limited to the precise definition? There's no genetic or scientific reason for the precision, as the decision on where to draw the line between monkeys and other primates is arbitrary. And since any definition of monkey is arbitrary, we might as well use the arbitrary definition that is deeply ingrained in pop-culture. Since there are many important distinctions between humans and other higher primates, humanity is a good place to draw the line, hence I advocate the broader dictionary definition of monkey as any higher non-human primate.-- Zalgebra 05:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Monkeys have tails. The two groups of tailed primates are more closely related than they are to tail-less apes. The article says otherwise. It is wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.122.208.51 ( talk • contribs) .
This should be cleared up even more in that monkey is not a natural label, or all apes, included humans are monkeys (which is the method I use) 198.133.139.5 14:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Martin
It seems that a rather important primate was forgotten in the classification: homo sapiens. I don't see any scientific reason not to mention this species here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.58.253.130 ( talk • contribs) .
Humans belong in the ape classification which is in the article as being a monkey. A human is an ape, which is a monkey therefore a human is a monkey. (speaking cladisticly) 11:06 1 March 2007 (MRC)
tarsiers | |||||||||||||
simians |
| ||||||||||||
Bold textAnd if you look at that chart you just put up, you can notice that apes are more closely related to Old World monkeys than Old World Monkeys are to New World Monkeys. Since they are both Monkeys, apes must be monkeys.Bold text Honestly, there are only 3 solutions to this problem. 1. admit apes are monkeys (easiest and most perfered method). 2. get rid of the word monkey (much harder to do because it is such an established word in the English language). 3. Don't use the word monkey, but use New World Monkey and Old World Monkey, never using monkey alone (even harder because adds more words and see number 2.) 198.133.139.5 11:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I also think that if monkey contains new world monkeys, and old world monkeys, it should contain the apes (and us) too. It's much more natural (considering cladistics). I can only find two cons: 1) it is not used this way in common speech 2) PRIDE! ("No matter what, I am NOT a monkey.") Well, I think neither of them is logical. Especially the (I think more dominant) second. Adam Mihalyi 01:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
How do I flag it up for a major rewrite? (I'd try, but I think a primatologist should get involved) It's the sort of niff-naff and trivia that devalues the entire Wikipedia project: there are 593 words on what monkeys actually are, followed by a strange section on monkeys as pets (552 words), some stuff about animal testing (complete with carefully selected emotive picture) and a completely random section on the eating of monkeys which could be an interesting discussion on bushmeat, but instead tells us that the chines don't eat monkey brains, Islamic dietary laws forbid monkey-eating and aids may have been transmitted to humans by eating monkeys (unless the monkeys were eaten raw this seems unlikely.)
After that we have the bane of wikipedia: the trivia section, here disguised as "monkeys in literature". The extent of "monkeys in literature" appears to be that a monkey is a character in a chinese novel, Hanuman is a monkey-like Hindu god (true, but is that literature?). Monkey from the TV series Monkey was a monkey (deliberate repition to indicate the redundancy of the statement, as was Curious George). The triviaists favourite Terry Pratchett makes an appearance. And then there is a misplaced statement about mandrills. And something about the chinese zodiac.
The links section is equally poor (two antivivisection sites, a thing about pet monkeys and a helping hands site). The only two sourced statements are a food article in the guardian claiming that chinese people don't appear to eat monkey brains and a biblical vegetarian site is used for a source for the SIV-HIV claim.
Proposed restructure:
Monkeys and their relationship to people is a valid topic, but is the keeping of pets the most important element?
1.0 Characteristics 2.0 Name 3.0 Classification 4.0 Monkeys and humans 4.1 Monkeys in science (present NPOV of animal testing) 4.1.1 Theories of relationship between SIV/HIV and possible transmission (may simply link to relevant page) 4.2 As food (must discuss bushmeat or the article is pointless) 4.3 As Pets
The trivialists will have to start their own page for "Monkeys in Popular Culture" - there's an argument for discussing monkeys and religion say, but making this a list of monkeys in books and films is the sort f thing that Wikipedia can do without
If you want to see what I mean about the difference between an uncontrolled random page like monkey compare with the entry for ape
Jim68000 22:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, one of the worst Wikipedia pages I have seen. Mwinog2777 05:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I also agree. In response to Jim68000's initial question, to flag it for rewrite I would add both the templates { { cleanup-rewrite } } and { { Expert-subject|Primates } } to the top of the article. I'd do it myself, but I apparently haven't had my account long enough. Bloody semi-protection policy. Gitman 21:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, templates have been added. Gitman 18:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I fully agree that this page is unworthy of Wikipedia. Such an important family of biological organisms deserves a good strong article not one that begins lecturing people about religion. My 12 year old came across this when doing an essay and even she flagged it as incomplete and tending to go off in needless tangents. Why on earth does such drivel merit the special treatement of being exempt from editing. The whole entry should be trashed and someone else start from scratch.
Ok, I'm no biologist, but...last time I checked, a gorilla was a member of the ape family. It is certainly NOT a monkey. Sure, monkeys and apes are related. But, a gorilla is not a monkey. Perhaps the picture should be removed. 24.111.137.236 01:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)anonymous
I don't care about the phuture... i care about the fture and PRESENT. bohandez 19:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC) and yes. You are 'controlers' ... behave urselves :) bohandez 19:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Are there two spellings for the plural of monkey or is the word "monkies" just plain wrong? If it is wrong, then why does it redirect to this page if it's a word that doesn't even exist? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/74.115.48.182 ( talk • contribs).
Personally, I think one of the weaknesses of Wikipedia is that misspellings are not redirected often enough. Think about Google, with their "did you mean _____?" This is an extremely helpful, and timesaving feature which in no way lends validity to an incorrect spelling. When Wikipedia redirects, it is obvious to the reader based on the actual article title and the words "redirected from ____". I think information should be easy to find, whether or not someone can spell "premillennialism", "monkeys", or "hominid" correctly. When someone types "monkies", isn't his or her intention obvious? Why penalize users for "just plain wrong" spelling by forcing them to waste their time trying to find the correct spelling before viewing an article? Don't be so uppity and peddantik. Diego Gravez 01:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
This article appears to be written by a monkey owner or pet dealer, as it barely covers the biological aspects of the species, then they mildly warn of physical dangers of owning a monkey, followed by a blurb of success stories. Then, at the end, someone added the word "opinionated" to a reference that talked about the negatives of monkey ownership, when this is the view of veterinarians throughout the U.S. and Europe. No mention is made of the health hazards that monkeys pose, being able to carry AIDS, hepatitis, plus alot of our common disease, such as measles, etc., let alone the public health threat that can happen with an ebola outbreak (see The Hot Zone, and those were monkeys in a quarantined facility!). I think this article is a travesty, and agree with the previous poster that it should be deleted and completely rewrote by someone who does not endorse monkeys as pets.
Thank you, John Edwards, DVM Audubon Center for the Research of Endangered Species New Orleans, LA
Given the concerns raised above, and since the section is entirely unreferenced and seemed to be unreasonably prominent in the article, I've moved the monkey as pets section here so it can be worked on (or disregarded) as appropriate. If we can develop something that looks good it can be moved back into the main body of the text. -- Siobhan Hansa 19:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
When the British first began to explore Africa, young monkeys were often captured to provide entertainment during long voyages. Some were later transferred to domestic zoos, and in fact many modern captive monkeys in the UK are descended from individuals captured during the Napoleonic and Victorian eras. Kent still to this day has the largest population of monkeys in the UK. According to legend, one of the early British captive monkeys was lost at sea and washed up ashore near Hartlepool, England, where it was mistaken for a Frenchman and hanged. citation needed The people of Hartlepool have since borne the nickname " monkey hangers."
Although they may appear to be friendly, keeping monkeys as pets can be very difficult. While baby monkeys are usually as easy to keep clean as a human infant (by diapering), monkeys that have reached puberty usually remove their diapers and cannot be toilet trained. They require constant supervision and mental stimulation. They usually require a large amount of attention. Monkeys cannot handle being away from their owners for long periods of time, such as family trips, due to their need of attention. Bored monkeys can become extremely destructive and may, for example, smear or throw their own feces. There often needs to be a lot of time set aside for cleaning up messes the monkey might make. Most adolescent monkeys begin to bite unpredictably and pinch adults and children. Any surgical means to stem this behavior (such as removing the teeth or fingertips of the monkey) is widely considered cruel, and it is usually difficult to find veterinarians who will carry out such procedures: even exotic-animal veterinarians may not be familiar with them. Monkeys eventually can become wild and difficult to control upon reaching adulthood. The monkeys may also become aggressive even to their owners. In some cases their behavior can change abruptly, making it hard for the owner to fully understand or control them.
Some people do report having long and rewarding relationships with monkeys. Monkeys are known to get attached to their first owner, so switching from one to another can be traumatic to the monkey and may aggravate behavioral problems. It is not easy for a monkey to get used to a new environment. Monkeys need to be placed in social areas. It is also expensive to care for a monkey — housing, food, and veterinary care can become very costly.
In most large metropolitan areas in the U.S. it is illegal to keep monkeys as pets in the home; even in places where they are legal, a Department of Agriculture permit is usually required. Their legal status as pets varies in other countries. Permits may be issued to those who qualify in the caring of monkeys.
I need simple info on monkeys and all this stuff is to wierd so make it easier for us non tec people all I want is monkeys in general!!! :( - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.106.143.224 ( talk • contribs).
hi it's me again the answer you gave me was exactly what i din't want because i said no to new & old world monkeys so maybe i should go 2 another web site if u don't have the answer to what i want .... so who's with me, i am so not tec MAKE IT EASIER OR I WON'T USE THIS WEB ANY MORE MAYBE I'LL USE ASK.COM NOW!!!!! :( give me a simple answer or i'm gone WHO'S WITH ME!!!!
who care's about new and old world monkeys i just want to know about normal monkeys in general PLEASE so don't give me the same answer again and by the way i want something simple to understand that states the 'need to know' facts.
KED
This article needs an infobox, like all the other animal articles have. Lεmσηflαsh (t)/ (c) 18:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
This article appears to be written by a monkey owner or pet dealer, as it barely covers the biological aspects of the species, then they mildly warn of physical dangers of owning a monkey, followed by a blurb of success stories. Then, at the end, someone added the word "opinionated" to a reference that talked about the negatives of monkey ownership, when this is the view of veterinarians throughout the U.S. and Europe. No mention is made of the health hazards that monkeys pose, being able to carry AIDS, hepatitis, plus alot of our common disease, such as measles, etc., let alone the public health threat that can happen with an ebola outbreak (see The Hot Zone, and those were monkeys in a quarantined facility!). I think this article is a travesty, and agree with the previous poster that it should be deleted and completely rewrote by someone who does not endorse monkeys as pets.Do you not think so?
Thank you, John Edwards, DVM Audubon Center for the Research of Endangered Species New Orleans, LA
Given the concerns raised above, and since the section is entirely unreferenced and seemed to be unreasonably prominent in the article, I've moved the monkey as pets section here so it can be worked on (or disregarded) as appropriate. If we can develop something that looks good it can be moved back into the main body of the text. -- Siobhan Hansa 19:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
what is this silly thing about old and new worlds it is annoying 124.170.244.50 08:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
What does this sentence (from the Monkeys in Captivity section) mean? What is it trying to say?
The best I can figure is that once it made a point, but someone removed enough POV to make it pointless. As it stands, it doesn't seem to say anything at all, certainly not about monkeys in captivity.
Are there objections to cutting it entirely, explanations for its presence, ideas on how to fix it? Gnfnrf 04:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
How-to guide on surviving them: Tsai, Michelle (2007-10-22). "How To Fight Monkeys: What should you do if you're surrounded by angry macaques?". Slate. -- 67.98.206.2 18:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Somebody please improve the map showing distribution of monkeys there are morocan monkeys it does not show the Barbary Macaque. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaharous ( talk • contribs)
"Calling apes "monkeys" is incorrect. Calling either a simian is correct."
I thought that in the Cladistics sense that apes are monkeys? Woland37 ( talk) 18:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I have to disagree. Excluding apes from monkeys is blatant paraphyly - people have been drawn and quartered for lesser crimes. Old world monkeys are more closely related to apes than to new world monkeys. I know that in popular science it's common to distinguish monkeys and apes (probably because humans don't like being compared to monkeys), but from a scientific point of view, apes are monkeys. Edit: as I understand, this page is protected. If the adminstrators want me to, I'd be glad to write a carification note on this point. Toitoine ( talk) 21:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems we're all in agreement that apes should be included in the monkey clade, as there is only a traditional bias to exclude them. So why does the main page still show that exclusion? Of course since humans are now recognized as apes, that would mean we're monkeys too. But I'm OK with that, as I've been associated with much worse. Aron-Ra ( talk) 18:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
You cannot scientifically call an old world monkey a monkey without also grouping humans and other apes into that classification because they are much more closely related to old world monkeys then new world monkeys are to old world monkeys. Unless you want to say, " monkey is a non-scientific term for any cercopithecoid (Old World monkey) or platyrrhine (New World monkey) primate. All primates that are not prosimians (lemurs and tarsiers) or apes are monkeys" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.133.139.5 ( talk) 15:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I prefered the older Monkeys in Captivity heading. It's hard to determine what the moneky's relationship might be with an animal experimenter who might be sacrificing the monkey. Phrased as a relationship makes it appear as if the monkeys have entered into these agreements voluntarily whereas they are functions of being captive. Perhaps this should be a separate section, since there are instances where monkeys do interact with humans - frequently in Asia and India - but using a wild animal as a pet, service animal or laboratory subject has more to do with captivity than relationships. Really, this is a Humans in relation to monkeys section. Bob98133 ( talk) 16:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the evolutionary relationship of monkeys to humans should be discussed here. Miska1 ( talk) 00:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't you think that this article could use a few new sections? I think a section about monkeys in popular culture could be a good section. Like jack the monkry in POTC would be a good one to add. Excitinginterception7 ( talk) 20:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. A section about monkeys in pop culture would be trivial and looked down upon. I wouldn’t bother adding one.-- DavidD4scnrt ( talk) 20:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I added this only video:
How do I flag it up for a major rewrite? (I'd try, but I think a primatologist should get involved) It's the sort of niff-naff and trivia that devalues the entire Wikipedia project: there are 599 words on what monkeys actually are, followed by a strange section on monkeys as pets (558 words), some stuff about animal testing (complete with carefully selected emotive picture) and a completely random section on the eating of monkeys which could be an interesting discussion on bushmeat, but instead tells us that the chines don't eat monkey brains, Islamic dietary laws forbid monkey-eating and aids may have been transmitted to humans by eating monkeys (unless the monkeys were eaten raw this seems unlikely.)
After that we have the bane of wikipedia: the trivia section, here disguised as "monkeys in literature". The extent of "monkeys are the main source of drug dealers in new york city in literature" appears to be that a monkey is a character in a chinese novel, Hanuman is a monkey-like Hindu god (true, but is that literature?). Monkey from the TV series Monkey was a monkey (deliberate repition to indicate the redundancy of the statement, as was Curious George). The triviaists favourite Terry Pratchett makes an appearance. And then there is a misplaced statement about mandrills. And something about the chinese zodiac.
The links section is equally poor (two antivivisection sites, a thing about pet monkeys and a helping hands site). The only two sourced statements are a food article in the guardian claiming that chinese people don't appear to eat monkey brains and a biblical vegetarian site is used for a source for the SIV-HIV claim.
Proposed restructure:
Monkeys and their relationship to people is a valid topic, but is the keeping of pets the most important element?
1.0 Characteristics 2.0 Name 3.0 Classification 4.0 Monkeys and humans 4.1 Monkeys in science (present NPOV of animal testing) 4.1.1 Theories of relationship between SIV/HIV and possible transmission (may simply link to relevant page) 4.2 As food (must discuss bushmeat or the article is pointless) 4.3 As Pets 4.4 Etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.39.84.3 ( talk) 04:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The trivialists will have to start their own page for "Monkeys in Popular Culture" - there's an argument for discussing monkeys and religion say, but making this a list of monkeys in books and films is the sort f thing that Wikipedia can do without
If you want to see what I mean about the difference between an uncontrolled random page like monkey compare with the entry for ape
They're adaptation is their tale.
Jim68000 22:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, one of the worst Wikipedia pages I have seen.
Mwinog2777
05:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I also agree. In response to Jim68000's initial question, to flag it for rewrite I would add both the templates { { cleanup-rewrite } } and { { Expert-subject|Primates } } to the top of the article. I'd do it myself, but I apparently haven't had my account long enough. Bloody semi-protection policy. Gitman 21:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, templates have been added. Gitman 18:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I fully agree that this page is unworthy of Wikipedia. Such an important family of biological organisms deserves a good strong article not one that begins lecturing people about religion. My 12 year old came across this when doing an essay and even she flagged it as incomplete and tending to go off in needless tangents. Why on earth does such drivel merit the special treatement of being exempt from editing. The whole entry should be trashed and someone else start from scratch.
For anyone interested, there's a List of fictional monkeys article; can replace a possible Monkeys in popular culture section (or article), I guess. This article could link to it somewhere...
7h3 0N3 7h3 \/4Nl)4L5 Pl-l34R ( t / c) 04:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Very important. 64.134.28.105 ( talk) 03:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Since this article is being reviewed by Wikipedia Spotlight I have been looking for resources about monkeys.
Irunongames • play 14:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Spotlight has stared to edit this article. You can join by clicking here: #wikipedia-spotlight or get instant access click here-- Cubs197 ( talk) 03:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I have a very good quality and engaging picture of a monkey eating. Can anybody id and incorporate it in the article? -- Muhammad (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
The monkey is not a crab-eating macaque but a toque or bonnet macaque. It also has an eye problem. I could find no information in vervet.za.org that the monkey is a crab-eating macaque. The current photograph at the top of the article is also incorrectly labelled as a crab-eating macaque. I would say, unless you are a primatologist or at least a taxonomist, please refrain from adding species specific names to pictures. Skamnelis ( talk) 00:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I have also asked a question here regarding monkeys being Taxa.-- Gordonrox24 | Talk 18:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but spotlight hasn't done much to this article, and we are moving on. We may or may not come back to this article to try again.-- Cubs197 ( talk) 00:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The introduction has the comment, "Monkeys are usually smarter and/or longer-tailed than apes." Not only is this poorly written, but it's also tough to believe. Does anyone have a source to back this comment up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.202.201 ( talk) 00:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
"Monkeys are generally considered to be intelligent and, unlike ape, monkeys usually have tails." Should be "Monkeys are generally considered to be intelligent and, unlike apes, monkeys usually have tails." Number agreement issue. Randomundergrad ( talk)
I request editing in order to add the Haitian creole equivalent to the list of languages in the left-side column. Rajkiandris Rajkiandris ( talk) 06:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
According to [ [8]], there are four terms for a group of monkeys; 'troop, barrel, tribe, cartload' instead of two that this article states —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metallhue ( talk • contribs) 17:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be more concise to describe monkeys as "any simian that is not an ape"? I don't see why we go to the trouble of saying they are apes 'excluding prosimians' since if you are an ape that is not a prosimian it makes you a simian right? Or am I misunderstanding this? -PAN ( talk) 16:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)but
Previously, the intro said "prosimians (lemurs and tarsiers)". Prosimians include aye ayes and lorises and various groups other than lemurs and tarsiers, so I took out the parenthesized phrase. Ordinary Person ( talk) 14:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
This information seems inappropriately placed. In other articles, this sort of entry would appear at the end, in the standard "In popular culture" heading. Its actual contribution to this article, however, is negligible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.208.254 ( talk) 04:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
monna doesn't mean "female ape" (figure out a "monna lisa":), it just mean "woman" or "my lady" (as the reference says) Martinowiki ( talk) 17:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, if this is not the best place to ask this question. Can anyone tell me what kind of monkey this is? -- Phagopsych ( talk) 22:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
the brief paragraph "monkeys as food" says they are forbidden by Islamic dietary laws, but the article linked through does not mention this. Is there a source? -- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 03:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Isn't monkey a paraphyletic group? Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? ScienceApe ( talk) 17:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
There are lots of technical sources which say apes ARE monkeys, there are lots which say they are not. There are lots of non-technical sources which use the word monkey to include apes and lots which do not. Tarsiers are variously described as monkeys, monkey-like and non-monkeys.
The article should reflect this lack of consensus. As used, monkey more often SPACKlick ( talk) 10:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is an grammatical and linguistic mistake in the reference to Indian monkeys, which I am willing to improve and to remove the cynical remarks and bias about them.
Muktaka Joshipura ( talk) 14:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
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.
Monkey is useless as a taxonomic classification because old world monkeys are genetically closer to apes than new world monkeys, so quit trying to pretend this is is a scientific construct.
Instead the term "monkey" is like term "beast"; just a general label for non-humans. Beast refers to all non-human animals while monkey just refers to most non-human primates
Both this article and the ape 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) 06:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
There is a wrong inter-wiki link to the German Wikipedia. There is no German counterpart for the word monkey, the German word "Affe" describes the sum of apes and monkeys (with or without humans depending on the setting). The German article "Affe" currently points here, but should be redirected to Simian. -- 91.10.13.209 ( talk) 16:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I wish to edit an erroneous part of this page. The first sentence reads - 'A monkey is a primate of the Haplorrhini suborder and simian infraorder, either an Old World monkey or a New World monkey, but excluding apes and humans'. I wish to remove the clause 'and humans', as Humans are Apes (in taxanomic, scientific terms), and this suggests otherwise. Thanks
I have always understood monkeys to be a monophyletic group as taught in school, am I mistaken?
Considering the argument from commonly understood meaning of the word; hominoidea are very commonly understood to be monkeys, you only get the occasional person thinking they're smarty-pants by saying they are 'not monkeys but apes.' 90.195.154.55 ( talk) 15:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
As noted a number of times above, Wikipedia reports reliable sources, it does not decide or dictate. The reality is that terms like "monkey" and "ape" are used in different ways by different authors and often in different ways by the same author (see e.g. User:Peter_coxhead/Work_page#Dawkins' use of "ape". This varied usage must be explained here; something like the wording suggested above seems fine. Peter coxhead ( talk) 15:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
It is only about a very narrow definition of "monkey". There should be a more general article called simply "Monkey" which discusses all kinds of monkeys including non-human hominoids. And then in that article "Monkey (proper)" should be a subsection linking to this article. Similarly, there should be an article called "apes (proper)" which is devoted to only non-human hominoids, and then the general ape article is probably better off being renamed hominoid. Historyhorror ( talk) 16:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Creationists often ask whether someone came from a monkey. Why is it considered such an insult? I don't hear them ask if people came from bacteria. Can the article discuss this? Imagine Reason ( talk) 22:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Monkey brains are not a delicacy in South Asia. This MSNBC article references one line in a cookbook, and I don't think that meets Wikipedia's standards of evidence. You might as well cite Indiana Jones. This is insulting. Gnomewrestler ( talk) 16:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
It's chilled monkey brains, not just any monkey brains. And, yes they are quite the delicacy I hear. Arlesd ( talk) 00:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Nonetheless, due to Wikipedia standards this reference needs to be deleted and a suitable reference added. Otherwise this might appear as a racist sentence, putting those people in a bad light which is certainly offending NPOV! Until there is a suitable reference I would suggest deleting the sentence. Additionally to avoid the above I regard its mandatory to add some statistics how often this is happening in which country/region RMR 92.77.66.249 ( talk) 20:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC) This information is certainly wrong and must be removed. Avinash9587 ( talk) 16:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
"Nonhuman" is not hyphenated in the first sentence, but it is in the second. Just a detail? Maybe. I think it should be hyphenated, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.189.230.101 ( talk) 00:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Edit made. Elemesh Talk 16:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
This article is about the traditional use of the term "monkey", i.e. the paraphyletic group Simiiformes minus Hominoidea. I've edited the taxobox accordingly. Ideally I think we should have:
However, I suspect this would not be acceptable to enthusiasts for WP:COMMONNAME, so we're stuck with the current situation in which e.g. "monkey" does not mean Simiiformes, although editors constantly try to make it do so. Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I think there might be something to be said for making these 'animal' pages simpler in the introduction. The first sentence is a mess that contains: A. a clause that requires advanced knowledge about orders to make sense at all, B. a restrictive clause that similarly requires specialized knowledge, and C. an additional restrictive clause that is simple. Someone who was coming here to learn about monkeys is already in the deep end after the first sentence. In contrast, the Britannica first sentence for monkey is much clearer: "Monkey, in general, any of nearly 200 species of tailed primate, with the exception of lemurs, tarsiers, and lorises." (note: they account for the problems with this definition later on) I'd suggest working on the phrasing of the first paragraph to keep it simpler. One hyperlink (preferably just primate) at most would be great and keep the order stuff for further down. If a A-average high school graduate can't give even a broad definition for a term, then it shouldn't be in the first paragraph. I think this is demonstrated by the fact that the source for the first sentence does not contain the word "Haplorhini." While the author breaks down orders and suborders, he understands that that type of specification is decidedly unhelpful to most readers. Suggestion for a first paragraph: A monkey is a primate species, often with a tail, that are native throughout Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Monkeys are closely related to, though distinct from, other primates such as lemurs, tarsiers, apes and humans. Over 260 species of monkey are divided between Old World monkeys, those native to Africa and Asia, and new world monkeys, those native to the Americas. While most monkeys have tails and live in trees, there are many species who do not. Monkeys are generally considered to be intelligent and have figured prominently in human religious/mythological ideas and in scientific experimentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.7.241.99 ( talk) 15:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Can someone with expertise please fix this? There are problems with this article's mentions of galagos. First it says that galagos are not monkeys. Then, a few paragraphs later, it cites galagos as being among the New World monkeys. Yet clicking through to the articles on galagos those say they're actually from the Old World - Africa, to be specific. So either they're monkeys or they aren't (I don't know the answer, but they sure don't look like monkeys to me - more like lemurs). But they definitely don't seem to be New World monkeys. 170.149.100.10 ( talk) 21:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I propose that Monkey (elasticity) be merged into Monkey. I think that the content in the elasticity article is a stub at present and seems to have very little chance for expansion. It is a very small sub-set of Monkey content and does not seem to require a separate article, and the merging will not cause any problems as far as article size. Dabbler ( talk) 01:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't object to the proposal. I haven't exhaustively looked for material for expansion; I can't comment conclusively on that. I don't have any authority in this subject in any case (I intended it as an article from gymnastics as the primary interest), please do as is felt necessary, whatever that might be. Thanks. Whalestate ( talk) 02:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Monkey has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Peter Duck 2 ( talk) 09:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Why is there a picture of a chimpanzee in this link https://www.google.com.au/search?gs_ivs=1&q=chimpanzee#q=monkey
That is in the lede (although as far as I can tell, it is the only discussion in the article). While generally correct, there's an important nope. According to a 2006 study, Spider Monkeys are the smartest monkey species. Smarter than many apes and certainly smarter than stupid old world macaques. I think simply the omission of the phrase "particularly Old World monkeys" is warranted until a larger discussion is added to the article that can make the distinction clear. 100.40.40.144 ( talk) 12:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Monkey has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
68.186.131.179 ( talk) 04:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC) one time at the zoo a monkey tickled it butt to make itself poop and when he did he threw it at the glass
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.--
Musa
Talk
05:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
These terms are mistranslated in the opening of the article; they come from Greek and mean literally: "single-nosed" (haplorhine) and "twist-nosed" or "turned-nosed" (strepsirrhine). I do understand that the "wet-nose" and "dry-nose" distinction is used by scientists, but the literal meaning of these terms is NOT "wet-nosed" and "dry-nosed." Sorry, wanted to edit; I hope this is the way to request ability to edit the article. Meerkat77 ( talk) 04:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)Meerkat77 Meerkat77 ( talk) 04:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
monkeys can eat lionm
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Monkey. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:02, 21 Ma rch 2016 (UTC)
I must say that monkeys have very large weewees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgdfsdg ( talk • contribs) 21:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I love monkeys they are pretty neat. My mommy told me that monkeys have big tails. One time I ate a school bus it was neat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgdfsdg ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Why are there no pictures of humans in this article? By reading the article one could easily get the idea that humans somehow are not monkeys, which is false. In fact it's probably the most common species of monkey there is. Aaker ( talk) 19:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Paragraph 2 says
Part of this can be cut down to
Someone familiar with the subject matter might want to split this run-on sentence and also remove the self-contradiction. Thanks in advance. Loraof ( talk) 00:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
the monkeys brain is said to be very unique as in the brain was used as a medicine to cancer and other various medicines. it is said that monkeys have tiny brains and are shifty low lifes that have devoted there lives to find ing out who killed jfk and other ancient people and relics but there main perpose it to kill all humans and eliminate human kind they have a dream like martin luther king to be counted as human and not as dumb monkey that dont understand how to speak any languages and love star wars. my favorite kind of monkey looks like this.↓↓↓↓↓ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.179.161.0 ( talk) 21:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Monkey has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Monkeys are a very lovable creature. AnneKite ( talk) 02:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Which grouping?
No, don't tell me the answer, I already know. Just fix the text. 91.10.13.68 ( talk) 15:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Monkey has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
monkeys are alot like humans. somewhere at the start Alpine1000 ( talk) 11:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
"Monkeys are non-hominoid simians"
This is false hominoids are directly evolved from monkeys therefore are moneys! Hominoids are a type of monkey! Which is even said when you move over the simians link.
-- Theapemonkey ( talk) 00:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Jmv2009 ( talk) 05:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC) Agreed. How to fix it?
Remove the none humanoid, possibly put "Catarrhini is one of the two subdivisions of the simians, the other being the plathyrrhine (New World monkeys). The Catarrhini contains the Old World monkeys and the apes"
To explain it.
"Apes (hominoids)—consisting of gibbons, orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans—are also catarrhines but are classically distinguished from monkeys" Who cares if the "classically" (done by people ignorant of the facts! what ever classically means.) distinguished! its wrong is the point and should be removed.
"However, traditionally apes are not considered monkeys," Again still ignorant view. Theapemonkey ( talk) 07:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
See https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/if-apes-evolved-from-monkeys-why-are-there-still-monkeys/ Jmv2009 ( talk) 04:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Barbary macaque only non-ape monkey without a tail? This is true any contradictions it should be used.-- Apemonkey1 ( talk) 07:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I think it might be more clear if the opening said something like: "Monkey is a name given to two groups of primates..." and then explain the New World monkeys and the Old World monkeys excluding the apes. The intro actually does explain this but somehow it could be a little more clear. Most readers of this article are probably not going to be very up to speed on the principles of taxonomy. PopSci ( talk) 15:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Note that there's a separate article at Simian. This article is about the two groups referred to as "monkeys" in English. Our task is to reflect usage and explain it, not to preach or teach, as per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
{{Paraphyletic group | name = Monkeys | fossil_range = {{Geological range|Late Eocene|Present|ref=<ref>{{cite web | url = http://alltheworldsprimates.org/john_fleagle_public.aspx | title = Primate Evolution: John Fleagle and Chris Gilbert | last1 = Fleagle | first1 = J. | last2 = Gilbert | first2 = C. | website = All the World's Primates | editor-last1 = Rowe | editor-first1 = N. | editor-last2 = Myers | editor-first2 = M. | publisher = Primate Conservation, Inc. | accessdate = 18 December 2014}}</ref>}} | image = Macaca sinica - 01.jpg | image_caption = Wild [[toque macaque]] (''Macaca sinica'') in [[Yala National Park]], [[Sri Lanka]] | auto = yes | parent = Simiiformes | authority = {{efn|name=Monkey_vs_Ape|When [[Carl Linnaeus]] defined the [[genus]] ''Simia'' in the [[10th edition of Systema Naturae|10th edition of ''Systema Naturae'']], it included all non-human monkeys and apes ([[simian]]s).{{Sfn|Groves|2008|pp=92–93}} Although "monkey" was never a taxonomic name, and is instead a [[vernacular name]] for a paraphyletic group, its members fall under the infraorder Simiiformes.}}<!-- [[Ernst Haeckel|Haeckel]], 1866 --> |includes = :[[Callitrichidae]] :[[Cebidae]] :[[Aotidae]] :[[Pitheciidae]] :[[Atelidae]] :[[Cercopithecidae]] :†[[Parapithecidae]] |excludes= :[[Hominoidea]] }}
historicaltaxon, but one that is useful now. As per WP:NPOV, our task is to reflect all sources, regardless of our personal views. No-one has shown that the article does not. Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
This article has for a long time been about "monkeys" as a grade/paraphyletic group, corresponding to the main common language use. There is a separate article at Simian.
If we are not to have an article discussing the common language use, then:
I have notified all the WikiProjects involved. Peter coxhead ( talk) 16:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
That apes are monkeys was already realized by Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon in the 18th century. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Catarrhini has always been defined as monkeys of the old world, at least originally, and at least still, by at least some authors. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Jmv2009 ( talk) 18:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: PMC format (
link)
Do you guys think "Any tailed simian primate mammals closely related to the apes" would work as a short description? Mr Fink ( talk) 03:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
People who don't call apes monkeys are not going against science -- they're applying traditional "grade" terminology instead of strict " cladistic" terminology. AnonMoos ( talk) 05:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for adjusting the wording... AnonMoos ( talk) 01:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
jtriojfislfdhgiufnvckajsdhcbuifgnkxizsnjkdodifkcvibghir7ees8ix8yfhgyrufgihxfdjsaijdgybdfyghgdydbxyhgfuhgbuydfxjdoduibhdfcgbyhiudfosdohjso0as9odiufghgovdcsija[zspdjfivdfnurht9djgfickx0o9 i iorthh8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.234.85 ( talk) 17:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Monkey has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
memans eyob monkey Bbvvhgj ( talk) 09:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
The Maya Civilization worshipped Howler Monkey Gods. Maybe someone could put in something detailing this in that religious worship section. Any objections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeaceLoverStephenTrue1111 ( talk • contribs) 02:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
The Maya Civilization worshipped Howler Monkey Gods. Maybe someone could put in something detailing this in that religious worship section. Any objections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeaceLoverStephenTrue1111 ( talk • contribs) 02:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Why? You have two additional levels of classification that most people rarely, if ever use, and are missing the one most commonly refered to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 ( talk) 22:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
i love it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:D603:6D70:A959:A9EC:B24F:7B02 ( talk) 15:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 3 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Lfarthing19.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Monkey has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Need to fix some misspelling 104.189.64.252 ( talk) 02:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Monkey has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Need to fix some misspelling 104.189.64.252 ( talk) 02:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Monkey has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
91.101.245.6 ( talk) 12:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Baby
"Monkeys, including apes, can be distinguished from other primates by having only two pectoral nipples, a pendulous penis, and a lack of sensory whiskers." Has anyone got a better source for this? I'm not sure the sensory whiskers part is true, see Muchlinski, Magdalena N. (2010). "A comparative analysis of vibrissa count and infraorbital foramen area in primates and other mammals". Journal of Human Evolution. 58 (6): 447–473. doi: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2010.01.012. PMID 20434193.. This paper talks of the distinctive characteristics of crown anthropoids, and none of those characters are mentioned: Williams, B. A.; Kay, R. F.; Kirk, E. C. (2010). "New perspectives on anthropoid origins". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107 (11): 4797–4804. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0908320107. PMC 2841917. PMID 20212104.. Cheers, Jack ( talk) 09:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Monkey has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
From Monkey:
"most New World monkeys have prehensile tails"
From New World monkey:
"Monkeys in the family Atelidae," [as opposed to the other four families of New World monkeys] "such as the spider monkey, are the only primates to have prehensile tails."
This seems to need reconciliation. Doctroid ( talk) 01:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)