# Talk:Chimpanzee

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2021 and 8 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yisaginath.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

"Gio masks are crude and blockly and the people wear when teaching young people how not to behave." Uh, is "blockly" even a word? I assume the sentence should read "people wear them when teaching..." Muzilon (talk) 10:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe replace "blockly" with broccoli. Broccoli certainly teaches young people how to behave! Randy Kryn (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
More relevant than that, I'd like sources for "Chimpanzees are rarely represented in African culture, as people regard them as too close to humans for comfort." Somewhat related to the subject of cultural knowledge, "Who Knows What About Gorillas? Indigenous Knowledge, Global Justice, and Human-Gorilla Relations", from the abstract, "Indigenous knowledge of gorillas is almost entirely absent from the global canon. The absence of African accounts reflects a history of colonial exclusion, inadequate opportunity, and epistemic injustice." Already provides a more satisfying "explanation." Extremophile (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

As African living in Canada, thinly veiled racist texts like "Chimpanzees are rarely represented in African culture, as people regard them as too close to humans for comfort." makes me want to avoid using Wikipidia, and I use it only as a last resort only to stop using it again for a long time. Whoever wrote that is saying Africans are chimps without saying it. How miserable has one to be to feel better by making other feel miserable. GOD 192.235.165.37 (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Lately, there has been a lot of vandals/trolls who have vandalized the page. So maybe this page needs to be protected so that only auto-confirmed users could edit the page, reducing the chance of vandalism. DinosaursRoar (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I think requiring auto-confirmed users is a good idea in light of the persistent vandalism to the article.  --MadScientistX11 (talk) 01:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
DinosaursRoar Some mobile user keeps making changes. As far as I can tell they are just deleting large sections of text and then putting them back. I haven't reverted them because I'm not completely sure, perhaps they are making some minor formatting improvements that I'm not seeing but I have a feeling they are either just playing around or trying to up their edit count. What do you think? --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
there’s been a lot of vandalism lately, so it should be protected. 2603:9000:E706:8872:4D81:BE1F:D327:8D31 (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Should the "Use in research" subsection of this article include images of both Ham and Eos, the chimps who have been sent into space? Or would one image of one of them suffice? LittleJerry (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
You should have "checked the other recent edits" because I added information on both Ham and Enos in the section so I could remove the Enos image due to sandwiching. LittleJerry (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi LittleJerry (moved from my talk page). Then let's work around that, maybe move the image higher on the page near the lead, although the sandwiching is quite minimal and doesn't seem a problem. Enos is easily and arguably the most important chimpanzee regarding human-chimp interaction. He is the only chimp, and third great ape, to orbit the Earth (should have been given a ticker-tape and banana parade), a historic feat. Most readers will not read every word of text, one reason why images are so important for those who don't, a "picture book" reader. That type of reader should be taken into account on every Wikipedia page, which is why captions contain links even if the text has the same link. Glad you expanded Enos and Ham on the page text for text readers, nice work. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Randy Kryn we can't have two space chimp images, especially since the subject is only a tiny part of the subsection. I prefer the Ham image since it is better quality, shows him in a capsule and surrounded by fellow astronauts. The images tells us a lot more than a b+w closeup of a chimp in a suit. LittleJerry (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Why not? These two chimpanzees are likely the two most historically important chimpanzees in human history. Ham did a suborbit as the first great ape to reach space, and then Enos (the close-up of a chimp in a suit, but not just any chimp...) topped-that-tall-tree by becoming the third great ape, after Russian cosmonauts Yuri Gagarin and Gherman Titov, to orbit the Earth. Including both photos seems fine and encyclopedic appropriate, considering these feats. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Their are several famous chimps including Nim Chimpsky, Bubbles and Oliver and not all of them deserve an image on the page. The image of Enos is also of poor quality and tells us nothing. LittleJerry (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Ham and Enos are in a class by themselves historically, and are remembered together. Maybe other editors will drop in, but consensus may need a full RfC. Please stop reverts, the images have been on the page for awhile. I really don't see the problem. You asked for a reference for Enos flight, and I've added that. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
People are more familiar with Bubbles than Enos. The problem is that the image sandwiches the text, is redundant and tells the readers nothing. The subsection itself has only three sentences on space chimps and we have two images given to them. LittleJerry (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, Ham and Enos' importance to human culture, to chimpanzee-human collaboration, and to human use of chimpanzees for research and experimentation, which is what the section is about, should contain two or three more sentences. Images of these two space pioneers (the first Great Ape to enter space and the third to orbit the Earth following two Soviet flights) represents the literal height of that forced partnership. That such historical chimpanzees existed seems reason enough to allow one action and one portrait image (maybe they can be combined into one block-image, that would solve the sandwiching). As for the portrait of Enos, no context except in the caption, no space equipment readily visible, just a dignified close-to-heroic photograph of a caged historical figure within the section dedicated to describing his species and its relationship with other Great Apes who built, from the sand up, the means and methods. But yeah, maybe a double image with a single-caption would be a good collab solution and unsandwich the text. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I previewed the double image (and shifted it right) and it pushes the Goodall station into "attacks". I really don't see that as necessary and not worth doing for a redundant and poor quality image. If the Rfc closes with no other users commenting, I think we should remove the Enos image. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Just saw that you did post this as an RfC, so gave a simple note to the primate and spaceflght WikiProjects. Everybody putting their heads and edits together should benefit this already interesting article. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I vote for just Ham and linking Monkeys_and_apes_in_space somehow. --Neopeius (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Link done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Requesting comments from cygnis insignis, BD2412, Jts1882, Rlendog and Genesyz who were very active in the January 2019 discussion on moving Common chimpanzee to Chimpanzee. LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps create a collage image of chimps important to science? BD2412 T 21:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The Enos image is low quality so could be reduced and put to the right of the Ham image so they get displayed as a single double image. The {{multiple image}} template that allows two images to be displayed with automatic resizing to the same height (see right). The |total_width= parameter can be adjusted to match the map above it in the article. The captions can be set for each image or a combined one added with |footer=, which seems best here.  —  Jts1882 | talk  08:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
As suggested above, I would also use the image of Ham at the summary of chimps in space with links to the associated articles in the prose and caption. It's not rocket science! ha-ha-ha :| ~ cygnis insignis 12:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
pinging SmokeyJoe, Srnec, Certes and Born2cycle. More users who were also involved in the January 2019 discussion. LittleJerry (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
When pinging participants of past discussions, especially when you did it in two batches, please ping all of them. Thanks. Adding Netoholic, Rreagan007, Amakuru, Cuchullain, Plantdrew, Genesyz, FunkMonk, SMcCandlish, Iggy the Swan, Red Slash, Hyperbolick, and CNMall41. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
I was pinged.  I had argued that “chimpanzee” includes the bonobo.
Today the question goes to providing images of the two space chimps.  The images do not add to the understanding of the topic, so these images are unimportant, they serve only as illustration.  The two images do not complement each other, do not work well together.
I suggest that neither should be included.  They do not add information, and do not improve the presentation of an article that already has many images.  Two images is definitely over balance to the single sentence that covers the space chimps   SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
(outdenting) I agree that only one or no images of the space chimpanzees need to be in the article. The subsection is not that big and the two images don't add much of value. --SilverTiger12
The first primate in space (worth repeating, first primate in space) and the third (after two humans) to orbit the Earth, are  historically significant individuals. They are in the section relating to research, so fit the topic perfectly. In any case, will use the double photo to play with a caption a bit later. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
That’s amazing information about the chimp, and is best covered at the chimp’s article. Both chimps have articles. But this research, what did it tell us about chimpanzees? SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:52, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
A correction: the monkey Albert II became the first primate in space in 1949 (he doesn't yet have a Wikipedia page) while Ham was the first great ape in space. What did Ham tell us? That human's closest relatives could survive a brief time in space without any unforeseen circumstances, so it seemed okay to send Alan Shepard, America's second great ape in space. As a side benefit, Ham and Enos entered the human history books and record books when writing about their species as research subjects, which is the section of this article being discussed. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Are we missing the article on Monkeys in space?  https://www.space.com/19505-space-monkeys-chimps-history.html SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
It is there.  Not cheering reading. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, what's more fun than multiple crashing steel barrels of monkeys. Maybe time for the Wikipedia page for Albert II, thanks, a good source. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 Done as a stub, Albert II (monkey). Thanks for inspiration, and please dive in (but not too close to the ground) to monkey around with it. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Wrote up a caption which seems to get everything in while keeping it brief. Since the section being discussed is the 'chimpanzees as research subjects' section the caption accents this status while giving the individual apes their due historical respect. Personally I'd place the portrait image of Enos near the top of the page. Should have been given a ticker-tape parade. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

p.s. put together a second option using a close-up cropped from Ham's photo. Will support this one for the page, the two portrait images of these historical figures go well together. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
I still would prefer the single image of Ham. I really don't understand Randy's insistence on keeping the Enos image. Enos may be important but that  does not mean we need a poor quality picture of the head and shoulders of a chimp in a suit doing nothing remarkable. At least Ham's image has him in a capsule surrounded by NASA people. LittleJerry (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
One image, Ham. Two images is undue weight to represent such a tiny bit of article text, given that the article is already so large and heavily illustrated. In fact the article is so heavily illustrated that the images are getting pushed away from the relevant text, making it difficult to connect images with their related text. The Ham image has much more informative context of the two (sitting in the special capsule-seat), and I don't see the Enos image adding much unique value. Alsee (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
One image, Ham, not zoomed in.  One is enough, the other is crap quality, one is appropriate given the importance of the "space chimps" in the human context, and not zoomed in because this is not an article on Ham, but about chimps, with a section on use in research, and the humans in the picture, along with the equipment, illustrate the context better.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
20 days and we have 3 in favor of keeping Enos and 7 against. LittleJerry (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Aye, alas poor Enos, we knew you well. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

After changing the slang word 'chimp' to the proper name 'chimpanzee' Little Jerry reverted dozens of instances on this page in good faith. The proper name for chimpanzee is chimpanzee, not Chimp. Although chimp is listed as an alternate name in the lead, many pages have slang terms listed as alternate names but they aren't used as descriptors in the text of articles. The species name is chimpanzee, the title is Chimpanzee, and aside from those obvious points for using the full species name, "chimpanzee" gives the animals the proper respect as a cousin animal. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Chimp is not merely a slang term, it is also used by scientists in reliable books as well because it is a short hand. The rhinoceros and hippopotamus articles alternative between those names and "rhino" and "hippo" respectively. Likewise, other animal article use alternative names like killer whale/orca. LittleJerry (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Prefer "chimpanzee" over "chimp" unless quoting or paraphrasing a source.  Chimp is a mild colloquialism, and "chimpanzee" is better suited to the tone of Wikipedia.  The Latin scientific name would going too technical.  Any argument to change to prefer "chimp" should be based on prevailing source usage in quality sources, starting with the current best sources for the article. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Requesting comments from cygnis insignis, BD2412, Jts1882, SilverTiger12. SmokeyJoe, SMcCandlish, Alsee. LittleJerry (talk) 00:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Will add one, Discospinster, who has edited the page regarding this discussion topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
I feel that I would generally prefer the use of "Chimpanzee" in an encyclopedia article. BD2412 T 00:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Correct, per the Pan (genus) page which states that "the colloquialism 'chimp' was most likely coined some time in the late 1870s." Our article on this topic opens "Colloquialism is the linguistic style used for casual communication. It is the most common functional style of speech, the idiom normally employed in conversation and other informal contexts." and states that "Colloquialism or general parlance is distinct from formal speech or formal writing." An encyclopedia builds itself with formal writing. Film titles have often used the word "Chimp", for example, but that use reflects casual use, not the formal writing style used on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
If you want it all be be formal, then why not go further and use the scientific name instead? Wikipedia uses causal names all the time, like "rhino", "hippo" and "seal" (pinniped). Wikipedia is not suppose to be a super technical website but appeals to general readers. "Chimp" is just as commonly used for the species as "chimpanzee". It is not just a slang term. LittleJerry (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Because most scientific terms confuse or lose readers, and are not understandable to the vast majority of English readers. Please read Colloquialism, which defines formal and informal language. Didn't think of rhino or hippo, which could be discussed on their talk pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
And even as this discussion is going on, LittleJerry is reverting edits on other chimpanzee pages and not waiting until this discussion is completed. LittleJerry, I hope you will revert your edits if this discussion agrees on formal language. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Rhinoceros, hippopotamus and chimpanzee are all long complicated words that get tiresome when repeated over and over again, hence why the short-hands exist. LittleJerry (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
And  FWI YOU'RE the one making the bold changes to the different articles so YOU'RE the one who has to wait for consensus. LittleJerry (talk) 01:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Indoor voice please (or not). All I asked was that you consider reverting your reverts if this discussion, which with all the pings could either end quickly or go on for awhile, ends. A good point for the rhino and hippo, but chimpanzee seems uncomplicated and familiar as a species name. Rhino and hippo could be addressed at their talk pages, although the more I read your reply the more familiar and uncomplicated the words rhinoceros and hippopotamus as formal species names become. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree with BD2412 that chimpanzee is more appropriate for an encyclopaedia article. Similarly for rhinoceros and hippopotamus (although not seal). To me, chimp seems even more informal than rhino or hippo, perhaps because its sometimes used a pejorative for people. I'll add that I reply because I was pinged rather than because I feel strongly about it. Looking at the article, chimpanzee and chimp are perhaps used excessively, often several times in a sentence. Changes to use pronouns or alternative words might improve the style. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
"Chimp" is an informal term, and has no place in a professional encyclopedia per WP:Encyclopedic tone. I have reverted, as LittleJerry seems to be in a minority of 1 in thinking it's appropriate.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
My vote is for chimpanzee over chimp. Much better suited for the article, I don't hear chimp being used all that much in the UK. Cheers,  Jack (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, use chimpanzee not the informal abbreviation chimp.  MOS:ABBR, MOS:TONE.  PS: Same goes for rhino and hippo.  Two other articles with the same problem doesn't make a norm, but a bigger problem to clean up.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
LittleJerry, hi. Okay to say this seems decided, for at least 'chimp'? Thanks. We've had some good tussles (the space chimp discussion above this one) and during both of them I've taken a peep at some of your extensive work on animal pages. Regarding animals you are a Wikipedia natural treasure, and as an animal guy since childhood, thank you. Your work makes me once again wonder why there are relatively so few past and active professional editors for a major topic area (primatologists, zoo and wildlife sanctuary personnel, animal rights activists, professional researchers, writers, and editors on the topic, etc.). Almost like another mid-2000s Wikipedia Renaissance is waiting to happen when thousands of older or newly-minted professionals in all fields awaken to the growing-by-the-second importance and potential of this encyclopedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks buddy. I appreciate it. LittleJerry (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Apologies, invited but forgot to vote. I have received mail and fine notices on similar issues before, but wish to issue a claim of diminished responsibility and assure pinger that no offence was intended by that unintentional oversight. ~ cygnis insignis 18:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

There has been so much vandalism lately on this article, so this is why the Chimpanzee page needs protection (possibly indefinite) against vandals. Therizinosaurus2 (talk) 05:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Personally I don't think that three incidents of vandalism in the last week, all from the same IP, warrants page protection, but if you want to request this, you should post the request at WP:RFPP. CodeTalker (talk) 06:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
@Therizinosaurus2: The proper place to make that request is Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Peaceray (talk) 06:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I submitted a request for protection. There has been so much vandalism, it gets hard to find the last good page. Also, at least one vandalism included a racist slur which IMO increased the justification for protection. There was an Admin backlog tag on the protection page so it may be a while before an admin has time. In the meantime thanks to everyone who keeps restoring the pages. I’ve been so busy lately I only have time to check once in a while. One last point, IMO it is always a good idea to add a vandalism tag to any user’s talk page after reverting. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

It's just that how come this image is used for speciesbox anyway? Esagurton (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Someone thought it a good idea? I favour weighting inclusion of an image, when it is not directly supported in the adjacent prose, by means that are determined externally (verifiably notable).  ~ cygnis insignis 18:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps we could come to a consensus on a lead image? I could round up some candidates. I personally prefer the current one, it does have vegetation covering parts of it but it shows the chimp in its natural habitat, in a tree among its favorite food. The individual is also youngish looking which is probably what people picture when they think "chimp" as opposed to an older alpha male or lactating female. Randy Kryn?  LittleJerry (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Missed your ping, sorry. Yes, seems a good lead image. "In a tree among its favorite food", has a nice feel. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
With some hesitancy, that is a clear shot although partly obscured. File:Pan troglodytes (male).jpg shows it walking, there are a couple with infants being cradled, I feel thses are the more informative of the species. ~ cygnis insignis 05:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Good walking image, should be used somewhere (unused so far). Randy Kryn (talk) 10:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Even a crop to the image at right to frame the subject, but I picked that one because it is not an arboreal species. ~ cygnis insignis 14:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I notice a CN tag was reverted at this section, because it is stated in the ref at the end "Werness, H. B. (2007). The Continuum Encyclopedia of Animal Symbolism in World Art." I get a snippet view that suggests something like that, but it is a quirky statement in tertiary source. The section could be improved, if some agreement on what "in culture" is possible. ~ cygnis insignis 01:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

See here Allen Roberts writes that Africans living in the same environment as chimpanzees rarely represent them, perhaps because, as the Tabwa say, they are best ignored and avoided, "as too close for comfort". I originally add the quotations around "to close for comfort" but they were removed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I saw that it was supported by the ref, and searched the snippet view on this name to get a feel for the work. I suppose it requires finding other refs to refine the section if I find it odd, perhaps change the name, so will come back to it when some turn up. ~ cygnis insignis 18:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I made the spelling of "behavior" and "behaviour" consistent, and my edits were reverted. Is consistent spelling not more professional? 
Cassie Schebel (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, the issue has now been resolved. 
Cassie Schebel (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The references to the phrase "Eidetic Memory" under the Cognition section should be removed as there is no reference to it in the source provided, and it would indicate an unproven phenomenon 95.44.126.98 (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. UtherSRG (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
I think he meant to use {{fv}}. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
I haven’t checked the source (Ref 115, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959438809000269?via%3Dihub), but the same information about chimpanzee photographic (like humans have) memory is in https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2007.10.027 SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

This article says "The oldest known male captive chimpanzee to have been documented lived to 66 years, and the oldest female, Little Mama, was over 70 years old." But apparently J. Fred Muggs is 71 years old. Either that chimp is actually dead or the record lifespan needs to be changed. 2607:FB91:188:9A00:AE:A558:31B7:9023 (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

If you have a reliable and independent source that says Muggs is alive or not, we can use that to update. The current reference was from 2018, when he was 65. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

A vandal once moved this page (and its talk) to an inappropriate title. Per WP:DENY, the moved main page is hidden in the move log, but it’s still there in the talk page move log. Could someone please fix it? 174.211.175.132 (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

in section Characteristics, third paragraph is currently:
"Chimpanzee skin that is covered with body hair is white, while exposed areas vary with it being white passing with age into a dark muddy colour in eastern chimpanzees, freckled on white which with age becomes muddy in colour and heavily mottled central chimpanzees; and black forming butterfly-shaped white mask that with age darkenings in western chimpanzees."
extremely strange phrasing on this sentence, i would change it to:
"Chimpanzee skin that is covered with body hair is white, while exposed areas vary: white which ages into a dark muddy colour in eastern chimpanzees, freckled on white which ages to a heavily mottled muddy colour in central chimpanzees, and black with a butterfly-shaped white mask that darkens with age in western chimpanzees." Spatulatrix (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 Done Rehsarb (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Please change the confusing and misleading "physical strength 1.5 times greater than humans" to "muscles 50% stronger per weight than those of humans" ("mass-specific"), which is what the linked reference actually supports; particularly clear in its discussion appendix. WJBC-NG (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done UtherSRG (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
What? It also states "available data suggests that chimpanzee mass-specific muscular performance is a more modest 1.5 times greater than humans on average". LittleJerry (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm planning on nominating this article for FA by mid-April to early-May. I'll be working on it next week Tuesday; who else wants to join? I'm also working on the narwhal and bonobo articles, so a little help would be really helpful. I feel like it's time this article gets Featured. I already recruited Chiswick Chap. Wolverine XI (den • 🐾) 18:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind helping out. I'll look though the stuff I added to the article. I would advise that you try to get a hold of as many sources as possible. Maybe order some books to act as the backbone of your research. There's also Chimpanzee – Wisconsin National Primate Research Center – UW–Madison. You probably shouldn't think too far ahead and work on getting narwhal passed first. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, found 8 books I'd like to utilize for chimpanzees and their lesser known cousins, bonobos. Wolverine XI (den • 🐾) 22:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Wolverine XI, I would also use Gandall's book (certainly cited) since she is a top expert and pioneer. LittleJerry (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Who's Gandall? I only know of Jane Goodall. She's one of the reasons why I became highly invested in animals. I began studying animals around 2018, but it was mostly on carnivorous mammals. I'm pretty much new to primate research. Wolverine XI  (talk to me) 19:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

In the interest of not edit warring with @Wolverine XI, I'm starting a discussion about whether the word robust should be linked to Robustness (morphology). I believe it should, since there are multiple meanings of the word in different fields, and the use of the word robust did confuse me when I first read this article. With Love from Cassie Schebel (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Source? Wolverine XI  (talk to me) 19:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
on "there are multiple meanings of the word in different fields" Robustness (disambiguation)
"of the word robust did confuse me when I first read this article" is anectodal.  With Love from Cassie Schebel (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
That is not a reliable source. Wolverine XI  (talk to me) 04:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Not every change needs a reliable source. You did not provide a source when removing the link. This is a matter of Linking, not Quotations. Please use edit summaries more regularly to avoid these issues in the future.  With Love from Cassie Schebel (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Oh, so I guess this stat is lying then. Wolverine XI  (talk to me) 18:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Are you serious? I'm trying to solve an issue here. I want to make this article better. I'd appreciate your cooperation. It's certainly good that you leave edit summaries so often -- but you didn't leave one when you removed the link. That's what I was talking about.  With Love from Cassie Schebel (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 Well, I don't need the wikilink (but then I studied zoology at university albeit many years ago), but what is the harm in the wikilink if someone does think it's useful? I favour restoring it. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

An IP posted on their talk page (User talk:192.235.165.37) requesting a review of the human relations section, specifically the first sentence, "Chimpanzees are rarely represented in African culture, as people find their resemblance to humans discomforting." The entire paragraph is cited to the Continuum Encyclopedia of Animal Symbolism in World Art, which is mostly available on Google Books. The relevant section seems to be on page 86:

This doesn't seem to support "people find their resemblance to humans discomforting", it suggests more that they're avoided in art because they're perceived as dangerous, not because they resemble humans. Further along in that section it reads:

So it's in western cultures that chimpanzees are avoided in art because of their similarity to humans, not in African culture. I have therefore edited the section to better reflect the source. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

"Too close for comfort" doesn't make sense unless it's referring to how similar they are to humans. The idea that they rape human women likely comes from this fact. LittleJerry (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

To the last paragraph in Chimpanzee#In_culture I added a reference to David Brin's Uplift novels concerning chimpanzees in media, and LittleJerry reverted the edit stating "uncited, and you can't just cite the book." Okay, why can't I just cite the books? Or link to them, which is what I did. I have to say that half of WP contains links to other WP articles without additional citations! What, exactly, am I expected to do instead of or in addition to linking to those articles? The Uplift War article does talk about the uplifted chimpanzees that are among the central characters of the book. That seems to me to be sufficient. Suggestions? I'm willing to be educated. Cyberherbalist (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

It is a good question, and the answer is because like everything else we balance what material is due for inclusion in a given article, and a book cannot be used to verify and claims made about the book itself. We need some secondary source, like a book review. Remsense 🌈 论 19:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm also not a fan of mining for cultural references when we already have secondary sources talking about chimps in culture. What makes David Brin's uplift novels important? LittleJerry (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
As I mentioned to @Remsense, the chimps in these two of Brin's Uplift novels are not mere side characters, but characters whose attitudes, characters, and actions help drive the narrative. And in one important part of the plot of The Uplift War, the topic of their further uplift is crucial to the plot. Ultimately, The Uplift War could be seen as a chimpanzee-centric novel. Which is why a chimp appears on the novel's cover. But if you really feel that with the addition of my few words there would be too many cultural references for the article, then so be it. Cyberherbalist (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm a little confused that you're saying I used the two mentioned books to verify claims about the book itself. You seem to be claiming circular reasoning, where no such reasoning was present. I cited to the two Brin books simply as further examples of chimpanzees appearing in literature. And in this case, chimps not as side-characters but as important protagonists without which the story fails. But if you feel that there are already enough examples of chimps in literature and we don't need any more -- it seems that's a matter of taste. How much is enough? If the consensus is we have enough, then I shan't object. Too much. Cyberherbalist (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Cyberherbalist, as has been pointed elsewhere. MOS:TRIVIA states that Cultural references about the article's subject should not be included merely because they exist. Cultural aspects of the subject should be included only if they are supported by reliable secondary or tertiary sources that discuss the subject's cultural impact in some depth. The mere appearance of the subject in a film, song, video game, television show, or the like is insufficient. LittleJerry (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
That's fine, I am convinced. I have been editing Wikipedia for many years, but only as an occasional hobbyist. I truly appreciate you guys instructing me in the finer details! Cyberherbalist (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me some or many statements in the introduction should cite sources.  Dvdtoy (talk) 05:38, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Dvdtoy: The intro ("lead") section of Wikipedia articles generally does not have citations because its role is merely to summarize the cited content in the rest of the article. If the later content is not cited, that's a concern. But as long as everything is cited somewhere, it's not strictly required that the same thing is cited every time it is mentioned. See WP:LEAD for the relevant guideline. DMacks (talk) 07:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
To clarify: as long as everything is cited somewhere with that "somewhere" being in this article. Info cited in other articles is not acceptable. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. I've been wondering about that. I'd prefer if leads also used citations since then there would be no need to go looking down below for the source (that hopefully exists down there) but it's not my Wikipedia so I'll have to live with it.  Dvdtoy (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Why is it in all lowercase? Can someone remove that? I can't edit protected pages! ~2025-32324-04 (talk) 13:31, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done - UtherSRG (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2025 (UTC)