Talk:Monkey/Archive 1

message: From the article:
:A monkey is any haplorrhine primate not belonging to the family Tarsiidae, Hylobatidae, Pongidae, or Hominidae.
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:
:The haplorrhines are the clade comprised of the prosimian tarsiers and all of the true simians: the monkeys and the apes, including humans.
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)
replies: text: The problem is that the term "monkey" is a bad term. It doesn't describe one easily identifiable group of critters. the smallest group that includes all the monkeys is the Haplorrhini suborder. On that page, you get your second quote. when you look down to the classification, you see how the monkeys are related to the rest of the haplorrhines. Nonetheless, I'll see what I can work up. - UtherSRG 14:24, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Actually, I like the article as it is. The majority of the article goes on to disambiguate the circular definition you are complaining about. - UtherSRG 15:13, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not like the article as it is. It contains practically no useful information at all, and the same goes for Haplorrhini. Except for the photograph, to a person not already understanding all the terms these articles could just as well be about some type of plant, or families of (rather heavy) subatomic particles. When I look down to the classification, I don't "see how monkeys are related to the rest...", I see a tree diagram with little meaning to the non-specialist. What does it mean to say that Old World monkeys are a family, but New World monkeys are a superfamily? And the rest of the monkey article does nothing to disambiguate; it subdivides monkeys into two undefined families, and leaves it at that. If we drill down into Old World monkeys and New World monkeys we finally start to get a few snippets of facts, but even after heading off four layers deep in three directions, the reader is none the wiser about why tarsiers and gibbons are not monkeys but Golden Lion Tamarins are - never mind what monkeys eat, where they are found, or whether or not they have fur. '"Monkey" is a bad term' is not really a useful response. People are going to be coming to Wikipedia to look up "monkey", and that want to know what it means. Only a very few people are going to be looking for "Haplorrhini". May I suggest the ape article for comparison? Securiger 16:50, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text:  Incidentally, while doing all that drilling down, I found another teensy problem - although maybe I'm just confused because we didn't worry about monophyletic taxons when I was at school. Monkey refers to Pongidae, and Catarrhini and Hominidae says that's ok because of orang-utans and Gigantopithecus, but both the Haplorrhini and Catarrhini trees omit it. It's confusing. Securiger 16:50, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: I've tried to improve this difficult situation by giving a more ordinary language version of the technical definition first, and explaining why things are difficult.  I know the same could be said of many other common-name groups, but I know from experience that this one is particularly likely to cause confusion.  seglea 00:07, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: confusing text

message: 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
:558 Google links? I don't think so. - UtherSRG 15:45, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
:: It's a fairly famous local legend but is much more appropriate on Hartlepool than here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:32, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hartlepool Monkey

message: I added the next time the monkey will appear in the zodiac calendar. -64.231.70.46 20:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Zodiac

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed/wangi 00:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFD "See Also" 

message: This article suffers greatly from vandalism . I suggest a semi-protection. RexNL 00:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: 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)
replies: text: Zalgebra, you state your position clearly, but your approach to describing "monkey" is clearly in conflict with the approach used in the version of the article that you edited. At Wikipedia we need to try to identify statements that are not controversial and then fairly describe any controversies. We are supposed to cite reliable sources. The monkey article does not cite sources. Maybe what we should do is try to find reliable sources that support the approach taken in the current version of the article as well as sources that support your approach. A good place to start might be finding sources that agree or disagree with the Classification section of the article since it seems to be at the heart of the difference between your approach and the current approach. --JWSchmidt 04:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Pop culture should not be the deciding factor on a scientific article. Science should be the deciding factor. There are two grops of monkeys: Old World monkeys and New World monkeys. Any primate that does not fall into either category is not, by definition, a monkey. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article should be divided into 2 sections: Tailed Monkeys & Tail-less Monkeys

message: 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) .
:You are mistaken. The Old World monkeys are more closely related to the apes than either of those group are to the New World monkeys. So says the entire scientific community. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are three groups of simians: New World monkeys, Old World monkeys, and apes. Of the three, the Old World monkeys and the apes are more closely related to each other than either is to the New World monkeys. There are no natural labels, they are all assigned by humans. "Monkey" is not a monophyletic grouping of species, but "simian" is. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Preposterous! yea right

message: 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)
replies: text: It's protected because it gets vandalized often. Instead of complaining, work on possible edits on the talk page, and I or another admin will make the change or unprotect it. BTW: "monkey" isn't a biological family. It's two related groups containing many families. That information is in the very first paragraph of the article. If you want good information, go to those articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This page is crap

message: 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).
:"Monkies" is just plain wrong, but it is a common enough misspelling that it warrants a redirct, at least in someone's mind. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plural of Monkey

message: 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)
thread_title: Monkey as pets

message: 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).
:Read carefully. Tehre is not much that can be said about monkeys, besides that they are small to medium sized simian primates. If you want to know more, look at the two more specific articles, Old World monkey and New World monkey. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Learn proper grammar, please. --67.175.147.74 08:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don´t care about old & new world  

message: 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
:If you don't understand what the article says, you don't belong here.  I'm sorry if I sound mean, but the article should give you plenty of information. --67.175.147.74 09:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  still don't want old & new world 

message: This article needs an infobox, like all the other animal articles have. Lεmσηflαsh(t)/(c) 18:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  infobox 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's odd that it's been removed entirely without any reference left to monkeys as pets. A section on monkeys as pets can be included summary style if it gets too long.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pengo (talk • contribs) 01:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Monkey as pets

message: what is this silly thing about old and new worlds it is annoying
124.170.244.50 08:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no one coherent group of animals called monkeys. Instead, there are two group of primates that are closely related. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  new & old world 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Highly sociable animals, monkeys are kept in many different environments" 

message: How-to guide on surviving them:  -- 67.98.206.2 18:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, but it doesn't make sense to include a section on monkey attacks or there would have to be a similar section in every other animal page. There already is a page Organisms that are dangerous to humans that has a list like this - although monkeys aren't on it.Bob98133 19:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. (wikibooks is for that), but it would be worth mentioning that monkey attacks do occur. —Pengo 01:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monkey attacks 

message: 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) 
:If you can find the date, we can add it to the map. As it is, the map contains the data that we know. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Zaharous is correct,  is the range map of the Barbary Macaque. The map should be updated accordingly. Jack (talk) 12:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix Map 

message: 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)
thread_title: monkeys in relation to humans?

message: 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)
replies: text: Trivia sections, which a "in popular culture" section would be, are discouraged. So no, please do not add one. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New section 

message: I added this only video:
*Video: Born to be Wild: Unggoy, 06/05/2008--Florentino floro (talk) 07:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted this video. Apart from it not being in English, it appeared to only show a man speaking endlessly to a caged monkey. Was there a point to posting this? How does it help the article? Bob98133 (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I didn't know we could add videos to wikipedia articles. Gottoupload (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Video

message: 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)
replies: text: It's protected because it gets vandalized often. Instead of complaining, work on possible edits on the talk page, and I or another admin will make the change or unprotect it. BTW: "monkey" isn't a biological family. It's two related groups containing many families. That information is in the very first paragraph of the article. If you want good information, go to those articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Misc Comments Moved from Above

message: 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)
thread_title: Note

message: Very important. 64.134.28.105 (talk) 03:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: "History" should include when monkeys first appear in the fossil record, not just the history of the name

message: Since this article is being reviewed by Wikipedia Spotlight I have been looking for resources about monkeys.
*2 Page article by world book. pastebin
*3 Page article in compton's Britannica Pastebin
*Rice, Stanley A. "primates." Encyclopedia of Evolution. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 2006. Science Online. 
* - about the features of a monkey and it's life
* about the physical characteristics of monkeys
* general info
* a general resource about types of primates (including monkeys)
*The Natural History of Monkeys By William Jardine,  William Jardine Sir ' 
*The Monkey Puzzle: Reshaping the Evolutionary Tree by John R Gribben Details the path of human evolution as viewed by traditional Darwinian theory and by the new radical theory based on recent findings in the field of genetics, with controversial conclusions.
*Ankel-Simons, Friderun. Primate Anatomy. 3rd ed. Academic Pr., 1999. It describes their bio-geographical information and provides crucial data pertaining to their body size, fur coloration external distinguishing features, habitat and basic life strategies
* Nowak, Ronald M., ed. Walker's Primates of the World. Johns Hopkins, 1999. includes scientific and common names, the number and distribution of species, measurements and physical traits, habitat, daily and seasonal activity, population dynamics, home range, social life, reproduction, longevity, and status of threatened species
* Rowe, Noel. The Pictorial Guide to the Living Primates. Pogonias, 1996. guide to the 234 currently recognized primate species with over 500 color photographs and 20 illustrations
* Shumaker, Robert W., and Beck, B. B. Primates in Question: The Smithsonian Answer Book. Smithsonian Institution, 2003. Shumaker and Beck, both of the Smithsonian's National Zoological Park, answer frequently asked questions they receive about primates
Irunongamesplay 14:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Resources

message: 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)
replies: text: The article desperately needs sections on evolution and fossil history (or similar) (maybe give a reason why the monkey group is not monophyletic), behaviour, habitat and distribution  and conservation. The 'Relationship with humans' section needs to be harshly trimmed and multiple subheadings should be merged together. This is the article format WP:PRIM uses. I wish I could be of help now but I'm off on holiday tomorrow. Good luck all! Jack (talk) 00:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:Spotlight|Spotlight]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: Nice pic. I have asked on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Species of monkey.   Chzz  ►  13:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Very nice pic indeed   Burningview  ✉  14:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry burning, I accidentally hit the rollback button on your addition of this comment when looking through my watchlist. Has been restored obviously. cheers.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 14:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: According to vervet.za.org. its a crab eating macaque. Since its my image, I am afraid of adding it to the article so if anyone wishes to do so, would appreciate it. --Muhammad(talk) 17:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monkey Image 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Spotlight is done 

message: 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)
replies: text: This has been fixed.  Thank you for pointing it out. –Visionholder (talk) 11:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no expert on monkeys or apes, but I think that this was only half-fixed. I agree with your change to "generally considered to be more intelligent" but my understanding is that apes lack tails, so saying that monkeys have "longer tails than apes" is odd, like saying they have more arms than snakes. I think it should be changed to "generally have tails" since there are some monkeys who do not have tails, but no apes who do. Bob98133 (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right.  I think I have fixed this now. Rlendog (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but was reading about primate anatomy when I made the fix, so I was thinking about caudal vertebrate.  Consequently, I only fixed the intelligence remark.  Thanks for pointing out what I obviously missed.  Otherwise, good fix.  –Visionholder (talk) 16:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monkeys are smarter? 

message: "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)
:Fixed. Thanks for catching it! –Visionholder (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: typo in locked first section

message: I request editing in order to add the Haitian creole equivalent to the list of languages in the left-side column. RajkiandrisRajkiandris (talk) 06:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you add here the line you want in the article, I'll copy it to there.  Or you can a day and do it yourself, whichever you prefer.  (The article is semi-protected, meaning accounts need to be four days old and have at least 10 total edits to be able to modify it.)  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing language 

message: According to [], 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)
replies: text: Find a real reference if you can. Barrel and cartload are not terms generally used for a group of monkeys. Bob98133 (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  "barrel of monkeys" is a colloquialism, usually used in a phrase such as "more fun than a ..."--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collective nouns 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, but many people will not know what is included and excluded in the set "simian".Ordinary Person (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Simpler definition

message: 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)
replies: text: FYI, aye-ayes are lemurs.  Lorises are part of the lemuriform clade. – Maky « talk » 15:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Prosimians

message: 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)
thread_title:  Naruto reference 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Etymology italian female ape? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Question 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "as food" 

message: Isn't monkey a paraphyletic group? Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? ScienceApe (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a paraphyletic group, but I think that is mentioned in the article - in non-technical terms in the 2nd paragraph of the lede and in somewhat more technical terms in the 3rd paragraph of the Historical and modern terminology section.  Although of course, if you think clarification is needed by all means do so. Rlendog (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paraphyletic group? 

message: 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)
replies: text: This isn't just a lack of consensus. A rich history underlies the use of those words, which ties to the evolution of our understanding of primates.  More recently the (mis)use of these terms comes from disputes over how to deal with the paraphyletic groups that older classification systems (still commonly used) rely on.  Also, outside of our culture, many languages do not distinguish primates by type.  So it's not so much a lack of consensus as a it is a lack of understanding of primate phylogeny and the use of old terms for new ideas.  As for the article... I will try to address it some day.  If anyone else can get to it before me, an excellent (rich) source is "Extended Family: Long Lost Cousins" by Colin Groves (ISBN: 978-1-934151-25-9). But be warned... this won't be a simple one or two sentences (otherwise I'd do it now). To adequately address the topic, you're looking at a four or five paragraph section, minimum. – Maky « talk » 11:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monkey Ape Issues 

message: 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)
replies: text: Auch hier nochmal: Danke!  --91.10.30.100 (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Inter-Wiki Link 

message: 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
:This issue has been discussed at great length here (see above) and elsewhere (e.g. Talk:Ape). Briefly, yes, in current taxonomic terms humans belong to the same taxon as chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas. That taxon is given the common English name "apes" by some sources. But other sources continue to use "ape" in its traditional sense. Wikipedia must reflect usage, not attempt to influence it. This is clearly explained with references at Ape#Historical and modern terminology.  Peter coxhead (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit request

message: 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)
replies: text: I see no reason to rename this article. Perhaps rather an article on "Monkeys in popular culture" or "... in fiction" or "Monkey (improper)" (sorry 'bout that :)) for the books, movies, religion and zodiac bits. However, the current article isn't too long, so maybe not. Vsmith (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Article should be renamed "Monkey (proper)"

message: 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)
replies: text: Cuz it's subhuman? Chrisrus (talk) 01:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is it such an insult? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Have you look at Monkey brains (cuisine)? Looie496 (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The main reference claiming to cite the United Nations was false! It was the repost of a repost of a newspaper article in a FORUM ... RMR 92.77.66.249 (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monkeys as food 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Hyphenation 

message: 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)
replies: text: Sorry for the delayed reply. I agree that the lead was a mess, and particularly the opening sentence.  I've reworded it to make it more accessible.  Given what you wrote, I suspect that you will only be partially satisfied, so please allow me to explain my choice of wording:  In the opening sentence, I retained the word "haplorhine" because that is the type of primate that they are.  Wikipedia is not only about providing people with information they likely already know, but also introducing them to new information.  The term is explained (in parentheses) and linked. As for the source used, it I did not originally include it, nor do I have time to add dig some up. This article is in a very poor state, and maybe one of these days I'll get around to doing some basic work on it. If you want to help add references, please do. Otherwise I have kept the basics about monkeys in the first paragraph, and saved the more complex taxonomic material (though simpler) for the second paragraph. I hope that will do for now. – Maky « talk » 20:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead concerns 

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't see where you say they are called out as New World monkeys. Can you copy the sentance where you think this is so. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mis-characterization of galagos 

message: 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)
replies: text: I deleted the other article as the AfD result but if anyone needs info for mergingI can userfy it on request.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Old World Monkeys=Smart, New World=Stupid 

message: 68.186.131.179 (talk) 04:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2015 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Monkey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140222064050/http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20483133_20488693_20945431,00.html to http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20483133_20488693_20945431,00.html#20945426
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Humans? 

message: Paragraph 2 says
:Hominoid apes (consisting of gibbons, orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans), which all lack tails, are also catarrhines but are not considered monkeys,[citation needed] although often they or their ancestors are (which cladistically automatically implies homonoids are as well).
Part of this can be cut down to
:Hominoid apes ... are not considered monkeys, ... although often they ... are.
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)
replies: text: The sentence could be improved, but it's not a contradiction. It refers to two different sense of the word "monkey". The popular sense, and hence the most common, contrasts "monkeys" with "apes". The cladistic sense, which is less common in popular writing but increasingly common (although not universal) in scientific writing, includes "apes" within "monkeys". Peter coxhead (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  monkeys brains and why they are special 

message: Monkeys are a very lovable creature. AnneKite (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Generalization  —  IVORK Discuss 02:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2018 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "However, traditionally apes are not considered monkeys, rendering this grouping paraphyletic." 

message: monkeys are alot like humans. somewhere at the start Alpine1000 (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DRAGON BOOSTER  ★ 12:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That topic should be covered in primate.  We are all a lot like each other.  PopSci (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2018 

message: "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)
replies: text: Language and its use is also a fact. If the word monkey does usually not include hominids, then that's a fact that needs to be taken into account. 91.10.13.68 (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Monkeys are non-hominoid simians" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Barbary macaque only non-ape monkey without a tail? 

message: 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)
thread_title: More simple opening?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article is not about simians 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Suggestion For Short Description 

message: 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)
replies: text: Indeed, that part should be rephrased I think. Paraphyletic groups have always been a valid concept, even if in pure genetic terms they are not very relevant. Taken to an extreme we would insist that humans, other mammals, reptiles and amphibians must be regarded as fish, because they're a subgroup of the fish clade. Genetically that would be correct, but it is not unscientific to refer to fish as a Paraphyletic group distinct from the tetrapods.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I altered it a bit. It's yet another example of editors trying to say that ordinary language uses of English words are "wrong" because they don't align with scientific uses. Perhaps it helps to take a less emotive example. Consider whether a strawberry is a berry or not. In ordinary English, it clearly is; the first definition in Merriam-Webster online is "a pulpy and usually edible fruit (such as a strawberry, raspberry, or checkerberry) of small size irrespective of its structure". In botanical English, a strawberry is not a berry. Hence we have two articles, Berry and Berry (botany). Neither use is "wrong"; they're just different, and each is appropriate in context. Exactly the same is true of "monkey" and "ape", and our article should not say that either is right or wrong. You can't use "scientific evidence" to say that calling a strawberry a berry in ordinary every-day English is wrong, any more than you can use scientific evidence to say that it's right to call a chimpanzee a monkey when the latter word is used in its ordinary every-day English sense. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:   "There has been some resistance to directly designate apes as monkeys despite the scientific evidence" 

message: memans eyob monkey Bbvvhgj (talk) 09:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Jack Frost (talk) 09:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2020 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Howler Monkey Gods 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Howler Monkey Gods 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Order, Suborder, and Infraorder" . . . but no Genus? 

message: Need to fix some misspelling 104.189.64.252 (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 06:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2021 

message: Need to fix some misspelling 104.189.64.252 (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 06:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2021 

message: 91.101.245.6 (talk) 12:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No edit requested. Closing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2021 

message: "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 . This paper talks of the distinctive characteristics of crown anthropoids, and none of those characters are mentioned: . Cheers, Jack (talk) 09:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it is because these characteristics (two pectoral nipples, etc) are synapomorphies, while the crown anthropoid paper is discussing non-synapomorphic characteristics. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simiiformes characteristics 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've made an attempt to rectify this. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prehensile tails