Talk:Ape/Archive 1

message: I have had a go at the Ape page.  It was a bit of a muddle.  The real problem is that the concept of "ape" has drifted over the centuries, from any tailless nonhuman primate to its current meaning of a member of one of two particular families.  However even now primate taxonomy is even more of a mess than most orders, so it is hard to get consistent terminology, and authorities do not agree on what the names of those families should be, or whether they should be in a superfamily.  I've gone for a version that seems simple to grasp.  There did seem to me to be one error in the article as I found it, though: I don't think there's any serious usage of "ape" that doesn't include the hylobatids.
Sorry, that last comment came from seglea at 04:55 UTC 031105 - I thought the signature, date, time got added automatically.
Try yet again! it came from seglea
when exactly did humans become apes? i'd like a year.
:That depends on if you are asking when humans genetically became apes (which would be we've always been apes), or when it was first postulated that the other ape species and humans were descended from a common extinct ape ancestor (which would be about when Charles Darwin wrote Origin of the Species), or when it became a more common understanding than just a scientific one. - UtherSRG 18:24, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
::more of angry sarcasm, sorry. i suppose what i meant was when was it that humans ceased being in a clade analogous respective to apes as apes were to monkeys, for that is how i remember it being said.
:::So you mean this? - UtherSRG 21:44, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
:When you are speaking of apes here you cannot redefine the English word ape to include man. It is always "the great apes and man." You can study clades all you want and you can make Hominidae, Homininae, etc., mean whatever the scientific evidence warrants at the moment. Ape however is not and never was a scientific classification or a scientific word and the Hom- group of words doea not mean "ape" or "great", it means "man." There is no justification at all for calling Hominidae "great apes" and this would be a serious breach of the English language, especially as we are going to talk about apes and true apes. And just what are we, the truest of the true apes, faithful to our apish nature? No, I understand why the Wikipedia author who used ape to mean us did so, but I would point out that it is an ordinary English word, not a scientific word, and we cannot use it to mean us without a serious contortion of all the rest of philosophy, and who is Wikipedia to do that? Who are palaeoanthropologists to do that? But I do not think they are. I think this is strictly Wikipedia so we better get rid of the idea. We can say it without implying men are apes. They may be Hominidae along with the apes but they are not apes. Is there anything more to be said on the subject? So, I have changed a few words (only a few) in the leads of three articles to remove man from being an ape. In general however I understand and sympathize with cladistics and the desire to keep up to date. I don't see any apes trying to keep up to date. Seriously, even if you conclude (as seems to be the case) there is no scientific justification for breaking out man from the great apes, when you use "man" and "great apes" you are not being scientific. Science adopted the Greek and Latin vocabulary to avoid such conflicts as this. We cannot render scientific language into ordinary language. It does not compute. If you want science then you have to learn the language of science. Meanwhile, we need to keep out vernacular English so that we can communicate. I am not an ape, you are not an ape, he, she and it are not apes, we are not apes, etc. I could claim that the author is calling me names on Wikipedia; to wit, "great ape." (joke). By now you must surely see what I mean and agree.Dave 01:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No original research. Apes include humans. This is verifiable and factual. End of story. Malamockq 05:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Although the superfamily of apes has always included humans, in its taxonomical definition, a more specific connotation of the word "ape" has found its way into the vernacular. This common usage of the word excludes humans when referring to apes."   Ummm, no!  Ape is vernacular English word in use for more than 400 years ( Shakespeare used it ), which does not include humans.   Can anyone cite a scientific definition of the word,  including humans,  which is older than the common usage.  I don't think so.  I agree with Dave.Merkanmich 05:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drifting meaning of "ape" 

message: Hrm.... Nice try Tim, but I don't like the way it sits there. The listing is of extant genera. If we list Pierolopithecus, then someone is going to come along and add some more, and then someone else will add some more.... until the extant genera are buried in the extinct ones. I'd rather keep the listing as extant, and possibly put a link to :category:Early hominids. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:32, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
The correct spelling: Pierolapithecus. El PaleoFreak--213.60.21.111 01:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Pierolopithecus'' 

message: :Marskell: I also noticed that Cultural Aspects are odds and ends from human culture not a discussion about culture amongst apes. Marskell 12:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: UtherSRG: Yes, it's not about ape culture but about apes in human culture. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

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

message: [quoteblock]"Subsequent molecular investigation of hair and pelt samples showed them to be common chimps who had individually adapted to local conditions."[/quoteblock]
So this indicates that they are actually a subspecies (aka race) of chimp.  As per the definition of a subspecies, they are physically different due to geographical location, but are able to reproduce with other members of their species and produce fertile offspring in the form of a crossbreed.  I changed the name of the section to reflect this. Lengis 05:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They may be a subspecies, or they may not be. It's not for us to declare them as such, that's a job for the scientists in the field. It's up to us to simply report the known information and such. I've modified your edit to keep us from crossing that line. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the new species 

message: Isn't the Bonobo the closest ape to the human, anatomically speaking?
http://www.blockbonobofoundation.org/
A better Bonobo link is http://www.bonobo.org/whatisabonobo.html
Why aren't bonobos listed in the article? Old Nick 15:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bonobo is a species of chimpanzee. The other species of chimp is the Common Chimpanzee. The article talks about the various apes on a level above species, so the Bonobo is not directly mentioned, nor is there any need to directly mention it; the mention of chimpanzees covers the Bonobo and the Common Chimpanzee equally. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bonobo 

message: User:UtherSRG keeps on being an idiot and removing my edits. User:UtherSRG is does not own this page and so shouldn't revert whenever someone makes an addition to the article. Doing so is plain stupidity. 64.192.107.242 19:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Make edits that make sense, and the edits will stay. As it is, you are blindly removing changes other than the ones you inted to make. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And please see WP:NPA. The Ungovernable Force 19:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UtherSRG keeps being a fool and removing my edits

message: How do we block 64.192.107.242 for 3RR? The Ungovernable Force 20:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, admins do that, but only after deciding where 123.456.789.012 comes from (WP:AN). You can't block "A user" without blocking their proxy, which may block other (legitimate) contributors (far as I understand it). I think as important as blocking on the Wiki is watching the pages. You're watching this one...keep doing so, so that some ridiculous point doesn't get inserted without anybody noticing. Marskell 23:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 3RR Violation

message: Nice work, Gdr! The data you added is nifty! However, I'm not really a fan of . Can we fix that up? - UtherSRG (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't like it, change it! Gdr 17:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  history section 

message: I was looking to see how many chromosomes various species of primates have.  If you read the page on chromosomes at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome#Number_of_chromosomes_in_different_species you see that it says there humans have 46 chromosomes while apes have 48.  I clicked on the hyperlink to Ape to see which species they mean when they say ape, and I find this page telling me humans are counted as apes.  This is internally inconsistent.  You need to reconcile this page and the page on chromosomes, and looking at this page, it seems like most people agree that apes and humans are two different things.  I'm not a fundamentalist opposed to evolution.  Quite the contrary, I knew that humans and chimps had different numbers of chromosomes, and I was hoping to compare the number of chromosomes in closely related species to see if the difference was a reduction in the number of chromosomes in the evolution of humans or an increase in the number of chromosomes in the evolution of the ape.  So why are people trying to force an agenda by calling humans a type of ape?  This seems to serve no purpose whatsoever, apart from trying to antagonize the opponents of evolution.  Fundamentally, this is not only in violation of NPOV guidelines, but it is unnecessarily confusing.  It only makes the terminology ambiguous.  We do not need to call humans apes just because the group of humans + apes = a monophyletic grouping.  "Ape" does not need to be a cladistic term.
:It has since been changed to gorilla. However the terminology was confusing because gibbons which I think are accepted as apes even by the humans are not apes crowd don't have 48 chromosomes and indeed are variable depending on genera. So we would at the very least need to correct it to say great ape. However we might as well say non-human great ape or simply give a specific example like someone else did. Also, the same argument could be made about calling humans animals. Sure it's a lot more convient in some ways to not call humans animals, after all how often do people say someone's an animal (which is intrinsicly true but not in the way that was meant). But we do because it makes much more sense. It also avoids the confusion that a lot of people, especially religious people, but even non religious people have that humans are special (which gives rise to silly things like the claim every ape should evolve to be a human). They're not. Nil Einne 20:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is getting absurd 

message: -- Humans didn't evolve from apes, no Darwinist ever suggests that. We evolved from a proto-ape many millions of years ago, and the modern apes are a seperate branch of the evolution of that species.
-- Hence, we closely related, but not considered in the same group. However, we are Hominidae (Great Apes), and that bracket is wide enough to include homo sapiens as well as the modern apes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.7.74.130 (talk • contribs) .
:Actually, humans are more closely related to either of the two chimp species than we are to the two species of gorilla. Chimps are more closely related to us than they are to gorillas. Humans, chimps, and gorillas are all more closely related to each other than any of those three are related to orangutans. Your notion that humans are somehow not within the group of apes is outdated. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problems with anon above appears to be with a misunderstanding of evolution and with the misleading term proto-apes. The so called proto-apes were apes. Humans and chimpanzee has a common ancestor however this doesn't mean humans evolved from chimpanzee. The ancestor of humans and chimpanzee was neither human or chimpanzee, it was a different ape all together (a proto ape if you want to call it that). I'm not sure whether this holds true for anon but there appears to be this common misconception that non-human apes have stopped evolving which is of course just plain silly. All apes have been evolving including humans and humans haven't necessarily evolved more then other apes, just in a different direction (just as each ape other species also evolved in a different direction). Also, although I use the term direction, it's important to remember evolution is not goal-setting and humans are not the desired outcome (again this often appears to be a problem where people think all apes or all animals 'want' to be humans) Nil Einne 19:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  more refutation 

message: I'm having a debate on a philosophy forum about the ability for apes to create art. I'm maintaining that apes neither have the biological or cultural equipment to deliberately produce abstract or figurative images, but with all these ridiculous "Gorrilla Art" websites selling "portraits" by Gorrillas for over $300, not everyone believes me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.7.74.130 (talk • contribs) .
Is there any decisive proof? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.7.74.130 (talk • contribs) .
:Art is in the eye of the beholder. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it impossible. Just because you don't understand how it is possible, doesn't mean it isn't. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ape Art 

message: I'm so sick and tired of people on wikipedia redefining words.  True DNA says that chimps are closer to humans than they are to other apes, so now we have to redefine ape to include humans. Why not just redefine humans to include chimps, it would make just as much sense, and than we could describe ourselves as non-chimp humans. Ape is a physical category not a genetic category. If you want a term that describes the broader group that only humans and apes belong to, then find or create such a word. That's how language progresses. But redefining words that have existing meanings does nothing but create confusion and destroys the English language.--Zalgebra 03:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the article. It explains why objective cladistic analysis supports the practice of calling humans "apes". The meanings of words change all the time without language being destroyed. --JWSchmidt 05:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that the decision to exclude humans from the ape family was arbitrary, and that it makes more scientific sense to include them, but neologisms like "non-human ape" are not the solution. That will confuse the living hell out of anyone who reads a biology book written before the neoligism was created. Instead just accept the fact that apes are an arbitrary classification that has been debunked by modern genetics and find a new term that unifies both humans and apes into a single category. As we see on the monkey article, it's hard enough for people to agree when multiple definitions of one word actually exist. Making up own definitions makes consensus impossible --Zalgebra 05:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Humans are not apes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

message: Changing "Most non-human ape species are rare or endangered" to "Most ape species are rare or endangered" seems a reasonable stylistic change to me. Consider the following sentences:
:Most bears are brown or black in color.
:Most non-polar bears are brown or black in color.
:Most continents are inhabited by frogs.
:Most non-antarctic continents are inhabited by frogs.
In each case, the second is unnecessarily wordy. I'm not sure why the change was reverted, due to lack of an edit summary (and marked minor?). --Yath 00:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "non-human" bit was only added the other day; I've removed it again. --Emufarmers(T/C) 04:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Specifying "non-human ape" is not a matter of "style", using the phrase is not "wordy"; it is a reasonable way to distinguish between non-human ape species and humans. The "non-human bit" has been used in this article for many months. --JWSchmidt 05:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, you're right: It has indeed been in there for a while.  It seems to have been variously taken out and re-added, however.  At any rate, it is unnecessary: "Most ape species are rare or endangered" is just as accurate as "Most non-ape species are rare or endangered," because it already says "most," and it's "most ape species," not "most apes."  Humans may vastly outnumber all the other apes on this earth, but we're only one species. --Emufarmers(T/C) 05:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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

message: I've taken the liberty of creating a section on whether humans are apes or not (geez, that debate was on for years and no one thought of this). Let's just keep it neutral. No one can say that humans are apes, and no one can say that humans are not apes. However, you can add information supporting one side, as long as it's true! Hopefully, this will end all the fits over the human ape debate. 84.173.30.96 01:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Humans are apes. It's been put to rest. Stop trying to dig up trouble. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Show me some legitimate scientists who are debating the issue and I'll agree.... but given all the primatology work I've read, scientists are not debating this. They are firm that humans are apes. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scientists are not debating the issue, because they're ignorant of the actual meaning of "ape". "Ape" cannot refer to humans, any more than "wasp" can refer to ants or "Caucasian" can refer to Japanese people. Wii gok 18:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Scientists...are ignorant". Oh, this is rich. Joelito (talk) 18:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Referring to humans as "apes", is like referring to ants as "wasps", or Japanese people as "Caucasians". It's simply incorrect. Wii gok 20:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scientists are the ones who determine what the terms "ape" and "human" mean (from a scientific perspective), therefore if scientists say humans are apes, then that is what we are taxinomically. If you are going to argue we are not apes, don't try to do it from a (quasi) scientific perspective. You have a whole lot more of a chance from a non-scientific perspective. But since wikipedia tends to be biased (rightly or wrongly) towards an academic (and in this case, scientific) world view, I doubt that would work too well either. As far as I know, there isn't any debate in the scientific community as to our classification as apes, and any one who does debate it would surely be in an extreme minority position (and therefore not really important to us). Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 01:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Yep, humans are apes, in the sense that on all the evidence (palaeontological, genetic, morphological, etc) we are more closely related to two of the species of ape (chimpanzee and bonobo) than they or we are to the remaining apes (gorilla, orangutan, gibbons); we therefore fit within the group, and without us it does not make sense as a group.  Now, of course there are other cases of such situations where we would not put one group inside another; for example, birds may well be more closely related to some reptiles than remaining reptiles are to one another.  However in such cases (a) the distinct group contains many species (in the case of birds, thousands) not just one; and (b) there has been a long period of separation (in the case of birds, perhaps 200 million).  Whereas in the case of humans' separation from the rest of the apes, we are talking about a single species, and the time of separation is about 5 million years, a twinkling of the eye in evolutionary terms.  I can't think of any remotely similar case where we would say that a species with such a relationship to a group was not a member of that group. seglea 05:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahhhhhhhhh, but where are the documents that show proof that scientists consider humans apes? I don't see any. And most science based websites don't include humans as apes. Please also be aware that it was the SCIENTISTS to say humans are apes, AND you forget the fact that a minority of scientists disagree. Scientists can say anything they want and people are forced to believe it. Also, seglea, you should note the fact that EVERY OTHER non-human PRIMATE has diferent qualities than humans, which should seperate humans from apes. 1. hair doesn't cover our bodies everywhere (or do you have hair everywhere?), 2. Humans can stand upright, unless they have a disability, 3. Uhhh, we're not ugly retards that knuckle walk (at least I'm not), 4. Shorter arms and longer legs, 5. apes have feet with thumbs, making them look similar to hands (do you have any?), and 6. S-curved spine (or is yours a simple c curve?)
So bear with me. Let's just show both sides, stating that what scientists claim, and leave it at a neutral POV. 84.173.17.84 17:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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

text: These two articles are in the two most prestigious scientific learned journals in the world, the ones where every scientist wants to publish.  
*(iv) One of the earliest results of molecular systematics was confirmation of the pattern of descent within the great apes that had been hypothesised on morphological grounds.  Bailey et al, 1991 (Molecular Biology and Evolution, 8, 155-184), showed that genomic analysis, "supports the taxonomic grouping of all extant hominoids into family Hominidae, the division of Hominidae into subfamilies Hylobatinae (gibbons) and Homininae, the division of Homininae into tribes Pongini (orangutans) and Hominini, and the division of Hominini into subtribes Gorillina (gorillas) and Hominina (chimpanzees and humans)".  This paper has been referred to (cited) over 100 times in the scientific literature since it was published.  I have just looked at the titles and abstracts of a good sample of the papers that cite it and cannot find a single one that challenges its conclusion; indeed  Wildman et al, 2003 (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 100, 7181-7188), go further and argue that the chimpanzee and bonobo should be included in genus Homo. 
To say "humans are not apes" is on a par with saying "humans are not animals".  There is a sense - a nursery sense - in which we use "animals" to mean "non-human animals".  Similarly there is a sense in which we could use "apes" to mean "non-human apes".  Perhaps some people do use it that way.  But nowadays scientists, by and large, don't. seglea 20:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: An exercise. Identify the clade that corresponds to apes. Check to see if humans are in that clade. Hint, use the cladograms in the Ape article. If you still do not think that humans are apes, find a published cladogram that supports a different way to classify humans by placing humans outside of the ape clade. --JWSchmidt 03:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's not a clade that corresponds to apes. That's the BIG ERROR. Not all words we use when talking about animals can be assigned to a clade. There is a clade that corresponds to humans and apes: Hominoidea. "Ape" is not a taxonomic term. The taxonomic term is Hominoidea, which means something like "humanoids". Human are not apes; apes (and us) are "humanoids". El PaleoFreak 23:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why do scientists such as Todd Rae say things like, "...the superfamily Hominoidea, or apes (including humans)"? --JWSchmidt 04:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask him about his particular motivations :-) Other scientists simply say: "...the superfamily Hominoidea: apes and humans" El PaleoFreak 18:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise, one can ask yours. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, but JWSchmidt seemed interested in Todd Rae, not in me. I don't know why some scientists and some wikipedists are pretending to change the meaning of the word "ape". It's the promoters of that change who should explain themselves. I've talked with some of them, and they told me that calling humans "apes" can be good at fighting creationism, and also can be good for the public understanding of evolution (I've tested this with some people and the results weren't very good: they got more confused). They agreed with me that it's a proposal, not a fact. This is what's wrong with this article: the "humans are apes" is a proposal, or a trend, of some scientists, and not a Fact of The Science.--El PaleoFreak 10:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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

text:  Anyone have the OED definition of the word ape? JPotter 19:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The OED will not give the best scientific answer. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Humans are a subdivision of apes, much like the Ford Pinto is a Ford Pinto and a car, or like Worf is a Klingon and an extraterrestial. Saying they are not leaves not only the question of what category do they fit in, but also violates laws of categorization. To give a final example, Chuck Norris is a TV actor, and a thespian. TV actors are a subdivision of thespians, much like humans are a subdivision of a species of a genus of a family of an order that leads up to Kevin Ba.. sorry, apes.
Lord Patrick 21:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humans, Apes or not? can finally be put to rest 

message: This is a long and unresolved debate. How about a simple disclaimer line at the top in italics explaining clearly what the article takes to mean 'ape'.
:This article is about the biological superfamily. For a discussion of the inclusion of humans as apes see the cultural section below. For the acronym see APE.
:There is not a superfamily named "apes". That's the big error here. El PaleoFreak --213.60.21.111 10:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. Joelito (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed solution to the debate

message: ElPaleo (and possibly others), you seem to be convinced that there are still a resonable number of scientist who dispute humans are apes. I'm asking for evidence for this. If you don't want to provide such evidence, that's up to you. Please don't get sidetracked here or bring up other issues. These are not issues I want to discuss here. If you want to discuss them, do so in a seperate topic. I am simply asking for evidence. If you don't have any or don't want to provide it, just say so.
I will repeat the statement I've made. Evidence that scientists sometimes fail to differentiate between non-human apes and apes is not evidence scientists don't believe humans are apes
Nil Einne 11:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think evidence must be provided for the claim "science says humans are apes". I know there are scientists that believe humans are apes (and scientists that don't). But the scientists' beliefs is not "the science". Science is not about beliefs nor about polls. I'd prefer scientific and rational arguments, not authority arguments or dogmatic statements. 
El PaleoFreak --213.60.21.111 01:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is irrelevant to the point I was making. If you wish to discuss this, please do so elsewhere. If you have no response to what I was saying, just don't respond Nil Einne 20:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence that there are still a resonable number of scientists who dispute that humans are apes 

message: I happened to stumble across this article and noticed that there is no section on apes as food. Anyone want to add this? All I know is that ape meat is supposed to be very sweet and difficult to digest. There's a book out on it (called "Eating Apes"... around on Amazon). Apparently the eating of apes is quite common in West and Central Africa. Unfortunately I've never had the chance to taste such a dish myself! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.252.48.30 (talk • contribs) .
Bushmeat and Cannibalism should provide all you need on the subject of edible apes.
Lord Patrick 01:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apes as Food? 

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

message: The article does not seem to correspond to the code on the edit page, namely the Miss Ford nonsense is still tacked on at the end of the introductory paragraph, and the Historical and Modern Terminology section is completely missing. I can't figure out how to reverse this. 
:Looks fine to me. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there is definitely something wrong with the page. I was going to delete the paragraph referring to "Miss Ford," but couldn't find it in the edit page.147.222.24.23 20:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

message: (I've modified this comment of mine after doing some more editing on the article)
I have removed the following section from the "Cultural aspects..." section.  It isn't about cultural aspects in the sense of the rest of material in that section, and it is well below the quality standards of Wikipedia (and of most of the rest of this article).  I will add some quick notes on scientific work on ape cognition to replace it.
:Humans and the other apes share many similarities, including the ability to properly use tools and imitate others. Recent studies at Yale test some of these similarities. A professor and his/her students gave a challenge to baby humans and baby chimps. Both groups were shown a way that might solve this challenge. However, neither group knew that the solution they were shown was incorrect. Both times the baby humans tried to complete the challenge, they imitated what they were shown and failed at the attempt. The chimpanzee babies also failed their first attempt, as they too mimicked what they were shown. However, on their second attempt, they created a novel solution, and thus completed the challenge. The professor interpreted this as meaning that baby chimps learn from experience, while baby humans just imitate what they are shown. This gave scientists key information in understanding the cultural aspects of ape life and evolutionary similarities between humans and apes.
:There have also been recent breakthroughs in evidence of ape culture that go beyond what was explained above.  This was further explored by scientists at the convention in St. Louis.
Instead, I have added some very brief notes outlining some main findings on behaviour and evolution.  It obviously could be greatly expanded, but most of what might go in it is probably better placed on other pages (for example, the social behaviour has so little coherence that it is much better placed with the individual species or groups).  Cognition has more uniformity, but could become enormous; perhaps we should have a page on "Ape cognition".  This whole section could do with a lot more referencing, though the links to other pages will lead to references - I don't have time to do it at the moment.
seglea 19:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a few minor edits. Why did you move the section to near the end of the article? - UtherSRG (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Behaviour and cognition 

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

message: Hello Uther. You seem to keep deleting whatever I do. I see also you are on the committee for this and also you have a barnstar. And I must say there is a lot about the artcle that is right. That does not mean you are always right. Here is what I think the article needs and what I propose:
*Split it into ape and Hominoidea. The two are not identical and people want to know what Hominoidea are without being told they are apes.
*Stop calling humans great apes. That is contrary to the English language. Look it up in any dictionary.
*Remove "Cultural Aspects of non-human apeas" as being unsupported opinion and original work.
I appreciate the "Changes in taxonomy over time" with the nice tree diagrams and that Homo and Pan come out to be Hominins. Sounds reasonable. That does not make humans great apes any more than it make great apes humans. An ape will never be a human in the English language and Wikipedia's attempts to make them so are original research.
There is one more issue. You keep deleting my requests for citations with the simple note "ridiculous." By what authority do you do that? And quit calling me "ridiculous." I appreciate that in order to get a good article someone has to take charge of it. I wouldn't want you to get frustrated and quit. So, I will just leave this up to your conscience. But, here is a question for you to ponder: are you insisting on the ape=human equation to shock the public or to inform them? I'm leaving this article now as I have other things to do, but I'll be checking back to see what it looks like later. After all, we do have a public. Let's see what they say.Dave 05:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not factual. It acts as if people use "ape" to include humans, which they don't. Voortle 17:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An encyclopedia is not a dictionary. A dictionary is concerned with documenting how language is used commonly. An encyclopedia puts facts as more important than usage. Humans are apes, that is a fact. That fact is more important than the common usage of the word "ape" to not include "human". A more technically correct phrase for that would be "non-human apes". - UtherSRG (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Holocaust denial is nonsense. That's a fact. Yet that's not included in the article. If humans being apes were a fact, people would use "ape" to include humans. They don't. Voortle 00:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most people use animal to mean non human. Does that make taxonomy incorrect? Lord Patrick 21:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it means common usage is incorrect, or at least, imprecise. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: That's like saying you can't end a sentence with a preposition. It's ridiculous. Words are defined by how they're used and nothing more than that. "nonhuman ape" is a term up of which Wikipedia should not put. It's a redundancy like "ATM machine" and "month of February". Voortle 13:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That comparison is not quite accurate. The preposition rule is relatively arbitrary. However, while ape tends to be reserved for nonhumans in lay usage, it has a relatively strict meaning in biology. In general, biological groupings tend to follow clades (not all are, though the trend is towards increasing use). That is, a group should consist of an organism and all of its descendants; a portion should not be excluded (this would be paraphyly. From a biological standpoint, there are several good reasons to consider all descendants within the grouping, and that's why ape is usually used to refer to the entire superfamily; excluding one genus (or one species!) from the superfamily doesn't make a whole lot of biological sense. The article should certainly reflect, though, that common usage differs from the biological usage (as it does for many things). Finally, I would suggest that when you keep reusing the (possibly) Churchill quotation, it loses its effectiveness. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess we shouldn't call humans animals either since when most people say animals they don't mean humans Nil Einne 16:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Humans are not apes, humans are not animals and birds are not dinosaurs. That's not what the words refer to. Dinosaurs are extinct. Voortle 11:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for showing your ignorance. Humans are indeed animals. Humans are indeed apes. Humans are indeed great apes. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for showing your ignorance. Humans are indeed not animals. Humasn are indeed not apes. Humans are indeed not great apes. Voortle 00:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You make me laugh. If we are not animals, what are we, plants? No, of course not. We're animals. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: UtherSRG deletions

message: In general, I am of the opinion that vernacular terms denoting certain animals in everyday usage should not be treated as if they are equal to well-defined taxonomic labels. Having said that, I wish to comment on this passage:
::Although the superfamily of apes has always included humans, in its taxonomical definition, a more specific connotation of the word "ape" exists in the vernacular. This common usage of the word excludes humans when referring to apes. This linguistic phenomenon is similar to the common usage of words such as "animal", "attitude", "behave", and "temperature", to convey a commonly accepted meaning that is more specific than the precise definition of the word. Just as people with a good disposition are commonly excluded from being defined as having "an attitude", children who are disobedient are commonly said to "not behave", and healthy people are commonly told they do not have "a temperature", humans are often excluded from the groups commonly called "animals" and "apes".
The examples given (except for animal) are all elliptical forms, suggesting that colloquial usage of ape was somehow derived from an original form non-human ape, which is obviously not the case. Better examples of non-corresponding colloquial terms would i.m.o. be butterfly (not a member of Diptera), ladybird (not a member of Aves) and jellyfish (not a fish). Iblardi 12:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, "attitude", "behave" and "temperature" are completely different from "animal" and "ape". In the first three cases, the "bad" form (bad attitude, bad behaviour, bad temperature) has become the most important form and therefore "bad" is omitted (as Iblardi says, an ellipsis). In the latter two cases, the words originally did not include humans. A few centuries ago, no one would have said that humans are apes, let alone animals, and even now many people would argue that these terms do not include humans. Therefore, this "similarity" is, as far as I can see, nonexistant.   The only similar example to "animal" and "ape" I can think of is "star", which now includes the Sun. Ucucha 19:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even the creationist Linnaeus listed humans as animals. Several centuries ago, at that. Lord Patrick 21:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Animal, of course, being used according to its classical meaning as any being that breathes, as opposed to plants, which is different from colloquial usage. Iblardi 05:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural aspects 

message: Both of these redirect to Ape. I assume the latter is a type, and that you want to remove it. Lavateraguy 10:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hominoidea and Hominoidae 

message: Can someone with knowledge check [ this edit] if it's not already sorted. Not sure if it's good or bad. Is user's only contribution. --h2g2bob (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted their attempt to avoid the term "non-human apes". - UtherSRG (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This is spillover from Usenet.  Uranium Committee is determined to prove that the word "Ape" cannot refer to humans, ever, because it is a vernacular term and not a scientific term.  Everyone else at talk.origins thinks Uranium Committee is ... not clear on what he is talking about himself. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 15:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I think I had it backwards.  Talk.origins is receiving spillage from Wikipedia.  I see now, after examining the history, that this debate (with sockpuppets of Science3456) (Uranium Committee is probably one of them) has been going on much longer here.  Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 19:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit 

message: the Wikipedia page about swimming says that. Isn't that interesting?--teakhoken89.15.87.21 (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After thinking about it... maybe they can, but they have to learn it? Like the humans (who are apes, too). I still think it is interesting.--TeakHoken89.14.9.161 (talk) 13:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Non-human apes have much denser muscle mass than we do.  This is why an angry chimp can be quite dangerous to an unarmed man twice his size, and it is also why they're terrible swimmers.  Now that I think of it this lends a bit more credence to the "aquatic ape" hypothesis, but that's neither here nor there. 96.237.59.92 (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apes cannot swim 

message: Why is hominoids linked to apes?
It's a total different species.
ape is not a taxa.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.205.145.79 (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article explains the terminology. Aleta Sing 15:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  hominoids

message: I whole-heartedly think this should be merged with great apes, objections, agreements? Iamanadam (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Object. Great ape is family Hominidae. Ape is superfamily Hominoidea, which in cludes both Hominidae and the lesser apes (the gibbons) Hylobatidae. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: merge

message: Hi, I'm trying to substitute in the article this graphic :
... with this other one :
... because in the second one you can see a mention to Hominina and Panina subtribes ( important groups ) . But someone always reverts the change .
Can I know what's wrong with the second graphic ? Thanks .
--Faustnh (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't match the text. The text only mentions the splitting of Hylobates into 4 genera. do you have a date when the subtribes were added to the tree? - UtherSRG (talk) 07:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Graphical correction

message: There's very little on hominoid evolution and nothing on early ape species. When did apes develop? There's only one brief reference. Nothing is mentioned about Faiyum Oasis Oligocene finds, or Miocene apes. There should be something about "dental apes" and the separtion of hominoids from Old World Monkeys. In my opinion there's too much on taxonomy in the article, and not enough on the development of the hominoids. - Parsa (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There has actually very few non-human ape fossils found.  I know there have been none found for chimps or gorillas from their speciation with our ancestors down to the two extant species.  There is the possibility of one for orangs, found in Asia.  See www.honoluluzoo.org/orangutan.htm .  It's a curiosity, really, and one reason why our ancestors (before actual fossils like Ardi have been found) are referred to as "chimp-like".  There simply was no other being to hang the presumed resemblance upon. SkoreKeep (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hominoid evolution 

message: This section seems very poor. I may edit it someday, but not after just stumbling across it tonight for the first time. If anyone has any attachment to that paragraph, feel free to chime in.
My first response was, Why is this even here? After reading it all I realized it was an attempt to convey how ancient humans regarded apes, but the initial impression was just random religious musings and i didn't like it. Cvislay (talk) 04:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  cultural aspects of non-human apes 

message: the accusation in the words "except humans", though you might overlook it, is very substantial and easily felt.  Make the accusation explicit or leave it out. --VKokielov (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am referring to the sentence which reads "most ape species, except humans, are extinct."  --VKokielov (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the majority of them went extinct over 100,000 years ago, so we can't really be blamed  .  It's actually relatively common for there to be more extinct species than existing species in such a grouping anyway... AnonMoos (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree w/AnonMoos. Bob98133 (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that it should not mention humans in that sentence at all.  After all, we're the only species left in humans out of at least 8.  There are 2 species of chimps, 2 of gorilla and 2 of orangutan.SkoreKeep (talk) 02:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There's some confusion here because VKokielov misquoted the sentence. It actually said  most are rare or endangered which makes a lot more sense. Saying most, except humans, are extinct doesn't make much sense as noted above because there's no reason to single out humans and it may imply to some that all non human apes are extinct Nil Einne (talk) 04:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "human beings" 

message: This article says: "The lesser and greater apes split about 18 mya, and the hominid splits happened 14 mya (Pongo), 7 mya (Gorilla), and 3-5 mya (Homo & Pan)"; What about Sahelanthropus tchadensis(7mya)? Böri (talk) 09:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old dates! 

message: This article takes the POV that humans are apes.  This is an extreme minority viewpoint and allowing this view to dominate the article violates WP:undue.  Obviously "ape" is just a word, and anyone can broaden the defenition to include anything they want, but I've never met anyone who includes humans in their defenition of ape.  This article reflects only an extreme minority view point and violates WP:undue. Many editors have complained about this. Saturdayseven (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're saying that the genetics is wrong? Human genetics put us squarely in the ape camp. Welcome, fellow ape.Rememberway (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you go by genetics, then old world monkeys are apes too because they are genetically closer to gibbons than humans are.  And genetics are not even relevant to this article because the concept of "apes" predates our genetic knowledge of primate evolution.  Terms like ape and monkey are simply used to describe non-human higher primates.  Trying to force these terms to fit genetics not only contradicts mainstream views, but is not even logical on a scientific level. Saturdayseven (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your claim that old world monkeys are closer to gibbons than humans are is actually shown to be a wrong statement by your graph. It's pretty clear, from your linked graph, that the last common ancestor between humans and gibbons is more recent than the last common ancestor between gibbons and old world monkeys.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.21.191.242 (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

text: The Webster dictionary (a reliable source) defines "ape" the following way:
a : monkey; especially : one of the larger tailless or short-tailed Old World forms b : any of two families (Pongidae and Hylobatidae) of large tailless semierect primates (as the chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan, or gibbon) —called also anthropoid, anthropoid ape Saturdayseven (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Dictionary definitions are different than their scientific definition. Take dinosaurs for example. Dinosaurs are defined in the dictionary as any extict reptile or anything antique, old, or outdated. While the scientific definition is any animal that shares a common ancestor with triceratops and modern-day birds. Thus by this scientific definiton dinosaurs are not extict but are represented by 2,000 different living species of birds. So whatever words mainstream follows it doesn't necessarly mean that it's correct. Yes in the past "ape" was used to decribe any higher primate that is more cloesly related to humans than monkeys. But before apes were known to exist the word ape was used to decribe baboons. It just goes to show that over time words change it's meaning. Like the word "gay" which means joyful or happy; now means homosexual. The reason why this is such a hot topic is because humans try to place themselves at a level separate from all life on Earth. Our species think of themselves as divine god-like beings that dominate this planet and the only reason it exist is to provide resources for the only thing that matters: Humans.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westvoja (talk • contribs) 01:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, before the 19th century, if Europeans managed to distinguish between monkeys (defined as having tails) and apes (defined as similar animals not having tails, including barbary apes), then they were doing pretty well.  AnonMoos (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well your post is quite irrelevant. I refer to prior to the 19th century. The original term for apes was baboons. Then it cahnged to inclued any tailess primates closely related to humans. Now the term is used to address all animals that share an ancestor with humans and gibbons.Westvoja (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: This article violates [[WP:undue]]

message: I am studying to become a Anthropologist, I can tell you damn well that humans are reguarded as apes, great apes in particular. I see way too much separation between humans and other apes. This needs to stop NOW! I request that the article be revised to include humans as apes!Acdcguy91 (talk) 03:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I can only make the same reply to the same comment at Talk:Primate. The article is very clear that humans and members of the group traditionally called "great apes" are in the same monophyletic taxon. That is not disputed. The only issue is whether the overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources use the term "great ape" to include or exclude humans. The answer seems to be that reliable sources do both. Wikipedia does not aim to reflect what you think or what I think, but what reliable sources say. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To begin with, let's take a step back. Although the evolution of hominid features is sometimes put in the framework of "apes vs. humans," the fact is that humans are apes, just as they are primates and mammals. A glance at the evogram shows why. The other apes — chimp, bonobo, gorilla, orangutan, gibbon — would not form a natural, monophyletic group (i.e., a group that includes all the descendants of a common ancestor) — if humans were excluded. Humans share many traits with other apes, and those other "apes" (i.e., non-human apes) don't have unique features that set them apart from humans. Humans have some features that are uniquely our own, but so do gorillas, chimps, and the rest. Hominid evolution should not be read as a march to human-ness (even if it often appears that way from narratives of human evolution). Students should be aware that there is not a dichotomy between humans and apes. Humans are a kind of ape.
This is current science and verifiable.  Books from 1981 are not valid, because Taxonomy, like all science, changes over time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.195.128.195 (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  THIS HAS TO STOP! 

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

message: As discussed above, some editors, especially me, feel it might be a good idea to rename this article hominoidea or hominoid and then create a separate article called ape, since the two terms have often been used in different ways.  In order to demonstrate how a separate ape article might look, I was asked to create a rough draft of such an article in my user space.  I accomplished this by taking the excellent terminology section that other editors very skillfully created, and just expanded it to a full blown article adding several new references to elaborate on points.   It's still extremely rough and will require a lot more revisions, but if you like where I am going with this, feel free to make edits  Historyhorror (talk) 09:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that looks fine; it nicely parallels our coverage of other similarly non-taxonomic terms like Monkey.  --Jayron32 14:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! So I'll continue to improve the rough draft and welcome the improvements made by others, and if and when you feel it's acceptable to replace the current ape article with the rough draft, simply do so.  It's probably better if you do it than I, given that your high credibility in the community.  Meanwhile no one should hesitate to make improvements to the rough draft and we can discuss specific issues regarding the rough draft on its talk pageHistoryhorror (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, to be fair, I am but one person.  If we're going to do this right, we should at least get a variety of opinions and feelings on this.  We should probably do a proper WP:RM discussion and seek as much on this as we can.  --Jayron32 17:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that sounds sensible.Historyhorror (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Rough draft for a possible new ape article

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

message: :"Ape" from Old English apa, is possibly an onomatopoetic imitation of animal chatter.
Rather than copying from a 1911 encyclopedia, we can doubtless do better:
: ape (n.) Old English apa "ape, monkey," from Proto-Germanic *apan (cf. Old Saxon apo, Old Norse api, Dutch aap, German affe), perhaps borrowed in Proto-Germanic from Celtic (cf. Old Irish apa) or Slavic (cf. Old Bohemian op, Slovak opitza), perhaps ultimately from a non-Indo-European language.
-- 18:19, 22 January 2014‎ User:Kortoso
::Which source is that from? Anyway, the 1880s 1st. edition OED says "Prob. an adopted word in OTeut.", and it seems there are only speculations... -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi. It's from http://www.etymonline.com/
Kortoso (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: Could someone please add material about the basal hominoids? Maybe include extinct lines in the outline? Leadwind (talk)
:I second this suggestion. Chrisrus (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  extinct hominoids? 

message: "Their diet is best described as frugivorous and folivorous, consisting mainly of fruit, nuts, seeds, including grass seeds, and in some cases other animals (consumed primarily for social purposes not dietary), either hunted or scavenged (or farmed in the case of humans), along with anything else available and easily digested. Meat is rarely consumed and not by every member of a species, and when it is usually the juice is extracted and main parts spit out ."
This section is entirely missing citations, dubiously worded, and large portions of it appear to be original research or opinion. Unless someone can provide sources for the bolded, in my opinion it should be deleted. Shralk (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meat: Citations needed 

message: There is an RFC that may affect this page at WikiProject Tree of Life. The topic is Confusion over taxonomy of subtribe Panina and taxon homininae (are chimps hominins)?
Please feel free to comment there. SPACKlick (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is an RFC that may affect this page 

message: "Thus, there are at least three common, or traditional, uses of the term "ape": non-specialists may not distinguish between "monkeys" and "apes", that is, they may use the two terms interchangeably; or they may use "ape" for any tailless monkey or non-human hominoid; or they may use the term "ape" to just mean the non-human hominoids."
What is the difference between the second and third?    TomS TDotO (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: A "Barbary ape" has a very small, often hardly visible tail, which is why its common name includes the word "ape". This is an example of the second sense: "apes are tailless non-humans, monkeys have tails". Peter coxhead (talk) 06:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common uses of term  

message: Any chance we can get a small section about where apes are found in the world, ideally with a complementary map?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.226.62 (talk) 13:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically central Africa and Southeast Asia / Indonesia.  Details are probably better on the individual articles. AnonMoos (talk) 06:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographical distribution? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ape. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726104027/https://www.watsonia.org.uk/Wats28p103.pdf to http://www.watsonia.org.uk/Wats28p103.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

message: The point of the first two cladograms is not to show the currently understood phylogeny but to contrast it with the traditional use of the term "ape" (and the current informal use, including by people like Dawkins). This purpose has been subverted by the addition of dates and images to these cladograms, that should properly be put on the following cladogram. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. Well, the second one is definitely better for dropping the misleading upward ladder of species. The first one is still somewhat "Man at the top of creation". It would be a lot better for being more richly branched to avoid the implication of some groups being more advanced than others. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, but that's exactly the point. The traditional terminology encorporates precisely that viewpoint. What the article tried to do is to explain traditional usage and then contrast it with the reality of modern research, but editors have mixed up these two. All current phylogeny stuff needs to be moved out of this section. (See e.g. User:Peter coxhead/Work page#Dawkins' use of "ape" as just one illustration of why the traditional terminology needs to be explained.) Peter coxhead (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

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

message: 45.124.4.191 (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2018 (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. L293D (☎ • ✎) 11:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2018 

message: I took out the "which includes humans" in the hat note. Someone restored it. There's no need to mention the inclusion of humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, or orangutans. There is only one branch of primates called apes. Saying "this article is about the branch of primates" is good enough. Giving examples of what it includes is unnecessarily wordy.Fish567 (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. SamanthaG (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't and neither does anyone else - see above. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  No need for the "which includes humans." part. There is no other branch of primates that shares the name apes. I am not debating whether or not humans are apes. I'd object to "which includes gorillas." as well. No need to give examples of what the branch includes. 172.58.171.245 (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

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