Talk:Monkey/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Old World/New World

Why use such informal, unacademic terms? Why not Eastern Hemisphere and Western Hemisphere? The terms Old World/New World are American-centric, and really don't need to be in a Wikipedia article. Certainly, as a Briton, I don't consider myself to be living in an Old World. Neither would the majority of Chinese and Indians whose nations are amongst the most upcoming, emerging societies.

I'll leave you a week to do the necessary corrections yourself before I do it myself.

As a Briton myself, I'd personally much rather be part of the cultured and historic Old World than the shiny yet culturally empty New one. --86.135.217.213 00:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

"Old World monkey" (or "Old World primate") and "New World monkey" are well established terms. Nearly every scientific article or journal discussing primates will use these terms as the common language description of the simian groupings. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with these terms either. They're an accident of history - not particularly derogatory in either direction. Imran1985 13:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with UtherSRG and Imran1985. I don't think we ought to cater to the whims of hypersensitivity junkies.

confusing text

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Even Merriam-Webster uses an exclusive and general definition of monkey: 1 : a nonhuman primate mammal with the exception usually of the lemurs and tarsiers; especially : any of the smaller longer-tailed primates as contrasted with the apes

However, M-W's definition is both broader and less accurate than the one we currently offer. (It doesn't exclude enough of the prosimians, and the broadest view can also include the apes.) 'What do monkeys eat? Where do they live?' aren't questions that can be easily answered because monkeys aren't one group, and the general answers you get does not distinguish them at all from the other primates any better than "they aren't apes or tarsiers, etc". You seem to want an answer that will accurately and simply distinguish a monkey from other primates, or from other creatures in general. The general answer is that it is a kind of primate. The more specific one is that it is a creature from one of two groups: Old World and New World. At that point, any feature which distinguishes a monkey from the other primates is unique to one of those two groupings.

As for Pongidae, that classification is defunct and needs to be removed from all the articles (except in a way that shows it is defunct).

- UtherSRG 17:22, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I went and looked at the ape article. It is a great article. But 'ape' refers to one easy classification of creatures that gets subdivided. The distinctive commonalities of apes excludes all non-apes. The distinctive commonalities of monkeys includes some non-monkeys. I agree that a more expansive monkey article would be good. I'm just not the guy to do it. - UtherSRG 17:45, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'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)

I think you did a fabulous job! - UtherSRG 05:11, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The links to the smallest and largest monkeys provide different information on their sizes than the monkey page does. I don't know which is correct, but they should match up.

vandalism

I've protected this page because it is a frequent target for dynamic IP anon vandalism. Please feel free to contact me or another admin if you wish to make (real) edits. - UtherSRG 14:03, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Unprotecting after four days to see if the vandal has given up. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He hasn't. Reprotected and blocked his latest IP indefinitely as it's never been used for anything other than vandalism. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:32, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that this page seems to atypically attract more random vandals than other pages. It's not just one user who is coming back time and time again, but a bunch of random vandals appearing sporadically over time. - UtherSRG 17:54, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Monkeys are a commonly used in jokes and considered funny. So this is article is a good target for vandalism.

--J7 22:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Why doesn't the article note that monkies are commonly the butt of jokes, and some monkey cultural slang? It's my opinion that the "culture" subheader is severely lacking. --kyanwan

Hartlepool Monkey

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)

linkage

the word "prehensile" on the Monkey page should be a link. - Brassrat

Good call. Please sign your name with [[User:Brassrat|Brassrat]] or ~~~~ next time. People like to know who is saying what. - UtherSRG 14:53, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Words: chimpanzee(s), gibbon(s), and gorilla(s) could also be links. - Anonymous

vandalism redux

I've once again protected this article so that the vandals can be thwarted. Let me know if y'all have any changes here and I'll make 'em. - UtherSRG 19:58, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree in protecting this page. So, it gets vandalised alot, but so does many other pages. It's something we have to live with, and it's not like it stays vandalised for long. Kids wanting to test the system here and deface articles will do so anyway, and having them do it in this article is as good as any other. We want everyone to contribute and improve on this article as any others, and asking them to message you or me or any other admin is not how it should be done. Shanes 20:05, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

And to add to that: I actually find this page usefull for catching vandalism on other pages. I have this one in my watchlist, and when I see it being vandalised, the history of those doing it usually shows other more remote articles that they have vandalised undiscovered as well. And then I can fix them. Shanes 20:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

If you look up this talk you'll see the vandalism is an ongoing event. I too have this page on a watchlist. While I agree that catching vandals in one place sometimes helps find other incidents of vandalism, I would much prefer a stable article that folks can deal with. When vandalism & reversion is happening as often as it does here, it increases the chance of an edit conflict - which I believe serves to dissuade newbie editors more than having to place the change request here on that talk page does. - UtherSRG 20:19, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, and I have fixed vandalism on this page more than once. But I don't see it as such a big problem. I guess I'm a very big fan of keeping stuff editable as much as possible. Having a wikipedia that Everyone can edit is sort of an important, uhm, mantra. And for every page where we give in to vandalism, protect it and reduce people's oportunity to edit, we move away from that. Shanes 20:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I know. But let it sit for a few days or a week, and the vandalism will decrease for a few weeks. It's just a few kids with dynamic IPs. Once they get bored hitting their heads against the protection, they go away for awhile. - UtherSRG 20:33, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Shanes 20:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I've unprotected this page. Let's see how long until the vandals return.... - UtherSRG 14:20, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

3 hours, 47 minutes. *sigh* - UtherSRG 18:29, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

What kind of vandalism are we discussing here? It's certainly an odd choice to target. - AWF

Look at the edit history. Garbage. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Page protection

Sorry, I edited the page before noticing that it was protected, so I reverted my own edits. Is there any chance of it being unprotected soon? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:09, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Dont sweat it. The page is protected against vandalism, not due to content conflicts. I've un-reverted your changes. - UtherSRG 03:26, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Stacey. I appreciate it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:36, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

There is a link to savannah (placename). It should be changed to link to the grassland savanna.

I've unprotected the page, and made your correction. Thanks! - UtherSRG 21:32, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Zodiac

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

Experimentation

I do not disagree with everything said in the "In laboratories" section, but I think that it is excessively polemical and that more information on the potential positive aspects of these experiments should be included. -Arsene 23:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree - it's a long way from neutral POV. I suspect the picture of the lab monkey was also placed by someone with a similar agenda - it's designed to be emotive rather than informative and so is inappropriate.

I totally agree. The information regarding monkeys in medical expirimentation only states that monkeys are, in fact, used for expiriments, and in what numbers. It says nothing about WHY they are used, nor the benefits of doing so. Furthermore, it only cites the numbers for one variety of monkey, and in only 2 locales, the EU and the US. This section needs some serious revision, as well as a new photograph: the one being used, as mentioned above, plays right into the bias expressed in the article. -Jackmont Nov 3, 2005

Agree. The generalizations of the lab environment are clearly intended to be evocative.Serf 16:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The section only states the facts. If you start writing about the benefits of the research, we'll have to include something about the drawbacks, and this isn't what the article is about. The section is simply there to say something about monkeys in captivity. There are more in laboratories than are kept as pets, yet no one objected to that, and the image is entirely reflective of their situation. If the image was intended to promote the POV that using monkeys is laboratories is wrong, a far more powerful image could have been found very easily. As for the EU and the U.S. being cited, these are where the reliable figures are, but it should probably be expanded to include the numbers for all monkeys, not just macaques. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I see none of the three objectors edits regularly, and one has edited almost entirely to make this objection and similar ones at Animal testing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

"The section only states the facts" (SlimVirgin, above) SlimVirgin, since you are calling the contents of this section "facts", I'd like you to provide documentation of these "facts. Places to start:

"barren cages, with no perch, no bedding, and nothing to stimulate them" <-- In the U.S., this has not been the case for many years.

"the monkeys in the lower tiers spend their lives in the dark" <-- A statement like this needs to supported by evidence. I doubt if any laboratory primates spend their lives in the dark.

The U.S. NIH environmental enrichment rules state, "research facilities must develop, document, and follow an appropriate plan for environment enhancement adequate to promote the psychological well-being of nonhuman primates. The plan must be in accordance with the currently accepted professional standards as cited in appropriateas directed by the attending veterinarian." (source, PDF file)
Additional information --JWSchmidt 13:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that, but it isn't adhered to, for a number of reasons. But you're welcome to add that to the section. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• "their individual interests are therefore not protected" <-- Example of individulaized treatment for a laboratory monkey. --JWSchmidt 03:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Not entirely sure of your point here, JWS. The sentence says: "Their individual interests aren't protected" (protected in law). Do you have a source showing that they are? Also, I'm not sure that giving a monkey in captivity a toy necklace, as opposed to releasing them, is exactly what's meant by protection of interests. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• U.S. Animal Welfare Act and Its Regulations for Biomedical Research Institutions and The Improved Standards for Laboratory Animals Act: see. In 1985 the U.S. Congress instructed the Secretary of Agriculture to produce new relations so that research facilities would provide "a physical environment adequate to promote the psychological well-being of nonhuman primates". The new rules were ready in 1991. In particular, see Part D, Section 3.81, Environment enhancement to promote psychological well-being.
  • Recent reviews of enrichment for laboratory primates: Institute for Laboratory Animal Research; Enrichment and nonhuman primates: "first, do no harm", Environmental enrichment for nonhuman primates: theory and application. Istituto Superiore di Sanita; Environmental enrichment techniques in non-human primates. The case of Callitrichids.
    • Environmental enrichment at a specific institution: University of Pittsburgh Division of Laboratory Animal Resources, Proactive compliance-the team program approach to revitalizing primate enrichment. --JWSchmidt 03:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree too. I had similar issues with SlimVirgin on SHAC, which is generally quite biased. There is an image of a monkey in a cage there, which was objected to by some users a few months ago, and then by me. SlimVirgin is the sole dissenting voice, but he continually reverts my attempts to remove the image. See talk page: Talk:Stop_Huntingdon_Animal_Cruelty.

Anyway, I have removed the most blatant and unsourced pieces of propaganda from this page:

Unlike human primates, non-human primates are not regarded as persons in law, and their individual interests are therefore not protected.

This is a clear attempt to compare monkeys with people, implying they should be treated like people, and as having 'individual interests', which is another classic piece of animal rights propaganda that you will find from all these AR groups. Plus:

Highly sociable animals, monkeys are caged separately in barren cages, with no perch, no bedding, and nothing to stimulate them. Their cages are arranged in double tiers to save space, which means the monkeys in the lower tiers spend their lives in the dark.

This is was a generalisation and impossible to prove, because there are many monkeys in many different environments. Anyway, my edits have been reverted three times by SlimVirgin, so these statements may return.

I don't think the last comment is appropriate here either, as it's basically a single view on the captivity of monkeys that implies that it is bad. You could of course find a scientist to say how useful monkeys are for experiments, but fundamentally I don't think this content belongs here, on a page about monkeys: it is for a wider animal testing, and casual throwaway comments like this should be guarded against. 87.74.12.83 01:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue at length with you, because you're an anon editing from multiple IP addresses, and engaged in serial reverting in several areas, against me and a number of other editors. I will say that human beings and monkeys are both animals, and to say that is not a POV. I did not create the monkeys-in-captivity section, I merely added to it. The material is directly relevant to that section and correctly referenced. You seem to believe that your POV is NPOV (i.e. isn't really a POV), but my POV is just that, and not only that, but an unacceptable one. That monkeys in labs are housed in cages with no bedding etc in double tiers is not a generalization that's impossible to prove: it is standard laboratory housing. You've shown elsewhere with your posts that you know little or nothing about animal testing, yet you seem determined to delete other people's work about it. From now, I have to tell you that I'm not going to engage in any more debate with you. I've tried elsewhere and it's fruitless. You've clearly arrived at Wikipedia to edit war, not to edit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

You added the entire monkeys in laboratories section in fact. Nobody else: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monkey&diff=22686010&oldid=22660010 Once again, it's clear that you have a biased AR viewpoint, and instead of properly responding you revert me on sight, accuse me of unspecified issues relating to IP addresses (wow, I edit from work and home, big deal!!!). 87.74.12.83 07:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC) 87.74.12.83 07:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

proposal for additions to the section on Monkeys in captivity, In laboratories

I think this section would benefit from an historical outline of attempts to improve conditions for monkeys in laboratories. I think this recent review article: USDA Perspective on Environmental Enrichment for Animals along with the others that I listed above provide useful information, some of which should be added to Wikipedia. I think that the Monkey article should describe the role of the animal welfare movement in identifying problems in how laboratories have handled monkeys and in promoting more government action to regulate laboratories and how they house and handle non-human primates. It would be useful to describe the current system of inspections of facilities and what happens when violations of existing animal care laws are found. It would also be useful if additional references could be found to document regulations/inspections for laboratories outside of the United States. I am reluctant to start editing this article because I wonder if the Monkey article is the best place to put a discussion of regulations for the care of laboratory primates. Yes, most non-human primates used in laboratory research are monkeys, but maybe there should be one wikipedia page about regulations for the care of laboratory primates and all wikipedia non-human primate articles could point to that one central page. I have been looking in Category:Animal welfare and Category:Animal experimentation in an attempt to learn the structure of Wikipedia articles that deal with these topics. --JWSchmidt 15:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

This sounds like a valid solution to the problem. For now, I say just start writing the article with whatever name seems most appropriate at the time. As it gets editted over time, the article can be moved to a more fitting title, it can be added to whichever categories make sense, and pointers to it from other articles can be added. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the best information about the regulation of animal use for laboratory research that has been placed in wikipedia so far is at: Animal testing#Regulation. My personal experience is limited to the United States, for which I think it is essential to explain the role of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees. According to the references at this webpage, the United States uses the largest number of primates in research. I think I am going to start an article called Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, explain the central role of IACUCs in U.S. research and describe how the laws for animal use impact on IACUCs, including the government inspection system. It should be possible to do this from an historical perspective and show the important role of the animal welfare movement in pushing for better conditions for laboratory animals, including primates. A large number of wikipedia articles including Monkey will then be able to link to that page. --JWSchmidt 23:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that following after a looong discussion of why monkeys shouldn't be kept as pets - need social interaction constantly, can't adjust to new surroundings, shouldn't switch owners, that the experimentation section was pretty neutral. If you include information about the benefits of experimenting on monkeys, please also include information on experimenting on other primates, notable humans in the Tuskegee syphilis experiment and how that was of great benefit to humanity as a whole. - brian

You could certainly mention that, in accordance with FDA regulations, all drugs must go through clinical trials after completing the mandatory animal test phase of the approval process. These clinical trials are always carried out on humans. That way, you're comparing two instances that are far more similar in that both are legal, both are regulated, both take place with oversight, and both test the effects of medication, not disease, on different classes of primates. In general, if you must resort to bad analogies that rely on negative emotive impact to make a rhetorical point, you might want to reconsider your point. 71.103.148.199 04:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Quite apart from the "blacks = monkeys" cheap shot, why should information on other primates be in an article entitled "monkey"?

RFD "See Also"

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)

Agreed/wangi 00:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

This article suffers greatly from vandalism [1]. I suggest a semi-protection. RexNL 00:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

World Map & Laboratories

The world map does not show monkey populations in North Africa. Also, I have tried to fix the laboratories section: does anybody still have objections?

Or the monkeys in Gibraltar.

Monkey-baiting

As much as we might not like to remember the monkey being used in baiting it is certainly an historical fact. You might want to vote here:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monkey-baiting

This article should be divided into 2 sections: Tailed Monkeys & Tail-less Monkeys

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)

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)

Here's a reliable source.[[2]] The definition of monkey from a reputable dictionary:

1 : a nonhuman primate mammal with the exception usually of the lemurs and tarsiers; especially : any of the smaller longer-tailed catarrhine or platyrrhine primates as contrasted with the apes

Now it's true that the term refers especially to long-tailed primates, but the basic definition is any non-human higher primate. Also, the pop-cultural references are everywhere. King Kong was described as a giant monkey. The movie "planet of the apes" was originally called "monkey planet".--Zalgebra 04:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• The book "Classification of Mammals" by Malcolm C. McKenna and Susan K. Bell (Publisher: Columbia University Press; New Ed edition, February 15, 2000, ISBN 0231110138) divides the Euprimates into lemurs, tarsiers, monkeys and apes. Colin Groves is cited in the Wikipedia primate article for his published work such as Primate Taxonomy (Smithsonian Institute Press, 2001, ISBN 156098872X) that splits monkeys from apes as currently described in the Monkey article.
  --JWSchmidt 04:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The dictionary cited above suggests that the reader go to Encyclopædia Britannica for more information.....when I follow the link it says monkeys are, "any of nearly 200 species of tailed primate, with the exception of lemurs, tarsiers, and lorises." --JWSchmidt 04:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

With respect to "pop-cultural references", I guess you could add more to Monkeys in culture.--JWSchmidt 05:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The encyclopedia provides more information on the precise definition of monkey, but why should this article be limited to the precise definition? There's no genetic or scientific reason for the precision, as the decision on where to draw the line between monkeys and other primates is arbitrary. And since any definition of monkey is arbitrary, we might as well use the arbitrary definition that is deeply ingrained in pop-culture. Since there are many important distinctions between humans and other higher primates, humanity is a good place to draw the line, hence I advocate the broader dictionary definition of monkey as any higher non-human primate.--Zalgebra 05:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Preposterous! yea right

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)

This should be cleared up even more in that monkey is not a natural label, or all apes, included humans are monkeys (which is the method I use) 198.133.139.5 14:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Martin

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)

Classification error!

It seems that a rather important primate was forgotten in the classification: homo sapiens. I don't see any scientific reason not to mention this species here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.58.253.130 (talk • contribs) .

They are not forgotten. They are on the appropriate pages. "Monkey" isn't one of them. Try looking at "ape". - UtherSRG (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Humans belong in the ape classification which is in the article as being a monkey. A human is an ape, which is a monkey therefore a human is a monkey. (speaking cladisticly) 11:06 1 March 2007 (MRC)

Apes are not monkeys. Apes are simians. Monkeys are simians, but are not apes. Humans are apes and not monkeys.

	tarsiers
simians	New World monkeys Old World monkeys apes

Where in the article do you see apes as monkeys? - UtherSRG (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Bold textAnd if you look at that chart you just put up, you can notice that apes are more closely related to Old World monkeys than Old World Monkeys are to New World Monkeys. Since they are both Monkeys, apes must be monkeys.Bold text Honestly, there are only 3 solutions to this problem. 1. admit apes are monkeys (easiest and most perfered method). 2. get rid of the word monkey (much harder to do because it is such an established word in the English language). 3. Don't use the word monkey, but use New World Monkey and Old World Monkey, never using monkey alone (even harder because adds more words and see number 2.) 198.133.139.5 11:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Close, but no cigar. Apes & monkeys are simians. "Monkeys" refers to the two branches New World and Old World monkeys. It is fine to use the word "monkey" when talking casually, or when context implies one of the two groupings ("the monkeys in Asia", "monkey I saw on my trip to Brazil", etc). - UtherSRG (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I also think that if monkey contains new world monkeys, and old world monkeys, it should contain the apes (and us) too. It's much more natural (considering cladistics). I can only find two cons: 1) it is not used this way in common speech 2) PRIDE! ("No matter what, I am NOT a monkey.") Well, I think neither of them is logical. Especially the (I think more dominant) second. Adam Mihalyi 01:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

We should be discussing sources, not the merits of cladistics. Here's what seems to be a reputable, third-party source that says monkeys are "An adaptive or evolutionary grade among the primates, represented by members of two of the three modern anthropoid superfamilies": McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, quoted by answers.com. --Allen 02:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right. This is not an appropriate place for monkey-meaning-reforms ;) Anyway, I hope I will find a reliable source, what says that apes are monkeys too :P (I trust to uni-level biology books.) Adam Mihalyi 03:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Adam, "monkey" doesn't "contain" the two groups of monkeys. This is where your logic is wrong. This is why you think that apes are monkeys. "Simian" contains monkeys and apes. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is new for me. Then what does monkey contain? Are there ANY monkeys in the world? :) And if not all new world monkeys, and old world monkeys are monkeys, then why the whole groups are called "monkeys" in both cases? Damn... this is a very problematic category... Adam Mihalyi 16:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"Monkey" doesn't contain anything on its own. It is a term used to refer to the species that are in two groups, whose relationship connects them with the apes. That connection (both groups of monkeys plus the apes) is the clade Simiiformes - the simians. This is not problematic at all. You keep trying to assert that the term "monkey" must refer to something cladistic and monophyletic. It doesn't. It's just a common English word that refers to various species. Those species happen to be able to be placed in two monophyletic clades, the Old World monkeys in superfamily Cercopithecoidea, and the New World monkeys in the parvorder Platyrrhini.

Anyway, talk pages are not for discussing the subject but for discussing improving the article. Is there something you think the article need improvement about? (Your lack of understanding of the subject not withstanding.) - UtherSRG (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is something I think the article needs improvement about. In fact, there are more things ;) First of all, you should make this subject much more clear in it. You should for example write the same things you've just written to me into the article (in a more clear way). It should be emphasized that New World monkeys, and Old World monkeys ARE monkeys, but apes are not. And that this is THEREFORE not a natural or scientific category, because of their real relationship... etc. Maybe if you make this clearer, there won't be so much controversy.

Maybe it should be suggested to check out simians for a more natural category.

It could be noted, that some people use the word monkey referring to apes too. (Well, this is not really important, just an idea. But I still think that this usage would be more logical.)

And about the other parts of the article... well... I agree with Jim68000 (This page is crap -- 22:10, 24 January 2007). It should contain more valuable info in a more logical categorization. And, of course, irrelevant (or at least not too significant) parts should be abridged.

Anyway, thx for your patience, explanation. Adam Mihalyi 19:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This page is crap

How do I flag it up for a major rewrite? (I'd try, but I think a primatologist should get involved) It's the sort of niff-naff and trivia that devalues the entire Wikipedia project: there are 593 words on what monkeys actually are, followed by a strange section on monkeys as pets (552 words), some stuff about animal testing (complete with carefully selected emotive picture) and a completely random section on the eating of monkeys which could be an interesting discussion on bushmeat, but instead tells us that the chines don't eat monkey brains, Islamic dietary laws forbid monkey-eating and aids may have been transmitted to humans by eating monkeys (unless the monkeys were eaten raw this seems unlikely.)

After that we have the bane of wikipedia: the trivia section, here disguised as "monkeys in literature". The extent of "monkeys in literature" appears to be that a monkey is a character in a chinese novel, Hanuman is a monkey-like Hindu god (true, but is that literature?). Monkey from the TV series Monkey was a monkey (deliberate repition to indicate the redundancy of the statement, as was Curious George). The triviaists favourite Terry Pratchett makes an appearance. And then there is a misplaced statement about mandrills. And something about the chinese zodiac.

The links section is equally poor (two antivivisection sites, a thing about pet monkeys and a helping hands site). The only two sourced statements are a food article in the guardian claiming that chinese people don't appear to eat monkey brains and a biblical vegetarian site is used for a source for the SIV-HIV claim.

Proposed restructure:

Monkeys and their relationship to people is a valid topic, but is the keeping of pets the most important element?

 1.0 Characteristics
 2.0 Name
 3.0 Classification
 4.0 Monkeys and humans
 4.1 Monkeys in science (present NPOV of animal testing) 
    4.1.1 Theories of relationship between SIV/HIV and possible transmission (may simply link to relevant page)
 4.2 As food (must discuss bushmeat or the article is pointless)
 4.3 As Pets

The trivialists will have to start their own page for "Monkeys in Popular Culture" - there's an argument for discussing monkeys and religion say, but making this a list of monkeys in books and films is the sort f thing that Wikipedia can do without

If you want to see what I mean about the difference between an uncontrolled random page like monkey compare with the entry for ape

Jim68000 22:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

    I agree, one of the worst Wikipedia pages I have seen. Mwinog2777 05:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. In response to Jim68000's initial question, to flag it for rewrite I would add both the templates { { cleanup-rewrite } } and { { Expert-subject|Primates } } to the top of the article. I'd do it myself, but I apparently haven't had my account long enough. Bloody semi-protection policy. Gitman 21:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, templates have been added. Gitman 18:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree that this page is unworthy of Wikipedia. Such an important family of biological organisms deserves a good strong article not one that begins lecturing people about religion. My 12 year old came across this when doing an essay and even she flagged it as incomplete and tending to go off in needless tangents. Why on earth does such drivel merit the special treatement of being exempt from editing. The whole entry should be trashed and someone else start from scratch.

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)

Why is there a picture of a gorilla?

Ok, I'm no biologist, but...last time I checked, a gorilla was a member of the ape family. It is certainly NOT a monkey. Sure, monkeys and apes are related. But, a gorilla is not a monkey. Perhaps the picture should be removed.24.111.137.236 01:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)anonymous

There should not be. I've reverted this error, again. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Apes are a type of monkey. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gottoupload (talk • contribs) 21:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

As others have pointed out, to the man on the street, apes are just a monkey without a tail. The article even says there's no meaningful scientific definition of a monkey. It's a very rough and ready category of non-human primates Gottoupload

And as the anon demonstrated, you are wrong. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about the phuture... i care about the fture and PRESENT. bohandez 19:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC) and yes. You are 'controlers' ... behave urselves :) bohandez 19:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Plural of Monkey

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)

Personally, I think one of the weaknesses of Wikipedia is that misspellings are not redirected often enough. Think about Google, with their "did you mean _____?" This is an extremely helpful, and timesaving feature which in no way lends validity to an incorrect spelling. When Wikipedia redirects, it is obvious to the reader based on the actual article title and the words "redirected from ____". I think information should be easy to find, whether or not someone can spell "premillennialism", "monkeys", or "hominid" correctly. When someone types "monkies", isn't his or her intention obvious? Why penalize users for "just plain wrong" spelling by forcing them to waste their time trying to find the correct spelling before viewing an article? Don't be so uppity and peddantik. Diego Gravez 01:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Monkey as pets

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)

Monkeys as pets

Historical use as pets by Western Europeans

When the British first began to explore Africa, young monkeys were often captured to provide entertainment during long voyages. Some were later transferred to domestic zoos, and in fact many modern captive monkeys in the UK are descended from individuals captured during the Napoleonic and Victorian eras. Kent still to this day has the largest population of monkeys in the UK. According to legend, one of the early British captive monkeys was lost at sea and washed up ashore near Hartlepool, England, where it was mistaken for a Frenchman and hanged. The people of Hartlepool have since borne the nickname "monkey hangers."

Suitability as pets

An Indian monkey illustration in The Graphic, 1891, being depicted as a "Highway Robber" after having stolen food from a vendor.

Although they may appear to be friendly, keeping monkeys as pets can be very difficult. While baby monkeys are usually as easy to keep clean as a human infant (by diapering), monkeys that have reached puberty usually remove their diapers and cannot be toilet trained. They require constant supervision and mental stimulation. They usually require a large amount of attention. Monkeys cannot handle being away from their owners for long periods of time, such as family trips, due to their need of attention. Bored monkeys can become extremely destructive and may, for example, smear or throw their own feces. There often needs to be a lot of time set aside for cleaning up messes the monkey might make. Most adolescent monkeys begin to bite unpredictably and pinch adults and children. Any surgical means to stem this behavior (such as removing the teeth or fingertips of the monkey) is widely considered cruel, and it is usually difficult to find veterinarians who will carry out such procedures: even exotic-animal veterinarians may not be familiar with them. Monkeys eventually can become wild and difficult to control upon reaching adulthood. The monkeys may also become aggressive even to their owners. In some cases their behavior can change abruptly, making it hard for the owner to fully understand or control them.

Some people do report having long and rewarding relationships with monkeys. Monkeys are known to get attached to their first owner, so switching from one to another can be traumatic to the monkey and may aggravate behavioral problems. It is not easy for a monkey to get used to a new environment. Monkeys need to be placed in social areas. It is also expensive to care for a monkey — housing, food, and veterinary care can become very costly.

Legality as pets

In most large metropolitan areas in the U.S. it is illegal to keep monkeys as pets in the home; even in places where they are legal, a Department of Agriculture permit is usually required. Their legal status as pets varies in other countries. Permits may be issued to those who qualify in the caring of monkeys.

I don´t care about old & new world

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)

hi it's me again the answer you gave me was exactly what i din't want because i said no to new & old world monkeys so maybe i should go 2 another web site if u don't have the answer to what i want .... so who's with me, i am so not tec MAKE IT EASIER OR I WON'T USE THIS WEB ANY MORE MAYBE I'LL USE ASK.COM NOW!!!!! :( give me a simple answer or i'm gone WHO'S WITH ME!!!!

Learn proper grammar, please. --67.175.147.74 08:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

still don't want old & new world

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)

infobox

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

Monkey as pets

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)

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)

new & old world

what is this silly thing about old and new worlds it is annoying 124.170.244.50 08:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

"Highly sociable animals, monkeys are kept in many different environments"

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)

Monkey attacks

How-to guide on surviving them: Tsai, Michelle (2007-10-22). "How To Fight Monkeys: What should you do if you're surrounded by angry macaques?". Slate. -- 67.98.206.2 18:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Fix Map

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)

Zaharous is correct, this is the range map of the Barbary Macaque. The map should be updated accordingly. Jack (talk) 12:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this correct?

"Calling apes "monkeys" is incorrect. Calling either a simian is correct."

I thought that in the Cladistics sense that apes are monkeys? Woland37 (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Cladistically, the three groups are simians. Simian = New World monkeys + (Old World monkeys + apes). - UtherSRG (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. Thank you very much. Woland37 (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Excluding apes from monkeys is blatant paraphyly - people have been drawn and quartered for lesser crimes. Old world monkeys are more closely related to apes than to new world monkeys. I know that in popular science it's common to distinguish monkeys and apes (probably because humans don't like being compared to monkeys), but from a scientific point of view, apes are monkeys. Edit: as I understand, this page is protected. If the adminstrators want me to, I'd be glad to write a carification note on this point. Toitoine (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not just humans who hate it. Try signing "You're a monkey" to Coco.Arlesd (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

With whom are you disagreeing? It seems like you are saying exactly what I said: Simiin = New World monkey + (Old World monkey + ape) - UtherSRG (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

if you use the distinction new world monkey and old world monkey, it may be true (although I have to check recent molecular phylogenies. I'll try to do it soon). But if you lump the two together in monkeys, then you have to include apes in this clade.Toitoine (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems we're all in agreement that apes should be included in the monkey clade, as there is only a traditional bias to exclude them. So why does the main page still show that exclusion? Of course since humans are now recognized as apes, that would mean we're monkeys too. But I'm OK with that, as I've been associated with much worse. Aron-Ra (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You cannot scientifically call an old world monkey a monkey without also grouping humans and other apes into that classification because they are much more closely related to old world monkeys then new world monkeys are to old world monkeys. Unless you want to say, " monkey is a non-scientific term for any cercopithecoid (Old World monkey) or platyrrhine (New World monkey) primate. All primates that are not prosimians (lemurs and tarsiers) or apes are monkeys" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.133.139.5 (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bring up this (now expired-ish) subject again, but for any people who are passing by, primates' evolutionary history regarding the splits between Old World monkeys, New World, apes, and humans is at yet unknown. The most commonly accepted view is that New World monkeys split with the Old World monkey's, and apes (and the later humans) split from that.

Just in case anyone passing by needs clarification or something. Meh.

7h3 0N3 7h3 \/4Nl)4L5 Pl-l34R ( _t / _c) 04:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

monkeys in relation to humans?

I prefered the older Monkeys in Captivity heading. It's hard to determine what the moneky's relationship might be with an animal experimenter who might be sacrificing the monkey. Phrased as a relationship makes it appear as if the monkeys have entered into these agreements voluntarily whereas they are functions of being captive. Perhaps this should be a separate section, since there are instances where monkeys do interact with humans - frequently in Asia and India - but using a wild animal as a pet, service animal or laboratory subject has more to do with captivity than relationships. Really, this is a Humans in relation to monkeys section. Bob98133 (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the evolutionary relationship of monkeys to humans should be discussed here.Miska1 (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

New section

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)

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)

Agreed. A section about monkeys in pop culture would be trivial and looked down upon. I wouldn’t bother adding one.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Video

I added this only video:

• Video: Born to be Wild: Unggoy, 06/05/2008--Florentino floro (talk) 07:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

Misc Comments Moved from Above

How do I flag it up for a major rewrite? (I'd try, but I think a primatologist should get involved) It's the sort of niff-naff and trivia that devalues the entire Wikipedia project: there are 599 words on what monkeys actually are, followed by a strange section on monkeys as pets (558 words), some stuff about animal testing (complete with carefully selected emotive picture) and a completely random section on the eating of monkeys which could be an interesting discussion on bushmeat, but instead tells us that the chines don't eat monkey brains, Islamic dietary laws forbid monkey-eating and aids may have been transmitted to humans by eating monkeys (unless the monkeys were eaten raw this seems unlikely.)

After that we have the bane of wikipedia: the trivia section, here disguised as "monkeys in literature". The extent of "monkeys are the main source of drug dealers in new york city in literature" appears to be that a monkey is a character in a chinese novel, Hanuman is a monkey-like Hindu god (true, but is that literature?). Monkey from the TV series Monkey was a monkey (deliberate repition to indicate the redundancy of the statement, as was Curious George). The triviaists favourite Terry Pratchett makes an appearance. And then there is a misplaced statement about mandrills. And something about the chinese zodiac.

The links section is equally poor (two antivivisection sites, a thing about pet monkeys and a helping hands site). The only two sourced statements are a food article in the guardian claiming that chinese people don't appear to eat monkey brains and a biblical vegetarian site is used for a source for the SIV-HIV claim.

Proposed restructure:

Monkeys and their relationship to people is a valid topic, but is the keeping of pets the most important element?

 1.0 Characteristics
 2.0 Name
 3.0 Classification
 4.0 Monkeys and humans
 4.1 Monkeys in science (present NPOV of animal testing) 
    4.1.1 Theories of relationship between SIV/HIV and possible transmission (may simply link to relevant page)
 4.2 As food (must discuss bushmeat or the article is pointless)
 4.3 As Pets
 4.4 Etc  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.39.84.3 (talk) 04:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC) 

The trivialists will have to start their own page for "Monkeys in Popular Culture" - there's an argument for discussing monkeys and religion say, but making this a list of monkeys in books and films is the sort f thing that Wikipedia can do without

If you want to see what I mean about the difference between an uncontrolled random page like monkey compare with the entry for ape

They're adaptation is their tale.

Jim68000 22:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, one of the worst Wikipedia pages I have seen. Mwinog2777 05:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. In response to Jim68000's initial question, to flag it for rewrite I would add both the templates { { cleanup-rewrite } } and { { Expert-subject|Primates } } to the top of the article. I'd do it myself, but I apparently haven't had my account long enough. Bloody semi-protection policy. Gitman 21:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, templates have been added. Gitman 18:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree that this page is unworthy of Wikipedia. Such an important family of biological organisms deserves a good strong article not one that begins lecturing people about religion. My 12 year old came across this when doing an essay and even she flagged it as incomplete and tending to go off in needless tangents. Why on earth does such drivel merit the special treatement of being exempt from editing. The whole entry should be trashed and someone else start from scratch.

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)

Note

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)

"History" should include when monkeys first appear in the fossil record, not just the history of the name

Very important. 64.134.28.105 (talk) 03:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Resources

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.
• [3] - about the features of a monkey and it's life
• [4] about the physical characteristics of monkeys
• [5] general info
• [6] a general resource about types of primates (including monkeys)
• The Natural History of Monkeys By William Jardine, William Jardine Sir [7]'
• 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

Irunongames • play 14:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Spotlight

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)

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)

Monkey Image

Picture

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)

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

Very nice pic indeed  Burningview  ✉ 14:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

The monkey is not a crab-eating macaque but a toque or bonnet macaque. It also has an eye problem. I could find no information in vervet.za.org that the monkey is a crab-eating macaque. The current photograph at the top of the article is also incorrectly labelled as a crab-eating macaque. I would say, unless you are a primatologist or at least a taxonomist, please refrain from adding species specific names to pictures. Skamnelis (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Taxon.

I have also asked a question here regarding monkeys being Taxa.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 18:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The only relationship to the taxonomy is as part of common names, it is has a poor concordance with primate systematics. I googled "monkey taxon" and this was the first result WikiAnswers - What is the taxon for monkey, note the first part "I have a problem with the question". Monkey is a common name that may refer an individual, any arbitrary group, and a barrel of taxa; no reliable source treats it as a scientific classification, paraphyletic group, or taxon. As an 'artificial group' in the order Primates, it is those who happened to called 'monkey' and not "lemurs, the Aye-aye, lorisids, galagos, tarsiers, apes, [or] great apes" etc. The loose term obviously has widespread application, deriving from various cultural conceptions, and it is used in english common names or terms without any systematic description. The article Philippine Tarsier(Tarsius syrichta) asserts it is described 'locally' as the smallest monkey or primate, and that it is neither; they are entitled to call it a monkey and it is in fact a primate. Popular sources may quibble about usage, with headlines and hooks like "smallest monkeys are not actually monkeys" for their factoids; this article should talk about how the name is used, it is very misleading to present it as a scientific description. cygnis insignis 15:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is arguing here over whether or not monkey is a taxon, because it clearly is not. The article itself states this in the second paragraph of the Etymology section: The term '"monkey" is an artificial grouping; it is not a taxon. There is no "monkey" family or order; in fact, the group consists of the combination of two seperate taxa:Cercopithecidae, a family, and Platyrrhini, a parvorder. When we combine these two taxa, we produce a group that we call "monkeys". Cladistically, this grouping is a paraphyletic group, which the infobox that we were using in the article, {{paraphyletic group}}, is all about.

The statement that monkeys are a paraphyletic group is sourced by RS, see Dawkins, Richard (2004), The ancestor's tale: a pilgrimage to the dawn of evolution, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, p. 140, ISBN 9780618005833, which is used in this article. While it is true that the colloquial usage of "monkey" sometimes refers to any ape, we should be using the actual scientific definition of the word. In the example you cited above, the Philippine Tarsier, it is clear that taxonomically this is not a monkey. In fact, there are many examples of species or groups where the common name includes something that the organism is not actually a part of. For example, panda bears are not actual bears, nor are dragonflies actual flies. While some people may claim that they are, Philippine Tarsiers are not actual monkeys, and that does not give us the right to say that the group "monkey" is not clearly defined. E.g., a large percentage of the population uses "bug" to refer to any insect, while this is not true scientifically; this does not give us the right to claim that the group Insecta is not clearly defined.

The reason we are using this infobox in the article is that it explains what monkeys are cladistically, and provides a general structure for the introduction of the article. The infobox explains that, out of the families found in Simiiformes, monkeys consist of the Callitrichidae, Cebidae, Aotidae, Pitheciidae, Atelidae, and Cercopithecidae; they do not consist of Hylobatidae, nor Hominidae. This appears to be accurate, is it not? I am no expert on primates (I focus onarthropods, usually), so I could very well be wrong here, and the cladistic group "monkey" may not consist of the families mentioned above. However, the research I have done has indicated that this is accurate. I would appreciate it if you could clarify further why you feel that either monkeys are not a paraphyletic group, or why you feel that the {{paraphyletic group}} infobox is not appropriate. Perhaps we should follow Nimur's suggestionand put two infoboxes on the article – one for Cercopithecidae, and one for Platyrrhini – but this may make it too messy. Thanks, The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 03:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Nitpick - pandas are bears. Did you mean koalas? Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I have asked the contributor of the Dawkin's citation to explain the context and give a quote. cygnis insignis 09:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

And I have now provided a convenience link. I note, also, that you have again removed the box, despite this ongoing discussion. I'm going to drop the stick here, as I think this is a pointless argument; 'monkey' is not a precisely determined term, it is not a scientific classification. I believed that the explanation I had written clarified 'paraphyletic' at a reasonable level, and that the infobox provided useful information. I would of course have no objections to your adding further clear, well-explained detail with references - what I object to is your removing the work of others (which is referenced). Anyway, as I say, I'm moving along. Good luck with the article.  Chzz  ►  10:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The page is not accessible to me, is the gist of it something like "'monkey' is not a precisely determined term, it is not a scientific classification"? If it does, many of the assertions on this page are falsified and the discussion and contributions were 'pointless'. And the answer is not to put two taxoboxes here, it is to clearly present facts in articles. cygnis insignis 10:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Spotlight is done

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)

Monkeys are smarter?

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)

This has been fixed. Thank you for pointing it out. –Visionholder (talk) 11:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

You are right. I think I have fixed this now. Rlendog (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

typo in locked first section

"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)

Missing language

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)

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)

Collective nouns

According to [[8]], there are four terms for a group of monkeys; 'troop, barrel, tribe, cartload' instead of two that this article states —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metallhue (talk • contribs) 17:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

"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)

Simpler definition

Wouldn't it be more concise to describe monkeys as "any simian that is not an ape"? I don't see why we go to the trouble of saying they are apes 'excluding prosimians' since if you are an ape that is not a prosimian it makes you a simian right? Or am I misunderstanding this? -PAN (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)but

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)

Prosimians

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)

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

Naruto reference

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)

Etymology italian female ape?

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)

Question

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)

"as food"

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)

Paraphyletic group?

Isn't monkey a paraphyletic group? Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? ScienceApe (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

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)

Monkey Ape Issues

There are lots of technical sources which say apes ARE monkeys, there are lots which say they are not. There are lots of non-technical sources which use the word monkey to include apes and lots which do not. Tarsiers are variously described as monkeys, monkey-like and non-monkeys.

The article should reflect this lack of consensus. As used, monkey more often SPACKlick (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

This 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)

Edit request on 6 November 2012

There is an grammatical and linguistic mistake in the reference to Indian monkeys, which I am willing to improve and to remove the cynical remarks and bias about them.

Muktaka Joshipura (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: You have two options:

• Request this page's unprotection with NawlinWiki (talk · contribs), the administrator who protected this page. You need to provide a good reason for this.
• Reactivate this edit request and provide your proposed wording below in "change x to y" format, and an autoconfirmed user will determine if the edit is appropriate. I believe this option is more likely to get you the result you want. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Rather than contacting a specific admin, requests for unprotection should go here: WP:RPP RudolfRed (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I edited the caption. Hopefully, it is more to your liking and in agreement with the actual image. Dger (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

apes ARE monkeys and humans are NOT apes

You people just don't get it.

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

Monkey is useless as a taxonomic classification because old world monkeys are genetically closer to apes than new world monkeys, so quit trying to pretend this is is a scientific construct.

Instead the term "monkey" is like term "beast"; just a general label for non-humans. Beast refers to all non-human animals while monkey just refers to most non-human primates

Both this article and the ape article require severe revision.

And if you want to talk genetics, there's a HUGE genetic difference between humans and all non-human primates. You just don't see it because you only look at chronological genetic distance (splitting off dates) not FUNCTIONAL selected genetic distance. Historyhorror (talk) 06:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that "HUGE" is a scientific term, so you might be correct. In any case, humans and chimps are more closely related than eg. chimps and gorillas, so it would be hard to understand how you could put the latter in a groups without including the former.

That is only speaking for taxonomy of course, common usage differs. --193.254.155.48 (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Wrong Inter-Wiki Link

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)

Auch hier nochmal: Danke! --91.10.30.100 (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

I wish to edit an erroneous part of this page. The first sentence reads - 'A monkey is a primate of the Haplorrhini suborder and simian infraorder, either an Old World monkey or a New World monkey, but excluding apes and humans'. I wish to remove the clause 'and humans', as Humans are Apes (in taxanomic, scientific terms), and this suggests otherwise. Thanks

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)

Hominids are monkeys

I have always understood monkeys to be a monophyletic group as taught in school, am I mistaken?

Hominids (great apes and humans) are descended from primates that would have been classified as monkeys, but hominids are not called monkeys. The term monkey only refers to the New World monkeys (Parvorder Platyrrhini) and Old World monkeys (Superfamily Cercopithecoidea). Because it excludes the apes (Superfamily Hominoidea), it is not monophyletic—instead it is paraphyletic. It's just like the terms "fish" and "reptiles". Mammals and birds are descended from fish and reptiles, but they are not called fish or reptiles. Neither fish nor reptiles are monophyletic. – Maky ^« talk » 14:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Considering the argument from commonly understood meaning of the word; hominoidea are very commonly understood to be monkeys, you only get the occasional person thinking they're smarty-pants by saying they are 'not monkeys but apes.' 90.195.154.55 (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I've come back to have a look at this article for just this reason. Most current cladistic papers I read on the subject are pretty consistent in using monkey or ape (where they're used at all) to refer to monophyletic groups and specifying "Non-human ape" or "non-hominoid simians". This article and Ape need looking at. SPACKlick (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Something like the below may be a slight improvement on the lede but it needs work. Ape has a good section on the varied usage we may wish to borrow fromSPACKlick (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

"A monkey is a primate of the simian infraorder (also known as anthropoidea). There are about 260 known living species of monkey. Many are arboreal, although there are species that live primarily on the ground, such as baboons. Monkeys are generally considered to be intelligent.

The word is commonly used to refer solely to New World Monkeys (ceboidea) and Old World Monkeys (cercopithecoidea) excluding apes (hominoidea). It is also used to distinguish tailed and untailed primates; thus the tailless Barbary macaque is called the "Barbary ape". This usage of the word is not monophyletic."

As noted a number of times above, Wikipedia reports reliable sources, it does not decide or dictate. The reality is that terms like "monkey" and "ape" are used in different ways by different authors and often in different ways by the same author (see e.g. User:Peter_coxhead/Work_page#Dawkins' use of "ape". This varied usage must be explained here; something like the wording suggested above seems fine. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Article should be renamed "Monkey (proper)"

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)

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)

Why is it such an insult?

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)

Cuz it's subhuman? Chrisrus (talk) 01:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Monkeys as food

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)

Have you look at Monkey brains (cuisine)? Looie496 (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

It's chilled monkey brains, not just any monkey brains. And, yes they are quite the delicacy I hear.Arlesd (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Nonetheless, due to Wikipedia standards this reference needs to be deleted and a suitable reference added. Otherwise this might appear as a racist sentence, putting those people in a bad light which is certainly offending NPOV! Until there is a suitable reference I would suggest deleting the sentence. Additionally to avoid the above I regard its mandatory to add some statistics how often this is happening in which country/region RMR 92.77.66.249 (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC) This information is certainly wrong and must be removed.Avinash9587 (talk) 16:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hyphenation

"Nonhuman" is not hyphenated in the first sentence, but it is in the second. Just a detail? Maybe. I think it should be hyphenated, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.189.230.101 (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Edit made. Elemesh^Talk 16:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Taxobox

This article is about the traditional use of the term "monkey", i.e. the paraphyletic group Simiiformes minus Hominoidea. I've edited the taxobox accordingly. Ideally I think we should have:

• articles on the currently accepted scientific taxa, under their scientific names, with taxoboxes
• articles at the popular English names, e.g. "monkey", "ape", explaining how they don't map to current scientific taxa, and hence without taxoboxes

However, I suspect this would not be acceptable to enthusiasts for WP:COMMONNAME, so we're stuck with the current situation in which e.g. "monkey" does not mean Simiiformes, although editors constantly try to make it do so. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Peter, thanks for your comment. I personally think that as long as we maintain accuracy and make it clear to readers what terms and groups are being referred to, it's fine to retain a taxonomy box. I don't even think that it's a violation of science to reason about the paraphyletic group containing just New World and Old World monkeys... cladistics isn't the only valid area of study in biology, and convergent evolution often leads to groups with very similar characteristics that are not as closely related to each other as to some more different group. Dinosaurs (not including birds), fish (not including tetrapods) and ducks (not including swans or geese) are other common examples. The excluded clade has become so different from the paraphyletic group remaining that it's more useful to split them into two. Monkey is a particularly difficult one because there seems to be some disagreement over whether it includes apes or not (I think most encyclopedic sources say that it does not). It's definitely paraphyletic though, whichever way you look at it, because very few sources include humans under the term "monkey" even though they are a member of simiiformes. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I strongly agree with you about paraphyletic taxa but that's not really relevant here – it's what reliable sources say that matters. Scientific sources overwhelmingly use monophyletic taxa. Nonspecialist sources overwhelmingly use "monkey" and "ape" in a way that does not correspond to currently accepted classifications. The question I'm trying to raise is whether the same article really works for both usages. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, but I think even some reliable sources in science generally use the term "monkey" when referring to members of this group, rather than "simiiformes". A Google Scholar search for "simiiformes" [9] yields mostly results related to evolution and genetics. Conversely, the term "monkey" is used quite often in behavioural and other articles, often picking a particular species as an example of the group. For example:

• Receptive fields and functional architecture of monkey striate cortex does analysis on both a Macaque (old world monkey) and a spider monkey (new world) thus in a sense tackling both monophyletic clades of the paraphyletic group. (This paper is from 1968 as well, so I don't know if habits have changed since then).
• The retina: the anatomy and the histology of the retina in man, ape, and monkey... this title implies that the three groups discussed are separate.
• Regional distribution of opiate receptor binding in monkey and human brain. This one picks a rhesus monkey as a representative example of "monkey" as stated in the title.

I'm not sure what impact this has on what the monkey article should really talk about, but I still think it's more useful to have the taxobox (properly and accurately clarified) than not to have it. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, you're convincing me – mind you, I want to be convinced! Perhaps I was just getting a tired of all the attempts to make "monkey" = Simiiformes and "ape" = Hominoidea. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Lead concerns

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)

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)

Mis-characterization of galagos

Can someone with expertise please fix this? There are problems with this article's mentions of galagos. First it says that galagos are not monkeys. Then, a few paragraphs later, it cites galagos as being among the New World monkeys. Yet clicking through to the articles on galagos those say they're actually from the Old World - Africa, to be specific. So either they're monkeys or they aren't (I don't know the answer, but they sure don't look like monkeys to me - more like lemurs). But they definitely don't seem to be New World monkeys. 170.149.100.10 (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I 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)

Merger proposal

I propose that Monkey (elasticity) be merged into Monkey. I think that the content in the elasticity article is a stub at present and seems to have very little chance for expansion. It is a very small sub-set of Monkey content and does not seem to require a separate article, and the merging will not cause any problems as far as article size. Dabbler (talk) 01:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't object to the proposal. I haven't exhaustively looked for material for expansion; I can't comment conclusively on that. I don't have any authority in this subject in any case (I intended it as an article from gymnastics as the primary interest), please do as is felt necessary, whatever that might be. Thanks. Whalestate (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2015

Peter Duck 2 (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Why is there a picture of a chimpanzee in this link https://www.google.com.au/search?gs_ivs=1&q=chimpanzee#q=monkey

You had better ask Google - our standard reply is:-

Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong. - Arjayay (talk) 09:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Old World Monkeys=Smart, New World=Stupid

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2015

68.186.131.179 (talk) 04:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC) one time at the zoo a monkey tickled it butt to make itself poop and when he did he threw it at the glass

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.--Musa Talk  05:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Haplorhine and Strepsirrhine terms

These terms are mistranslated in the opening of the article; they come from Greek and mean literally: "single-nosed" (haplorhine) and "twist-nosed" or "turned-nosed" (strepsirrhine). I do understand that the "wet-nose" and "dry-nose" distinction is used by scientists, but the literal meaning of these terms is NOT "wet-nosed" and "dry-nosed." Sorry, wanted to edit; I hope this is the way to request ability to edit the article. Meerkat77 (talk) 04:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)Meerkat77Meerkat77 (talk) 04:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Good catch. Sorry, I don't look at this article much; and it's known that it needs extensive work... preferably a complete re-write. But normally, I'm one of the people who catches that kind of stuff since I edit the strepsirrhine articles extensively and often track down incorrect etymologies such as this.

However, you don't need permission. Be bold! The keys to making a good edit, IMO, are to be concise, make sure it flows smoothly, and cite reliable sources. In this case, a simple edit by changing "dry-nosed" to "simple-nosed" and "wet-nosed" to "curl-nosed" would not be ideal because it would require explanation. Not only is an explanation of the etymology of the words needed, but the reasoning behind this categorization has issues. (Early haplorhines, for instance, probably had the wet or curly nose—rhinarium.) For this reason, I suggest deleting the over-used and inaccurate translation and using a footnote instead. The footnote should contain the correct etymology, a mention of the highly popular incorrect etymology, and references to support the statements. If you need an example of the code, look at the article Strepsirrhini and look at the code for the "Notes" section and the footnotes that point to it. If you need help, I with any of it, I will gladly assist. I might also be able to help with finding references, but I prefer that you practice that exercise yourself. I can definitely help format the references in code for you.

Just post here is you have further questions. – Maky ^« talk » 21:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

monkeys can eat lionm

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Monkey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:02, 21 Ma rch 2016 (UTC)

I must say that monkeys have very large weewees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgdfsdg (talk • contribs) 21:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I love monkeys they are pretty neat. My mommy told me that monkeys have big tails. One time I ate a school bus it was neat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgdfsdg (talk • contribs) 21:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Humans?

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)

Clarification needed

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)

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)

monkeys brains and why they are special

     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) 

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2018

Monkeys are a very lovable creature. AnneKite (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Generalization — IVORK _Discuss 02:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

"However, traditionally apes are not considered monkeys, rendering this grouping paraphyletic."

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2018

monkeys are alot like humans. somewhere at the start Alpine1000 (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 12:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

That topic should be covered in primate. We are all a lot like each other. PopSci (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

"Monkeys are non-hominoid simians"

"Monkeys are non-hominoid simians"

This is false hominoids are directly evolved from monkeys therefore are moneys! Hominoids are a type of monkey! Which is even said when you move over the simians link.

--Theapemonkey (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Jmv2009 (talk) 05:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC) Agreed. How to fix it?

Remove the none humanoid, possibly put "Catarrhini is one of the two subdivisions of the simians, the other being the plathyrrhine (New World monkeys). The Catarrhini contains the Old World monkeys and the apes"

To explain it.

"Apes (hominoids)—consisting of gibbons, orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans—are also catarrhines but are classically distinguished from monkeys" Who cares if the "classically" (done by people ignorant of the facts! what ever classically means.) distinguished! its wrong is the point and should be removed.

"However, traditionally apes are not considered monkeys," Again still ignorant view.Theapemonkey (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

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)

See https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/if-apes-evolved-from-monkeys-why-are-there-still-monkeys/ Jmv2009 (talk) 04:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Barbary macaque only non-ape monkey without a tail?

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)

More simple opening?

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)

Article is not about simians

Note that there's a separate article at Simian. This article is about the two groups referred to as "monkeys" in English. Our task is to reflect usage and explain it, not to preach or teach, as per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Paraphyletic group

{{Paraphyletic group
| name = Monkeys
| fossil_range = {{Geological range|Late Eocene|Present|ref=<ref>{{cite web | url = http://alltheworldsprimates.org/john_fleagle_public.aspx | title = Primate Evolution: John Fleagle and Chris Gilbert | last1 = Fleagle | first1 = J. | last2 = Gilbert | first2 = C. | website = All the World's Primates | editor-last1 = Rowe | editor-first1 = N. | editor-last2 = Myers | editor-first2 = M. | publisher = Primate Conservation, Inc. | accessdate = 18 December 2014}}</ref>}}
| image = Macaca sinica - 01.jpg
| image_caption = Wild [[toque macaque]] (''Macaca sinica'') in [[Yala National Park]], [[Sri Lanka]]
| auto = yes
| parent = Simiiformes
| authority = {{efn|name=Monkey_vs_Ape|When [[Carl Linnaeus]] defined the [[genus]] ''Simia'' in the [[10th edition of Systema Naturae|10th edition of ''Systema Naturae'']], it included all non-human monkeys and apes ([[simian]]s).{{Sfn|Groves|2008|pp=92–93}} Although "monkey" was never a taxonomic name, and is instead a [[vernacular name]] for a paraphyletic group, its members fall under the infraorder Simiiformes.}}<!-- [[Ernst Haeckel|Haeckel]], 1866 -->
|includes =
:[[Callitrichidae]]
:[[Cebidae]]
:[[Aotidae]]
:[[Pitheciidae]]
:[[Atelidae]]
:[[Cercopithecidae]]
:†[[Parapithecidae]]
|excludes=
:[[Hominoidea]]
}}

I removed this, as per the outcome of many other discussions. Monkey is a common name, a term, a wave of the hand, an imprecise word in early vocabulary lists, no proper source suggests it is imbued with substantive meaning yet it is always applied in a qualified way. cygnis insignis 03:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

"Monkey" can be used in multiple ways, which is why there is a Monkey (disambiguation) page. But as used in this article, it is used for the paraphyletic group that goes by the term "monkey", covering new world monkeys and old world monkeys but not apes, which of course form a clade with old world monkeys but not with new world monkeys. So I am not sure why you think the paraphyletic group box is inappropriate. It precisely conforms to the subject of this article. Rlendog (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Monkey clearly refers to a well defined group of primates. The fact that it is a paraphyletic grouping of two monophyletic groups doesn't alter this basic fact and the article should have an infobox that shows its classification. If we take the view that articles with common names shouldn't have taxoboxes there would be few left in mammals.   Jts1882 | talk  16:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Pending the outcome of this discussion I have restored the taxobox. Controversial changes should get consensus first, not force those opposing it to justify the reversal.   Jts1882 | talk  16:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Because it is not a classification, and it is confusing to pretend that it is, you will be adding a citation that supports your preference I hope. It is a content fork and synthesis of two taxonomic articles using a licensed premise. Why do that, except to imbue 'monkey' with a value in classification that no one pretends it has. Why not show what the sources indicate, and help the reader find what they are looking for. Unwatching this ridiculous conversation. cygnis insignis 16:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

In what possible way is it not a classification? The article has plenty of sources indicating that monkeys comprise two closely related monophyletic groups. I don't have to add anything to the provide reliable sourcing for the main reason the article exists. You are the one making the change so the onus is on you to make the point that monkeys cannot have a classification and that there should be no infobox.   Jts1882 | talk  16:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: If that is your rationale for removing the box, then that would seem to apply to any instance of using the paraphyletic group box. If that is the case, this should be a debate about whether to delete the template altogether, which would best be done at WP:TOL to get such a consensus (or at least WP:MAMMAL to get a consensus that this template is inappropriate for mammal articles). The box itself does not synthesize multiple articles, it merely recognizes that from a scientific point of view this particular subject involves 2 taxonomic subjects. It does not dispute that this should be an article (and in my opinion it absolutely should), it merely acknowledges the classifications behind the subject. Rlendog (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

"Unwatching this ridiculous conversation."? So what is the boundary of these articles, and the taxobox that "gives the imprimatur of respectabilty", and this article is the absurd conclusion of the pretence of an agreed description of what a monkey is. Find common name, convert to article, jazz it up with copypasta from other articles, science it up with tree diagrams and unread citations to impressive sounding molecular studies on Monkey monkey. It looks like a school project, not an article. 'Paraphyletic' [not real] box for little brown bird, oh right, this is mammals, little brown bat, well that's wrong! I'll add the australian content and the paraphyletic box right after I stop finding empty Mammalia articles. "Unwatching this ridiculous conversation."!, meaning don't ping me cygnis insignis 17:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

There may be issues with the article, but these are not a function of whether a taxobox is used. Otherwise, the issue seems to be whether the paraphyletic box should exist at all - but as of now there is consensus that it should. That being the case, and since all parties now interested in discussing the issue agree that the box should be in the article, I will re-add it. Rlendog (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Rlendog, and you would it found already added with the stamp of absolute certainty and this conversation was futile. cygnis insignis 18:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I thought you'd un-watchlisted this discussion... I doubt there'll be any action here. Monkeys, along with fish and maybe reptiles, are practically the textbook example of a paraphyletic group.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Is this an area you are familiar in, you can supply definitions of paraphyletic as used in the real world and isbns to those textbooks with examples? Written for adults? Moreover, where is the authority that anyone ever considered monkey a "scientific classification". A word is in first vocabs does not help us to describe millions of animals. cygnis insignis 19:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems like this discussion has been going on since the dawn of Wikipedia, and you were already here on this talk page in 2009 trying to argue the same sort of thing. The years may pass, but it doesn't seem like consensus is changing. And since you ask, there are plenty of scientific sources dealing with "monkeys" as a group, in some cases using an example from the old world and another example from the new world to try to make general points about the group as a whole. For example:

• Receptive fields and functional architecture of monkey striate cortex does analysis on both a Macaque (old world monkey) and a spider monkey (new world) thus in a sense tackling both monophyletic clades of the paraphyletic group. (This paper is from 1968 as well, so I don't know if habits have changed since then).
• The retina: the anatomy and the histology of the retina in man, ape, and monkey... this title implies that the three groups discussed are separate.
• Regional distribution of opiate receptor binding in monkey and human brain. This one picks a rhesus monkey as a representative example of "monkey" as stated in the title.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• "man, ape, and monkey... this title implies that the three groups discussed are separate" That is the implication in the 'traditional view', I'm not questioning that or the mind of its designer, but we can only follow what sources actually state because the creator has been unavailable for comment for several thousand years. cygnis insignis 07:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: yes, indeed, we must follow sources. Sources are very clear that (a) "monkeys" are now known to be a paraphyletic group, as the taxobox says (b) the term "monkey" is widely used, in both scientific and non-scientific sources, to refer to this group. (As just one example, see User:Peter coxhead/Work page#Dawkins' use of "ape" – mostly about the comparable term "ape" but see the very end for "monkey".) The article accurately reflects its sources. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead:, seems I never thanked you for that link, I had read it before and forgot where it was. I don't disagree with your summary of how Dawkins uses the first two terms. cygnis insignis 19:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a prime use of the {{paraphyletic group}} box. All monkeys are in the same clade, but some members of the clade are not monkeys. It's just like most of the other historical taxa that were useful to a point. The taxobox summarizes that the group is not monophyletic well, showing the outgroup and ingroups. --Nessie (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

NessieVL, historical taxa? cygnis insignis 18:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

As per my comment above, it's clear that many sources regard "monkeys" as not just a historical taxon, but one that is useful now. As per WP:NPOV, our task is to reflect all sources, regardless of our personal views. No-one has shown that the article does not. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Changed without discussion

This article has for a long time been about "monkeys" as a grade/paraphyletic group, corresponding to the main common language use. There is a separate article at Simian.

If we are not to have an article discussing the common language use, then:

1. This needs consensus.
2. There's no need to have separate articles on the monophyletic taxon and on "monkeys".

I have notified all the WikiProjects involved. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The situation at the moment is somewhat confusing because the editor has also done a similar work-over of the lede of Simian, which as of now has not been reverted. I might suggest resetting both to the previous state and discussing from that base. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Elmidae: I agree. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

TSA screener inspecting a service monkey; this little guy doesn't need a plane ticket, but a human aid can't fly for free

We can have articles on paraphyletic groups. There is nothing wrong with that. Paraphyletic groups may have some standing outside of biology. Great ape personhood is an oxymoron if humans are included. Fishing regulations for my state (and typical of other states) allow more restricted methods of taking "game fish" versus "nongame fish", which are defined as "nongame fish include....all other species other than those defined as game fish or listed as endangered". Fishing regulations should not be taken to mean that a human swimmer can be shot with a crossbow. Plantdrew (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Much as many of us would prefer otherwise, paraphyletic groups are a reality. They are particularly useful for fossil records where knowledge of stem taxa is limited. They also feature prominently in the systems of Cavalier-Smith.

Monkeys is slightly unusual in that it includes two robustly supported monophyletic groups that could easily have ended up with different names with a different history. The idea that apes are tailless monkeys also has much in its favour, but unfortunately the common term monkey excludes them. There isn't really any controversy over what a monkey is. I can't see how any consensus to change the monkey articles without ignoring the need for reliable sources or being highly selective.   Jts1882 | talk  17:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you. That occasionally Catarrhini is used sloppily as "old world monkeys" without necessarily backing out apes hardly meets the WP:COMMONNAME definition of the usage of the term "monkey." Rlendog (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

That apes are monkeys was already realized by Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon in the 18th century. Catarrhini has always been defined as monkeys of the old world, at least originally, and at least still, by at least some authors. Jmv2009 (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry mate, support from me is as good as deletion rationale :| cygnis insignis 19:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I preferred the users changes, thanked them for a couple, thought it greatly clarified the muddying of the informal and useful taxonomy mashing. Wish I could have added to that, but the response indicates it is better I didn't. cygnis insignis 19:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Suggestion For Short Description

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)

"There has been some resistance to directly designate apes as monkeys despite the scientific evidence"

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)

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)

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)

Thanks for adjusting the wording... AnonMoos (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

jtriojfislfdhgiufnvckajsdhcbuifgnkxizsnjkdodifkcvibghir7ees8ix8yfhgyrufgihxfdjsaijdgybdfyghgdydbxyhgfuhgbuydfxjdoduibhdfcgbyhiudfosdohjso0as9odiufghgovdcsija[zspdjfivdfnurht9djgfickx0o9 i iorthh8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.234.85 (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2020

memans eyob monkey Bbvvhgj (talk) 09:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jack Frost (talk) 09:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Howler Monkey Gods

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)

Howler Monkey Gods

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)

"Order, Suborder, and Infraorder" . . . but no Genus?

Why? You have two additional levels of classification that most people rarely, if ever use, and are missing the one most commonly refered to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

i love it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:D603:6D70:A959:A9EC:B24F:7B02 (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 3 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lfarthing19.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2021

Need to fix some misspelling 104.189.64.252 (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 06:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2021

Need to fix some misspelling 104.189.64.252 (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 06:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2021

91.101.245.6 (talk) 12:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Baby

No edit requested. Closing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Simiiformes characteristics

"Monkeys, including apes, can be distinguished from other primates by having only two pectoral nipples, a pendulous penis, and a lack of sensory whiskers." Has anyone got a better source for this? I'm not sure the sensory whiskers part is true, see Muchlinski, Magdalena N. (2010). "A comparative analysis of vibrissa count and infraorbital foramen area in primates and other mammals". Journal of Human Evolution. 58 (6): 447–473. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2010.01.012. PMID 20434193.. This paper talks of the distinctive characteristics of crown anthropoids, and none of those characters are mentioned: Williams, B. A.; Kay, R. F.; Kirk, E. C. (2010). "New perspectives on anthropoid origins". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107 (11): 4797–4804. doi:10.1073/pnas.0908320107. PMC 2841917. PMID 20212104.. Cheers, Jack (talk) 09:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

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)