| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bonobo article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This 
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I changed "This primate is frugivorous" to "The bonobo is an omnivorous frugivore". It is a more precise and less confusing description. The links to other wiki pages contain language that backs up this change. For instance on the wiki frugivore page "A frugivore is a fruit eater. It can be any type of herbivore or omnivore where fruit is a preferred food type." and on the wiki omnivore page, "Various mammals are omnivorous in the wild, such as the Hominidae...." The rest of the section is both accurate and well referenced and also explains quite well why Bonobos are classified as omnivorous frugivores. 68.12.189.233 ( talk) 08:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
'The bonobo also has highly individuated facial features, as humans do, so that one individual may look significantly different from another, a characteristic adapted for visual facial recognition in social interaction." - this statement is very doubtful. Humans are adapted to differentiate between human faces. The bonobo face is similar in structure to the human face. This might be the cause of the apparent diversity in bonobo faces that is perceived by humans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.233.14 ( talk) 17:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
All animals have a great degree of individuality in looks humans are just poorly able to see them unless given high levels of exposure, Bonobos happen to have more human like faces thus we notice them more rather than them truly having any more facial diversity than any other ape. Most zoo keepers who work with chimps know the faces of their normal chimps from one another. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
138.88.164.79 (
talk) 14:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I changed the line where it said Bonobos use bipedal motion less than 1% of the time. That was based on a study from 1993 and since then multiple observations have shown Bonobos ranging from even lower than 1% to substantially more than that. I was going to use this specific link as the reference: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1571309/ But I have no idea how to actually make a reference in the article, so if someone could put the reference in at the end of the sentence that'd be great. TheMadcapSyd ( talk) 16:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for this, sorry it was reverted so quickly, editors are (generally rightly) wary of an unsourced statements. Jack ( talk) 15:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Where is all the details on gestation and the proper details on their sex anatomy to other chimps. It seems this article over focuses on the "popular" stuff. really think these articles need more information. -- Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ ( talk) 13:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 | This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Washington University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page. |
Bonobos are one of two species of the genus Pan. They are essentially chimpanzees, though are smaller, less violent, and much more sexual than the common chimpanzee. In this Wikipedia article, much information is wanting as to the cooperation of bonobos in the wild. This article’s discussion of their social behavior focuses largely on their sexual practices and their engagement of homosexual activity. Cooperative traits such as kin selection and reciprocity are not mentioned in this article. Briefly, the article mentions that bonobos are altruistic, but the article fails to elaborate and say exactly how. This article can be improved by discussing the role of cooperation in child-rearing, avoiding predators, building shelters, and gathering food. Marklxb ( talk) 19:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The bonobo genome has recently become available. See http://www.eva.mpg.de/bonobo-genome and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Traces/wgs/?val=AJFE01
77.64.208.236 ( talk) 19:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- See also this article in Nature. Gobōnobo + c 21:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
When I attempt to load this high-resolution image file, I only get the upper 30% of the image.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Pan_paniscus_%28female%29.jpg
My guess is the file is missing data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.61.170 ( talk • contribs) 21:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- It loads fine for me. Have you tried forcing a reload - you may have had a connection issue the first time you tried to load it and subsequent attempts may have been from your browsers cache. In Firefox you do this by holding shift while pressing refresh or with ctrl+F5; I don't know how to do it on other browsers. Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ( talk) 21:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
The word gracile has, in the past, been attached to the name of the bonobo as the gracile chimpanzee. Because of this, people seem to think it's approriate to say - as in this article - that the bonobo is considered more gracile than the common chimpanzee. Probably, it could be said that there is an implication that ... well it's like a kind of chimpanzee, but y'know ... more gracile. So people are led to believe that it is actually a chimpanzee but a gracile one. Then they might go on to think ... I wonder what gracile means - but probably not. They'll just think that it's a chimpanzee ... but a strange type.
So, we know that the word gracile has been used as part of its name in the past - but do we take anything from that description. If I was to say, "A gracile man walked past my house." What sort of image would that convey? "My sister used to be gracile, but as she got older she put on weight, like the rest of us." Doesn't it sound a bit like lanky, skinny or moving gracefully - it does to me.
Is the word used in any other context? Do we have gracile elephants, horses, geese or bananas? I haven't heard of them.
My thoughts are, that we drop this strange, unhelpful descriptor and - probably trying to avoid saying how similar of dissimilar it is to the common chimpanzee - find another way of describing the bonobo. Francis Hannaway ( talk) 19:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- The word is used most commonly in biology when talking about apes.
Australopithecus is often referred to as gracile, as is the bonobo. It is generally used to distinguish from the robust form of an animal.
Jack (
talk) 19:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps that's true, but it doesn't make it understandable to the general Wikipedia audience. It could be explained in the text. Francis Hannaway ( talk) 20:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to pin down more information on what extent oestrus is concealed in Bonobos.
The article says: "During oestrus, females undergo a swelling of the perineal tissue lasting 10 to 20 days. Most matings occur during the maximum swelling."
This reference says maximum swelling lasts 13.4 days, but that swelling cycles do not correlate exactly with the menstrual and ovulation cycles. Small, 1993 suggests "bonobos continually exhibit estrus swellings and behavior".
Is there good evidence, as the article says, that matings mostly occur during oestrus, and that oestrus/increased sexual behaviour unambiguously exists in Bonobos? Thanks. PhilMacD ( talk) 21:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
At the end of the socio-sexual behaviour section there is a single line "It is unknown how the bonobo avoids simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) and its effects." which seems to suggest that bonobos are somehow immune to SIVs. The nearest I can get to this conclusion in the linked article is that Bonobos have never been found to have SIV and some hypothesising that non-pathogenisis of SIV is due to a pre-evolutionary split SIV outbreak. The article isn't really about bonobos and they are only mentioned incidentally twice. Not sure what the etiquette/procedure is here. Seems to me like this sentence should just be removed but as I'm new I'll just leave this here Crothersj ( talk) 02:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I think this sentence is biased, poorly researched, and needs to be deleted or completed: "The primatologist often cited for the peaceful nature of bonobos has never studied them in the wild." There are several primatologists making this assertion including Francis White who has observed them in the wild. This sentence is unhelpful misinformation. Vince Watkins ( talk) 03:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Vince Watkins
I've flagged this sentence with a citation needed tag. 207.189.106.4 ( talk) 16:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- I removed that line a minute before the IP commented in this section about it. Flyer22 ( talk) 16:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Criticism of Frans de Waal's bonobos in captivity research
On the 29th, Severum deleted criticism of Frans de Waal not having studied bonobos in the wild; because he deleted the material without an explanation, marking the deletion as WP:Minor when it is not WP:Minor, I restored the material and stated that his marking was wrong.
As seen here, Severum deleted the criticism again, on the 30th (non-Wikipedia time), stating, "The deleted sentence refers to a journalistic piece, not a reputable source compared to others mentioned here." As seen with that diff-link, I reverted him, stating, " The New Yorker is a reputable source; criticism does not have to come from a scientific journal." Maunus followed that up by adding an academic source regarding what appears to be criticism of Frans de Waal not having studied bonobos in the wild; he then added a response from Frans de Waal on the criticism. Severum removed the material, and added new material in its place, taking away the criticism angle and Frans de Waal's response to it. I reverted, stating, "Two editors clearly object to your changes. Discuss the matter on the article talk page, per WP:BRD. No WP:Edit warring." As that link shows, I also stated, "Do stop being so pro-Frans de Waal in your editing. The fact that he has been criticized, and has responded to the criticism, should be mentioned. Added back this piece you added." I mentioned the pro-Frans de Waal aspect because it is clear to me, from having examined Severum's occasional editing of Wikipedia, he is pro-Frans de Waal with his editing and appears to want to hide any criticism of Frans de Waal. Severum reverted again, stating, "Wikipedia entries are to be based on science, not journalism. The issue of captivity vs. wild bonobos asks for a systematic comparison, of which there are few, if any. If they do exist, they might be referred to here." I responded with a WP:Dummy edit stating, "Something tells me that you don't know how Wikipedia is generally supposed to work. Criticism often need not be based on science, and Wikipedia allows that. Furthermore, this criticism is based on the science. Taking the matter to talk." It's clear to me that Severum is inexperienced with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, and is biasing content regarding Frans de Waal.
Comments? Flyer22 ( talk) 02:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- In general it is correct that articles should be based on scholarly not journalistic sources. But it is not a problem to report it if a journalistic source reports statements or opinions of scholars and scientists. They are reliable sources for the opinions of the people who are interviewed, and if the people who are interviewed are respected scholars as in this case then there is no reason we cant use it. It is indeed necessary for this article that also the scholarship that disagrees with de Waals popularizing stereotypes of the bonobos be included prominently in the article. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree about the scholarly aspect (well, unless it's a topic that generally doesn't need that aspect, such as a film article), but, like you stated, the The New Yorker source is relaying the opinions of experts in this particular field. And, of course, there's the aforementioned academic source you included. Flyer22 ( talk) 14:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Drbogdan, as someone else who watches the Bonobo article/talk page, do you have an opinion on this matter before I start a WP:RfC on it? Severum is apparently not interested in this discussion and thinks that he can WP:Edit war, get his way, and that's all to it. Flyer22 ( talk) 07:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- FWIW - seems that User:Severum is trying to promote a higher level of science authority in the article (*entirely* ok w/ me) - but - in a way that could be better - atm I agree w/ the comments (well-presented imo) of User:Maunus above - differing views of such issues, grounded in worthy scholarship, are welcome of course - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 13:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
WP:RfC: Should criticism of Frans de Waal's bonobos in captivity research be included?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should criticism of Frans de Waal's bonobos in captivity research be included in the Bonobo article? And, if so, what type of sources are appropriate for that? These are the two versions that are currently debated. As seen in the section immediately above this one (here is the link for those viewing this from the WP:RfC page: Talk:Bonobo#Criticism of Frans de Waal's bonobos in captivity research), one editor argues that "Wikipedia entries are to be based on science, not journalism. The issue of captivity vs. wild bonobos asks for a systematic comparison, of which there are few, if any. If they do exist, they might be referred to here." Another editor argues that " The New Yorker is a reputable source; criticism does not have to come from a scientific journal.", and that The New Yorker source was followed up with an academic source concerning what appears to be criticism of Frans de Waal not having studied bonobos in the wild, and that this was followed up with Frans de Waals's response to that. The current version is not only missing that material, but is not supported by a source for part of the material that one of the aforementioned editors (the one pushing the "based on science" argument) left in. Flyer22 ( talk) 00:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Maunus re-added some of the material after I posted this WP:RfC; Maunus, the "Primatologists who have studied" aspect is currently a repeat in that section; so that needs fixing. Flyer22 ( talk) 01:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- NPOV requires that controversies are covered, and, by their nature, many types of sources are allowed, many of them far from peer reviewed scientific sources. Controversies are often matters of opinion, so, when in doubt, attribute the opinions. Use all kinds of reliable sources.
- This should only get short mention, so as not to disturb the balance of the article. Captivity vs. natural habitat would be a legitimate discussion in many articles about animals. Extensive coverage of the controversy might warrant a proper FORK article, although the Frans de Waal article might be the logical place for it. -- Brangifer ( talk) 03:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- This WP:RfC is slow, but you know that I appreciate you weighing in on it,
Brangifer. As for
Severum, he made another edit
here, with an edit summary that does not seem to sufficiently explain the edit or show that it is better than the previous text, and is still yet to make his case on the talk page.
Flyer22 (
talk) 03:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- My objection to that edit is more about the fact that good content was removed. The new content could just as well be added, but with the annotation that "there are other opinions, with M. Wilson, et al confirming ...."
- You know this subject better than I, so I'll let you deal with it. That's just my suggestion. --
Brangifer (
talk) 04:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- That is infact what I just did. The 2014 study was not well summarized by Severus, though. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, Maunus also criticized the edit because it removed material; that's why Maunus reverted. In addition to mentioning the content side-by-side, I obviously think Severum should discuss his thoughts regarding these issues here at the talk page. Flyer22 ( talk) 04:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- This WP:RfC is slow, but you know that I appreciate you weighing in on it,
Brangifer. As for
Severum, he made another edit
here, with an edit summary that does not seem to sufficiently explain the edit or show that it is better than the previous text, and is still yet to make his case on the talk page.
Flyer22 (
talk) 03:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- This content that Maunus added minutes ago is also decent. Flyer22 ( talk) 04:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- The 2014 study does not claim bonobos to be more peaceful than chimpanzees, they find Western Chimpanzees and Bonobos to be more peaceful than Eastern Chimpanzees, but find no statistically significant difference in violence rates between Western Chimpanzees and Bonobos. They therefore ascribe the difference in behavior to ecological factors. I.e. the study does not support the conclusion that bonobos are innately less aggressive than Chimpanzees. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- My thoughts on the matter generally align with what seems to be the emerging (if still quite small-scale) consensus here; I don't see any policy-relevant reason as to why content based on the piece from The New Yorker should be excluded. As has been noted, we are obliged to discuss the controversy if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources -- regardless of whether they come in the form of scientific press or not -- though needless to say clear attribution needs to be implemented such that our readers understand the nature of the criticism and the identity and credentials of those making them. On the other hand, I also tend to agree with BullRangifer's assessment that those points should be probably be only neatly summarized here, with more extensive coverage of the criticism taking place elsewhere -- but primarily at Frans de Waal rather than a distinct fork to this article, I would think. Snow talk 04:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
- Agree with inclusion of the controversy in this article in compact summary form, supported by reliable sources. -- Scray ( talk) 01:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm going to echo the opinions here and say that it is reasonable to include information from reliable sources, without imposing additional restraints on what constitutes a RS, compared to the usual. On an added note, it might be worth looking at the other subsections of the Behavior section, as the peacefulness/aggression seems to be addressed in both General and Peacefulness right now. — daranz [ t ] 02:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry to join the discussion so late. I agree with others above that the controversy should be included. If we place animals into captivity, we are placing them into artificial environments for which they may not have evolved appropriate (coping) behaviour. This can manifest itself as abnormal behaviours such as stereotypies and self-harming. So, I would actually doubt the applicability of de Waal's findings to wild bonobos. This rasies the question of the value of such research. Having said this, the controversy exists and as other have suggested, this should be discussed here at an appropriate length and with reliables sources.__ DrChrissy ( talk) 18:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well the man has considerable bonafides and probably feels his interpretations control for that, and there's little doubt that the New York Yorker's position is one of speculation by non-experts. So we have to be thorough with attribution, making clear exactly what was expressed and by whom. The fact that a RS has questioned the methods means we are obligated, in this instance anyway, to cover the conflicting perspectives -- but by the same token we have to be clear as to the identity of the source of each skeptical statement and what their credentials are. And by clear, I mean treating the identity of the sources in the actual prose, in addition to the inline citations. Snow talk 16:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141215-great-ape-birth-is-world-first Bananasoldier ( talk) 04:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
There is an RFC that may affect this page at WikiProject Tree of Life. The topic is confusion over taxonomy of subtribe Panina and taxon homininae (are chimps hominins)?
Please feel free to comment there. SPACKlick ( talk) 16:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I read the sentence that states "Bonobos are the only non-human animal to have been observed engaging in tongue kissing, and oral sex." and chose to verify it with the source provided. I'm glad I did, because I didn't find that statement anywhere. The bonobos were in fact observed engaging in that behavior, but the article also clearly states that the one other primate they were studying, Cebus Capucinus, engaged in oral sex "extremely rarely," but that it had not been documented during focal observations of adults. Adult capuchins were not the only subgroup being studied, that is they were also collecting data from juvenile individuals.
I am reluctant to edit the page myself, because I am new to wiki contributions and have not read all the guidelines.
Thanks, wiki contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humblehermit ( talk • contribs)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bonobo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120506233748/http://www.zoosociety.org/Conservation/Bonobo/BCBI/Survey.php to http://www.zoosociety.org/conservation/Bonobo/BCBI/Survey.php
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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
98.113.156.218 ( talk) 22:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Not done: Empty request -
Mlpearc (
open channel) 22:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
NightBlue3 is a part of this Primm34 ( talk) 01:51, 11 May 2017 (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. —
IVORK
Discuss 01:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to add that the term Bonobo is used often by the streamer Rabia "Nightblue3" Yazbek Rekkles ( talk) 12:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Not done: please provide
reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —
IVORK
Discuss 12:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bonobo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120127051545/http://www.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de/uploads/media/Bonobo_sex_01.pdf to http://www.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de/uploads/media/Bonobo_sex_01.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120421115143/http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/vol5/vol5_no2_best_minding_animals_PRINTABLE.htm to http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/vol5/vol5_no2_best_minding_animals_PRINTABLE.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101218060615/http://www.friendsofbonobos.org/images/newsnov09.pdf to http://www.friendsofbonobos.org/images/newsnov09.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
the article cited only says "The bonobo is a sister species to the more widespread common chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes, and the two share equal footing as our nearest primate kin." not that they are closer so the wording in the article is word 19:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
When I open this in the Wikipedia app for Android it says : Bonobo One of two species in the Genus Pan, along with the Chimpanzee - previously thought to be a type of NightBlue3. What does that mean? I looked for NightBlue3 on Wikipedia and found nothing. Source? Sounds for me like some Conspiracy theorie.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bonobo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425232556/http://www.nagonline.net/HUSBANDRY/Diets%20pdf/Bonobo%20Nutrition.pdf to http://www.nagonline.net/HUSBANDRY/Diets%20pdf/Bonobo%20Nutrition.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161124221827/http://lolayabonobo.wildlifedirect.org/ to http://lolayabonobo.wildlifedirect.org/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060928044248/http://ecos.fws.gov/species_profile/servlet/gov.doi.species_profile.servlets.SpeciesProfile?spcode=A06E to http://ecos.fws.gov/species_profile/servlet/gov.doi.species_profile.servlets.SpeciesProfile?spcode=A06E
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
The suggestion that the genus homo should include bonobos and chimpanzees has been deleted because, among other reasons, the source is a New Scientist article. The original source is a PNAS article by Wildman et al at [1]. I agree with the deletion as there is no evidence that the suggestion was seriously considered by experts, but the source should be taken into account if it is found that other experts discuss the proposal. Dudley Miles ( talk) 08:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Do you think that kinda information actually belongs on
bonobo or should we leave it at
Pan (genus)? Should we also include such an apparently fringe proposal on
Australopithecus,
Paranthropus,
Ardipithecus, or any of the other hominin articles?
User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk 17:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Unless there is evidence that the suggestion is taken seriously, I doubt whether it deserves any mention. If we decide that it is taken seriously, then we can consider at that stage which article(s) it belongs in. I see that the pan article does mention Jared Diamond, but I am not sure whether his proposal was tongue in cheek.
- BTW I have just done an FAC review on
Alpine newt, and the article says that the sub-species separated 20 million years ago, before the ape and gibbon lines separated! Maybe evolution is slower in amphibians, or is it an example of
punctuated equilibrium as suggested by
Stephen Jay Gould, with long periods of statis punctuated by sudden bursts of evolution?
Dudley Miles (
talk) 18:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- As the remover, I of course agree that the proposal is fringe, not taken seriously, and does not warrant a mention. As I was getting at in my edit summary, this was based on a couple of old sources, and as I stated, "In 2020 it is clear there is no proposal being taken seriously among biologists or anthropologists to change the taxonomic system in this way." I'm willing to be corrected, but it seems unlikely that any such proposal is ongoing. Crossroads -talk- 18:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- BTW I have just done an FAC review on
Alpine newt, and the article says that the sub-species separated 20 million years ago, before the ape and gibbon lines separated! Maybe evolution is slower in amphibians, or is it an example of
punctuated equilibrium as suggested by
Stephen Jay Gould, with long periods of statis punctuated by sudden bursts of evolution?
Dudley Miles (
talk) 18:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Inogwabini BI, Leader-Williams N. Effects of epidemic diseases on the distribution of bonobos. PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e51112. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051112. Epub 2012 Dec 12. PMID: 23251431; PMCID: PMC3521019.
This reference may explain the wide behavior differences between chimpanzees and bonobos. Bonobos can expand into rich areas but these areas have trypanosomiasis which kills the bonobos. Thus bonobos have never been subjected to selection to defend territory. Keith Henson ( talk) 21:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The third paragraph reads
"According to studies published in 2017 by researchers at The George Washington University, bonobos, along with common chimpanzees, split from the human line about 8 million years ago; moreover, bonobos split from the common chimpanzee line about 2 million years ago."
I feel "bonobos, along with common chimpanzees, split from the human line..." should read "the ancestors of the genus Pan split form the human line..." to remove confusion that the two species had already evolved at that time and make it clear that it was, like our common ancestor, a common ancestor that split from ours and not the chimpanzees themselves (a common misconception) Caledonicum ( talk) 23:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Having a picture of Kanzi and Panbanisha from a time when they were extremely overweight as the image associated with the animal's Description seems almost misleading to me. I think that image would be better served lower on the page around the Similarity to Humans section, which mentions Kanzi by name. Literally any picture of a wild bonobo or just one that more generally fits the typical appearance would make much more sense there to me. I'm not a frequent editor, so I don't feel confident making the change myself as I'm sure I'd mess up the formatting. GreatLiver ( talk) 11:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- A few years ago that picture actually was paired with discussion on Bonobo intelligence, not Description. I guess someone must have moved it up, but I'd agree with you that it's not the best image for the Description section Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
This section here "Bonobo clitorises are larger and more externalized than in most mammals;[89] while the weight of a young adolescent female bonobo "is maybe half" that of a human teenager, she has a clitoris that is "three times bigger than the human equivalent, and visible enough to waggle unmistakably as she walks".[90]"
Is phrased in such a way that due to it describing the weight of a bonobos in relation to a "human teenager" when it compares the clitoris size with the "human equivalent" contextually could result in a misinterpretation that it is talking about a teenage humans clitoris, which is highly innapropriate. Can someone rephrase this please so that it's clear that it's comparing the bonobos clitoris with an adult humans clitoris? Perhaps by changing the weight comparison against an adult human female? The use of a teenage human in the weight comparison makes sense, and the comparison of clitoris size makes sense, but when combined in the same sentence it's an uncomfortable read, nobody wants to be visualising the genitalia of non-adult humans and the phrasing accidently induces that.
The mentions further down in the article about the sexual behaviour of bonobos involving infant bonobos, whilst important and relevent to the article, also make the misreadings of the earlier sentance even more uncomfortable.
Thankyou for your consideration, I appreciate the great work that wikipedians do and this article is a great read otherwise. Hope you have a great day :) Austroriella ( talk) 07:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Conflicting information in the main section and the Taxonomy section regarding when it split off and the reasons why 87.75.185.229 ( talk) 22:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a
"change X to Y" format and provide a
reliable source if appropriate.
M.Bitton (
talk) 00:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm planning on Featuring this article, will start working on it next week Tuesday, and probably nominate it in late June. Wolverine XI ( den • 🐾) 18:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- B-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- B-Class level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- B-Class vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- B-Class Primate articles
- Top-importance Primate articles
- WikiProject Primates articles
- B-Class Africa articles
- Low-importance Africa articles
- B-Class Democratic Republic of the Congo articles
- Unknown-importance Democratic Republic of the Congo articles
- WikiProject Democratic Republic of the Congo articles
- WikiProject Africa articles
- B-Class LGBT articles
- WikiProject LGBT studies articles
- Wikipedia Ambassador Program student projects, 2012 Fall