Talk:Jane Goodall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. This article has been tagged since January 2007.

Minor edit (I can't make it)- The caption under her picture gives an internal WikiLink to Root &Shoots. This is not valid, while Roots&Shoots is. Vixwald 01:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"Goodall also flouted traditional scientific method in her study of primates by naming the animals she studied, instead of assigning each a number, a nearly universal practice at the time." This really needs an explanation of how this is flaunting scientific method - Ace of Sevens

I think I removed the bias from this statement by saying she set herself apart rather than flouted. 66.63.68.222 13:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

When I made the above statement I didnt realise that I wasnt logged in. hence the ip instead of my sign I figured I should leave this now before someone goes to the history and flames me for taking credit for someone elses stuff. Olleicua 13:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Bigfoot 2 Far Side Controversy 3 Awards 4 Cleanup/Expansion 5 Professional Accomplishments 6 Frodo and Taco Bell 7 Parodied by the Simpsons 8 Anthropologist?? 9 Article status? 10 Prosopagnosia? 11 Does She Really? 12 Criticism 13 Weird photo caption

[edit] Bigfoot

I wanted to let all people involved in this issue know that The Jane Goodall Institute has decided to remove the content relating to Bigfoot from the bio entry. We have considered the points put forward by all involved and feel very strongly that this information is being added inappropriately, and is being placed here to further other peoples agenda, not to represent Jane Goodall’s work. Jane has not done any research on Bigfoot, it simply does not fit into her appropriate legacy. Please note that Jane Travels 320 days a year giving lectures and interviews on a variety of topics – to center in on a single interview in this space is inappropriate. We suggest instead that the content posted here be moved to the more appropriate location – under Bigfoot.

We will continue to remove this section from this point forward – and it should be noted that we do represent Jane Goodall in this matter and would point to the Biographies of living persons section of wikipedia guidelines when it comes to the future of this posting string.

Thank you, The Jane Goodall Institute.

Am I the only one who has a problem with the Bigfoot section? I'm sure she would rate comments about Sasquatch pretty low on the list of things she'd want in her biography.--Cuchullain July 6, 2005 04:16 (UTC)

I agree with both of these points, Working closely with Jane at JGI I can say with some authority that as far as major points in Jane's Life, The Gary Larson Story and the Bigfoot references could be removed if actually representing Jane is what the entry is for. while we all think that the Larson story is fun neither entry is particulary important to Jane or what she has accomplished and continues to accomplish today. - Bryce

User Tpellman (talk • contribs) has added a section entitled "The Bigfoot comment" and a link to a NPR interview. There's a excerpt of the transcript here (on the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organisation website) in which Dr Goodall tells a talkback caller that "I'm sure that they exist". However she later says "You know, why isn't there a body? I can't answer that, and maybe they don't exist, but I want them to." I'm therefore inclined to delete the Bigfoot material, but I'll wait a day or two to see if anyone objects. Cheers, Chris Chittleborough 19:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC) Edited for clarity 19:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I added the Bigfoot stuff. The content of an article about a person is not to be chosen based on what the subject would want, but rather what a reader would find interesting. So I included it because (1) it's true (that she made such comments) and (2) it is interesting, even if only in a tabloid sort of way. However, I have modified the article so that it only appears as a minor comment in the external links. Hope that is satisfactory. Thank you for contacting me before editing. Tpellman 13:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Far Side Controversy

Is it really necessary to devote so much space to Gary Larsen and the Far Side? I'm a big Far Side fan, but this is a fairly minor episode in Jane Goodall's life. It seems odd that Gary Larsen should recieve more mention than Louis Leakey.

I wouldn't have an issue if the rest of the article was more substantial. Tune in next week to see if I flesh it out myself, or if I'm to lazy.

I agree; the Larson story is fine, but the rest of the biography needs substantially more information. I've gone over to Gary Larson and added the Jane Goodall story there, as it's probably more of a significant event in Larson's life than it is in Goodall's. I think that it could probably be shortened a little here by reference to Larson's article. -dmmaus 29 June 2005 05:22 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, according to Gary Larson (in The Prehistory of the Far Side I think) the person who sent the letter turned out not to be affiliated with the Institute at all. If I can dig out my copy, I'll check: otherwise if anybody has a copy closer to hand that would be good. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The Prehistory of the Far Side, page 167: "They [National Geographic] did some checking themselves, and an interesting fact was eventually discovered: Jane Goodall loved the cartoon. Furthermore, she was totally unaware that any of this "stuff" was going on." It does not say that whoever sent the initial complaint was not affiliated with the Institute. The implication is that whoever sent it was part of the Institute, but had done so without the knowledge or approval of Goodall. -dmmaus 23:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

(Back to margin.) Here's my attempt at a shorter version. (I think I've retained the important details.) If no one objects, I'll insert this paragraph into the "Biography" section just before the final ("Dr. Goodall’s many honors ...") para.

One of Gary Larson's The Far Side cartoons shows two chimpanzees grooming. One finds a human hair on the other and says to her husband "doing a little more 'research' with that Jane Goodall tramp?" Larson writes in The PreHistory of The Far Side (p.167) that the Goodall Institute sent a "very indignant" letter to his distribution syndicate. However, it turned out that Goodall herself "loved the cartoon". Since then, all profits from sales of a shirt featuring this cartoon go to the Goodall Institute. In addition, Goodall wrote a preface to The Far Side Gallery 5 which discussed the controversy, and praised The Far Side for Larson's creative ideas, which often compare and contrast the behavior of humans and animals. Gary Larson visited Gombe National Park in 1988.

Comments, edits, etc welcome. —Chris Chittleborough 23:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I've just substantially modified the article. (1) I replaced the paragraphs about The Far Side with a slightly different version of the above para, and renamed the section to "References in Popular Culture". (2) I moved a lot of paragraphs into different places. (3) I delinkified years as per Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context. (4) Reformatted "mostly taken from" note at end of "Publications" section.

Corrections, improvements and comments welcome. Cheers, User:Chris Chittleborough alias CWC(talk) 08:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awards

I fixed Goodall's Graham J. Norton Award so it's now correctly listed as the "Graham J. Norton Award for Achievement in Increasing Community Livability" rather than "Increasing Community Liability" (although I can see how that kind of award would be So Graham Norton).  :)

[edit] Cleanup/Expansion

I removed the cleanup notice as I think its fixed. if you disagree dont flame me just put it back. Olleicua 13:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

While the formatting has been cleaned up, this article could still use expansion. It's a big letdown that such an influential scientist should have a page where half the descriptive text is about appearances as a character in various cartoons. More on her career and professional life would be good. -dmmaus 22:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Professional Accomplishments

I softened the language concerning Goodall's discovery of tool use and its impact on the definition of humanity. The previous version said "This discovery forced society to redefine the definition of being human" which appears to be a hyperbolized paraphrase of Goodall's own assertion:

Previously man had been regarded as the only tool-making animal. [...]Nevertheless, my early observations of their primitive toolmaking abilities convinced a number of scientists that it was necessary to redefine man in a more complex manner than before.
In The Shadow of Man, p. 37 (Goodall, 1971)

The previous phrase "forced society" implies both a stronger and broader impact than Goodall herself suggests. If the original language is to be restored, it would be reasonable to find a third-party analysis of Goodall's legacy.

I would suggest including a citation to In The Shadow of Man, not only for this but for much of the Professional Accomplishments section. I'm not sure what format would be preferable, since this book is already listed in the Bibliography. Vogelfrei 02:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frodo and Taco Bell

What is up with "Taco Bell gives Frodo the chimp extra power"? Is this merely vandalism?

Yes it is and it has been removed. --Cody.Pope 19:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments about Taco Bell and Frodo are all vandalism. The chimp lives in the wild in Africa and has never visted a Taco Bell. Please remove these comments whenever you see them. --Cody.Pope 19:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parodied by the Simpsons

So I think we neglected to include the episode in the Simpsons parodying her. (where I think Lisa discovers that Jane Goodall was secretly training chimps to be slave labors to work to mine diamond.) The part I'm confused about is that at the time when I first saw that episode, I found it to be amusing mostly because I assumed that it had some truth or was based on some major controversy about Jane's work. Afterall, that's why the Simpsons comedy is so brilliant--because they parody real life problems/issues with cleverness. However, I saw nothing in this article about Jane that could possible tie in with that diamond mining parody. Sure, I bet there are people who feel Jane may be adversely influencing the bonobos or abusing them perhaps during her long years of study, but I would have thought the idea for that parody would be based off of something more concrete, more substantial, more major.

It is entirely possible that Jane Goodall has been secretly training chimps to work in a diamond mine. She speaks their language, [1] she is a little bit eccentric, and no-one would suspect her. Who better to train the chimps? But until we have a cast-iron source I think it is best to keep this under the radar for the time being. -Ashley Pomeroy 18:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anthropologist??

The article states that Jane Goodall is an anthropologist. Could we either be a bit more specific or delete the entry? What contributions has she made to the study of human life? It is true that the article mentions her involvement in the redefinition of humans (although defining humans by their use of tools was rejected by anthropologist before Goodall's findings, I think), but that hardly makes her an anthropologist. I think the statement relies on a way too broad definition of anthropology. Of course, anthropology borrows from sciences of animals (as well as diciplines as philosophy, history, linguistics etc.), but that does not make an ethologist an anthropologist.

Anthropology includes the subfield of primatology; she is an anthropologist because she is a primatologist. See subfields of anthropolgy. --Cody.Pope 21:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, according to this page, her observations were the first to challenge "man the tool maker". --Cody.Pope 22:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm an anthro major (my last class for an associates will be ChimpanZoo next semester, yay!). Anyways, primatology is often considered a subfield of physical/biological anthro. Primatology is taught by the anthro department at my school and primatology was a major unit in my physical classes (lab and lecture). We watched a couple Goodall documentaries in fact. And as far as I know, Goodall was the one to show that chimps also made tools, which caused the common definition to be changed. I know at least one of my teachers has said that. I'm sure a few anthropologists had complaints with the usual definition before she challenged it, but she is usually credited as being the one to really break it down. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 06:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article status?

Seems like this article should either be unprotected, or marked with a 'protected' tag. 71.231.107.188 02:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's only semi-protected (probably because of the fact that it attracts vandals). I don't think notices of semi-protection are usually put on the page. If you start an account, after four or five days you should be able to edit it. If there is a specific edit you need made, you can ask here. Ungovernable Force^{Poll: Which religious text should I read?} 03:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, they do have notices for it, and I just put one on. Ungovernable Force^{Poll: Which religious text should I read?} 03:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

For the time being this article is best semi-protected - not sure why, but people love to vandalize it. --Cody.Pope 07:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prosopagnosia?

I see in the history for this article that the sentence which stated that Jane Goodall suffers from Prosopagnosia was deleted. The reason given for the deletion was simply that she doesn't, in fact, suffer from so-called "face blindness". However, Dr Goodall admitted in her memoir "Reason For Hope: A Spiritual Journey" that she does indeed suffer from Prosopagnosia, or at least a form of it.

I'm not sure this fact necessarily needs to be reinstated purely because it's true, but its deletion does speak to the need for discretion when deleting statements based on ignorant presupposition. Interestingly, Dale Peterson's comprehensive 2006 biography of Jane Goodall makes no mention of her Prosopagnosia. Nor does it mention her having gained respect for the biosphere and importance of the higher order primates after meeting Sir David Attenborough while she was living in Bournemouth, as the Wikipedia article suggests. But that's a whole other story! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Natedogg923 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Does She Really?

Does she really believe they are little cavemen? Anyway, why the long face, Jane?

Arkhamite 19:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

The criticism section is too heavily worded. Jane's methods will not be called into question. She like Dian was following the method first suggested by George Schaller in his study of gorillas, which preceded Dian's. Dian took over from Schaller. The method is to observe as an insider rather than an outsider. All behavioral studies wherever possible are now being conducted on that basis. If the animal cannot be habituated, then hidden cameras are placed among them! I knew there must be some good to that practice.

More importantly, the section really borders on being spiteful; however, it has a historical source. The spite comes from Richard Leakey himself in younger days, which he has since deeply regretted. Jane's mother effectively took Louis away from Richard's mother and for a while the young Richard hated Jane. Initially Jane had been using bananas to lure the apes. Those apes are dangerous, you know. Some people have been been attacked and mutilated. The apes were coming into the camp and the tents and taking over, so Jane devised a remote box system of banana feeding. Richard came to visit and reported to his father that Jane was not studying the apes as they were in nature. This caused a rift between Jane and Louis for several months. (See under Louis Leakey and the Virginia Morell source) She gave up that practice on Louis' advice and he reinstated her in his professional opinion after he came to understand the source of his son's dislike of Jane. Now, those incidents do not invalidate or call into question a lifetime of primate research! Not for nothing was Jane made a dame. That subsection is rightly tagged. A source is mentioned but it needs to be checked out as the language goes far beyond. what you would expect, calling into question what is now a whole branch of primatology. I'd suggest a footnote about her first few years. To me the subsection looks like an excuse for an ideological attack of some sort by wolves in sheep's clothing, say, the opponents of evolution. Dave 15:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this not an example of the kind of thing that should be discussed under Talk:Fay_Wray as regards apes and blondes? Certainly the Leakey primatology soap opera has come to an end and no longer must we discuss it here.68.84.17.112 20:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I added this section because I thought it was important it should be included. Goodall's conclusions are "scientific" and it is not the least improper that they should be scrutinised and opposing points of view debated. This is how science works - to be subjected to these ad hominem attacks i.e. be accused of being spiteful and a "wolf in sheeps clothing" merely for pointing out that some of the methodology which she employed was questionable (or at the very least debateable) is unnecessary and reflects poorly on the person making the accusation. However, having said this I won't deny that some of it may have been phrased a little strongly (I tend not to tiptoe around debates) - subsequent edits do seem to have softened the tone, whether this is a good thing or not I leave to future editors. Trewornan 16:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed non-encyclopedic wordy personal opinions by 68.175.23.87. There may be some merit to what was posted but that needs to be extensively redone. Myron 17:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weird photo caption

I'm surprised no one else has picked up on the strange and unwieldy enlish in the heading for the second picture from top in this article; " Dr. Jane Goodall listening to volunteers about their group of Roots & Shoots." I'm just tidying the caption up now but I think the "Roots and Shoots" page which has an internal link in the caption- which is uncategorised and unreferenced- possibly shouldn't even be on wikipedia. Kotare 02:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I made a very minor edit to this section - changing the location of the word "Group". roots and shoots has membership groups - and that is what the photo is talking about - the Group being refferenced is not named Roots & Shoots - the Group is a Roots & Shoots Group.