Talk:Gorilla/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1
| Archive 2 →
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

3 gorillas!!

Wow, there is a species on Earth called gorilla gorilla gorilla. That is darn cool. I want one as a pet. And yes, this is deffo helping the cause of Wikipeida.
Who says so?

The name Gorilla gorilla gorilla (or G. gorilla gorilla) is the name for the subspecies from which the holotype of the species G. gorilla was taken. Stanskis 02:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

(I made minor edits above - UtherSRG 02:35, July 20, 2005 (UTC))

Text Away Again

Hopefully the user trying to mess up the page will stop now.

conservation status

someone ought to add conservation status (enandgered i believe) in the taxobox. oops 63.172.168.157 22:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

See the individual subspecies articles for conservation status. They aren't all the same: 3 are endangered, one (the Cross River Gorilla) is critically endangered. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Discovery date?

While watching a show on Bigfoot, a comment was made the other great ape species, such as the Gorilla, had not been known for a long time, but were recently discovered. The impression was that this discovery was during the early 20th century. Is this so?

Jhugart 22:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, since the scientific name was assigned in the mid 19th Century, it's fair to say that it was known at least that long. I have a PDF on my work computer detailing the history of the gorilla to some extent, so I'll post something more informative on Monday. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Here we go: Colin S. Grove (2002). "A history of gorilla taxonomy". In Andrea B. Taylor & Michele L. Goldsmith (editors), Gorilla Biology: A Multidisciplinary Perspective, Cambridge University Press, 2002, pp. 15–34. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Climb Trees?

Came to wikipedia to see if Gorillas climbed trees. This information is missing from the article. Further research suggests that they do.

Younger gorillas and females (a bit) do, but Silverbacks are far too heavy.

Strength of a Gorilla

I think I read somehwere that a gorilla is 27 x stronger than a man. Is this true? I notice that the article says that the strength of a gorilla has never been measured...

There should defintely be more information in that section. One line isn't enough. I find it hard to believe that the strength can't be measured. Are there any resources that give more insight on this? Lengis 04:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I did some research and most of the sites I found either said that the gorilla's strength has never been measured, or just that the gorilla is really strong. Some sites, though, tried to give a good idea of how strong a gorilla really is. 1. from http://www.sfzoo.org/cgi-bin/animals.py?ID=31 - "Silverback gorillas possess the strength of four to eight strong men." 2. from http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dtrapp/bigfoot.htm - "Chimpanzees (with near human weight) have been estimated to possess five times human strength and gorillas supposedly have 10 times human strength." 3. from http://www.mattfurey.com/pullups.html - "Is it any wonder that...a gorilla has the strength of 10 Olympic weight lifters?"

I did some research too, and it said that while measuring strength is difficult because methods of determining strength also require a degree of skill involved. It may be entirely possible that a strong human can bench press more weight than a gorilla (if you could some how get a gorilla to bench press), but that same gorilla could rip that man's arms right off. Lengis 02:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

According to Animal Face-Off a gorilla has the strength of 20 men. Animal Planet's The Most Extreme stated that a gorilla can lift 10 times its own bodyweight.Zachorious 09:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Neither of those facts is verifiable. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Havn't you seen the show? I am not lying about those estimations.Zachorious 09:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I haven't. Regardless, have you seen any scientific evidence that the information they have is accurate? - UtherSRG (talk) 12:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

These were scientific estimations and cannot be dismissed.Zachorious 07:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

They're not scientific. Those television shows you mention are purely for entertainment. What they do on those shows would not be considered proof of anything by any reputable scientist.

Animal Face Off stated that SCIENTISTS estimate a gorilla's arm to be 20 times stronger than a human arm. They are the best estimations we have. Aug is that you? Zachorious 08:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Those scientists will have done their best in terms of accuracy, but they know that in the end it doesn't prove anything, and they know it's just for entertainment. It's too bad so few of the people who watch the show realize this. It's sad, in a way, but funny in another.
I question their credentials. What legitimate scientist would have anything to do with a show that does fantasy fights of animals that would never face each other in real life? They have a Kangaroo fighting a Killer Whale! Discovery has sunk to a new low. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.49.240.208 (talk • contribs) .

Why don't you guys ever sign your name. Either that is you Aug or some other bias fanboys are trying to mess up wikipedia. Until you guys can come up with better reasoning other than "I don't like the show so it has bad info" then the info will remain. Zachorious 09:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but no. Until you can come up with better documentation, the info must be removed. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


For starters: http://animal.discovery.com/fansites/mostextreme/episode/episode_01.html

"Come to grips with the strongest animals on Earth! The gorilla can lift ten times it's own body weight, but, pound for pound, the African crowned eagle carries more than a cargo plane. Meet the top ten in most extreme strength. Come to grips with the strongest animals on earth! Which animals can take down prey much bigger than themselves, or carry weights ten times heavier than their own? The strongest humans can lift about 3 times their own body weight, but the average gorilla can lift 10 times it's own body weight! And, pound for pound, the African Crowned Eagle can carry more than a cargo plane, because it can fly carrying up to 4 times it's own weight. Something that would keep a cargo plane grounded. But which animal has the Most Extreme Strength? Find out on this top ten countdown."

AFO is a bit harder to find actual quotes, but it is true. Therefore the info will remain. Zachorious 20:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

No. Some scientific data. A research paper. A published article in a journal. The burden of proof is on the inclusionist, not on the exclusionist. Reverted again. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Zachorias obviously doesn't understand what is meant by the word "scientific." As for the reason I never sign, it's because (through no action of mine), every time I sign on I have a new IP address. I don't edit enough to bother creating an account. I'm probably wasting my time by trying to reason with you, Zachorious, because based on your replies you don't read what I or anyone else writes - or at least, you don't read very carefully. It's not because of any dislike I have for the show that I think "it has bad info," it's because it doesn't qualify as scientific evidence. As UtherSRG said, evidence would be scientific data, like a research paper or a published article in a journal. No primatologist has ever done any research into the subject of gorilla strength. A TV show that is only meant as entertainment is not enough for proof.

Just to get off the subject for a second. It is not at all difficult to create a wiki account, it takes aroun 10 seconds. You don't even have to put in an email address. All you do is pick a name and type in your password twice. The most direct advantage to an editor is the avilability of a watch list that lets you see the most recent changes to your watched articles. Please think about signing up.

These TV shows should not be used as scientific proof of anything, but if correctly attributed in the article there is no reason they couldn't be mentioned. Maybe in a section that describes why we think gorillas are strong and why this is hard to test. "There have been many varying claims for gorilla's strength in the media most with little scientific background these include... " --Martyman-(talk) 01:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I have seen that show and its main purpose is to entertain and not educate, shows like that sensationalize stuff so they can get viewers in. I'd have to agree with the 'against' side here...But i think Martyman is on to something. Kokiri kid 08:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's not science but entertainment, shouldn't it go in the "Gorillas in Popular Culture" article? 67.71.143.228 22:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
There was some research in the journal of mammalogy regarding chimpanzee one arm pulling strength measured on a dynamometer in 1923 which recorded something like 900lbs vs 200lbs for a 165lb chimp and 165lb man respectively. The problem with this is there is no information about leverage/range of motion (ROM) the test was done over, although the chimp was pulling one armed with feet braced (something akin to a 1-arm deadlift). I can imagine the long arms of the chimpanzee would turn this sort of exercise into nothing more than a few inches of ROM lockout. I can readily envision a 165lb world class deadlifter (pulling 750lbs+) quite capable of lifting well over 900lbs, say from above knee cap level to erect (whether or not they could do it one handed is another matter). Naturally, the human in question is of exceptional genetic stock and many years trained. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.143.165.183 (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Animal Planet tries to educate it's viewers while entertaining them at the same time so that information probably could be true. I have read many books saying that a Gorilla is 10x stronger than a human so why not add it in?NuKkEm 04:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If you can provide a reliable and verifiable, non-entertainment source, sure. I haven't seen any scientific information on how strong a gorila is, only entertainment information. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

US / Imperial weights and heights

Added english weight and heights in paratheses to save people from having to look up a conversion page.


The conversions from metres to feet is wrong. 1.65 m is 5 feet 4 inches not 5.4 feet and 1.75 m is 5 feet 7 inches not 5.7 feet. Also the conversion from kg only gives weight in "pounds" (sic). If the conversion is necessary, I think the symbol lb sshould be used and the weight also given in stones (to be more familiar to British and Irish readers).

My personal preference is to remove the conversions altogether - this is a scientific article in an international encyclopaedia, so metres and kilograms are appropriate.

What does everyone else think? --Yaf201 10:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at the Manual of Style and I'll change the conversions to fit that. --Yaf201 11:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I see someone has removed the stone conversions. If we have to include lb to keep some US people happy, we should include stones to extend the same courtesy to British and Irish readers to whom 300 lb is meaningless. I've added the stones again. I've also added hyperlinks to the non metric measures to clarify their usage --Yaf201 12:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No. The standard for biology articles is to use metric and English. Stones are not standard. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

So what are stones if not English? We invented them after all. Whose standard is to use American measures for biology? IMHO, all scientific articles should be metric only.--Yaf201 12:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Problem solved - US and British measurements removed. This is an international encyclopaedia after all, not just a US or UK one.--Yaf201 12:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have found that most problems are solved by discussing them rather than unilateral action. I have restored the english & metric measurements. Since this is the english version of the article, and since most who read english understand english and/or metric, a combination seems (IMHO) to be the best for the readers. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 12:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough - but why were the stones removed?--Yaf201 12:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Because stones are not used in Wikipedia articles elsewhere. 2. Because UK readers should already understand metric and/or SI units, while US readers genreally only understand English units. Leave them off please! - UtherSRG (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I see, we extend a courtesy to one nationality too bone idle to look up conversions but not to another??? You would be really surprised at how many UK readers unfortunately do not find metric / SI units intuitive and no one on this side of the pond can visualise large numbers of pounds. Leave our stones alone!!!!!!--Yaf201 13:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Either leave them off, or get them added to all other biology articles. They are totally in appropriate. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah forget it. have your way if it's that important to you. Some of us have better things to do with our time.--Yaf201 13:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this. The Manual of Style is crystal clear

Wikipedia articles are intended for people anywhere in the world. Try to make articles simple to read and translate.
  • Conversions should generally be included and not be removed.

In the UK, people know their own weight in stones and lb, rarely kg and NEVER just lb. By adding stones, we're making it easier for non-scientific UK readers to visual the weight of the animal. Removing stones does not add to the clarity of the article and is a direct contravention of the MoS. I'm putting the stones back in.--Yaf201 10:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Until you look more broadly and make similar edits across many Wikipedia articles to add stones, I can only assume that your edits are a form of harassment. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Stop this now. I suggest that we are not going to agree and we request mediation. In the meantime, please stop breaching the MoS by removing conversions.--Yaf201 13:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think mediation is a great idea. We have enough trouble with vandalism on this page without having to put up with this kind of stuff. However, as UtherSRG points out, if you had other kinds of edits, your contributions might be received better. Apparently, you either feel very strongly about this, or you get bored easily. ;^)
BTW - if you look at the manual of style page, there is no mention of stones in any of the US/Metric examples. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 13:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you WPR. I am happy to accept the outcome of mediation. I assume in a case like this that mediators will not be entrirely American or British.

I had hoped to become a more productive contributor to wikipedia, but to be brutally frank, my experience here has really put me off.--Yaf201 13:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

UtherSRG has done it again!!! (S)he's removed the conversion BREACHING MoS. UtherSRG please reply here and let me know whether you agree to mediation. This is getting very silly and is not giving wikipedia a good name.--Yaf201 13:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've done it again. I've remove an edit that breaks conformity with all of the other articles in the Wikipedia. (PS. I'm a guy.) - UtherSRG (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Mr UtherSRG ;). Please show me a link which forbids Imperial measurements. If you accept my offer of mediation, I am happy to leave Imperial measures out of this article until this issue is resolved. In the meantime - back in they go.--Yaf201 13:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Get stones accepted onto other articles, and I'll accept them here. It works both ways. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

As a sign of goodwill, i will consider my 3 reverts used for today and leave the article as is. My offer of mediation stands, please do me the courtesy of responding to it. As for adding stones to other articles - I am happy to consider doing it to those where it would clarify matters for the reader (at first thought chimpanzees might benefit - mosquitoes wouldn't). However, I don't want to go through this charade everywhere. Unfortunately, this causes a catch 22 situation, you won't accept stones here and I'm not inclined to have the same disagreement with you on other pages. I suggest that you and I are not going to agree and that mediation is the sensible way forward. --Yaf201 14:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I have seen no formal request for mediation, so I can not respond to it. I agree that mosquito would be a bad place for stones, but if you think stones are acceptable, try putting them on some page that you think I wouldn't care about. If others cared about stones, they would already be there. I don't see stones on other articles, so I don't see anyone wanting stones to be used in other articles, so I see no need for them to be in this article. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Looking further, I'm inclined to stay rigid on this. Look at the difference between the articles that reference stone for weight and the articles that references pound for weight. Stone seems to be relegated almost entirely to human weight measurement, at least in Wikipedia, while pound is used for all sorts of objects. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I've raised a request for mediation. i hope that i've done it right, i've never done it before. Stones are the most common unit of choice for expressing human weight and the weights of animals that are in the same order as humans. All domestic bathroom scales have dual measurements (stones and kg). So we Brits have (unfortunately IMHO, but that's another matter) had no incentive to get used to kg. We use pounds for small weights, say under 2 stone and stones up to about 40 stones, when we go into fractions of tons (40 stone = 1/4 ton). I agree it's a cumbersome and illogical system, but it is what people are used to. I would support any proposal to have wikipedia metric only and let people do their own conversions if they prefer other systems. But, realistically, that's not going to happen. I cannot see why adding stones (after lbs to recognise the fact that there are more North American than British and Irish Wikipedians) causes any difficulty to North American readers. Wheras removing stones does cause difficulty for some British and Irish readers.--Yaf201 14:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added myself to the request since I've been involved in some of the reverts. Hopefully, that isn't a problem with anyone else. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 15:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Not a problem at all. You are more than welcome. I think you need to add your signature to the "agree" bit to signify your agreement to take part.--Yaf201 15:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Please post a link to it here, so I don't have to search for it. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

i've asked for the RFM to be deleted. This is not important enough to be taking up any more of my time or anyone else's. I will not be using wikipedia again.

--Yaf201 07:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Must say, I'm sorry to see you go. I think you're a pretty good editor, since you're willing to talk out issues. I'm sorry you're so attached to this 'stone measurement' system that you'er willing to quit wikipedia over it, but it's been said often enough that it's not feasible, unless you can convince every regular editor at each ape/human/animal page to agree, which I doubt you'll be able to do. I suggest again talking on the policy pages about this. ThuranX 20:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

formatting problems

For me anyway, the first line in the section "gorilla culture" is partially obscured by the image. I'm using the latest version of Firefox. I dunno if my 26" widescreen monitor is could possibly have any effect on page rendering - but at any rate I wouldn't know how to fix this, so I'm just mentioning it here. Jafafa Hots 15:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Too many image

An anon user recently removed two of the images on the basis that they were 'unnecessary and distracting'. On the one hand they have a point, in that there are probably too many pictures on this page. I'm not so sure about the 3D photo of a skull, but I've restored the tool use image since it does significantly support the section on tool use and comes from the original scientific paper cited. -- Solipsist 15:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Anon user 70.53.109.170, on 03:28, 2 February 2006, erased legitimate additions to the "Gorillas in pop culture" section. I have restored those additions. -- Tenebrae 04:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That kind of content doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.231.12.182 (talk • contribs) .
64.231 is a vandal, in case anyone was afraid there was a serious complaint here. [1] --Malthusian (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Malthusian! -- Tenebrae 05:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Gee, yeah, what would we have done without Malthusian. The joker strikes me as a vandal himself, he just hides it better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.50.52.181 (talk • contribs) .
I try my best. Only the sharpest anons are able to penetrate my mask of lies and deceit. --Malthusian (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't try to be witty. You don't have it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.71.142.160 (talk • contribs) .

Please use ~~~~ to sign your talk edits. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Can anybody tell me why this page is vandalized so much? It happens much more than most of the other pages I watch. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 19:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

without sinking into forum-like discussion, i'd say it's probably becaues it's looked at in lots of high school science classes, so people edit in class, and because apes are a good thing, in a kid's mind, to compare someone too. ThuranX 21:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Pls do NOT have images face off the page

That's a very, very basic rule of design. Having an image face off the page is like having a football player running the wrong way toward the wrong goal, or a batter in baseball facing away from the pitcher. It really is that basic. I saw that User:Herculaneum tried to mediate, and I accepted his change. User:Last Malthusian keeps moving the image to face off the page. Given the basic design element involved, this does not seem like a good-faith edit but simply contrarian vandalism. Would User:Last Malthusian like to explain to the rest of us, properly, as we're supposed to dicuss, what the point of his action is? - Tenebrae 19:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

One basic rule of design can not out weigh other basic rules of design. Having images repeated push the text to the right, is bad design. The best compromise would be to not always push the text to the right, and not always have the images face onto the screen. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
First off, my apolgies to User:Last Malthusian. All the edits got confusing. I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning -- images appear on the left of the page, with text to the right of it, all over Wikipedia and in magazines and newspapers all around the world.
I'm deleting the image for now, since if there's no abolutely, positively way for it to ever fit as good design, then it can't belong, obviously. -- Tenebrae 19:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Seeing that this seems to be an actively watched page I thought I should let you guys know why I made the 3D image changes I made to the article. There is a proposed guideline (hopefully close to being declared a guideline) at Wikipedia:3D Illustrations that we have developed to specify how 3D images should best be intergrated into articles. Please drop by and leave some feedback if you are interested. --Martyman-(talk) 21:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Gorillas in pop culture

An anonymous editor keeps re-adding the "gorillas in pop culture section" that has been split off to a seperate article. There is no need to polute otherwise good articles with this kind of rubbish, it is lucky to get ay mention at all. --Martyman-(talk) 05:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It's okay, of course, for them to have their own separate article. Martyman, you are a FOOL.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.50.52.172 (talk • contribs) .
Random trivia on Gorilla suits, movies and tv does not fit in with a proper scientific encyclopedia article and is perfectly accessable from a seperate article. If you look I did not make the change in the first place but I do support it, as it greatly improves the quality of this article. --Martyman-(talk) 10:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, I was the one who originally added the reference to Don Martin's National Gorilla Suit Day and I'm perfectly happy to have it live in a "Pop Culture" sub-page 81.2.114.214 22:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Martyman (although not with his saying the pop culture information is "random trivia"; popular culture is a very powerful force, yet concrete facts for it are harder to come by than for classical culture).
I think User:70.50.52.172 is very out of line in calling anyone names; there's no reason for it, and it just makes people solidify their positions against you, so why do it? - Herculaneum 14:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Many other articles have this sort of section. The article on Coyote has it, with a reference to Wile E. Coyote. This is appropriate. You wouldn't find it in Britannica, but this is supposed to be less formal (though not less factually accurate, ideally). I would prefer to have the list pared down, but still part of the article, than to see it as a separate page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.211.145.240 (talk • contribs) .
Where exactly is it spelled out that the wikipedia should be less formal than the britanica? I think on scientific subjects we should be trying to hold articles to the highest level possible. I have no problem with pop culture being included in wikipedia but it should be as an extra to the primary purpose of an encyclopedia. Personally, I find the huge amount of pop-culture references in wikipedia (often to the point of eclipsing the serious portion of articles) an embaressment and not the best example of what wikipedia can achieve. You will not find large trivial pop-culture sections in any recent Featured Article for this reason (unless it is an article about a pop culture subject). --Martyman-(talk) 00:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe the way the article looks now is atrocious, with images stacked atop each other. And I really can't see any downside to having the two-sentence reference and a link to a separate Gorillas in Pop Culture entry, as was there before. I have to wonder why User:205.211.145.240 is being so insistent on keeping it within the more scientific article? And I would say that Wile E. Coyote does not in any sense belong as more than a passing reference in a scientific article on coyotes. I cast my consensus vote with Martyman on moving it to its own section.
And why on earth would someone prefer to see the list be "pared down" and less encyclopedic? I realize I'm new here, and I might be mistaken with the terminololgy, but isn't someone who makes pointless changes and advocates making things less good and complete called "a Wikipedia troll"? -- Herculaneum 02:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I have to thank you guys for injecting a little humour into this. It wasn't intentional, I know, but all the same it's there. Martyman, it's not written down anywhere, I never said that. It's just inevitable that an encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone is going to be of a much lower standard. Britannica isn't that great either, but it's a hell of a lot better than this thing. I hate to have to be the one to tell you, but this article doesn't qualify as a scientific article on gorillas. It's an embarrasment, and getting rid of the section on gorillas in popular culture isn't going to improve it. As long as Joe Twelvepack can edit the article and add anything he wants - whether based on fact or not (I'm thinking here of the guy who keeps trying to put in "scientific" data on the strength of gorillas) - it hasn't got a prayer. You all might as well just embrace the fact that this encyclopedia is a joke. As for the guy who commented on the idea of a pared down list, you really missed the whole point. You'll probably want to edit this discussion and take your comments out. I'm sure you'll feel pretty embarrassed when you realize how far wrong you got it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.49.243.225 (talk • contribs) .
The above note was inserted by 70.49.243.225, who also changed the images yet again. Personally, I preferred the Silverback being where it was before. I also like the idea of having a separate article for Gorillas in pop culture. I am looking forward to some kind of consensus for how this page should end up. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 04:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
There is consensus for most of it except for the anonymous troll who is continuing to edit despite being blocked, because they have access to numerous IP addresses. --Martyman-(talk) 04:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The only troll here is you, Martyman. The article only needs one picture. The photo to do with gorilla tool use should be left out because it is hard to tell what the gorilla is doing anyway, but even if it was larger and clearer, it would still be unnecessary. Only one image is needed, either the silverback photo or that of the eastern lowland gorilla. As for the "gorillas in popular culture" bit, if it must be its own page, it's enough to have the link there. The sentence someone added to go with it makes little sense, as there haven't been that many giant gorillas. Most of the appearances in popular culture of the gorilla were normal sized, or even if they were slightly larger than a real gorilla, they were not anywhere near King Kong's size. That sentence should be removed; even if nothing else, that should be removed. I'm not sure why people are so bothered by having the popular culture section in articles. It's almost always at the end, after the serious, scientific article (which, unfortunately, is not usually all that scientifically accurate), so there's no harm to it. This encyclopedia was intended to be less formal, without sacrificing factual accuracy - overall, it has succeeded, but only because most people don't take it too seriously. I'm all for accuracy, I don't think that should be sacrificed for anything, but having a popular culture section doesn't take away from that at all. As for images, as I said above we really only need one.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.49.243.225 (talk • contribs) .
Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style, none of your suggestions or edits have any basis in wikipedia's official style guideline. --Martyman-(talk) 22:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't say anything about any of that, Martyman. It doesn't say anywhere that links to sections must be accompanied by nonsensical comments. You really shouldn't post your comments, you embarrass yourself whenever you do. For one thing, you need to make sure you've at least got your spelling right.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.71.142.224 (talk • contribs) .
Two words. Summary Style. --Martyman-(talk) 23:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I wonder, Maryman, if you get tired of being wrong all the time. I wonder if you know what "nonsensical" means. I'll give you a hint: it's an adverb, and a derivative of the word "nonsense." The text that accompanies that link makes no sense, and the Summary Style does not specify that the text accompanying a link to a summary section must be nonsensical. It doesn't say that that there must be text accompanying the link, only that the link should come before the text (and after the heading), not that there must be text. If you're going to cite an authority, you should know what it says. But, then, I've read your user page, so I know your cup doesn't exactly runneth over with knowledge and experience. Instead of bothering people here, maybe you should go throw some more shrimp on the barbie.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.50.55.4 (talk • contribs) .

I made an addition about the genius primate archetype and it was deleted. It's just as relevant as the gorilla suit and giant gorilla archetype. I'm going to add it back in and if it's deleted again I'll remove the whole pop culture section. There's no point in adding in a stub section and then deleting expansions to it. As it is you interupt a relatively scholarly article just to make vague references and talk about gorilla suits. I don't see a problem with the pop culture section but either make it a legit section or get rid of it. The fact that there's a "famous gorilla" page or whatever is irrelevant.68.166.69.245 14:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Add your pop culture references to gorillas in popular culture. That's what that article is for. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Then you'll have no problem with me deleting the pop culture section of this article. 68.166.69.245 22:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Your admittedly WP:POINT based edit was reverted. In keeping with Wikistyles, this article has a simple introductory 'stub' style noting the section and linking to the main article. Do not add to it, and do not revert it out again. You are making a point, which is against policy. Go read the essay, and go cool off. ThuranX 22:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

What point am I trying to make exactly? That the article is poorly structured? If you're going to go beyond simply linking to the page then there's no reason to intentionally keep it a stub. I will edit it again. Do not revert. 68.166.69.245 23:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverted. YOu are vandalizing wikipedia by blanking a viable, valid section. I suggest you register, get an account here, and get welcomed so you can review wikipedia's procedures and policies. Right now, your actions are more likely to get you blocked for a period of time than get you respect or cooperation. If you have a problem, bring it back here. I warn you, you have made this edit twice now. Should you do it twice more, you will violate 3RR, and thus be eligible for a block. ThuranX 23:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Blow it out your ass. I put a link to a much more comprehensive article on gorillas in pop culture at the bottom of the page. The stub is unnecessary. Learning that people like gorilla suits and alluding to pop-culture gorillas does not benefit the page at all. 68.166.69.245 23:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIVIL, and redact your comment. The 'instructions' you so 'kindly' provided are considered a Personal Attack. Thank you in advance for restoring civility to the talk page. ThuranX 23:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a term of endearment. The stub is unnecessary. It looks like a half-assed section and makes the page look less comprehensive. You are now in violoation of wiki's 3RR policy. I suggest you read up on it.68.166.69.245 23:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I request some kind of mediation as this guy is obviously in love with the stub.68.166.69.245 23:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in vio of 3RR as one of the other reverts was made by another editor. You, however, definitely are. ThuranX 23:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Although it seems obvious by the timing and edit histories that the 'new' IP is simply the old editor under a new IP, I'm going to AGF, and let the edits stand. Any other behavior at this page, however, by that IP in the same manner will get a reference to AN/I. I also feel it deserves notation that the editor above, 68.166.69.245, incurred a total of 8 reverts, by 5 editors, and reverted to his version 7 times, a CLEAR violation of the 3RR and Point policies here when compared to his talk page behaviors. ThuranX 00:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
For more on this, and the subsequent overhaul of the paragraph, please look here [2], then return here for comment. (Do NOT fill Uther's talk up with replies that I won't even see.) ThuranX 06:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Image wrangling

There seems to have been a lot of silliness over image placements on this article over the last week or so. When the dust settles, can someone reintroduce the image illustrating tool use that an anon has randomly deleted a couple of times.

[[Image:Gorrila tool use-Efi.jpg||thumb|200px|right|A female gorilla exhibiting tool use by using a tree trunk as a support whilst fishing.]]

After an image of a male gorilla and one of a female gorilla, this is probably the most significant picture we could have here. In case some editors haven't actually read the article, tool use was only observed in the wild for the first time last year. We don't really need that many pictures of male gorilla's in zoos. -- Solipsist 14:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that an image of a gorilla using a tool is important and should be included. I say go for it.
However, it was unnecessary and inaccurate to refer to "a lot of silliness over image placements", first for the needlessly perjorative term -- was there really no other word in the English language you reasonably could have used, in order to maintain civility? Remember, we can't see facial expressions or hear vocal tone, so the word is all we can go by -- and secondly because "image placement" is a component of design, and good design is integral to clear and effective communication. I say this not a graphic designer or anything myself, but as someone who respects that it is an educational discipline and a profession.
I hope you don't mind if I say it might not have been productive to throw stones about editors, you believe, not having read the article; you yourself might not have read the History page regarding an issue that, quite rightly, you bring up. Otherwise you might have seen that "the dust settle[d]" when an image was flipped so that it could remain in the same place without facing out. User:UtherSRG and I worked together on that — not always smoothly, but certainly respectfully toward each others' concerns.
In any event, I agree with the image proposal you described, and I hope and imagine other editors would as well. — Tenebrae 15:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh no, I read the edit history alright. And I found the anon editors who deleted it shortly after I last restored it- quite possibly whilst trying to mask their edits as reverting vandalism, [3] [4]. When you see two anons coordinating like this, instead of responding to the comments I placed above, not to mention the rest of the edit warring of images and a trivia section that has been going, it all looks like silliness to me. I can see that yourself and User:UtherSRG have been doing your best to keep things straight, but material is getting lost along the way. I would have restored it again, but I don't get the impression that the edit warring has finished yet, hence placing a simple link here for when someone judges that the page has settled down. -- Solipsist 16:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I know we'll all rest easy knowing you're on the case. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.50.53.74 (talk • contribs) .

protected

I've protected this page so that only registered users can edit it. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Should the page have the vprotect template added to it? --Martyman-(talk) 00:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Thanks - UtherSRG (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually I was wrong, semiprotection is correctly marked with {{sprotect}} (I made the change). It is also meant to be listed at Wikipedia:Protected page#Semi-protection. --Martyman-(talk) 00:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Got it. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I must admit that I was wondering how long this would go on. An interesting study in human nature. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 04:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It might be necessary to protect it again for a while, if Zachorious is going to keep adding that content on strength. (I was almost going to call it "information," but that would be a stretch.) 70.53.108.247<--not that it means anything)

  • I have again semiprotected the page to deal with repeated anonymous vandal edits. --Martyman-(talk) 01:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I wonder why you think that crap about gorillas in popular culture belongs here. I wonder why you think it deserves its own page. Ask yourself if that kind of information belongs in an *encyclopedia* article (make that an encyclopedia that wants to be taken seriously). 70.50.53.43
If you remove content for a reason, you should state that reason in the edit summary field. Unexplained large deletes are routenely reverted many times a minute on wikipedia since they are simple vandalism 99% of the time. And whole section deletes made by an unregistered user are vandalism (or newbie mistakes) even more frequently. We actually now have bots parsing recent changes for such deletes to revert since they are so frequent. So, there's no wonder your good fait removal were mistaken for vandalism. You didn't know that, of course, so I'm not blaming you or anything. Just explaining what might hapend here. As to wether gorillas in popular culture deserve its own section, I think I might be on your side here. But I see it's been debated a few sections up... Shanes 02:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
This is the same user who when we first moved the pop-culture references to a seperate article repeatedly re-added it to the main article. Please do not be too quick to assume good faith. --Martyman-(talk) 03:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and I should point out that I am totally against the huge amount of pop-culture references that flood wikipedia, but moving the information to a seperate article and writing a short summary is by far the best solution I have found. Simply removing the pop-culture stuff invariably leads to having to defend the article from people wishing to re-add the info. --Martyman-(talk) 03:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I just read his comment against pop-culture here and saw that he had removed the section and assumed he didn't like the section on pop-culture stuff to be here. If he is actually for the opposite, there's clearly more to this than I thought. But why can't we just have a link to it under "See also" at the end, and revert and point people to the pop-culture article whenever someone wants to re add such stuff here? Shanes 03:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Martyman's a bit confused. Don't be too quick to assume good faith on his part. I don't dig getting blamed for things I haven't done, but if you read Martyman's discussion page, he's not really too worried about having good reasons for saying or doing something. He'll block someone at the drop of a hat (I'm surprised I'm not blocked already.) People that share IP addresses often get lumped in together. He'd probably say to register, but if I did that I might as well just start attending Star Trek conventions, and let myself go. 70.50.53.43
What can get you blocked is talking down on others. So, don't do that, please. As to signing up an account, it takes 10 seconds. You don't even have to leave an e-mail address if you don't want to. And, while we're completely gorilla off topic here, the easyest way to sign your posts is to just type ~~~~ It will add the date as well. Shanes 05:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
It's only a problem if what you say about them is untrue. 70.50.53.43
Not really. There are nice ways to disagree and non-nice ways. Regardless of how we rationalize things, our opinions are subjective. Just because we can justify them to ourselves doesn't mean that others will agree with us. So, coming up with a nice way to disagree will go a long way to helping what others think of you and how they respond to you and your actions. (BTW - it is four tildes to sign your comments. That will add the date and time.) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 15:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
The things I was saying are not subjective. 70.50.53.43 15:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Summary style suggests overly long sections (like the pop-culture one was) should be split off and a short summary put in the article in it's place. I actually think the summary that is there now does a pretty good job of including some of the more important points while excluding the bulk of the fan cruft from the main article. --Martyman-(talk) 13:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm a fan of summary style as well. But sometimes a topic is so far from what the article really is about, that just a "See also" link to that very different article is more apropriate. And (though not a reason that has any backing in any guideline or policy) from a maintainance point of view, the section is more prone to getting additions by people who think their favourite gorilla figure should be mentioned, with ensuing disputes and arguing. But I'm not strongly against that short summary, I just jumped in here for some reason I've forgot, probably shouldn't. I haven't followed this article and its history. And I don't even know much about gorillas in the jungle or in space. So, I'll shut up now. Shanes 13:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


Jaw structure

There's a word for the way a gorilla's mandible pushes forward of the maxilla above. I checked Great apes, but that shunts to Hominidae, and that's more taxonomic than anatomical. Anyone know that word, and is it worth adding to the article in terms of appearance and physical characteristics?ThuranX 19:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know te word, but it is certainly worth adding. UtherSRG (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The word is Prognathus, or Prognathous, from Latin, Pro - Forward, and Gnathus, jaw. Took some creative Intarweb searchings. I'll try to write up an inclusion tonight.ThuranX 01:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

do gorillas don't have a "culture"?

From Oxford Dictionary: culture |ˈkəl ch ər| noun 1 the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively : 20th century popular culture. • a refined understanding or appreciation of this : men of culture. • the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group : Caribbean culture | people from many different cultures. • [with adj. ] the attitudes and behavior characteristic of a particular social group : the emerging drug culture. 2 Biology the cultivation of bacteria, tissue cells, etc., in an artificial medium containing nutrients : the cells proliferate readily in culture. • a preparation of cells obtained in such a way : the bacterium was isolated in two blood cultures. • the cultivation of plants : this variety of lettuce is popular for its ease of culture.

I have changed this to "society".

And it has been changed back. It seems rather odd that such close relatives could be construed as being bereft of culture. Short circuiting the concept of culture as a purely human manifestation cannot be assumed, especially given the extensive evidence that says otherwise. Ombudsman 19:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Changed to Gorilla Behavior. That's less personifying, as both "society" and "culture" are. Both suggest a codified level of repeatably demonstrable behaviors based on inculcations with purpose, instead of instinctually preferred behaviors. until someone proves that gorillas have a rationale behind their actions which they are aware of and intentionally perpetuate for that purpose, let's stick with a WYSIWYG attitude. we know they behave in certain ways, but don't know the motivations.ThuranX 05:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Uther's change works for me.ThuranX 14:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Concur. Describe, not construe. Midgley 21:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

DNA alikeness

"With 92-98% of its DNA being identical to that of a human, it is the second closest living relative to humans after the two chimpanzee species." Does anyone have any reference to that?

This mentions it [1], and there are various other pages that suggest a close match between humans and gorillas if you search the web.

Gorilla strength

Please cite something to distinctly refute the cited strength statistics, or do not delete them. thank you.ThuranX 02:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

We don't need to. A citation in and of itself is not grounds for inclusion in an article. A citation is a means to verify the information. However, a disreputable citation is justification for removing the information from the article until better data can be found. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree, but if the claim is 'the source is lousy', explain why. The San Fran zoo seems a reasonable source to me.ThuranX 01:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

WPCD

Please make sure that whatever version gets copied to the CD doesn't have any vandalism that various anons seem to get their kicks inserting on a regular basis. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 10:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of baboon reference in the tool use section

I'm going to pull the baboon story in the tool use section. I feel it is both irrelevant to the topic at hand (baboons are not apes) and unverified. The latter would merit simply running down the source. The former is what I'm basing my decision to remove the sentence on. It may be appropriate for the baboon page but it isn't relevant to a section on tool use by great apes. Moonsword 03:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

'Nuff said! 67.71.143.228 22:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

can someone tell me

can someone specify in the article (in the intro) what two chimpazee species are the closest to human.--69.229.240.233 04:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No, that would be inappropriate to this article. The answer to your question is that both of the two chimpanzee species (the Common Chimpanzee and the Bonobo) are equally related to humans; that is, both chimpanzees have a common ancestor that is related to an ancestor of H. sapiens. Humans are more closely related to chimpanzees than to other apes, next is gorillas, then orangutans, then gibbons (see ape). After the apes, we're more closely related to the Old World monkeys than to the New World monkeys, but we're more closely related to any money than to the tarsiers, which we're more closely related to than the rest of the prosimians (see primate). - UtherSRG (talk) 11:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Average is below 'range'

The article says "Adult males range in height from 165-175 cm (5 ft 5 in-5 ft 9 in), and in weight from 140-200 kg (310-440 lb). Averaging about 140 cm (4 ft 7 in) tall and 100 kg (220 lb)" so the 'average' is below what it gives as the range. That can't be right.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk • contribs)

Nice catch! All we have to do now is figure out what (if anything) is correct. (BTW - the convention is to add new sections to the bottom of Talk pages.) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 20:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Bad catch. Read more carefully. "Averaging about 140 cm (4 ft 7 in) tall and 100 kg (220 lb), adult females are often half the size of a silverback." - UtherSRG (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Fixed it so we don't have to read more carefully. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 21:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Origin and evolution of gorillas

Although gorillas split from their ancestor about 7 million years ago, no fossil gorillas have been found in Africa so far, as ape fossils don't easily fossilize in rainforest environments. However, Wolpoff et. al. (2002) consider the early human Sahelanthropus to be an early gorilla, yet only the skull does not really prove that Sahelanthropus was a gorilla.

Wolpoff, M.H., B. Senut, M. Pickford & J. Hawks (2002). Sahelanthropus or ‘Sahelpithecus’? Nature 419:581-582. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk • contribs) .

Interesting, but is there a viable way to include it in the article? ThuranX 16:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I want you to add this reference to this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk • contribs).

Population

I guess there exists some kind of population estimate? I missed that when reading the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.202.92.155 (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

I also would like to see population estimates, and would really appreciate a table of population over time, say current and per century mark or something like that. Possible and/or appropriate?? It looks like one can can go to the species/subspecies articles, and maybe references, for such info, but I think it would be very helpful to have a summary of total population (and history over time) in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.230.194.82 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 4 February 2007.

Message from HeliosEun (German User)

Damn vandalism... --84.180.250.223 13:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Link

Hi, I'm working with The Pulitzer Center, a non-profit journalism agency geared towards providing audience to underrepresented news stories. I'd like to link this page to a few related articles on the Pulitzer site; "Gorillas in our Midst," and others concerning Gorillas and their environment http://www.pulitzercenter.org/openitem.cfm?id=275 Please let me know if I can post these links. Many thanks in advance. Blendus 04:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I would think that a bunch of links to the same site would not be appropriate, but a link to the home page of the site might be fine. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 09:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Diet

Gorillas are folivore/herbivores, not omnivores. Chimps are omnivores. 76.16.81.251 04:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken. About 1-2% of the gorilla's diet is insects. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
You are mistaken. It doesn't count when it's just a few insects they don't happen to notice on a bit of vegetation they're eating. You're almost as dumb as ThuranX. 70.49.240.62 02:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)