Talk:Jane Goodall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (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

[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] References for this page

They are SERIOUSLY lacking.. there are only 2 for the whole article and they're not even inline references (ie: footnotes). This lack of references seriously compromises the general quality of this article and is no doubt one of the reasons why, despite its length and amount of content, it is still only rated "Start" class under the "wikiproject Biography" quality scale. I've just put up a "More references or sources needed" tag for this reason, hopefully it will facilitate some remedial action in this area. Kotare 10:43, 3 May 2007 (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 ForceGot something to say? 06:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so she's an anthropologist. But still, why is her picture the representation of anthropological article stubs? She's clearly not the "most famous" anthropologist (Mead, Malinowski, Boas surpass her in anthropological influence, I'd say!), indeed, most would characterize as being more along primatology than anthropology (the layman would just say "chimp-lady" :-)). So shouldn't the picture be changed? -- Wikigeek at gmail —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.163.213.226 (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2008 (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 ForcePoll: 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 ForcePoll: 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)
If it's semi-protected then how has 130.13.175.190 vandalized it 8 times today? Violask81976 23:55, 12 April 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.

[edit] Margaret Powers link

The article references Margaret Powers, author of "The Egalitarians: Humans and Chimpanzees". The hyperlink for her name leads to Margaret Powers, a fictional character in Marvel comics. While hilarious, this is obviously not the right Margaret Powers. I don't know if this is the result of deliberate misdirection or if no wiki page exists for the proper Margaret Powers, but in either case it should be re-directed or removed as appropriate.

Onouris Onouris 16:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Life with Jane Goodall

Jane Goodallwas not only a zoologist, but a primatologist. She was born in London England on April 3, 1934.She moved to France in 1939.She went and saw a list of jobs at Oxford University. She chose to be a scientist (of course!). If you think about it, Jane Goodall is a amazing person.You might wonder why this isn't very detail. That's because I'm only a 9-year-old.  :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.164.218.235 (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] False film

Removed the "1971 Don't Rape The Children" film entry (added 23:50, 3 May 2007 66.175.169.28). Forgot to fill the Edit Summary field, sorry. Exaton 01:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism/Tanzania Hostage Incident

I find both sections of criticism and the hostage incident too one-sided, too destructive. I don't know about her comportment during the hostage crisis nor do I know much about how she conducted her research, but I am convinced there are arguments that defend both her scientific and her private behavior. Cheers. --Ben T/C 18:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I can't see how this particular historical event plays into a brief biographical entry of this kind. It seems rather pointed, negative, one sided and is only sited with an article from Stanford that doesn't speak to Goodall's involvement - mind you that the students were there presumably under the auspices of a University - Not Jane Goodall herself... I just think this is not an appropriate place for this kind of remark - perhaps the event should be given it's own page where the facts can be fully accessed and researched. It seems to me that there must have been more to the event and all involved than what is included in this entry. -Bryce —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Btugwell (talk • contribs) 05:26, August 21, 2007 (UTC).


Short of removing the section altogether as immaterial, I would suggest that whoever wrote the synopsis about the hostage incident elaborate on Jane Goodall's involvement (or, as they pointedly assert, lack thereof). For example: WHY did she refuse to contribute to the ransom fund? WHY did she escape into the jungle before warning the students of danger? To use a hackneyed cliché, there are always two sides to every story. Much ink has been expended about this particular subject, and encyclopaedia contributions should always provide as rounded a picture as possible. I seem to remember reading somewhere an OBJECTIVE description of the hostage events and Jane Goodall's involvement, but couldn't say definitively whether the statements posted as "facts" in the hostage-related section are entirely correct. Natedogg923 21:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should contact Jane Goodall about this or investigate archives of the Stanford Daily from the time. If you talk to people who were Stanford students at the time, it was a huge scandal. This is certainly an important part of the Jane Goodall story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.210.195 (talk) 05:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

fuck u —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.201.106 (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Reason for Hope, her biography, might give the other side of both issues. It would be good if somebody could add from the book. --Ben T/C 18:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I find this entire section on the hostage crisis not germane to the biography of Goodall. As this section exists today, it is has very little about the subject. I would like to see this section removed. -- Thaths 01:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


On a related note, Dale Peterson's biography states that Jane Goodall was asleep in her own cabin, a considerable distance away from the students' camp, at the time of the kidnapping and that none of the intruders ventured that far up the beach, either before or after she is supposed to have "slipped into the forest". She had been awakened by a noise in the middle of the night, but thinking it unimportant quickly went back to sleep. The first she heard of the crime was after the kidnappers and their victims were gone.

Also, Jane's eight-year-old son was in the cabin with her at the time of the kidnapping, according to Peterson's account and others. If she had been notified of danger DURING or BEFORE the kidnapping, does it seem at all likely that she would have jeopardized his safety to slip through the forest to warn the students?

The only scenario that rings true based on the accounts I've read is that Jane slept, for the most part undisturbed, during the kidnapping and only found out about it shortly after the fact.

As to her not paying ransom money: so many governments and ambassadors were involved in the negotiation process that I seem to remember reading she was advised, in essence, to butt out. I also recall reading that the American Ambassador in Tanzania initially refused to allow anyone to treat with terrorists by giving in to monetary demands. But I could be wrong there! Please correct me if so. Natedogg923 23:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tanzania section fails WP:BLP - immediate removal is called for

The Tanzania section fails WP:BLP and should be removed '*immediately*. As is often the case on Wikipedia, the references cited do not support strong accusations and insinuations made in the article. The Tanzania section is apparently only there because someone wants to cause a bit of mischief and raise the suggestion that Goodall's behaviour was in some way scandalous here.

It would be okay to include this section and criticism of Goodall if there was indeed good references for the widespread or authoritative suggestions that Goodall was at fault. Again, as is often the case with Wikipedia articles, a defender of the problem content will claim that there has been much discussion of this accusations or insinuations but fail to come up with any actual references that are actually support the accusations and insinuations made. They will then call for people to wait while sources are found (it is much more common that they never are or new, poor/unreliable/misinterpreted /inappropriate sources are provided) while the libellous accusations - or often, "neutral" statements which under their deceptive mask of neutrality pretend that there really is a public controversy when no evidence is actually provided of this - are allowed to remain in the article - often the first or one of the first Google hits for the victim-for months and years. All we have here is pure speculation accusing Goodall from a letter in a alumni magazine from someone who has no familiarity with the case - speculation which is immediately dismissed by the publishers of the original article.

I strongly suggest alerting an administrator to enforce this core policy if necessary. WP:BLP is intended to remove poorly referenced accusations against living persons (it applies equally to unreliable references and misinterpreted or inappropriate references as it does to no references) and to remove them IMMEDIATELY without waiting to see if proper references show up or not. The policy is intended to protect public reputations from groundless rumourmongering and badmouthing and to protect Wikipedia from legal action for libel and defamation and public condemnation and mockery as a harmful unreliable source.

Negative statements about people described on Wikipedia should ALWAYS be PROPERLY referenced right from the time of their insertion in the article or else they must be removed. I believe this should be immediately in the case of all persons, but as policy stands, it only applies to the living. But the current policy should be properly enforced (it is not widely so at the moment).

I will not carry out this necessary action of removal myself as I am sure I will be attacked as an interfering anon editor (actually I was a very frequent editor under a registered account for 2 years but left because of incidents like this. I only do a little anonymous editing now). 207.151.255.43 (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed sentence

I removed a sentence about Frodo inspiring Goodall with a "demon ape theory" that doesn't really show up anywhere in the web... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.140.6.118 (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)