Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
// request.cf · coarse context
A page that knows where it met you.
Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PrimatesWikipedia:WikiProject PrimatesTemplate:WikiProject PrimatesPrimate
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal
Latest comment: 3 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Are birds dinosaurs, are humans animals, and are apes monkeys? If you agree that the first two are true, then the next one should also be true. Using a monophyletic definition is a trend in science communication and transforms our folk taxonomy and public understanding of evolution. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary, so should we prioritize the colloquial usage and of "monkey" as a small primate with a tail, or should we be more biologically and scientifically accurate instead? Modern biology favors cladistics after all. We could also provide a scientific alternative, the term "non-human animals" has become popular even though animals are assumed to be non-humans colloquially. Maybe we could do the same for monkeys and use "non-ape monkeys" to translate it to the previous meaning. For science communication it is still important to have a section on how the colloquial use differs from the scientific one. All apes are monkeys, but not all monkeys are apes, is an often used line of explanation for explaining such differences.
If apes (Hominoidea) evolved from Old World monkeys, and modern taxonomy avoids paraphyletic groups, then apes are monkeys. Otherwise people will have to say a monkey became a non-monkey, which breaks the law of monophyly and how evolution only creates nested hierarchies. Young earth creationists and other science deniers namely use the "a dog can never create a non-dog" argument which evolution can't do and yet things can evolve. We shouldn't go against people's intuition when it is true. Stopshot (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
As has been discussed regularly, there's a difference between ordinary language use, in which monophyly or not is irrelevant, and scientific classification. It all depends on context. See User:Peter_coxhead/Info#Dawkins' use of "ape", where I point out that no less an evolutionist than Richard Dawkins uses terms like "ape" and "monkey" in both ordinary language and scientific senses. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
I don't think it's a good idea for the paraphyletic group of monkeys to be redefinable as monophyletic to cladistically include all hominoideans, I think it's a better idea for the paraphyletic group of monkeys to be redefinable as still paraphyletic to technically include almost all hominoideans while still paraphyletically excluding homo sapiens, wanna know why? Because calling a homo sapiens individual a monkey is very offensive especially if they have darker skin Cantthinkofanyusername (talk) 07:01, 3 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 19:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Done first appearance nav linked for Old and New World monkeys Firefox0807 (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2026 (UTC)