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
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Original: Monkeys a diverse species of animals.
My edited version: Monkeys have been a diverse species of animals for a long time of period however lately monkeys have been decreasing in population to do deforestation and palm oil. These issues are slowly killing monkeys and if we don't do anything they may soon go extinct.
Source:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45146581https://www.rewild.org/lost-species/lost-primates
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]
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Done : I can't think of a reason why his full name shouldn't be there. NotAGenious (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Not done: Original text does not exist. Proposed text is not encyclopedic. UtherSRG (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 19:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)