Talk:Great Ape Project

August 2005

Make up your mind(s): is it a legal or a mammalian article? :-) I vote legal. --Ihope127 03:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Original research

and criticism sections look a bit like personal essays as they stand. Please see Wikipedia:No original research. They should probably be rewritten with good sources, or deleted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Images

The images seem rather irrelevant to the topic at hand. They look more like propaganda than illustrations. We need a log or something of the sort instead. Ingoolemo ^talk 09:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Why is there a picture of a baboon, which is NOT a great ape?

One-sided

Is it stands now, this article seems very one-sided, only presenting the opinions of those involved in the Great Ape Project. I wouldn't mind seeing a "criticism" section added. (Note that I'm not necessarily saying I agree or disagree with the GAP; I'm just saying there's bound to be a great deal of criticism towards a movement like this and such criticism would certainly warrant mention here.) Jeff Silvers 06:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Given how short the article is, a full criticism section would seem heavy weight. Perhaps a link could be added at the bottom to an external site that opposes GAP. There are several primate research labs in the US. Maybe one of them have a website that argues in favor of using apes for experiments.

The article does seem devoid of information on the supporters of GAP. It just states that "thirty-four recognized authors" contributed to the original book and that GAP is an "organization of primatologists, psychologists, ethicists, and other experts". Would it make it more one-sided to include a short list of some of the more noteworthy (especially scientific) contributors to the Great Ape Project book (Jane Goodall and Richard Dawkins) and subsequent supporters (Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan)? AstroVegan 19:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

By all means, go ahead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Added links to Goodall and Dawkins as contributors to the book, but cannot find any online reference to Sagan (or anyone else) publicly endorsing GAP. Sagan learned of GAP shortly before his death and spoke with Singer, wishing he could have contributed to the book. I know this only from my personal contact with Sagan and cannot cite a source, so I have left it out for now. AstroVegan 01:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Also it's worth noting here on the talk page that one could object to the GAP project when taken literally, while still being sympathetic to their aim. It's not the case that being against the GAP means you must be in favor of primate experimentation. For example, one might take the view that extending the concept of 'rights' to animals doesn't really make sense, because you then get into a messy rights-and-responsibilities problem. If a chimp kills another chimp, do you put him on trial and lock him up in prison, or do you just accept that "that's what chimps do"? If the latter, then it's not clear what it meant to say that the chimps have rights. But one still might believe that we should treat apes with the same kind of respect we give to humans, just that we shouldn't lump such respect in with 'rights'.

Killing is not "what chimps do". They DO kill other chimps, but with exactly the same motives as humans kill other humans.So. a chimp murder, committed by another chimp, IS a crime. Of course putting it into a human jail would be nonsense, but simply isolating it from the "community" for some time is the solution. Chimps understand what punishment is. --77.128.23.7 23:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Although I've seen such arguments discussed loosely (in not much more detail than I've just used), I've not found a decent reference for such an argument. So until such a reference appears, NOR implies that it can't go on the main article page. But it's worth bearing in mind if someone does put together a balanced criticism section. --DudeGalea 06:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

it is not for humans to administer justice to chimps.beside that,there is not much more to be said.142.22.115.20 (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

External Link

I removed an entry from the External Links section that linked to what appears to be a personal blog, created three days ago, devoted entirely to criticizing Richard Dawkins as "psychotic," "jealous," and the owner of an "unhealthy mind," all in nearly unintelligible prose and punctuation. I take it there are no objections? --Olorin780 23:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Mandrills?

I noticed that mandrills got omitted. Hmmmm. Dogru144 03:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I mean, omitted from the early paragraph mentioning various non-human apes. Dogru144 03:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Mandrills are not apes.142.22.115.20 (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Focus

This article looks a bit like a coatrack. The actual content of the article is 6 paragraphs.

The nominal topic of the article is covered in the first two paragraphs. The rest of the article is about the book of the same name (1 paragraph) and arguments re the status of apes (3 paragraphs).

Of the article's 357 words, only 111 (~30%) are about the topic.

The only cite in the article, notably, is to a journal article that does not discuss the GAP, the topic of this article.

I am going to yank a sizable portions of the article and add it to any article(s) that seem to call for it.

Incidentally, what was with the John Stuart Mill "Reference"? He died in the late 19th century and, to my knowledge, didn't say anything about apes... Mdbrownmsw 14:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that you think that a cited, referenced, discussion of the rationale for having a Great Ape Project is off topic? --Animalresearcher 14:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion was neither cited nor referenced. Elements of the discussion were cited and/or referenced. However, those elements were about topics believed to be related to the Project. This was presenting material from sources that are not speaking directly about this topic. This is synthesis, a form of original research:

"...In short, the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article;"

This article is "Great Ape Project", not "Possible Reasons Which May Have Been On the Minds of Those Who Started the Great Ape Project". Nor is it "Reasons Various Wikipedia Editors Think the Great Ape Project Is or Is Not a Good Idea".

Mdbrownmsw 16:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

So your argument is that it is perfectly fine to have wikipedia articles that are placeholders (ie: advertisements) for social projects without the necessity to subject them to criticism? The Great Ape Project home page both refers EXTENSIVELY to the book and to the rationale for the project, which you deleted. The project argues that it is critical to improve the rights status of some Apes because of the cognition and consciousness they possess. The obvious criticism is that their similarity to humans is also the compelling reason to use them in medical research. It is POV editing to remove criticism in order to bias point of view, and Wikipedia is not to be used to advertise for social movements. See WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP --Animalresearcher 01:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Very well, here are my deletions[1], point by point:

"The authors write that human beings are intelligent animals with a varied social, emotional, and cognitive life. If great apes also display such attributes, the authors argue, they deserve the same consideration humans extend to members of their own species.

The book highlights findings that support the capacity of great apes to possess rationality and self-consciousness, and the ability to be aware of themselves as distinct entities with a past and future. Documented conversations (in sign languages) with individual great apes are the basis for these findings. Other subjects addressed within the book include the division placed between humans and great apes, great apes as persons, progress in gaining rights for the severely mentally retarded (once an overlooked minority), and the situation of great apes in the world today."

Note, it's not: "The authors write the Great Ape Project is needed because..." Additionally, it isn't: "The book highlights findings that brought about the Great Ape Project..." They are presenting arguments for great apes to have certain rights, not for establishing a project to author and pass a resolution granting specific rights to great apes. The section does not "cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article".

Next:

"From a biological point of view, Dr. Pedro A. Ynterian from the International GAP Project wrote 'Between the two of us we could even have a 0.05% difference in our DNA. The difference between a Chimpanzee and us is only 1%. Human blood and Chimpanzee blood, with compatible blood groups, can be exchanged through transfusion. Neither our nor the chimps blood can be exchanged with any other species. We are closer genetically to a chimp than a mouse is to a rat.'"

The person cited is with the project. The quote seems to argue in favor of the goals of the project. However, nothing in the section "cite(s) reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article". Rather, it cites a source who is directly related to the subject, then presents an argument that seems to be directly related to the goal of the subject.

Next:

"Their biological similarity with humans is also key to the traits for which they are valuable as research subjects. For example, testing of monoclonal antibody treatments can not be done in species less similar to humans than chimpanzees. Because the antibodies do not elicit immune responses in chimpanzees, they persist in the blood as they do in humans, and their effects can be evaluated. In monkeys and other non-apes, the antibodies are rapidly cleared from the bloodstream. Monoclonal antibody treatments are being developed for cancer; autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, lupus erythematosis, multiple sclerosis, psoriasis, and Crohn's disease; and asthma. Chimpanzees also contain unique advantages in evaluating new Hepatitis B and C vaccines, and treatments for malaria, again because of the similarity in their response to these antigens to humans."

The section does not "cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article".

(I also removed various internal and external links to items that were not directly related to the topic.

As written, much of what I removed might be appropriate for Non-human primate experiments, but it doesn't belong here.

If you are arguing that the material in question was presented in specific reference to the Great Ape Project, it needs a rewrite to reflect that.

Your agument that I used "POV editing to remove criticism in order to bias point of view" is contrary to my removal of significant off-topic arguments both for and against. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdbrownmsw (talk • contribs) 13:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have just commented out the following:

"The rationale for recognizing such rights is that these Apes (sic) possess morally significant qualities such as the intellectual capacity to create and use tools, learn and teach other languages, and remembering their past and planning for their future, (sic)"

This seems to be part of the continuing dispute in this section. While the claims are similar to much of the deleted material, they are now said to be "the rational for recognizing such rights", though it does not cite a source, nor directly relate it to the topic of this article. I believe this falls under synthesis/OR as discussed above. I will put this up for third party comment shortly.

Mdbrownmsw 19:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It was paraphrased from the Great Ape Project home page. As directly stated on their own home page - "an idea, a book, an organization". The only things included that are NOT on their home page or from their book include relevant statements from a prominent member of their organization, and criticism (which is referenced). --Animalresearcher 23:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Several issues:

1. It was not cited as being from their page. As such it was an unsourced factoid that did not show any connection by a reliable source to the topic of this article: the Great Ape Project.
2. Merely because something is on their website does not mean that the information by itself is either reliable or relatable to the project. If, for example, the website for Fred's Bank says that dimes weigh more than quarters, an article on Fred's Bank cannot simply state "Dimes weigh more than quarters." An article on dimes could use that statement (though the source may fail under WP:RS). For an article on Fred's Bank, it would have to read "Fred's Bank states that dimes weigh more than quarters." (relevance might be questionable, though).
3. The simple majority of the information you have added is about the book. This article is about the project, not the book. The two, though related, are not the same. Whether one produced the other is not clear from anything I've found (one may have led to the other without producing it). Though France certainly produced the Statue of Liberty, details and statements about one do not inherently belong in an article about the other.
4. Some of what you have returned shows no attempt whatsoever to demonstrate that it is from "reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article". example: "From a biological point of view, Dr. Pedro A. Ynterian from the International GAP Project wrote ... (info about human/chimp/rat DNA)." Certainly, as a Dr. (of whatever kind), Ynterian has written reams that have no connection whatsoever to the Great Ape Project. Nothing in the quote indicates any relationship to the project without synthesis thinking: It's about human and chimp DNA similarities, he wrote in the book with the same name as the project, the project is about great apes, therefore what he wrote is related to the project. This reasoning, valid and sound in most forums, is not acceptable in wikipedia. It does not show that a reliable source provided the information in direct relation to the topic.
5. Some of the links and wikilinks you have returned are not directly related to the topic. Spanish Socialist Workers' Party proposing a human rights bill for great apes is similar in intent to the GAP, but it does not show that it is related to the project. The controversy surrounding Nafovanny touches on topics central to GAP, but there is nothing in either article that established a direct connection between the two (say, a statement by GAP re Nafovanny or something showing that Nafovanny was a primary issue leading to the GAP).

You have added back the material that was under discussion without resolving the discussion. I do not appreciate that. However, I'm going to leave it there until there is some resolution of the issues involved.

Mdbrownmsw 14:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the home page is maintained by the project, it can certainly speak to the project, and it states very clearly that the Great Ape Project is "an idea, an organization, a book". In other words, they consider the book to be a product of the organization. Not everything in wikipedia needs to be sourced (especially when it is ipso facto obvious to anyone who read the front home page of the organization on the web and the home page of the organization is the first external link listed on the bottom of the page in question). You could go on to pedantically argue about relevance and OR on every sentence on every Wiki page, but I would argue that when speaking about the Great Ape Project, the front home page on the web of the Great Ape Project can stand alone as a primary source (because it is written BY the project specifically to MARKET the project), and that much of what you object to is adequately consistent with, and in line with, the statements made on the GAP home page. What you seek to do is turn this Wiki page into an advertising placeholder for the project, which I object to. --Animalresearcher 14:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"...the home page ... states very clearly that the Great Ape Project is "an idea, an organization, a book"."

This article is about the organization. "The Great Ape Project (GAP), founded in 1993, is an international organization of primatologists, psychologists, ethicists, and other experts who advocate a United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Great Apes that would confer basic legal rights on non-human great apes: chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans."

"In other words, they consider the book to be a product of the organization."

Immaterial. If they consider the text of the book to be a statement of the organization, however, it would be possible to say that "The Great Ape Project states that...". At present, however, much of what you have returned says that the book or an author or a researcher or a member of the project says something.

"Not everything in wikipedia needs to be sourced..."

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence Now, consider the text you have returned to hereby be officially challenged.

"...(especially when it is ipso facto obvious to anyone who read the front home page of the organization on the web and the home page of the organization is the first external link listed on the bottom of the page in question)."

Where does the assumption that someone would read the front page of their website come from? Where does the assumption that their homepage will remain static come from? If it's on their homepage, cite it as a statement of the Project and be done with it.

"You could go on to pedantically argue about relevance and OR on every sentence on every Wiki page,..."

I could? Well, I'm not arguing pedantically about every sentence on every page. Please stick to the topic: I'm arguing about the text you have restored.

"...but I would argue that when speaking about the Great Ape Project, the front home page on the web of the Great Ape Project can stand alone as a primary source..."

The project's website can stand as a source for what the project says. Outside of that, it can be a source for basic information about the project, with possibility that other sources may provide conflicting or confirming info. Again, take it to a different context: a website put up by a hate group is a reliable source for what the group says. It is not necessarily the only source for what they say. It is not necessarily a reliable source for the group's structure, history or data supporting their beliefs.

"...(because it is written BY the project specifically to MARKET the project),..."

It is presumably written by members of the project. It might be to market the project. It might be to further the Declaration. It might be to sell t-shirts. All of this is immaterial. Unless shown otherwise, we accept that the website speaks for the group and is no more or less authoritative than that.

"...and that much of what you object to is adequately consistent with, and in line with, the statements made on the GAP home page."

I objected to, and continue to object to, the use of wikipedia articles to debate the rightness or wrongness of the Project's cause. This is an encyclopedia article about an organization called "the Great Ape Project". Arguments for and against granting rights to apes belongs in an article on THAT topic, citing sources relating it to that topic. Arguments for and against in this article must be limited to arguments for and against the GAP and its Declaration from "reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article".

"What you seek to do is turn this Wiki page into an advertising placeholder for the project, which I object to."

You have no knowledge of my goals. Please stick to the topic.

Mdbrownmsw 20:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Third Party Opinion - Initiated

Mdbrownmsw has some exceedingly good commentary on this article. However, it appears that Animalresearcher is new to Wikipedia and does not have a sufficient grasp of policy. While many users, including myself, may sense attack on their content as an attack on themselves, it is not personal; it is business. Business here at Wikipedia is supposed to follow rules. Too often, it is perceived that anything is fine until someone disagrees, and it appears as he or she is being bossy or undermining the initial editors efforts. Rather, this is an encyclopedia with so much content that it takes a while until someone happens to come along and notice particular things out of order. I find Mdbrownmsw's comments to be mostly in order, and he has been extremely patient and civl in his arguments. To add, primary sources are not necessarily grounds for absolute sourcing, as they are naturally slanted towards their own data -- attempts to find secondary sourcing would perhaps shed some light on this topic. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The Great Ape Project is a political lobbying group by their own definition. Text devoted to their specific position, and criticism of it, are not off-topic, and excluding them is POV. For comparison, look at the web pages of other animal rights groups, like PETA, BUAV, the Primate Freedom Project, the Animal Liberation Front, and so on. Each includes text devoted to the political stances of the groups, their actions, and criticism of their positions and actions. That is basically what an encyclopedia entry for a political action group looks like. --Animalresearcher 00:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You should really include some sources other than the website of the entity you are writing about. That's like claiming that Howard Stern can read minds and quoting his own website to support the claim. Independant sourcing is optimal, regardless of what similar Wikipedia articles may possess. The fact is that another editor is disputing your contribution to this article, and exhibiting other articles with similar flaws does nothing to support your stance. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If a group's own web site which states its political stances and corresponding scientific rationale cannot stand as a reasonable source for the political stances and corresponding scientific rationale for that group, where does that leave us? THEIR WEB SITE IS A PRIMARY SOURCE FOR WHAT THEY STAND FOR. Their web site is not a "good" source for the quality of that stance, or criticism of that stance, or for how their actions may impact the use of Apes in biomedical research and zoos, but it seems ridiculous that it cannot stand as a primary source for their political stances, and their scientific rationale for those stances. Think about it. --Animalresearcher 00:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Article mentions the GAP but digresses and speaks about the "book of the same name". I'd like to see more about the group itself. Perhaps consider adding a section on the founding of it. You speak to the founder but more detail may be nice.Nicholettelucia (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Human-Chimpanzee Blood Transfusion

I'm removing the 3rd paragraph of the 1st section because the source is no longer available. While I'd love to hear the news of a human-chimpanzee blood transfusion, the claim doesn't seem entirely (if at all) true. Humicroav (talk) 04:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great Ape Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080820011354/http://www.greatapeproject.org/declaration.php to http://www.greatapeproject.org/declaration.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great Ape Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Chimpanzees-in-Biomedical-and-Behavioral-Research-Assessing-the-Necessity/Report-Brief.aspx?page=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121021215856/http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/17/14125394-goodall-praises-nih-decision-to-remove-some-chimps-from-research-but-controversy-erupts-over-their-next-home?lite to http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/17/14125394-goodall-praises-nih-decision-to-remove-some-chimps-from-research-but-controversy-erupts-over-their-next-home?lite

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)