Talk:Pan (genus)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Requested move 6 January 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move Chimpanzee to Pan (genus). We have a fairly clear consensus, supported by WP:PRECISION and related guidelines, that the current name is ambiguous. While it's clear that "Chimpanzee" remains in use in various sources for both Pan species, it's also clear that many sources use it only for Pan troglodytes to the exclusion of bonobos. As such there's a considerable risk of confusion as to which meaning is intended when readers search for "Chimpanzee". I find insufficient consensus to move Common chimpanzee to Chimpanzee, however. If that move is desired it should go through a formal move discussion of its own. In the meantime, the dab page will be placed at Chimpanzee. Cúchullain ^t/c 17:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

---

Chimpanzee → Pan (genus) – There is an active discussion above with support as preference, as per policy, and as a compromise. There are also objections to the move and significant investment in the discussion above, section Talk:Chimpanzee#Misleading! Either make this a "chimp & bonobo" page, or disentangle (begun in 2016), so I'm opening this section to consolidate summaries, pro and con for this move or leaving things as the are, and to garner further comment. cygnis insignis 20:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support and move Common chimpanzee → Chimpanzee also - per nom, and to address the expectation of most readers that the primary topic deal with the specific species in question. -- Netoholic @ 21:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support the rename and a redirect (or move) for Chimpanzee → Common chimpanzee. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support move of this page to Pan (genus). But oppose moving common chimpanzee to chimpanzee, since this page is also an appropriate target for "chimpanzee" given that the term has been applied to the bonobo (and the film, but that is a subsidiary issue). For now I think chimpanzee should still direct here, with the hatnote guiding to the species page if that is what people are looking for. But I may change my mind on that one too. Rlendog (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support move of page to Pan (genus)(for reasons given above) and oppose moving common chimpanzee to chimpanzee (the term is ambiguous as both usages are in use). The chimpanzee page should either be a disambiguation page or redirect to common chimpanzee. I lean to the latter as that is the most common current use and would be what most people would be searching for.   Jts1882 | talk  07:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support move of this page to Pan (genus). Support moving common chimpanzee to chimpanzee, since that is the most likely topic readers would seek using that term. The beginning sentences of both articles for the individual species could easily direct readers to the article for the genus, and a disambiguation for the term chimpanzee that includes its occasional generalization to encompass both species would be the cleanest way to wrap it up. Genesyz (talk) 11:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support and move Common chimpanzee to Chimpanzee. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support and move Common chimpanzee to Chimpanzee. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

As with others here, note that the user has already been involved in discussion [cheers for that, User:Ma … thoughtful contributor :-) ], of course, and they are not just having a vote. cygnis insignis 06:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• MadScientistX11, Rreagan007, there is likely to be another discussion on the consequence of a move, please clarify your position in this discussion to allow then next one to take place. Including that discussion is muddying this one, as I see it, I see a value in that move but want to see what others say on that separated. Okay with you? cygnis insignis 06:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

cygnis insignisYes, that is fine with me. So just to be completely unambiguous on my position: I very strongly support the move of this article to "Pan (genus)" and then we can have a separate discussion on "Common chimpanzee". While I'm at it I wanted to clarify one more thing about my position. I wrote up above that I was Okay with moving this article to "Chimpanzee (genus)". When I wrote that I thought the active debate was completely between myself and one other editor and that he preferred the "Chimpanzee (genus)" name. I found one reference (out of very many) that does still call the genus Chimpanzee but in my reading the overwhelming consensus is the scientific name. But in order to reach a consensus I was willing to go along with the move to "Chimpanzee (genus)". Then suddenly there was a lot more participation and more editors supporting my position so that's why I'm reverting back to what I all along thought was the best solution. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

MadScientistX11, cheers, and thank you for elaborating on the course of discussion prior this RM. You did much to advance and outline the situation and get this RM on a solid footing. Finding that synonym for the genus was one solution, so is merging the systematics to Homo: "systematics change from time to time …". This appears to be the current treatment according to our sources. cygnis insignis 03:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support nom and Strong Support moving Common Chimpanzee to Chimpanzee (the correct title for this ape). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose moving common chimpanzee to chimpanzee. As discussed above, the term chimpanzee is ambiguous, and most sources seem to refer to P. troglodytes as "common chimpanzee". FunkMonk (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The proposal is to move Chimpanzee → Pan (genus), I think a new discussion will be required if that happens. cygnis insignis 09:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but half of the votes above include both issues, which should be nipped in the bud. FunkMonk (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk, I considered opening a new discussion, but it is contingent on the outcome here. As you expressed an oppose to a possible future move, which I also would have preferred was being discussed separately, I will open that immediately after IF this is moved. I would also lend support to the objection that this is not about those pages per se, and oppose a move before that discussion happened. Currently, it looks like that future discussion will be short one. Can you please clarify what your position is here, which was stridently opposed to this move last time I looked. cygnis insignis 09:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

If you open that RM please alert those who participated here, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Randy Kryn,[I misread this comment] Not sure why this is at reply level, but thanks for noting this.

I didn't forget to do that and hope there is broad participation. I presumed that that automatic notifications would alert those with an interest in the discussion, and that this is RM is clarified on watchlists. Note also that I placed a hat note at the earlier discussion above. Pinging individuals is a grey area to me, polite yet distracting. If it is possible for the opener to do so, I will invoke an extension to the seven days to allow the maximum participation. Is there anything else I can do? cygnis insignis 06:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC) [struck part, misread the comment, now I am muddying things, apologies to all] cygnis insignis 09:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

How long do we wait? It looks like there's no opposition to the move to Pan (genus). Genesyz (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

As long as it takes for a closer to call it. As participants we have no business on that side of the court, and cannot close it. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Genesyz, at least seven days, hopefully extended to fourteen. I plan to expand fourteen articles in that time, on taxa that are as fascinating as our cousins here. cygnis insignis 06:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• Our moving policy prohibits a move from common chimpanzee to chimpanzee without putting something at Talk:Common chimpanzee. I would support that move if proposed, but a move proposal from X to Y cannot affect page Z. This either needs to be made a multi-page move or as two distinct, sequential move proposals. Red Slash 22:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I've placed a notice on Talk:Common chimpanzee directing people to this discussion. -- Netoholic @ 22:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

  Red Slash, that is not the proposal here, as emphasized above I intend to open a new discussion on that. Please modify your comment to clarify your position in this discussion. cygnis insignis 06:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

  Neutral. Red Slash 18:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support move to "Pan (genus)" as the most logical naming for this page--Kevmin § 03:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support move to "Pan (genus)" as this meets our requirements for WP:PRECISION ("titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article"). There must be a separate discussion re chimpanzee/common chimpanzee. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. There should be an article with the title "Chimpanzee". This should have been a multi-move, but since the proposer insists it is not, I oppose. Srnec (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Judging from the responses there will be a page named 'Chimpanzee' within a short amount of time. It wouldn't be fair to rename 'Common Chimpanzee' without making that a specific RM, but a quick RM would seem to be in order and, in the meantime, Chimpanzee should redirect there. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• Nothing in this move negates the use of that title. One solution, and an emerging consensus for that proposed discussion. is that the title would become available for common chimpanzee. I suppose a mutli-move RM could be opened concurrently, and see if a consensus emerges from that approach, I doubted it would and elected to choose this path to clarify the consensus in the discussion above. So, Srnec, what is your objection if your oppose is based on the lack of a options available? What "insists" that chimpanzee will not be a title? cygnis insignis 04:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• My support is conditional. I only support the move proposed here if common chimpanzee is also moved to chimpanzee. If that isn't going to happen, then I oppose any move. Since you opted not to do a multi-move and some users have expressed opposition to the latter move, I have no choice but to oppose. If this makes it through, I will support moving the species to the base name. Srnec (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  Srnec, if I understand you correctly, I am not sure I considered it from that point of view. I will do that. My current position is that a multiRM would also have been objectionable and less likely to resolved, this RM is clearer, the precision displaces alternative vernacular and what happens as a consequence is not affected. Okay, I thought about, is your objection to my contribution more than an unwillingness to do the same, is questioning my approach necessary before you open and contribute to a multi-move RM, concurrent with this one? Have my actions created an obstruction to common chimpanzee –> chimpanzee, I only see how I have made that a possible outcome. cygnis insignis 06:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Interesting, as I specifically oppose common chimpanzee being moved to chimpanzee. For reason discussed at length in the section above. And even more reason why the two issues should be kept separate. I can accept the genus level article being moved to Pan, but not the other issue. FunkMonk (talk) 08:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk, I think I pointed out that the current arrangement would stop that happening. Is that the objection I am not understanding, the objection here is to forestall the consequent discussion? A genuine question, that may be a valid approach in some situations, at least, I haven't considered how it could never be helpful. I honestly haven't formed an opinion on which vernacular is more acceptable for the species, I would probably be reluctant to support either when the accepted name for the species is available; we can't structure article names according to some implied taxonomy of undefined names and terms. cygnis insignis 09:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is that it seems a lot of editors only see this as a way of getting common chimpanzee moved to chimpanzee. I know it was not your intention, but that's what's happening. FunkMonk (talk) 10:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk, I have a solution to that too, not mine, it is the one designed to illuminate those arbitrary names with appropriate context to the text's topic. It has been working very well for hundreds of years, an ongoing explosion of knowledge that 'a lot of editors' have difficulty countenancing for whatever reasons. cygnis insignis 10:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

So the objection to this page move is not based on any science or Wikipedia policy, but is motivated as strategy to get another page move approved. At least this is openly expressed.   Jts1882 | talk  09:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Jts1882, not clear who you are addressing? It appears to be me based on the indent level, but addressing the oppose to the page move, pretty sure that is what is meant but let me know if it isn't. cygnis insignis 10:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

No strategy. I do not have a strong opinion (but see below) on whether the genus Pan or the species P. troglodytes would be best under the present title. I oppose any move or multi-move which does not guarantee one of them at that title. Srnec (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• I am trying to understand the rationale for this oppose. If Pan is the better name for this page, then that would seem to be the case regardless of whether another page is renamed, especially since renaming this page Pan doesn't preclude renaming the other page (indeed it is essentially a prerequisite). Unless this is a view that it is important that an encyclopedia have an article named "chimpanzee", regardless of whether that article is for the genus or a species. I hadn't thought about it from that standpoint (and I can't say I am convinced by it), but if that is the rationale (or if it is something else) it would be good to clarify. Rlendog (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, that is my position exactly: "it is important that an encyclopedia have an article named 'chimpanzee', regardless of whether that article is for the genus or a species". My rationale is that 'chimpanzee' is clearly more common than either Pan or 'common chimpanzee'. It isn't even close. Now take the following sentence: "Chimpanzees are African great apes and Homo sapiens' closest living relative". This sentence is true if by chimpanzee we mean Pan and it is true if by chimpanzee we mean P. troglodytes, the common chimpanzee. There are many such sentences. For this reason, it is not necessary to worry about whether we have an article titled 'Chimpanzee' that tells the readers that there are two species of chimpanzee (common and pygmy) or an article titled 'Chimpanzee' that tells readers that the chimpanzee, also called the common chimpanzee, is one species in the genus Pan. There is a similar situation with Canidae/dog and Felidae/cat. In both cases, although wolves and foxes are called dogs and tigers and jaguarundis are called cats (and no layman has ever got confused), we have the domestic animal at the base name. I think for similar reasons—and because we now call the pgymy chimpanzee the bonobo anyway—we ought to put the species P. troglodytes at the common English name. Srnec (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• comment I looked around and found a early discussion—as it happens—back at this page: Talk:Chimpanzee/Archive_1#Article reorganizations (Jun 28, 2004). I'm trying to dig back further, but that seems to be foundation of discussion (the second ever talk page item here). Sometimes these discussions take a little while to resolve. cygnis insignis 18:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Good grief. You mean the genus article was originally Pan and the Pan troglodytes species article was originally "Chimpanzee," and they were changed? I don't want to flood this discussion with my reasons for supporting the "Common chimpanzee" → "Chimpanzee" move, but if anyone is interested, I have spelled it out here: [1] Genesyz (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I indented your comment, hope that okay. I like the first version of this article, and while it is interesting to see how it evolved, I still favour that as a lead. Apologies again to closer, a lot of diversions in discussions. cygnis insignis 20:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, cygnis insignis. I miscounted and can't figure out how to make changes using my phone. I also like that version. I don't know why it ever changed so drastically. Genesyz (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support moving the page on the genus to Pan (genus). The current name seems like it would be ambiguous and confusing to readers. Pan (genus) is certainly less recognizable to readers than Chimpanzee, but has a huge benefit in being unambiguous per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Ajpolino (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Is the spelling of that clade not Critteria? cygnis insignis 04:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• Question If this move takes page, should this article still be listed as a level 4 vital article? Mstrojny (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think a name change would change its status as a vital article. Rlendog (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Gross failure of COMMONNAME vs technical, and RECOGNISABILITY. Also, hypercorrection and revisionism. Bonobos are chimpanzees. Bonobos and common chimps are the two extant chimpanzees, and they are the same species. They have not speciated. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: Bonobos and common chimpanzees are regarded as different species by most reliable sources. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I have kind of noticed a trend, but it is just laziness. They are subspecies at most separation. Some morphological and cultural differences akin to racial differences, but their physical separation is recent, and they readily bread fertile offspring. More importantly for Wikipedia, the typical reader will regard any bonobo as a chimpanzee. Bonobo and common chimpanzee are less separation than us from Neanderthals. The challenge for the proponents should be: show a reliable source that says a bonobo is NOT a chimpanzee. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, thank you for amplifying your perspective on this. cygnis insignis 12:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Peter coxhead, I don't think that is what the user is stating, 'technically', a 'species' in this context is a 'social construct' and has inherent 'cultural value'. The 'facts of the matter' are inconvenient or irrelevant in a 'received wisdom' paradigm, the value is in claiming this is 'political' and revisionist.

Excuse me, SmokeyJoe and others, if I am misreading the substance of the opposes, that is, the value in what is "familiar" and "recognisable" is how article scope should be defined. I tend to incorporate multiple sourced perspectives into article space, and that is revisionist in a sense because sources may contradict what people think before they inquire more deeply into a topic. cygnis insignis 12:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I meant “revisionist” as in recent use refers to species, whereas it has never been established that the two are different species, and on a number of criteria they are not and have never (over the course of the literature) been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 12:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, where did you read this? cygnis insignis 12:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Eg https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/10/chimps-and-bonobos-had-flings-and-swapped-genes-past

Yes, many like to refer to chimps and bonobos as separate species, but this was not done pre 1930s, and the decision to ascribe species I can’t find a reliable source for.

“Although in the classical view species are not supposed to be able to interbreed successfully, that was and still is not always true of bonobos and chimpanzees”

In the analysis, chimps (common chimps) have frequently interbred, and in modern times, zoos, circuses, chimps and bonobos interbred if allowed. There is a trend for treating the bonobos as a separate species, but it is not supported by a good definition of speciation, not is sourceable, and to the general reader, not a primatologist, a bonobo is a chimp. Eg “chimps are humans’ closest relative”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Chimpanzee (genus) would be ok, but Pan (genus) is not. I Oppose putting Common chimpanzee at Chimpanzee as it is less technically correct than the status quo. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, I fear that others may see this as reactionary, but I prefer to incorporate treatments that were based on those premises in the species concept, such as a reproductive barrier between species. These tend to have been published around and before the time you mention, the 1930s, but are nevertheless part of the synonymy (and history of our understanding and therefore conception). cygnis insignis 14:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, the article you referenced clearly states that chimps and bonobos are separate species: "Now, it turns out one of our closest living relatives, chimpanzees, also dallied with another species. New research reveals that chimps mixed it up with bonobos at least twice during the 2 million years since these great apes started evolving their own identities." (Emphasis mine) Genesyz (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we are allowed to decide for ourselves, against current scientific consensus, what is and is not a species. Currently, bonobos are designated a separate species, not a subspecies. As for breeding, separate closely related species don't tend to interbreed, not that they cannot. Even lions and tigers can interbreed. There are other Wikipedia genus pages, and I think we should be consistent in using the correct taxonomical term at that level of taxonomy. I recognize the extreme closeness of chimpanzees and bononos (and humans, for that matter). Our three species are genetically closer than many animals that are classified as subspecies. Nevertheless, we cannot invent genus names or decide issues of taxonomic relationships that are already established. They may change, and if they do, we should stay current and reflect those changes as they happen. Genesyz (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, regarding your assertion that "The challenge for the proponents should be: show a reliable source that says a bonobo is NOT a chimpanzee," any source that names bonobos Pan paniscus instead of Pan troglodytes paniscus does just that. That's just how taxonomy works. There are subspecies of chimpanzee (eg. Pan troglodytes verus), and they do follow this convention. Genesyz (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

If anyone in favor of Chimpanzee (genus) can convince editors to change the Wikipedia articles for Canis and Equus to Dogs (genus) and Horses (genus), respectively, then there might be a case for using Chimpanzees (genus). I think this would cause unnecessary ambiguity given there are articles for the species with these common names, and would part with recognized scientific naming conventions, but at least then an argument could be made for doing such a thing. Genesyz (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Of all the various combinations of article titles being discussed for this article and the 2 species articles, I think some are better than others. But the one I don't think is acceptable at all is using "chimpanzee (genus)" as an article title. a genus name is by definition a scientific name concept. While there is often a common name associated with the genus name, that common name is not the "genus" itself. So it is fine to use the common name (even preferable, in general, per WP:COMMONNAME) and in some cases where using the common name would be problematic (as it may be here) it is fine to use the genus name (possibly with the disambiguator "genus" if necessary), but it is not appropriate to use "genus" as a disambiguator for a common name.Rlendog (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Genesyz (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Genesyz

The taxonomic status of the bonobo chimpanzee, Horn 1979. The genus pan contains only one extant species, and the common chimpanzee and the bonobo chimpanzee are subspecies. Differences have been exaggerated. “Pygmy” was dropped because it was misleading. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, a lot has changed in the 40 years since that paper, including the advent of molecular biology and the fact that bonobos are no longer considered a subspecies of chimpanzee. Genesyz (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)Genesyz

Genesyz, I dispute that a lot has changed in the 40 years since that paper, most particularly that there has NOT been a continuation of papers speaking directly to the taxonomy of the bonobo versus the common chimpanzee (I searched but did not find, please let me know if I missed something). One big new thing is genome sequencing, which has not been reported as highlighting differences, and the discovery of epigenetics, though which simple adaptations used to appear to be genetic evolution, but was not. The late 1970s papers wound back on the differences reported in the early 1930s, and since then not much has changed at all, that I have found. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose both moves per SmokeyJoe. In common usage, the term "chimpanzee" refers to both of the species in the Pan genus, not just one. That's why Pan troglodytes is called the "common chimpanzee" to differentiate it from the bonobo, which was also historically called the "pygmy chimpanzee". Thus it is not a parahyletic group, and it would be completely contrary to WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, not to mention WP:NATURALDIS, to make a move to Pan (genus).  — Amakuru (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Amakuru, the most common name for Pan paniscus is bonobo, and the most common name for Pan troglodytes is chimpanzee. I think everyone agrees about this, right? That is a good argument for changing the name of the article about the species Pan troglodytes to Chimpanzee. All three articles explain that the term chimpanzee has been generalized to refer to both species; nevertheless, taxonomically, there is only one correct name for the genus: Pan. Using WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY as guides is best served by naming the species using the common names, and then avoiding ambiguity and being consistent with the precedents set with similar Wikipedia genus articles by naming the genus with the correct taxonomical term. In this way, WP:NATURALDIS will not be an issue and WP:PRECISION is satisfied. Genesyz (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Amakuru I don't want to infer beyond what you have in mind, but are you suggesting we should not have separate articles about Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus, but one article for both, that should be named Chimpanzee (or Chimpanzees)? Do you consider this article at the genus level to be redundant and the other two at the species level to be superfluous?

Even if there is a view that both Pan paniscus and Pan troglodytes are really subspecies of a single species, there would be nothing inhibiting us from having a separate article on each subspecies. But clearly there is little or no support in even reasonably recent reliable sources for treating them as a single species, so I don't think that is what Smoky Joe or Amakuru are suggesting. Rlendog (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe said "...they are the same species" and Amakuru's opposition was stated "per SmokeyJoe" so I wasn't sure. Genesyz (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Genesyz

They are incredibly closely related, undeniably, and their status as separate species might not hold up as primatologists continue to make decisions about how their phylogenetic relationship should be represented, but until the scientific consensus about them being designated separate species changes, I think we need to stick with the current science.

Science is irrelevant to this question, because we're an encyclopedia, whose naming conventions are governed by the WP:COMMONNAME. And in common parlance, when sources talk about "chimpanzees" they are unquestionably talking of both the extant species of chimp. Just as when people say "gorillas" they are referring to the lowland and the mountain gorillas. So yes, each species should have its own article, named as they are at present, while the parent article should be here at chimpanzee, the long term stable title.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Amakuru, There is no common name for the genus Pan. Using the common name for the species makes more sense than applying it ambiguously to the genus as well. I cannot really understand your view that science is irrelevant to an issue of taxonomy. Do you think the Canis and Equus articles (among many others) need to be renamed? I disagree with your assertion that "when sources talk about "chimpanzees" they are unquestionably talking of both extant species of chimp. [sic]" The statement is objectively untrue. Your example with "gorilla" is not quite applicable, since there are in fact two species of the genus gorilla, and one of those species is itself named gorilla, so obviously both species can be referred to using the term gorilla, but that in no way supports using the common name of a species as the name for its genus (unless they just happen to be the same, as with gorilla gorilla). Note: the lowland and mountain gorillas are both subspecies of the other species of gorilla, Gorilla beringei. Genesyz (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)Genesyz

• Relisting note: please can users who have supported both moves ensure they indicate why. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Support move Chimpanzee → Pan (genus), because:

• This article is about the genus, and the genus only has one correct name: Pan. We cannot invent genus names.
• Other Wikipedia articles about genera having species with common names that are often generalized to refer to all genus members (eg. dogs for Canis[2], horses for Equus[3]) are titled using the genus name, leaving the common names as unambiguous titles for the species articles.
• Each of the three relevant articles already makes it clear that the term chimpanzee has been generalized to refer to both species and that taxonomically they are grouped together in the genus Pan.
• Fears that readers will be confused or miss out reading about the "other chimpanzee" are unfounded, as the opening lines of each article clearly inform readers about the relationship between chimpanzees and bonobos.
• The change would remove all ambiguity without impeding searches or obscuring information in the slightest.

Support move Common Chimpanzee → Chimpanzee, because:

• The vast majority of readers searching for an article about the species would search for chimpanzee, not common chimpanzee, and conversely, by far most readers searching with the term chimpanzee would expect to be taken to an article about the species, not the genus.
• The term common chimpanzee was coined to distinguish this species from another closely related animal that was at the time most commonly referred to as pygmy chimpanzee, but which now is recognized as a separate species and almost exclusively called bonobo. Prior to the discovery of bonobos, chimpanzees as a species were just called chimpanzees (as they are once again today).
• Common chimpanzee is not incorrect, but now its use only makes sense either as a parallel term for pygmy chimpanzee or as a convenience for clarifying or emphasizing that some discourse is intended to apply to chimpanzees in contrast to bonobos (or vice versa). An article specifically about the single topic chimpanzee as a species has no need of the common preface, and should just be titled Chimpanzee.
• I agree it is worth telling readers that common chimpanzee is another name used for the animal, but it's not the name most commonly used by laypeople (obviously) nor by experts (I can provide evidence). Why use it as the title of the article if it's not more accurate and is not even the most common term anyone uses? Genesyz (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• I have no idea why SITH</span thinks it appropriate to ask everyone to repeat themselves, just the stupidity of the culture of pointless “relisting” I suppose. Well, Oppose due to gross failure of “pan” for RECOGNISABILITY. Both subspecies are chimps, they look the same, they do similarly thing, they interbreed easily, the differences have Ben exaggerated. If anything, we should better have Common chimpanzee and Bonobo chimpanzee, and Chimpanzee (genus) would be a better title for this page if it really is a concern that people come to it wanting the common chimpanzee and definitely not wanting the bonobo chimpanzee, a dubious concept. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• SmokeyJoe, nope, see WP:PERNOM. It's easier to assess consensus when people explain themselves and two people who !voted in that way did so without explanation. SITH (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• SmokeyJoe, regarding your comment: "if it really is a concern that people come to it wanting the common chimpanzee and definitely not wanting the bonobo chimpanzee, a dubious concept" This whole discussion started because that is EXACTLY what happened to me. I came to this page expecting information about Chimpanzees the species and I jumped right to the section that I was interested in and missed the warning at the top that this article is about the Genus Pan not the species. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• MadScientistX11, that causes me to lean to supporting this page moving to Chimpanzee (genus) despite lack of usage of any combination of “genus” and “chimpanzee” as a grouping name. Parenthetical disambiguation for recognisability is something that I often support, there being no better option. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• PERNOM is fine. I object to a “Relister” asking the many prior participants to post again. It creates that impression that !voters who don’t repost are withdrawing. That is very bad. RM discussions are burdened by individuals repeating themselves. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

StraussInTheHouse, I will attempt to summarise what I see, noting I still support my proposal. An objection to this single page move is that it forestalls a discussion that others want separated: Common Chimpanzee –> Chimpanzee (but no objection to this proposal, per se). Another objection is that current concepts in our sources, characterised as 'science', are wrong and there is only one 'species', or that there "must be" a page called chimpanzee and, again, concern that the result of the next discussion that the title of Pan troglodytes, one species, will be common chimpanzee (or chimpanzee). I have made an assurance that I will open a separate discussion, despite me having no interest in which vernacular is selected. Converting this to multi-page move has been opposed by supporters too, and many support and oppose !votes are contingent on this being a single page move. cygnis insignis 01:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• SmokeyJoe, I understand you consider them the same species, but do you recognize that Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus are currently designated by primatologists as separate species and just disagree with that, or do you dispute scientists currently consider them separate species? Genesyz (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• And with respect to the term "bonobo chimpanzee", I cannot recall seeing that term in reliable sources (I'm not sure I ever saw that term before this discussion). Do you have sources to show that this is even an occasionally used term (let alone a predominant one) for Pan paniscus?Rlendog (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• Another example is Skeletal Differences between Pygmy (Pan Paniscus) and Common Chimpanzees (Pan Troglodytes) Zihlman 1978 that discusses the 1930s description as separate species and winds back on that exaggeration. The terminology is confused. The species classification was a mistake. Someone said 1979 was 40 years ago, but since these late 1970s papers, I am not seeing anyone affirming that bonobos are not chimpanzee, in contrast to the species classification of western and eastern gorillas. However, more important, is that to any normal reader, a bonobo is a chimpanzee, and excluding them from the title “chimpanzee” is wrong. Common chimpanzee should stay as it is, although there is a case for this article to move to Chimpanzee (genus), which would greatly help readers choosing from the different titles. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, I think you missed my question up there. And it was I who pointed out that a lot has happened in the 40 years since then, including the advent of molecular biology and the designation of bonobos as a separate species. Genesyz (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

And the reference you cited above actually says: "We conclude that pygmy and common chimpanzees are morphologically distinct." Maybe this contributed to the decision to designate them as separate species. Genesyz (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Genesyz, a great many interest things have been said, and asked, in this discussion and the preceding discussions. Some of them were tangential, but if you are interested in an answer from me and I skipped it, please remind me, I am just casually wandering in an out. I’ve had an interest in these questions for a long time.

The species vs subspecies designation is definitely an interesting question, although perhaps tangential to the title discussion. I am not committed to an opinion here, except that there is a lack of an authorative decision. Absolutely, the morphological differences contributed, they are most important to the ~1930s papers. That decision was strongly challenged in the late 1970s, but scientists having made the point that “subspecies” is better supported than separate “species”, the matter appears to have lapsed without altering the technical terminology. Against classifying as separate species is the subtlety of the morphological differences, and the ease of interbreeding, and the very close DNA sequencing. In support is the very long past last common ancestor (ignoring admixture events), and the apparent complete lack of natural interbreeding although entirely ascribed to physical separation. They are less distinguished apart than the two gorilla extant species, and arguably less than Neanderthals and us. Their differences, being just subtle morphology and culture (fascinating culture differences!), and similar in differences between human races, which were in fashion for subspecies designation until just a few decades ago. In recent decades, the trend has been to wind back separate species designation. Taxonomy in general is subjective, and there appears to have been no authoritative agreement since the 1970s challenge, and the inaccurate terminology has merely persisted. Bonobo, a misspelling of a location. Pygmy, deriving from the selection of smaller specimens probably on the basis of practicalities of transport. I suspect the common chimpanzee subspecies classifications are also exaggerated. Interesting for sure, but tangential to the question.

On the question of accurate and recognisable titling, what is more important is whether people know Bonobos as a type of chimpanzee, and then, whether it is accurate to exclude bonobos from the page titled “Chimpanzee”. On both points, the proposal fails. The proposal also fails, worse even, on the RECOGNISABILITY failure of “pan”. Very few normal humans know the term “pan”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, I think on both points we disagree, and I was trying to understand if there were objective reasons that we could use for working toward a consensus, or whether the differences were personal takes. I understand your concern about recognizability, and I can tell you have a committed view about how they should be considered one species. I think other concerns (precision, elimination of ambiguity, using common names for species, being consistent across Wikipedia, and giving currently accurate information) more than compensate for the recignizability issue. Pan is right there in the names of both species and should not throw anyone for a loop who is looking for the genus. Also, the close relationship is stated early in each article. Maybe you could add or improve the articles to emphasize this closeness and include arguments that have been made to consider them one species. Those arguments certainly exist (and can be referenced) even though that is not how they are currently designated. Genesyz (talk) 03:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The current text, “sometimes both species are referred to collectively using the generalized term chimpanzees”, is enough to make the case to create an article titled “chimpanzee” that excludes the bonobo. I have been reading the literature, 1930s and 1980s, and looking for reviews on “toxonomy of chimpanzees” and am not finding anything useful. In the meantime, readers know about the great apes including humans chimpanzees gorilla and orangutans (sometimes gibbons). Excluding bonobos is just wrong and I definitely oppose for that reason. I continue to suggest Chimpanzee (genus) to few comments. Maybe Chimpanzee (pan). I don’t mind where Chimpanzee would redirect to, but “Chimpanzee” is not a suitable title for the Common chimpanzee. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

"Their differences, being just subtle morphology and culture (fascinating culture differences!), and similar in differences between human races, which were in fashion for subspecies designation until just a few decades ago."

Can you expand on this point, "similar in differences between human races", which your comparison appears to hinge on. Perhaps a rephrasing on how the 'normal reader' views this, versus what the 'trendy' scientists say. cygnis insignis 06:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

One group has a relatively high and rounded forehead with a small brow ridge, and a natural part in their hair. Similar things can be said to distinguish human races. Much greater things can be used to distinguish different dog breeds. These were the basis of the 1930s classification of a new species, disputed in the 1970s. Culture? One group is male dominated, agreesive, violent, the other socially sexual and playful, and matriarchal. These differences can be found in different human societies. I submit that they are more likely to be driven by environment, cultural learning or epigenetics than genetics. NB these are not “normal reader views”, I think normal readers barely appreciate the difference between a chimp and a gorilla. Trendy scientists? I know of no trendy scientist in this area, in fact I consider the field to be conservative. Don’t confuse trendiness of scientist with the trends of what’s been reported, as in there is a lot more publications on chimp taxonomy 40 years ago than in the last 30 years. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, "trend" is a term that you employed several times, in reference to what is or isn't accepted, my extrapolation to 'trendy' is an attempt to receive clarification on what the substance of your position is. Accepted by who is not clear to me from your statements, except perhaps where it only appears to accord with your own seemigly well-considered views on classification. The 'trend' has been in the sciences to reconsider using terms like 'human races', at first to qualify use of that classification and then to question whether it is meaningful in any sense. Racialism was regarded [by some] as reactionary rather than a conservative position, yet I have noted that is has become revitalised in recent times as a new science confronted with the same 'conservative' opposition met by 'Galileo'. cygnis insignis 08:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Cygnis, my reference to “trend” was in terms of frequency versus year of publications speaking directly to taxonomic classification. It was serious in the past, with peaks in the 1930s and late 1970s, and I think I see a “trend” that since the 1980s, in scientific publications, taxonic classification has not been addressed seriously or specifically. I did not attempt to speak to “acceptance” by scientists or readers or anyone. It’s my rough impression, that in the last thirty years, certainly the last ten years, the literature is simply using the common (accepted?) terminology “pan X”. Whether taxonic classification is meaningful in any sense is indeed the question that I think is begging. I think the answer is “no”. Taxonic classification has lost relevance to genetic phylogenetic analysis. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The term you used three times is spelled taxonomic, unless taxonic has some meaning I cannot find. The only occurrence at wikipedia is at flashbulb memory, somewhat apropos and serendipitous according to my odd sense of humour. Again, and don't be shy, we are all adults here, you subscribe to a theory that there is more than one race of human and this is an analogous to the diversity of 'chimps'?. New question, the results of systematics and subsequent revisions is detailed using, literally, 'chimpanzee' and not the taxonomic names? cygnis insignis 12:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi cygnis insignis. I’m not sure if you are smiling while making fun of me? Taxonomic/taxonic? When on dwell on either, they both look funny. Human chimp taxonomy that I subscribe to is: All extant humans belong to the one subspecies. All chimps are one species, with two subspecies, called the common chimpanzee and the bonobo. I am persuaded by the 1979 paper, and it seems no publication has commented subsequently. However, I haven’t read all publications. I’m not sure I get the new question. I think you might be point at the fact that many in the last forty yours, post the 1979 paper, have proceeded to call the “common chimpanzee”: “chimpanzee”, and the “bonobo”: “bonobo”. This is true, many consider use the term “chimpanzee” as if it excludes the bonobo, but a minority including me believe that to be a common mistake. The compromise I offer is to suggest moving this page to Chimpanzee (genus) or Chimpanzee (pan), as I accept the input of User:MadScientistX11. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Consensus need not be unanimity I hope. I don't think we're getting any new ideas or arguments at this point. Genesyz (talk) 06:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• The opposition to titling these articles following the example of other genera and species articles about species with common names that have been generalized to refer to all members of their genus seems to be rooted in the strongly held opinion that Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus should not be regarded as separate species, despite the fact that this is currently the scientific consensus. I don't claim such opinions are unreasoned or that a case cannot be made that scientists ought to reconsider the taxonomy; I claim that they are not in accord with the current taxonomy and that we cannot impose our opinions in an encyclopedic article. The suggestion that "science is irrelevant" here is confounding, given that it is an acceptable guide for naming other genus articles with parallel circumstances, using the taxonomical genus name for the genus and reserving the common names for species. The fact is, as their scientific names indicate, these are two species of the same genus. Is there any other argument remaining, other than one intended to obscure this fact due to personal opinions to the contrary? Genesyz (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, regarding the disparity in how you believe (or anyone believes) the relationship between these animals should be represented and how they actually are classified: I think we are obligated to name the articles according to the latter. The appropriate place to expound your belief (assuming it can be grounded with suitable references) is within the articles themselves. You might be surprised how much we agree, and I would be happy to collaborate with you there. Genesyz (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is something interesting.

• I am not suggesting we follow the author's conclusion about genus placement, but at a molecular level (as opposed to a superficial comparison), it turns out bonobos are quite distinct from chimpanzees (phylogenetically), having diverged between 1.5 and 2.5 million years ago. I found the following (and much else of interest) from [4]:

• A comparative study of blood group serology concluded that not only were Pan paniscus and Pan troglodytes separate species, but that they "are even as distant from P. troglodytes as to be placed in a separate genus." (Emphasis mine)

Citing:

Socha, W. 1984. Blood groups of pygmy and common chimpanzees: A comparative study. In: Susan, R. (Ed) The Pygmy Chimpanzee: Evolutionary Biology and Behavior, New York (NY): Plenum. pp. 13-39.

• Nevertheless, the current scientific consensus is to classify chimpanzees and bonobos as separate species, but in the same genus. Genesyz (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, I saw that you dispute much had changed in the last 40 years (in regard to bonobos being a separate species). Molecular genetics has become the most powerful tool in analyzing phylogenetic relationships, and the paper cited just above is one early example of what developed in the interim. Genesyz (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Genesyz. I was a lot worried by the sheer number of edits you made :). And was pleasantly surprised by the completely sensible post that resulted. I haven’t finished reading your source, but “Acceptance of bonobos as a separate species rather than a subspecies within Pan troglodytes has not been universal...” is exactly my position that I meant to argue. The source is definitely interesting, although serological and mitochondrial DNA is a bit in the weak side.

Mostly, everything you write I completely agree with. One difference is “the current scientific consensus”. I dispute that phrase as accurate. To have a consensus, you require a question and a discussion. The question has not been seriously posed and discussed. I suggest a correct phrase of “the current practice in the scientific literature”. With that wording, it is almost persuasive, except that I argue there are too many non-scientist readers who understand (with debateable correctness) that the bonobo is a chimp. Official names and technical terminology is correctly downweighted for titling purposes, against general readership somewhat familiar with the topic. I submit that a huge proportion of the readership is familiar with the names of the great apes, and that for them it is not right to have the chimpanzee-titled page excluding bonobos, which to the generalist is obviously a chimpanzee. As I posted a few times now, I support a “genus” or “pan” qualifier to this page, but oppose renaming Common chimpanzee to chimpanzee, and much more strongly opposing moving this page to Pan (genus) as a huge RECONIZABILITY failure. I will, however, keep reading from what you’ve pointed me too. As for the actual content on the pages, it is pretty well worded as is. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I am finding quite a few papers on the taxonomy of chimpanzees/bonobos. This paper from 2010 estimates divergence between the bonobo and common chimp a little less than 1 million years ago (and divergence of the various nominal common chimpanzee species between 90,000 and 460,000 years ago. While this paper uses the term "bonobo" it also refers to the alternate name "gracile chimpanzee." It refers to P. troglodytes primarily as "common chimpanzee" but also refers to the alternate name "robust chimpanzee" (but never plain "chimpanzee"). This paper from 2008 estimates somewhat earlier dates for the splits - about 1.2 million years for bonobo/common chimp and 50,000 to 500,000 years for the various common chimp subspecies. It elides the issue of what to call the species P. troglodytes by using the subspecies names, which I have seen in other sources too. I do note that the paper title refers to "chimpanzee history", apparently not seeing a need to refer to "chimpanzee and bonobo" history as separate entities. This 2007 paper uses the terms "bonobo" and "common chimpanzee" for the 2 species, and again uses only "chimpanzee" in the title. Another 2007 paper by the same author estimates slightly earlier divergence between bonobo and common chimp (about 850,000 years) and explicitly refers to "the two chimpanzee species." I could go on, but I have seen no recent reliable sources that dispute the bonobo and common chimpanzee being separate species (and divergence around 1 million years is not inconsistent with other mammals defined as separate species, although I acknowledge there may be exceptions) and few if any that regard the bonobo as not being a type of chimpanzee. Notwithstanding the latter, I can support moving this article to "Pan (genus)" to avoid confusion and provide reasonable disambiguation, even though it is not entirely consistent with WP:COMMONNAME. But I can't support moving "common chimpanzee" to "chimpanzee" as that would restore the same ambiguity we are trying to address here, albeit in reverse. Rlendog (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. An example line, not a result or argument, just standard statement: “Chimpanzees, the closest living relatives of humans, are classified into two species, common chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and bonobos (Pan paniscus), both found exclusively in Africa.”[5] Bonobos are chimpanzees. “Common chimpanzee” cannot be moved to “chimpanzee”. The species/subspecies choice is irrelevant. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Where do those quoted lines come from? The term chimpanzee has different extensions as a generalized term versus as a taxonomical term (similar to dogs for canines and horses for equines are generalized terms), which can and has caused confusion. Taxonomically and phylogenetically, bonobos are not chimpanzees (in the same way wolves are not dogs and zebras are not horses). Yes, the term can be generalized to cover both, and that's fine, but it's not an equivalent term for Pan. We can help dispel that confusion while presenting all the facts, or we can yield to it and perpetuate it. Is it possible to have the search term chimpanzee be directed to the disambiguation page for that term? Let the readers choose which meaning of the word they intend and get to the article they seek. We still cannot make up genus names, and that article should be titled Pan, but then it wouldn't matter so much if the species page was titled Chimpanee or Common chimpanzee. Genesyz (talk) 12:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Quote source now hyperlinked. Why are you talking horses? Zebras are a variation on asses and donkeys, not horses, horses are much more distant, zorses like mules are sterile with whole chromosome issues unlike the interbreeding of chimpanzee subspecies.

Chimpanzee is already generalised to cover all of pan. Wikipedia reflects the world, it doesn’t correct it. The only thing I see as a justified change is per MadScientistX11, to clarify the title of this page. You haven’t responded to my suggestions. A DAB page is not suitable because the topics are all highly connected, and overlapping. You might want a WP:CONCEPTDAB, but still no. This page is good enough, except for the title that misleads some.

Can’t make up genus names? I guess you mean Chimpanzee (genus) implies “chimpanzee” is a genus name? Good point. Other options are: Chimpanzee (pan), Chimpanzee (genus Pan), Chimpanzee, including the bonobo, Common chimpanzees and bonobos. I like the first most.

The Common chimpanzee can’t be titled Chimpanzee, that would be wrong. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think people were reading your suggestion as Chimpanzee (genus), which someone else suggested earlier in the discussion, as opposed Chimpanzee (genus) using a common name for the genus. I don't like the current title as the common chimpanzee is often referred to as the chimpanzee. If the title was called Chimpanzees it would be less ambiguous, but this falls foul of some Wikipedia naming convention about using plurals. That leaves Pan (genus) as the only unambiguous option. Similarly Common chimpanzee is precise and unambiguous; changing an unambigous name to an ambiguous one would be a regressive move.   Jts1882 | talk  14:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• SmokeyJoe, I've made my case and you've made yours. I don't think there is any point in repeating myself, as I have already addressed all your points, though it seems you might have missed them. We disagree. I'm comfortable letting my points stand. Genesyz (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The table below shows the common names I was able to find for Pan, P. paniscus and P. troglodytes in relevant sources from the past 20 years. I included the three papers I referenced above as samples of usage in scientific papers, although I have no idea if that is universal.

Source	Pan	Pan paniscus	Pan troglodytes
Mammal Species of the World 3rd ed. (2005)	none	Bonobo	Common Chimpanzee
ITIS	chimpanzees	pygmy chimpanzee, Bonobo	Chimpanzee, Common Chimpanzee
IUCN	none	Bonobo, Dwarf Chimpazee, Gracile Chimpanzee, Pygmy Chimpanzee (under title "Bonobo")	Chimpanzee, Common Chimpanzee, Robust Chimpanzee (under title "Chimpanzee")
Mammal Diversity Database	none	Bonobo	Chimpanzee
All the World's Primates (2016)	Chimpanzees and bonobos	Bonobo or Gracile Chimpanzee (uses "bonobo" in the discussion)	N/A - skips to subspecies of P. troglodytes without an entry for the species itself
Handbook of the Mammals of the World (2013)	Chimpanzees	Bonobo	Chimpanzee
Primates in Perspective (2007)	Chimpanzees and bonobos	Bonobo	Chimpanzee
Walker's Primates of the World (1999)	Chimpanzees	Pygmy chimpanzee, bonobo	Chimpanzee
Hey, 2010	title refers to "Divergence of Chimpanzee Species and Subspecies" covering both Pan species	bonobo or gracile chimpanzee (bonobo used throughout the paper)	common chimpanzee or robust chimpanzee (common chimpanzee used throughout the paper)
Caswell et al, 2008	refers to "at least four distinct populations of chimpanzees" including bonobo and 3 common chimpanzee subspecies	bonobo	common chimpanzee
Becquet & Przeworski, 2007	refers to both Pan species as chimpanzees	bonobo	common chimpanzee

What I can glean is that:

1. There is no consensus that "chimmpanzee" is an incorrect for Pan. Several sources explicitly use "chimpanzee" to cover both species collectively. Of the 2 that explicitly do not, one explicitly does give the common name "gracile chimpanzee" as a common name (albeit not the one they prefer to use) for P. troglodytes
2. There is widespread consensus that P. paniscus and P. troglodytes are separate species. Besides the papers I referenced above, some of the books explicitly reference research to back that (and not just referencing stale comments from the 1970s). For example, Primates in Perspective references different types of DNA studies that date the split to 1.7 million or 2.7 million years ago.
3. "Bonobo" is the preferred common name for P. paniscus
4. Both "chimpanzee" and "common chimpanzee" have significant support for P. troglodytes

Going through this just reaffirms my view (already stated above) that either "Pan (genus)" or "chimpanzee" is an appropriate title for this page, but Pan (genus) is preferable to avoid ambiguity, and similarly "chimpanzee" or "common chimpanzee" would be appropriate for the P. troglodytes page but "common chimpanzee" is preferable, again to avoid ambiguity. Of course, we would still need a dab page for "chimpanzee" and would need to decide which page it points to, and there I could go either way. Rlendog (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• If others have additional relevant sources, please add them to the table. Rlendog (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree (for reasons I have enumerated earlier) that Pan (genus) eliminates the ambiguity and is the way to go for the genus article, and I have no qualms naming the article for the species Common chimpanzee, provided there is a disambiguation page for the term chimpanzee that allows readers to see all the options and choose what they are looking for. I don't know what "decide which page it points to" means. (Sorry---I'm not familiar with exactly how these work. Could someone give me an example search term so I can go see what it looks like?) Wouldn't it just have links to the articles that fall under the various meanings listed? If it has to point to one, it would make most sense for it to point to the article for the species. Genesyz (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, I forgot to comment about your first note above, Rlendog. I wouldn't say chimpanzee is an incorrect term for referring collectively to the members of the genus Pan, but it would be an incorrect term for referring to the genus itself or for labeling a relation that is explicitly taxonomical. Chimpanzee is often generalized to refer to both species, but that should not be taken as an implication that it is an equivalent term in a taxonomical or phylogenetic sense. This is a subtle but important distinction, and we should be careful not to give the wrong impression or equivocate in this way. Genesyz (talk) 01:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Chimpanzee Longevity

Hello, fellow editors! I'm a long-time lurker and finally dipping my toes into the world of editing. I wanted to discuss a suggestion about the Longevity headline in this article. I feel like it being only one sentence long doesn't necessarily deserve such a large header and, additionally, I found that the statement itself is a little misleading where it reads "... some captured chimps have reached an age of 70 years and older."

When you click the link, it actually shows that only one of the chimpanzees on the list achieved an age over seventy. To me, that feels a little bit misleading, suggesting that one could expect a higher percentage of chimps to reach that age when, in reality, only one has done so.

Is this a worthwhile/meaningful observation, or should I simply let it be? Thanks! Remiriya (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not one of the article's main editors, but your suggested change makes sense to me! Emjackson42 (talk) 13:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2021

Please add {{citation needed}} tag for the following statement: The diary of Portuguese explorer Duarte Pacheco Pereira (1506), preserved in the Portuguese National Archive (Torre do Tombo), is probably the first written document to acknowledge that chimpanzees built their own rudimentary tools. 2603:6081:1C00:1187:B814:EC37:64E8:5765 (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Jack Frost (talk) 09:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)