Talk:Pan (genus)

The Jared Diamond sentence
this article is on my watchlist, and I've been seeing you two back-and-forthing over the sentence "In his book The Third Chimpanzee (1991), Jared Diamond proposes that P. troglodytes and P. paniscus belong with H. sapiens in the genus Homo, rather than in Pan. He argues that other species have been reclassified by genus for less genetic similarity than that between humans and chimpanzees.". As I'm sure you're both aware, the discussion on whether or not to include that should be here on the talk page, not via edit warring. Now my inclination is that Ribbet32 may be correct on this one, in that including a view on how to classify chimpanzees that was not made by a professional evolutionary scientist or zoologist, could be giving WP:UNDUE weight to that viewpoint. The article should reflect the balance of reliable sources in regard to this, and if there are literally no professionals who have said that chimpanzees belong in the Homo genus, then it's really a fringe view and should be removed. If, on the other hand, there are experts in the field who've said this, then those are the ones we should be citing rather than Diamond who, for all his obvious intellect, is not a specialist in this field. I would obviously be happy to hear dissenting views from Randy on this, however. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for joining in. Seems like the due weight would rest on the impact and recognition of the book and its statements. The Third Chimpanzee Wikipedia article has no negative criticism or controversy sections, and includes a positive New York Times review by Frans de Waal (noted primatologist) that summarizes the topic under discussion here without dissent or criticism. The Wikipedia article reports that, two quotes, "The Third Chimpanzee was the recipient of the Royal Society Prize for Science Books and the Los Angeles Times Book Prize" and "A contemporary review of the work by Frans de Waal was published by the New York Times (March, 1992), who praises the wit and breadth of the author's approach to the subject matter. He notes there is an emphasis on linguistic diversity by the author, and endorses the virtue of his inclusion and comparison of historic or far-fetched speculation on origins in hominids." In the 1990s the book made what could be called a splash, and was well known and influential. Keeping a long-term now-referenced mention in the article doesn't seem far-fetched. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Jared Diamond is a populist writer, and accordingly he favours interesting provocative hypotheses. He is highly notable, so his fringe view may be worth mention. However, on the argument of genetics, the defining point of speciation of homo should be taken as the point of chromosome collapse from 48 to 46. That’s the point that would mark the end of backbreeding between homo and pan. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I also want to add my voice in support of removing the Jared Diamond quote for the reasons cited by other editors above. I can’t see The NY Times reference because I’ve used up my free looks and won’t pay for a subscription but I’ve read a lot about Chimpanzees in the last few years by de Wall, other primatologists, and anthropologists who reference primatologists and I’ve never heard this theory. It is a fringe theory and doesn’t represent the consensus of the best experts in the field. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Since the entire book in question is about the idea, and de Wall gave a positive review of the book in the New York Times and it won the Royal Society Prize for Science Books and Los Angeles Times Book Prize, it at least was recognized outside the fringe community at the time and may edge over the fringe line by virtue of non-criticism and established non-controversiality (Diamond seemed to have either played the devil's advocate or monkey's uncle). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I just found de Waal's review. I didn't see where he said anything that supports this radical hypothesis. What he does say is: "WITHOUT speculation on a massive scale, it is impossible to reconstruct our past. And this book contains some rather implausible scenarios." What de Waal praises is what I assume all of us would take for granted: Diamond's assertion that humans are part of the animal kingdom and that we can understand ourselves better by understanding primates. I think there is a consensus that Diamond's fringe theory should not be included in this article. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The part you quote isn't about the topic being discussed here, and de Waal specifically uses "the absence of hybrids between Cro-Magnons and their predecessors, the Neanderthals, is due mainly to language" as a implausible scenerio. Concerning that de Waal says without judgment or criticsm: "The book, which includes material that was previously published in Discover and Natural History magazines, starts out with a discussion of the genetic differences between humans and other primates. The DNA molecules of two ape species, the chimpanzee and the bonobo (pygmy chimpanzee), are so similar to human DNA molecules (a difference of only 1.6 percent) that there is no good reason, Mr. Diamond says, to place us in a separate genus. The book's title drives the message home: we are just another pongid, the "human chimpanzee." Since this is sourced, and what you point to has nothing to do with the premise, no consensus to remove has been formed (which would have to agree that the book is fringe, which its awards and things like de Waal's review would counter, and which Wikipedia hasn't asserted). Randy Kryn (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I only skimmed the article before, this time I read it through carefully. I apologize. So yes, de Wall does mention the hypothesis. The quote you referenced is all he says. He says nothing to support the hypothesis. The claim that humans are not correctly classified and should be in the same genus as Chimpanzees is not a trivial hypothesis. It directly contradicts what you will find in every reputable modern text book on genetics or anthropology. If there was a strong argument for this to be the case it would be written up in a referred journal not a pop science book. What I said about a consensus was not based on my interpretation of the NY Times review it was based on the fact that there are 4 editors in favor of removing it, (although I'm not completely sure if SmokyJoe was arguing it might be possible to include it in a separate section as a fringe theory but his later argument on genetics seems to argue against that) and only one in favor of leaving it as it was. I think Amakaru said it best in the comment that started this thread, Diamond's hypothesis: "was not made by a professional evolutionary scientist or zoologist, ... The article should reflect the balance of reliable sources in regard to this, and if there are literally no professionals who have said that chimpanzees belong in the Homo genus, then it's really a fringe view and should be removed. If, on the other hand, there are experts in the field who've said this, then those are the ones we should be citing rather than Diamond" So unless there are some actual experts who have written in support of this hypothesis I think we have a consensus and that consensus is that the part about Diamond's hypothesis should be removed. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the summary. Regarding Randy's point about Diamond's book not receiving criticism and being praised by a primatologist, I would suggest that should be taken with the proviso that it is (as SmokeyJoe points out) a popular science book. As such, it would be understood that it might take readers down lines of thought which are possible but aren't the mainstream viewpoint, but just to tease the audience. I can't imagine that would command outright criticism, because it is accepted that it's just an idea. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would think positive reviews of The Third Chimpanzee would belong in the article The Third Chimpanzee and not here. Ribbet32 (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ribbet32 Also, here is the first paragraph in the wp:undo weight section on the Neutrality page. I've highlighted the most important part in bold: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a 'see also' to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it." Given that the only reference in support of Diamond's hypothesis that has been given is Diamond's book and that Diamond is not an expert on the topic and his hypothesis was in a pop science book not a peer reviewed journal I think that makes his view a "tiny minority" view that is appropriate for the "See also" section but nowhere else in the article. I'm going to revert to the version that Ribbet32 had and then add the article about Diamond's book to the See Also section. Before anyone adds Diamond's hypothesis back to the article itself they need to provide additional references by experts in the field in peer reviewed journals or conferences or provide some rational argument why a hypothesis only supported by a non-expert is not a "tiny minority" view. Of course Diamond has more credibility than Flat Earth people but in terms of the definition of tiny minority in that article his view is a tiny minority. If anything even more so than Flat Earth views because those views have many non-experts who support it. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link
Hello @UtherSRG: I have noticed that you have reverted my addition of a disambiguation link. I have thoroughly analyzed your edit summary of the revert and did not understand it. Is there a specific policy on when to add those links, whether they are acceptable here, and could you direct me to it? Thank you! 2003  LN  6  04:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * What purpose did that link serve? To what inbound audience is it intended? Looking at the What Links Here list... anyone who arrived at this article either typed in "(genus)" (so knows they are not looking at the disambiguated term) or arrived from another taxonomy-related article. Folks looking for some other topic would not be arriving from either of those routes, so the dab note has no audience. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @UtherSRG: I have read and understood your reply. Could you provide me with a specific policy page that permits the addition of these links or are they added or removed by consensus? Thank you! 2003   LN  6  16:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you looking for WP:HAT? - UtherSRG (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Your usage was a form of WP:NAMB. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I will be more responsible in adding hatnotes in the future. 2003   LN  6  17:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2024
Change the bold panina in the taxonomy box to an article link. 2601:586:5300:F6E0:A93F:C745:C46F:611B (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks for mentioning it! DMacks (talk) 14:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

How does one set a partly italic display title ?
(For my edification)

I notice that the display title of this article, « Pan (genus) », is partly in italic; and this is of course the correct typography for an article title partly consisting of a biological genus; but I can't see how it was set. When editing either the full page or its lead section, I don't see the wikicode for the page title; and when displaying the page information, the first item is the display title, with its first word in italic, but AFAICT it is not editable. Let's imagine that on some other similar page, a biological name making part of the title had been left non-italic: how could I correct that? Would I have to "move" the page to a page of the same title but with the italics correctly set? Would I have to request an administrator's assistance because my permissions (as autoconfirmed extendedconfirmed user) are just not enough? Or didn't I look in the right place? — Tonymec (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The automatic taxobox system is handling the formatting of the title. The documentation in that link explains how to adjust if needed. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah I see. The automatic taxobox invisibly takes care of the title so I did not see it set explicitly, but for special cases any automatically set displaytitle (no matter how set) can be overridden with placed (I suppose) at the start of a wikicode line near the top of the article. (Side boxes, including the taxobox, may need a similarly formatted parameter.) Thanks. — Tonymec (talk) 07:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)