Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:05, 10 January 2007

Older discussions: Archive

etymology references

Etymologists from the Slater/Ralley/Stear school of thought

Slater/Ralley/Stear who? - Fredrik | talk 15:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

While I am adding references to this thing, I would love to have a reference for this one. Slater? Ralley Stear? If I search for any of those names with "chuman" and "etymology", the only hits I get are for different mirrors of this article.

Can anyone find a single trace of the "Slater/Ralley/Stear school of thought"? KWW 200.6.149.49 00:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Going, Going, nearly gone ... Unless someone can point me at Slater, Ralley, or Stear, and some trace of the reasoning the etymology referenced in this section, all references to Slater/Rally/Stear will be deleted on January 15 or so. Kww 23:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

syntax problem with references

I tried to add a bit more scientific meat, but have managed to screw up the reference syntax. I hope someone can fix it. KWW 200.6.149.44 19:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Found it and fixed it. KWW 200.6.149.44 20:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This article needs a re-think

I reacted childishly to Arislan ... I don't think he is vandalizing, and hopefully, he realizes that I'm not either.

This article is quickly descending from factual contents into science-fiction and fantasy. I would like to propose that we actually divide it that way. "Etymology", most of "feasibility", most of "possible means of creation", "Ivanov experiments", "Oliver", and "Genetic Evidence" should go under "factual." Discussions of Gor novels, novels about bonobos, warrior-slave races, and lawn-mowing slaves go under "Science fiction/Fantasy"

Since Arislan simply keeps reverting his changes in, I restructured it along these lines. All of his references to lawn-mowing, warrior-slaves, sympathetic science fiction writers, and the Gor series have all been grouped and placed into their own, nice, neat little section.

Please stop referring to me as "anonymous", Arislan ... you know my name, but I don't have a clue what yours might be. Kevin Wayne Williams 200.6.149.27 04:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC) 200.6.149.27 21:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It's just a Misplaced Pages naming convention. You aren't logged in to a user account, therefore you are an anonymous editor. Nothing more is meant by it and announcing your name via anonymous edit doesn't change much. Why not sign up an account? Bryan 05:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Kevin (if that's your real name...still better than Mr. 200.6.149.27), I don't get it. If you are such a stickler for editing Misplaced Pages, how come you don't even have an account here? It is hard to take anonymous contributions seriously. I strongly suggest you get an account. Anyway, I think your restructuring needs work. But I think the whole of the problem is that the entire article is needing work. I'll try and contribute some to editing what's already there instead of adding more sections. I've been fascinated by humanzees since I was a child. My turn to be "childish"...if I had the resources I would certainly do research into humanzee production. ;-) Cheaper than robots and more apt, and perfect for cheap labour. --Arislan 10:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Move to Humanzee

Article should be at Humanzee. This is the only place I have ever heard the word "Chuman". --Peter Farago 08:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, also someone should atleast make mention of Il'ya Ivanov http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=287 Suppafly 21:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I also agree. I've only heard of the humanzee name until reading this. It was a redirect from humanzee anyway. Komlon 16:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. If no-one disagrees within a few days I'll move the page. --Grace 23:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Since this proposal is so old and has yet to receive any objections, I've moved it as requested. The old discussion associated with Humanzee can be found at the archive now. — Laura Scudder ☎ 19:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Could we get some cites for for those "rumor" paragraphs? If they're from the Weekly World News or equivalent they should be removed, since sources like that aren't worth bothering with even as a source of unsubstantiated rumor. Bryan 17:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

"This is based on a misconception of what constitutes a species, however; for example, a female liger — the hybrid offspring of a lion and a tiger — is fertile, but lions and tigers are considered separate species" But in the Liger entry, "In addition, female ligers also attain great size, weighing approximately 700 lb (320 kg) and reaching 10 feet (3.05 m) tall on average, but are not fertile." 67.80.98.16 23:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The information on the liger page has since been update. BTW, according to tigon, female tigons are fertile as well so it appears the female lion-tiger hybrids are often fertile but not the males... Nil Einne 13:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The following looks to be a possibly good link for the first uncited reference needed (basically about whether differing chromosome numbers present a barrier to interspecies crossbreeding): http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may2001/989331026.Ev.r.html anyone else want to suggest a better one before I edit? - I'll give it a week or so.

Maimo

maimón in Spanish, maymun in Arabic is an old word for "monkey". Apparently it originally meant "happy" and comes from Arabia Felix ("Happy Arabia", Yemen), where Arabs got their monkeys from.

Divergence

"In 2006 research showed that after humans and chimpanzees diverged into two separate species, interspecies sex was still sufficiently common that it produced human-chimpanzee hybrids and affected the human genome for around 1.2 million years afterwards."

This paragraph is irrelevant and should be removed. The main wiki entry is about a hybrid between modern humans (Homo sapiens) and chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes ssp.) wheraes what the 2006 science article deals with, would be a hybrid between the ancestor of humans (some early Australopithecine) and the ancestor of chimpanzee.

Also the Genetics evidence section, althought more articulate, is somehwat incorrect.

Firstly, it sufferes from the same point mentioned above (it also suffer from style flaws. e.g. reporting that it "may have been a key part of human evolution" is useless as it's a surely unproven fact).

However the main problem lies with the cited article itself: their whole argumant is built around a single specimen (Toumai), which has been dated indirectly and is in relatively poor conditions. Further, the authors present large variations of divergence values across the genome, however they fail to provide a framework to interpret the results. It would be interesting to know which parameters would be required to obtain similar results with a model of long speciation time instead of hybridization. Lastly, a valid alternative explanation for the observed low divergence on the X chromosome would be selective pressure on the X chromosome during the (chimpanzee-human) - gorilla divergence.

In conclusion, altough the article is stimulating, it doesn't provide compelling or conclusive evidence of hibridization between chimpanzee ancestors and human ancestors (and is still irrelevant to the question of hybridisation between moder humans and chimanzees).

Another point of concer is the entry name: "Chuman" is unacceptable, especially in the light of the etymology section. ""Chuman" alludes to the more sinister hybrid, fusing the intelligence of a human with the relative upper-body strength of a chimpanzee, bred for megalomanic and military ends. "Humanzee", however, evokes a more placid and militarily impotent animal; combining the weakness of a human with the relative stupidity of a chimpanzee."" makes it really sound like cheap comic book stuff. I'd rather stick to the proper name used in science: human-chimpanzee hybrid (or chimpanzee-human hybrid). A scientific literature search for either "Chuman" or "Humanzee" (both of which I never heard before) fails to yeild any result.

There is already some discussion on wheter to use chuman or humanzee but all this is irrelevant and fundamentally incorrect. This page is about human-chimpanzee hybrids in general, and not about hybrid of a male human and a female chimpanzee (Chuman) or vice versa (Humanzee). So neither should be used.

Cite sources?

Who added the {{unreferenced}} tag and when? There's a couple references in this article (and external links). I'm taking the tag off, use {{fact}} for specific sentences (my suggested policy, not Misplaced Pages's). Xaxafrad 01:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Chromosomal Polymorphism

I'd like to delete the "citation needed" on the statement that differing chromosome counts aren't necessarily a barrier to fertility. The referenced article on chromosomal polymorphism links to numerous articles discussing single species with varying chromosome counts. 200.6.149.18 00:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Might be better to grab a few of the better refs from that article and import them here, that way this article can stand alone. Bryan 03:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Confusing?

At first working with human sperm and chimpanzee females, none of his attempts created a pregnancy. In 1929 he organized a set of experiments involving ape sperm and human volunteers, but was delayed by the death of his last orangutan.

I assume from this that he first worked on human sperm and chimpanzee females and then moved on to orangutan sperm and human volunteers? Or did he also try other (non-human) ape sperm? If he did, then I assume the other male apes had also died. In this case, it might be better to say "by the death of his last male ape (an orangutan)" or something of that sort. Nil Einne 13:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Passages

Seems someone has been deleting areas of the article for no particular reason and without explaining themselves in the talk page. Someone just deleted the paragraph in "Rumored Humanzees" about the WW2 pseudo-experiments. Arislan 21:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed it because it was unsourced, and didn't seem particularly relavant, as no humanzee was supposed to have been created. If you want to add it back in, cite a source for the claim.--Cúchullain /c 22:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It is from the book "Mengele: The Complete Story" by Gerald L. Posner. The relevance is that many people were not told that Mengele was "just kidding" and some still believe he created humanzees. He didn't. Arislan 22:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Terrific. I've added the ref into the article. You don't happen to have a page number, do you?--Cúchullain /c 22:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the reference. I don't have a page number at hand. Excellent book, though, so I might check it out again someday.Arislan 00:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I just went a deleted a set of passages you put back in. No one knows what the temperament of any ape hybrid would be, including human-chimpanzee. If one managed to exist, it would be interesting to find out how well its higher brain functions worked at all. Any exploration of its mood would have to wait until after discovering whether it could reason even at chimp level.

Chimpanzees are *not* gorillas, and are *not* orangutans. If you want to speculate on human-gorilla crosses and human-orangutan crosses, don't try to misdefine this article to match your mood. 200.6.149.27 16:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, anonymous, are you aware that if you type "human-ape hybrid" in the search box will redirect here? Do you know WHY that is? Well I'll tell you, it's because the word humanzee is POPULARLY used for any human ape hybrid. I imagine english is NOT your native language, so you probably don't know this, but a lot of people popularly call chimps monkeys. They are not monkeys, they are apes, you see, monkeys have tails. This is wrong and the ONLY way to fix this is to change the article's name. Now, I'm not going to do that so I explained that confusion to others. Oh, and about that silliness regarding the set of passages: NO ONE knows what the temperament any hybrid would be, that is correct. Then WHY you want to remove the line that SUPPORTS that statement? You removed the thing about it being impossible to gauge a humanzee's temperament because none have ever been studied! And you better sign your changes properly and if deleting someone else's text, use the talk page to talk about it or, since you have no username, people will think you are an anonymous vandal out to randomly blank out sections. --Arislan 16:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

If the phrase "human-ape hybrid" directs you here, then that redirect is broken.

The discussion of temperament is just plain silly. It cannot be predicted, and this whole garbage about docile this and agressive this is premature. It's more likely that the resulting hybrid would be a barely functional idiot.

I am not an anonymous vandal: My real name is Kevin Wayne Williams. You can find me on any number of places. One of my e-mail providers is gte.net, and my e-mail id with them is kww. I take care of a few articles on wikipedia, this being one of them. My goal is to keep it an article that actually discusses chimpanzee-human hybrids. If you want to produce an article that discusses other things, feel free. But this article is one that discusses chimpanzee-human hybrids, and tries to stay reasonably rooted in reality, not science fiction. 200.6.149.27 20:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Bonobos are not more closely related to humans

Bonobos are not more closely related genetically to humans than other chimps. This is a common misconception, often held even by anthropologists and primatologists.

The misconception is easily clarified by simple phylogenetics. Bonobos and Chimp share a common ancestor long before they share a common ancestor with humans. Thus, neither could be "more closely related" to humans than the other.

I disagree. While it is true that they shared a common ancestor with each other before humans, it is possible that one of the two species (Bonobos perhaps?) is genetically closer to their ancestor than the other is, thus making them closer to humans than the other. - 23:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

REMOVE THIS SECTION!

The section on the possible labour or military applications should be removed; it seems to have been lifted verbatim from some horrific 1930s eugenics novel set in the not-too-distant future. It is disgusting – the idea of creating a sub-human underclass to do manual labour would be laughable if it hadn’t been presented here in what seems to be a serious manner. Remove it, lest the credibility that wikipedia has fought so hard for is completely lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barryjwhyte (talk • contribs)

I agree. You should remove it. - 00:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.237.247.1 (talk • contribs)

Anonymous sock-puppetting is not viable evidence for deletion. The article does not endorse the creation of a sub-human underclass of any kind, it simply analyses ramifications of the creation of humanzees. --Arislan 17:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Now now, they're's no call for that. Just add it back in.--Cúchullain /c 18:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I had not noticed it was THAT section he wanted to remove. Strike out my above comment (the one that says "I agree/You should remove it"), for now that I know I do not agree. - 20:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have now stricken it. - 12:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by user name or IP (talk • contribs) date.

I do not know about this section, but apparently Stalin had oredered to the soviet scientist Ilya_Ivanov (see article for more details) to breed human-chimp hybrids in order to make perfect workers or soldiers, which didn't succeeded.--Extremophile 18:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The section on laborers is absolutely ridiculous. -BZ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by user name or IP (talk • contribs) date.

Section on laborers?--Arislan 21:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

removal of Washington Post's comment

I've removed the passage of Washington post suggesting that if the human-chimp hybridization had taken place in human evolution "will mean modern people are descended from something akin to chimp-human hybrids." I think that is not correct and is more likely just a confusion of scientific journalism; what would have happened would not be something like a "clade amalgam", as the passage seems to suggest, but just that eventual crossbreeding between lineages of ancestors of both, humans and chimps, which were both probably more similar to the common ancestor of both and to each other than humans and chimps, properly. But I'll try to find more about that, maybe I'm wrong. I deleted by precaution, since scientific journalism not rarely makes such mistakes. --Extremophile 18:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I have seen that argument that "humans used to breed with chimps" used by white supremacists in their rhetoric. They tried to say that because whites left the region where apes lived, the interbreeding stopped much sooner, therefore implying that blacks were "less evolved". So I agree with deleting the Washington Post passage, lest wikipedia starts being used as proof by the lunatic fringe.--Arislan 17:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

On the "Possible candidates for breeding with humans" section

Not only is this section unreferenced, but I keep wanting to change the opening paragraph to:

Among the great apes, the bonobo (Pan paniscus) has the closest DNA to that of a chimpanzee. Plus, it is characteristically more docile than the human (Homo sapiens). This would make it a more natural choice. The human is known for its vicious territoriality, hunting of other animals (such as the baboon) and even murdering groups that among their own kind eliminate the weak and the foreign. Should this temperament be passed on to the humanzee, military uses could be accomplished, but the results would be hard to control.

In any event, it seems like original research.Ben Standeven 03:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems ridiculous to me, pure speculation. I say delete it. Kokiri kid 13:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

In which way is it speculation? The section describes each of the great apes' characteristics and juxtaposes that to the humanzee bred from that particular species. If you had bothered to go to each of the articles about chimps, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans, you would have seen that those attributes are quite correct. --Arislan 21:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why anybody has a problem with this section. Every time I come to the Talk page I find someone else that has a problem with it. THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH IT!!!. The next person to post something about a problem with it better have a justifiable reason (by the way that's not meant as a threat or an insult). I see nothing unscientific about it. - 00:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.105.88 (talk • contribs)

I removed the unreferenced tag. There is a reference in most paragraphs of the section. --Arislan 01:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not a pure fantasy article, it's an article on the possibilites of human/chimpanzee hybrids (so technically there should be nothing mentioned of Gorilla or Orangutan/human hybrids in the article...). I know the attributes that the apes have been labelled ARE correct, but how the hell is speculating about what a humanzee would be usefull for proper? "Should this temperament be passed on to the humanzee, military uses could be accomplished, but the results would be hard to control." The whole section seems based around how ape/human hybrids would do in the army. What does that have to do with anything? It sounds as If its been lifted straight from a fantasy novel. "A humanzee bred from orangutans who retained these characteristics might not be cooperative for labour purposes, and a problem around human females." Thats a stretch. I'm going to finish my comment with something which is actually in the section we're debating about... "Of course the effect of the human side cannot be properly gauged until an actual humanzee is produced." There are no sources for what an ape/human hybrid would be like, therefore it's orginal research. Kokiri kid 07:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"A humanzee bred from orangutans who retained these characteristics might not be cooperative for labour purposes, and a problem around human females." is not a stretch. It's completely logical that a being who has those characteristics of the orangutans would be hard to aclimatise to daily work around humans. The section is discussing how these humanzees could be expected to react, while giving them the leeway that their human side is the unknown variable which can alter everything. How they would do in the army is very relevant, after all, the experiments that were officially funded in that direction by the Soviet government were precisely for that purpose. Or you think they wanted humanzees to play soccer? (That would be hard to do if they had hands for feet, can't imagine one in Manchester United.) And by the way, "humanzee" is popularly used as a word for any great ape/human hybrid. In fact, type human-ape hybrid and it will redirect to Humanzee. And finally, saying that "the effect of the human side cannot be properly gauged until an actual humanzee is produced." is not original research, it is pure logic.--Arislan 17:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hah, you missed my point, I was using that statement to back up my argument, "the effect of the human side cannot be properly guaged until and actual humanzee is produced", meaning anything we come up with now is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. But since I'm not bold, I'm only one person, and I know next to nothing about editing on Misplaced Pages I guess it's not up to me is it? Kokiri kid 06:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: "The entire purpose of a humanzee is to combine human and ape characteristics." That may be the case for one individual... But certainly not the only purpose. Kokiri kid 06:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

While I've decided there is no point in me editing the article, I'd still like to hear what you have to say about that. Kokiri kid 01:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

And now the only logical piece of information in the section, oh, co-incidently one of the bits that backs me up has disappeared. "the effect of the human side cannot be properly gauged until an actual humanzee is produced." If the section stays, then so should that quote. It's the only worthy bit. Kokiri kid 04:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

Some anonymous person had deleted the etymology section. I reverted and placed it up top for clearer reading of the article. Although it should be pointed out that the word Humanzee in pop culture is usued for any human-ape hybrid. If someone knows how to phrase that, or can add sources, please do.--Arislan 17:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)