Talk:Baboon

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 14 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): PattyDuffs.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Congress is no joke?

Resolved

Someone in help desk brought up the fact the the collective noun can be congress. This article says that it is actually a joke. Here is the wiktionary link: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/congress Should we look at a few other dictionaries and possibly edit the article? I think we should ask for consensus on this.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

No. Wiktionary is not a valid source. Also as I pointed out at the Help Desk the link they gave, http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/baboon?cx=partner-pub-0939450753529744%3Av0qd01-tdlq&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=baboon&sa=Search#906, only has the word "congress" once. That single usage is in a whole section copied from an older version of this article. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find it in 10-12 I checked on this list either. http://www.dmoz.org/Reference/Dictionaries/World_Languages/E/English/ --Canoe1967 (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The article already reliably sources that the term was used as a joke. Cresix (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I edited it out of wiktionary and left a note on the talk page of the editor that added it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

'Troop of baboons' is most common usage, but 'reliable sources' use 'congress of baboons.' A books.Google.com search for "congress of baboons" turns up: "Forum: a journal for the teacher of English outside the United States, Volumes 37-40" - United States Information Agency, 1999, p. 46 "Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior: R-Z", Marc Bekoff, Greenwood Press, 2004, p. 1013 (see wiki pg for Greenwood Publishing Group - it's a decades-old educational publisher, middle school thru university) Other non-fiction, including educational, books are in the search results using 'congress of baboons' seriously. The Oxford English Dictionary, 2002 comes up #17 in the search, but there's no indication of the page it's on; no 'search inside' function. When I viewed the online version (access thru my U.), the 'baboon' page only refers to 'troop' not 'congress'.Gorkelobb (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC) By: giomarc amazing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.48.8 (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Congress of Baboons is acceptable. Thomkatt2020 (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Misleading paragraph - “Orthographic processing skills”

The first sentence under the Behavior and ecology section, as follows, is misleading: “Baboons are able to acquire orthographic processing skills, which form part of the ability to read.[10]”.

Even if it’s factually correct its prominence as the first sentence in that section, separated from the following paragraphs, is grossly misleading. In it’s current context it could lead some readers to believe that baboons are just a step away from reading and writing.

Books and articles on paleoanthropology, human evolution and similar topics by experts like Ian Tattersall, Chris Stringer and others show that even anatomically modern Homo sapiens did not display evidence of abstract thinking or symbolic behavior until roughly 50,000 years ago. That’s the rough consensus of experts in those fields.

That sentence belongs in a sub-section, not featured where it is now, completely out of context. WB (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest that the sentence be removed. The study that acquired the information wasn't about baboons, it was about the development of writing. Baboons were merely a convenient primate to choose to demonstrate that they could be taught to recognise words, and thus the genetics for recognition of symbols are present at a much earlier stage than the development of complex language. This trait would not be specific to Baboons, and it is a skill that needed to be artificially trained into them. I don't see an appropriate place in the article for the trait. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 11:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2022

Thomkatt2020 (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

A group of Baboons is also called a congress

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

A group of baboons is called a troop, as the article explains. Calling it a congress is fake news according to politifact ([1]). Vpab15 (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Monkeys?

Why does the word “monkey” to describe baboons appear nowhere? Primate is too broad a term. National Geographic refers to them as monkeys. Isn’t that accurate? Alexandermoir (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Read the first sentence of the article. It says it right there. That being said, I'm replying to a 9-moth old comment... - UtherSRG (talk) 12:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Baboon Diet Listed Twice

The article outlines common sources of food twice. The lists are for the most part the same, and seem redundant. Recommend deleting one. The sentence in question is below:

They are omnivorous: common sources of food are grasses, seeds, roots, leaves, bark, various fruits, insects, fish, shellfish, rodents, birds, vervet monkeys and small antelopes.   

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamingojohnson (talk • contribs) 10:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean once in the lede and once in the body. The lede often summarizes portions of the main article. I agree, though, that a direct duplication is unwarranted, and I'll fix that. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)