I'm sorry, I just love polls.

Check out Wikipedia's Ape Article :



Now go read just about any other general reference if you don't want to be an ape. That's if you can read, because we're not sure apes can do that.

Of course there is plenty of static in the talk page archive (cleverly buried behind a blank talk page) if you like that sort of thing.

Funny thing, Inherit the Wind is on TCM in front of me as I write.

Are you reading creationist references again? Or something from the 1950s? David McDonald's comprehensive Encyclopedia of Mammals lists seven species of great ape: two chimp species, two gorilla species, two orangutan species, and Homo sapiens (humans). (pg 396).

Bah. I checked Encarta, Britannica, and the Merriam-Webster Dictionary before I came here. I've read books that described the family Pongidae that weren't too old as well, but I don't remember where. Either way, just because the taxonomists need to keep themselves in business by periodically reclassifying things doesn't mean that the rest of the world has to play along.

Also, the Great Ape Project owns Wikipedia.

But Encyclopedia Britannica online states in its opening sentence, "Any tailless primate of the families Hylobatidae (gibbons) and Hominidae (chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, gorillas, and human beings)."

I really don't think it's a mistake, or even an example of POV: it's just science. However, I hope you keep looking for these things. Your lung cancer expose was spot-on.

That's really weird. The page I looked at in Britannica was http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9355561. It says it's the concise version.



Anyway thanks for the vote of confidence.

Jimbo? Is that you?

Hmmm... In retrospect, "hot sacrificial Bomis Babes" would have been funnier, but then it wouldn't have made sense that he was choking the pterodactyl.

WP:BADDINOSAURS? Run, Firsron, run!

«choking the pterodactyl»

Funny, that's exactly what we called it at my old high school …

Jonny

Heh. Already got plenty of those.

How many more times? Wikipedia is not concerned with truth but with what verifiable, reliable sources say. And reliable sources are those that Wikipedia policies define as reliable, e.g. JzG's iPod, not what you or I might think are reliable, e.g. Kobb??'s Complete Opera Book.

- Benjamin Disraeli

Dag, I really got outvoted here!