Talk:Orangutan

Male bimaturism isn't included

There seems to be no mention of sexual dimorphism in orangutans (Utami et al, 2002). This is an important and interesting part of orangutan reproduction. Some males become flanged as they become adults whilst some males remain unflanged. This has implications, especially with the subject of forced copulation.

Flanged males are preferred by females. Unflanged males are shunned by females and tend to force copulation. Flanged Bornean males are known to force copulation whereas it is rare in Sumatrans (Delgado & van Schaik, 2000).

Guillaumefeldman (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

This has been included. - UtherSRG (talk) 08:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Orangutang prostitute

I just read about this, should it be added to the article? http://www.vice.com/read/yo1-v14n10 It is pretty nauseating, but there is already a section on sexual relations with humans. FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a humor site, not a serious one. Dream Focus 08:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, I first heard about the episode in a Danish documentary about an Orangutang sanctuary (Which can be seen here http://www.dr.dk/Dokumentar/gammel_struktur/tv/DR1/2007/0613144332.htm), and you can see video of the rescue here at 12:45: http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=Qv8NlidN2wg The woman talking is Lone Drøscher Nielsen. It's hard to find sources in English, but here's one in Danish: http://sondagsavisen.dk/2009/47/mor-for-600-orangutanger.aspx Vice (magazine) is simply one of the few English-language outlets that has covered it. FunkMonk (talk) 09:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

13:07 is when that part of the video shows it. It says "lots of small villages have prostitution in karaoke joints," and that this one had a single orangutan in it. It doesn't say its common everywhere though. Dream Focus 09:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The Danish site I looked at through Google translator, and its just that one orangutan again. You have people caught humping dogs but you don't put it in the dog article. There doesn't seem to be any large trade in orangutan sex slaves. Dream Focus 09:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I didn't want to imply it had happened in anything but that case. But you're right, my complete bafflement made me overlook the quite valid point about the dog. FunkMonk (talk) 09:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Type species in taxobox

Hi. I'm puzzled by the name "Pongo borneo" in the taxobox: this is a synonym of P. pygmaeus. Shouldn't we use one of the two modern species names? SP-KP (talk) 10:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The type species is fixed when assigned, and is not updated thereafter. If it's a synonym of some other species, then it makes sense to link it in the article to the current name, but it shouldn't be altered to reflect modern taxonomy (ICZN: Article 67.1.2). Often the type species doesn't even appear to be in the genus it typifies – e.g. the type species of Nephrops is "Cancer norvegicus". --Stemonitis (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. That makes sense, although it throws up two further questions 1. The (original, single species of) Orang-utan was called Simia pygmaeus, named as such by Linnaeus in 1760, then along came Lacepede in 1799 and erected the genus Pongo for it. Why did he rename the species Pongo borneo rather than just using the pre-existing name pygmaeus? 2. How can Cancer norvegicus be the type species of Nephrops? When Nephrops was erected, surely it has to be typified by a species which was in Nephrops? SP-KP (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

To your first question, I have no good answer. The Principle of Priority was only formalised relatively recently, so it may well be that Lacépède simply thought P. borneo would be a better name for some reason. Linnaeus originally called it "Homo pygmaeus"; perhaps Lacépède thought it didn't make sense to call it something equating to "dwarf orang-utan" when it isn't particularly small for an orang-utan. If you can get hold of his original work, it may explain his thinking. Concerning the second question, I think I understand the situation. Cancer norvegicus is a species in Nephrops; "Cancer norvegicus" and "Nephrops norvegicus" are different names, but attached to the same type, so they must refer to the same taxon. When placed in Nephrops, the valid taxon for that taxon is Nephrops norvegicus, but it was originally described as "Cancer norvegicus". When designating a type species, you are ultimately referring to a specimen, often through the existing literature; in this case, the reference is to the species originally described by Linnaeus as "Cancer norvegicus", and whatever its type specimen may be (or may turn out to be – the type was only assigned much later in this case). Biological nomenclature is baffling, and the more you learn about it, the more baffling it becomes. Don't worry if it seems incomprehensible; it is! --Stemonitis (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Linnaeus named it Simia satyrus, not Simia pygmaeus. Edwards used the specific epithet pygmaeus.Atla5Atla5 (talk) 10:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

FIX the Orangutans and Human section already!

It's complete vandalism, all this talk of orangutans raping humans has gone on enough. Fix it already! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MassiveForehead (talk • contribs) 05:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It has sources, there is no doubt this has happened. Dream Focus 07:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, sources are given but whether it happened is another matter. One of the sources (hardly a reliable one) actually says "This [i.e. rape] was almost the fate of Julia Roberts when she made a documentary at Camp Leakey in 1996. One male took a shine to her and grabbed her as she walked along a path. Luckily, a film crew was present, though it took five men to free her from the ape’s grasp."[1] No evidence that the orangutan was sexually attracted to Julia Roberts is given; it's an assumption made by Carole Jahme, the reporter. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

That is a reliable source. You can't ignore major news sources because you don't like what the reporters say. And I've seen this video clip on YouTube. That is what happened, and Julia Roberts herself said that's what happened. I see one clip which has French spoken after and over the English words. [2] Anyway, check around if you want to see it for yourself. Dream Focus 17:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

What is the evidence that the orangutan attempted to "rape" Julia Roberts? That it grabbed hold of her is clear; the rest is interpretation without any evidence that I have seen. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It says Male orangutans have been known to display sexual attraction to human women to the point of rape. The cook of noted primatologist Birutė Galdikas was raped by an orangutan.[24] An orangutan tried to have sex with actress Julia Roberts but was prevented by a film crew.[25] See? It tried to have sex with her, she saying that in the documentary, as do various reliable sources. It certainly wasn't consensual. Dream Focus 20:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

So, the source says "One male took a shine to her and grabbed her as she walked along a path". What's with the "took a shine to her" language? That's pure interpretation. The one seeming fact there is that it "grabbed her as she walked along a path". It didn't rape her. We cannot know its intentions, or its motivations. I suggest that there's far too much synthesis here. HiLo48 (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the article needs to be reported more neutrally; I see no evidence in http://www.salon.com/2001/08/23/primates/singleton/ or the video that the orangutan tried to "rape" Julia Roberts, although I do see that this reporter claims that it did. However she also writes "Male orangutans ... have been known to rape the women studying them (Galdikas' cook was raped)." Galdikas was the person studying orangutans, not her cook; the logic of the sentence is faulty. The Wrangham & Peterson (1996) book seems to be a different matter; I'd like to see it though. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Many books cover the event. Here are 59 book results from Google book search.[3] Native people warn about this, and a famed researcher studying them had her cook raped by one. Dream Focus 04:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The great majority of the references you have found with this search do NOT cover the event of Galdikas' cook being raped by an orangutan. They just contain the words you searched for in separate sentences. By the way, I'm not disputing this claim; it's just that I haven't seen the original book. The general principle is that "exceptional claims need exceptional evidence". Peter coxhead (talk) 09:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Walking with the Great Apes: Jane Goodall, Dian Fossey, Biruté ... - Page 151 "Years later a wild adult male orangutan came into her camp and raped a female Indonesian cook." Says that in the summary of the first link. The second link you just click on it and it loads up mentioning that that incident. The third link mentions the incident in the summary that appears. I see two book results which quote what the famed researcher said in her own words about the event. [4] She ignored the locals warning that this sort of thing happened, and then witnessed it first hand herself. Dream Focus 09:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I repeat that I'm not disputing the claim and whether it should be mentioned in the article. However, note that the fact that different sources repeat the same original claim doesn't add anything to the evidence. There is one claim, originating with Galdikas, that her cook was raped, which is repeated elsewhere. It may also be relevant that this appears not to have been a fully wild orangutan but one which was very accustomed to humans. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Both of you are missing the point: how can wikipedia moderators, be they vandals or long time contributors, simply decide to label an entire species as potential rapists (and go even further to assert some kind of certainty as to their universal attraction to human women) based on the behavior of one individual as reported by one person in a completely non-scientific forum? Even if the story is true and the reporter's wild interpretations are perfectly accurate, it was a freak incident which has never been repeated. The Julia Roberts story was sensationalized and very likely nothing more than it appeared. Captive primates grab at their handlers and tourists all the time, both male and female. Rape only entered the picture because the person being "assaulted" happened to be a major sex symbol.

The second part of this section is a perfect example of the type of garbage that hurts this website and yet is zealously protected and/or argued over by the innumerable groups of idealogical extremists (who somehow seem to make up 99% of the active editors) and are doing their best to tear apart every article that is even remotely controversial. Wikipedia needs less TALK and more ACTION! Begin by SCRAPPING this JUNK.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.30.92 (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

To resolve this dispute, I suggest that we mention in the article that the reports of orangutan having sexual interests in humans are only claims. Due to lack of hard evidence, these claims are perhaps hoaxes, such as the Loch Ness Monster. --Futuretrillionaire 22:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futuretrillionaire (talk • contribs)

Please remove the negatively loaded word 'rape' at least. Animals don't rape, if something like this has ever happened at all. It is like calling a tiger that kills a human a murderer. It is also an insult to anyone who has ever been subject to such crimes. I suggest you follow the example of the dolphin article: Dolphin#Reproduction_and_sexuality46.162.102.68 (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Animals don't rape? Are you serious? Rape is dependent on the victim's perception, not the attacker. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

No it is not, a crime requires intent, Mens_rea. Or maybe you think you can be raped by a pillow as well? Animals do not rape and murder. Please fix this, it is unworthy of a Wikipedia article.46.162.102.68 (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Pillows don't have sex, orangutans do. Orangutans can intend to have sex with someone without their consent. That is rape. Legal floundering based on laws concerning what humans can be charged with does not change that. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Since you are unable to debate using a civil tone I see no point in continuing this discussion with you. I hope someone else will consider wording this in the same manner as the dolphin article mentioned earlier. 46.162.102.68 (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Pointing out flaws in your argument is not incivility. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

No we can agree on that much at least.46.162.102.68 (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The only incivility shown today is the hostile tone in the messages of the anonymous user (46.162.102.68). Please tone it down and definitely don't escalate. In regards to this issue, I have seen literature refer to forced copulation by animals as "rape", so although it is often defined in legal terms, it technically means forced copulation. By that definition, animals do rape (and humans are animals). The wording in the dolphin article is good, but too ambiguous for this article. Being the zoo keeper type myself, I've had many animals "behave sexually towards me", particularly birds. However, none of them forcefully copulated with me—they were all sexual displays. In the cases discussed in this article, a male orangutan forcefully copulates with a human female, despite her protests. In this case, the word "rape" is appropriate. I will rephrase things slightly. Hopefully that will be an acceptable compromise. – Maky ^« talk » 20:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, where I am from "Are you serious?" and "Legal floundering" is not considered civil nor constructive debating technique. And I assure you I had no intention of escalating which is why I ended that discussion.

I think calling animal sexual behaviour rape is unfortunate anthropomorphizing and moralizing over animal (non-human if you prefer) behaviour. Would you say you have been sexually abused/assaulted by your birds. Are humans regularly raped by dogs when they hump against somebody's leg. Animals have no concept of consent as far as we know and they certainly have no understanding of human morals/culture. Also the mention of the Julia Roberts incident is ridiculous (have you seen the video, there is no evidence of sexual intentions) and the reporter is hardly an authority on the subject so I think it should be removed if this is intended to be an encyclopaedia article. 46.162.102.68 (talk) 15:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I find your arguments a little bizarre, only because I'm sure you would drop this argument if we applied it to a situation where a human female willingly copulated with her unneutered, willing dog. (That's considered animal abuse.) But morality is a tangential issue here. Maunus has a good point below, and given the better source, I agree that the section could be re-written. Either Maunus can do it, or I'll try to find time over the next few days. (I'm far too busy today.) – Maky ^« talk » 17:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think the anecdotes are not likely to be relevant per WP:Weight. If you can show that they figure in scholarly works describing orangutan behavior, I might be convinced otherwise - but I doubt that is possible. I think that the mention is seems likely to simply perpetuate a harmful myth about orangutans, and detract attention to the fact that humans are a much larger threat to Orangutans (also in terms of physical and sexual abuse) than they are to humans. I am in favor of removing the sentences. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I retract that based on this[5]. It seems it should be in the article, but rewritten to show that it is a persitant myth and that it may be explained by species identity issues in ape raised in captivity.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I never saw this material as "perpetuating a harmful myth" or "detracting attention" from the harm humans inflict upon the species. First, forced copulation is seen in nature in a variety of species. I've seen very popular nature documentaries discuss it with numerous species, even noting how sometimes the female is killed by the male's sexual aggression. (One species that comes to mind is elephant seals.) The fact that a close relative of ours can take an interest in us and exhibit that same behavior (seen in the wild) is worthy of mention in an encyclopedia. Otherwise the article spends considerably more time on the species' conservation status and conservation concerns. Please remember that I spend considerable time writing about primates and primate conservation on Wikipedia, so please be a little more considerate before making accusations. I did the GAN review of this article, and rather than failing it, I worked with the author to help improve it considerably. No, it's not perfect, and hence why it is rated as a "good article", not a "featured article". – Maky ^« talk » 17:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I have been inconsiderate to you - I was talking about the article not about you - I don't care who wrote it or improved it, nor do I expect the article to be flawless. Of course your work is appreciated - stating that it can be improved is not an attack on you or a denial of your capabilities as an editor, scholar or reviewer. Please don't make this a personal issue when it is not. 'I do think that stories about great apes raping human women are a harmful myth that perpetuates a stereotypical image of apes. Yes orangutans practice forced copulations - but they do so with other orangutans, and the only semisubstantiated report of it happening with a human was a captive animal.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• I hope User:Futuretrillionaire doesn't want to apply the same standards of evidence in human/human rape cases, since apparently he believes video recordings are required. However, descriptions of animal behavior in the wild generally relies on eyewitness reports from reliable trained observers, since not all events can be photographically demonstrated. The article clearly shows that this is such a report, since it does not say that the event has been documented.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Galdikas' report describes an unusual event, so I assume that an increased level of skepticism is necessary when presenting her report. This sentence kinda bugs me: "This orangutan however was raised in captivity and may have suffered from a skewed species identity, and forced copulation is a standard mating strategy for low ranking male orangutans", because it assumes that event actually occurred. In reality we really don't know if it occurred or not. It's possible that Galdikas made it up. I got the sense from reading the paragraph that it was biased towards "actually happening" rather than being neutral (not sure if that actually happened or not). I think the ethological procedures for providing "evidence" is rather a red herring in this case. I just feel the paragraph is a little biased, which is bothering me a little, and that a little skepticism is needed. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason to distrust the worlds foremost authority on Orangutan behavior who has nothing to gain by making up the story. That makes no sense. The sentence has to be biased towards the event taking palace because no scholar has expressed any disbelief in her report, but rather several ethologists (Richard Wrangham and Carel van Schaick) have reported it as an event that actually occured. We do not need to second guess the main authorities on great ape behavior.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Maunus. They're not going to do vaginal swabs or file a police report. It is also well known—by anyone who works with exotic animals—that confused sexual identity and sexual behavior happen. Also, all apes (except gorillas) are highly sexual. I would defer to the authority, who, if anything, would be more likely to cover it up. I consider Galdikas' to be a legit documentation of the event. – Maky ^« talk » 07:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Too many people commenting here are making their own judgements, which is not appropriate. I'd like to remind everyone that the right questions to ask are:

• Is what is written in the article based on reliable sources? (The answer is surely "yes".)
• Does what is written give undue prominence to this topic? (I think that as of now the answer is "no".)
• Does what is written accurately reflect the sources? For those I can check, it does, but there is one issue: the phrase "but undocumented" isn't directly derived from the given source (Wrangham & Dale, 1996); it seems to be an editorial insertion. If it can't be directly sourced, it should be removed. More generally, Wrangham & Dale's account is based on whatever reference they give in note 20 (not visible in Google unfortunately). The reference should really be sourced directly to this account (which is hopefully by Guldikas).

Peter coxhead (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Spelling

The spelling in this article was highly inconsistent between British and American variants where these differ. I initially assumed it should be American (because of "behavior" in a section title) but then found when I started correcting to American spelling that this would involve more changes than the other way (e.g. uses of "centre", "travelling", etc.). So I've corrected to British spelling and added a template to this effect. If this was wrong because of the intentions of the earliest contributors, please feel free to change all the spellings the other way. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The original spelling was British I believe. Jack (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Orangutan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Maky (talk · contribs) 17:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I will be doing the review for this article. Please give me a few days to read through everything and leave comments. However, there are a few obvious issues that can be addressed in the meantime:

Issues:

1. There are 2 citation needed tags in the body. (I put them there.) In fact, there are several other statements through the body lacking citations that I have not labeled. Please find references.
2. The lead is too short and does not adequately summarize the body.
3. The anatomy section seems a little sparse... For example, I know that orangutans have a double-locking joint in their index finger, which gives them an immensely powerful grip. I don't see any mention of that or any other special adaptations.
4. It seems like there should be more about the evolution of the species. There should be abundant literature, given the fascination with human evolution, and given their close relations. For example, why do they reside in Asia when the rest of the great apes reside in Africa?
5. Pictures and captions could be a lot more informative... For example, the caption "Orangutan "laughing"" looks more like a joke (no pun intended). If there is information in the article about the expression of emotions, elaborate in the caption, using the photo to illustrate the point. Do the same with the rest of the pictures and captions, please.
6. The "See also" section seems a bit long (with irrelevant links, like List of fictional apes). A "See also" section usually suggests the article does not cover all the relevant information about the topic. About the only time I use a "See also" link (not a section) is at the beginning of a section that offers an overview on a topic that is discussed at length on its own dedicated page. (See Lemur for examples.)

Otherwise, the article looks better than it has in the past. Keep up the good work and I'll return shortly to do the review. – Maky ^« talk » 17:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

1. Fixed, and I can't give a source for statements that I don't know if they need a source.
2. Will get to it.
3. I can only in information I can find in the sources I have. All the "special adaptations" are covered.
4. Same as 3. There's alot on human evolution but not that of the other great apes. Atleast step-by-step. Most of it seems to be on how closely related they are to humans. The best I can find is fossil species that where related to orangutans.
5. Will get to it.
6. Fixed.

LittleJerry (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I partially reverted LJ's edits, particularly because one added contradictory information, or at least apparently contradictory.

1. Only one citation was fixed. - I've found the other citation
2. I agree with Maky.
3. I agree with Maky. - Hand anatomy features added!
4. I agree with Maky.
5. I'll remove the pic, and see what I can do to find other, better images.
6. I'll restore LJ's edit to the See Also section, and perhaps pare it down further. - Removed section, included some links in the article.

UtherSRG (talk) 06:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank for the help UtherSRG. I fixed the captions and will get to the leade. As for the evolution of the orangutan, I really don't think much more can be added. LittleJerry (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Lede has now been expanded. LittleJerry (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. It's certainly looking better. Something I haven't seen, though, is any explanation of how males gain their flanges. This seems remarkable to me. What brings about the change? I know it happens when they gain their own home range, but that is only the start of the chain of events. There must be something about getting the home range that changes the male's physiology. Is it dietary? Is it behavioral? Something else? A combination? - UtherSRG (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Made some clarifications. LittleJerry (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I found this abstract on the anatomy of the cheek flaps. I think you'd do a better job at paraphasing it. LittleJerry (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look. I should have some time tonight, and thanks for the compliment. *grins* But really... it's just the sound of other males' calls that prevents the flap growth? That's fascinating. I wonder what the hormonal mechanism is... - UtherSRG (talk) 04:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have access to the PDF? (Or anyone else for that matter.) If you do, could you email it to me. Otherwise I'll buy it tomorrow. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't. Won't the abstract be enough? LittleJerry (talk) 10:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It'll do, but I prefer using the full text and not just the abstract. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Images: The captions have greatly improved, although I removed a lot of the location information and other details that are not relevant to the article. (That extra information should be found in the image description on Commons.) However, I think that File:Orangutan_-Zoologischer_Garten_Berlin-8a.jpg would be the best image for the taxobox, since it shows the entire body of the animal. Also, one of the baby photos seems to have nothing to do with its caption. We might also need to crop the nest photo. As for the video, I'm not sure it has much value to the article... but I'm open for a second opinion. Otherwise the article is coming along beautifully! Let me know when you're ready for me to perform the review. It sounds like you have a copyeditor planning to visit very soon. – Maky ^« talk » 04:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I used an image of an unflanged orangutan as the lead image as it is more representative. LittleJerry (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. I must have missed that one when I was looking around Commons. – Maky ^« talk » 00:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess there wouldn't be a copyeditor. Does the article need an extensive copyedit? If not, I'll remove it and you can get on with the review. LittleJerry (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting back to you. I'm not sure if it will need a copyedit. I can help a little when I review it. I'll try reading/editing some now, but I'm about to head out of town for the weekend. I'll make sure I make some time to post my comments when I get home Sunday night. Again, sorry for the delays. – Maky ^« talk » 12:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments — I will add to this list as I make my way through the article both this morning and Sunday night. – Maky ^« talk » 12:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• File:Mapa distribuicao pongo.png needs a summary box on Commons like all the other images.
• In the lead, the etymology of the word is provided, but is not cited in the body. Furthermore, it is customary to include the genus name, not the etymology in the first sentence. As long as the etymology can be cited somewhere in the body, it can be included in the lead, but I don't suggest putting it in the opening sentence.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The image wasn't done, but I fixed it. – Maky ^« talk » 18:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• There will be more tonight, but an expert in the field of primatology contacted me on Facebook and informed me that the following statement is not factually accurate: "Funded in part by the Australian Orangutan Project, it employs between six hundred and a thousand people at a hundred sites.[61]" Apparently it has only four sites, and the source you cite is not reliable... though I need to look into it more. Can you see if you can find a better source with more accurate information? – Maky ^« talk » 17:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed for now. LittleJerry (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• "The populations on the two islands were classified as subspecies until recently, when they were elevated to full species status..." When? The term "recently" can become dated.
• "To further confuse, the name morio, as well as various junior synonyms that have been suggested, have been considered likely to all be junior synonyms of the population listed as pygmaeus in the above, thus leaving the east Bornean populations unnamed." This is a very difficult to follow sentence... even though it is a very confusing topic.
• "The draft of the genome sequence is based on a captive female named Susie." Did the source give Susie's SSP ID number? Just giving the name sounds like trivia, but providing an ID number and maybe location would make it encyclopedic.
• In the "Anatomy and physiology" section, I suggest moving the talk about the cheek flaps on males nearer the beginning, before you talk about size differences (where you refer to "flanged adult males").
• When you discuss sizes, you offer both metric and English units, but you flip-flop on which you offer first. I suggest starting with metric in all cases, but consistency is even more important.
• There seems to be a mix of American and British English in the article. Please stick to one.
• There are a few citations needed.
• "Male orangutans exhibit arrested development." This is mentioned rather abruptly, and it takes a while to introduce what is necessary for people to understand it. I suggest rewording, and maybe saving the wording "arrested development" until after you've explained male development.
• "Like the other great apes, orangutans are among the most intelligent primates." For the record (and you don't have to change anything), I strongly dislike statements like this. I know primatologists, behaviorists, and ethologists love to write things like this, but there have been enough studies to show that there are many types of "intelligence", and lumping them all into one and comparing between species is horribly inaccurate. However, the literature supports the popular notion you cite and it is generally true, so it can stay. I'm just objecting for the record. If you wanted to vastly improve it, I would suggest digging up what kinds of tasks/intelligence they excel at and focus on them individually. That would be more encyclopedic than such a generalized statement anyway. If you did that, it could be moved directly under the level 2 header (offering a general introduction to the section, as well as other lesser points that don't fit under the subsections), leaving more detailed discussions of tool use and learning capabilities in their respective sections.
• The first mention of the construction of day and night nests should be under "Ecology and behaviour" section because many species build nests and it's not considered tool use. What is described under "Tool use and culture" is a case of cultural transmission. (Also, day and night nests need to be introduced further up.) Also, because nest building is not tool use, I don't feel comfortable with the following statement: "Orangutans do not limit their tool use to foraging, displaying or nest-building activities."
• Who are Gary L. Shapiro, David Premack, R. Allen, Beatrix Gardner, Francine Patterson, and Francine Neago? A primatologists, I assume?
• Why is listing in Encyclopædia Britannica mentioned in the article?
• Birutė Galdikas sounds like an important figure in the research or orangutans. Is there a reason why Galdikas' importance in research is not explored further?
• "...because of disruption in people's property" How do you disrupt property? I think you mean something else.
• "Since recent trends are steeply down in most places..." This could be a little clearer.
• "Some United Nations scientists believe..." Hmmm... see WP:WEASEL. Please attribute these claims a little better, if possible.
• "...could lead to irreparable damage to orangutan habitat by the year 2012." This will become dated very fast. Is there anything more recent?
• "Several hundred Bornean orangutan orphans who were confiscated by local authorities..." When?
• The lead could be longer still. Brief summaries of the extinct relatives, conservation programs, the confused taxonomy, genomics, anatomy (male dimorphism), etc. could all be added. Just remember that most visitors never read an article fully, but most will read the lead. The lead should summarize everything succinctly.

That should be it. If these items can be addressed and no other issues pop up, I will be ready to pass the article. – Maky ^« talk » 18:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I covered pretty much all of them. With regards to the size measurements, some sources give the English sizes and others the metric sizes. Hence theres a difference in which is presented as the size and which is presented as the conversion. I also think it wouldn't look right to keep repeating "primatologist" for each of those people. As the the American vs British spelling, I could only find "center" as an American spelling. I'm not that familiar with most other American vs British spellings. I thought the article was converted to the latter. LittleJerry (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with most of the changes, but a few points (not struck) are still not addressed or answered. I fixed the measurements, and Jack seems to have looked it over for UK/US spelling issues. As for the people without fields, are they all primatologists? They may belong to several related fields. But if you don't see anything easy or concrete, it can stand as it is. – Maky ^« talk » 04:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, a few more points upon further review:

• From the lead: "The largest living arboreal animals, they have proportionally longer arms than the other, more terrestrial, great apes." This is not stated or cited in the body. Also, the size and sexual dimorphism should be documented in the lead. Again, skim the article, note the most critical highlights, and summarize them in the lead, please. Things like size are obvious questions that the general public will ask. If you want me to create a full list of points to mention in the lead, I will summarize them.
• "Individuals from the Bornean species would also have have their genomes sequenced." Besides the double "have", why are you saying they "would" have their genomes sequenced?
• File:Orangután de Borneo.gif is a very nice addition. Although it's not necessary for the GAN, I suggest contacting the author and requesting that they add references to their image on Commons and attribute the free images they used in the creation of their animated GIF. Otherwise if anyone ever takes this image to FAC, they will have to address this or the image will have to be removed.

Btw, I noticed that you removed the range map because you felt it was outdated. If you haven't done so already, I would suggest visiting the image on Commons and noting this in the description, and ideally provide a source. Otherwise someone may come along and add it back, or worse, it may be use on other Wikis. You might also be able to put in a request at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop to see if someone could make a new map, possibly based on the IUCN Red List maps. – Maky ^« talk » 04:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed everything expect for Francine Neago's profession. I know she is a primatologist and conservationist but I can't find her name anywhere in the article. LittleJerry (talk) 10:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• "The genus Pongo was erected by Lacépède in 1799, for what was then the sole species of orangutan." — This has a footnote, but no citation.
• I'm still concerned about the lack of discussion about Birutė Galdikas, who started the Orangutan Project under Dr. Leakey. She's about as important to orangutans as Jane Goodall is to chimps, Dian Fossey is to gorillas, or Alison Jolly is to ring-tailed lemurs. All come from an important time in the history of primatology. I'm not asking for an entire section, but I think her studies deserve more than three passing mentions. I suggest adding a small paragraph to the middle of the "Orangutans and humans" section. I would also summarize it in the lead, at the beginning of the 3rd paragraph. If you can get your hands on this book, that might help.

Otherwise, I've fixed the evolution stuff as best I can. There is some relatively new material that's come out where Jeffrey H. Schwartz and his peers have suggested that humans are more closely related to orangutans than chimps, but I think the academic community has largely put their foot down on this. For FA, this would be a required (brief) discussion given the flurry of discussion this sparked.

Anyway, sorry for dragging this out, but this should be it. – Maky ^« talk » 01:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: A group of sentences that don't quite work together (Genomics section): Orangutans have 48 diploid chromosomes, and its genome was sequenced in January 2011. Following humans and chimpanzees, the Sumatran orangutan has become the third species of hominid to have its genome sequenced. Individuals from the Bornean species have also had their genomes sequenced. – Its genome? Plural/singular, which species? Chimpanzees are not a species. Did the Bornean orangutan get its genome sequenced after January 2011? Jack (talk) 11:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I am going through the article one last time. I have already noted a few more needed citations. Please do not delete this material because I think it needs a mention. If you can't find a citation, please say so and maybe we can request help on WP:PRIMATES. – Maky ^« talk » 16:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Alright... finished reviewing. As long as you fix those missing citations, I'm ready to pass the article. – Maky ^« talk » 17:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. I'm glad to pass this article. – Maky ^« talk » 20:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Excellent work! Great to see another primate GA!

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Etymology section

Shortly after this article was promoted to GA, a very poorly sourced etymology section was restored. After all the work we put into referencing the article for GA, I would appreciate it someone would do their homework and actually provide references and help maintain the quality of the article. – Maky ^« talk » 02:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree it isn't particularly well sourced. I readded it because someone asked why the article was a part of wp:etymology - I looked back in the history and realized that it had a pretty big etymology section earlier which was then removed. Not knowing whether this was removed by consensus or just by attrition I put it back in. Remove it if you don't think it fits. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It fits, but I'd appreciate some help sourcing it. Don't get me wrong—I do appreciate your efforts tracking it down in the history and restoring it. The information is good. But given that we just got it promoted to GA, I would have been much more appreciative if you or someone else had cleaned it up and provided better sources. I'd help, but I've spent too much time on this article already, and I need to get back to my other work. – Maky ^« talk » 13:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I found a couple of extra scholarly sources and replaced one low quality link.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Additionally there is a minor typo in the Etymology Section that I am unable to edit. In the third sentence of the second paragraph it reads "fron" when it clearly means "from". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.234.185.201 (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts on Behavior Section

The article on the Orangutan is not a featured article but is rather classified as a GA-class. It still appears to be complete in terms of what categories of information it has. It includes the etymology of the word Orangutan as well as information on the species’ anatomy and behavior. A section is also included on the interactions of orangutans with humans with a link to another article about “Orangutans in popular culture.” Of particular interest to me is a subsection of behavior titled “reproduction and parenting.” Since many altruistic behaviors occur between parent and child, this section could be expanded to include more than just information about how long the child lives with its mother. There is also a subsection about the social life of the orangutan. The talk section is focused mostly on what needs to be included or taken out rather than what needs to be done in order to get the article to reach feature article status. There is a GA review section that was completed fairly recently in March, 2012. Many of the issues seem to have been fixed since that time however. This makes me wonder what needs to be done in order to get the Orangutan article to the feature status since it is a well-known species. There should be plenty of interest in it. E.middlebrook (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for the constructive feedback. The short, blunt answer to your question is that we need more people with the time, resources, and commitment to write high-quality Wikipedia articles to contribute to WikiProject Primates. We are just volunteers, and at present, I think there are maybe 2 or 3 semi-regularly active editors in the project... and that means they add content and discuss issues about primate articles maybe once a month. Although featured articles are what all editors should strive for, not everyone has the time, dedication, writing skills, and resource access in order to facilitate this. Furthermore, the featured article candidacy process (FAC) is very tedious, demanding, and psychologically draining. FAC is lacking in reviewers (not writers), which makes reviews for FAC (as well as GAN--the good article equivalent) take many weeks or months. Since a Wiki user can only nominate one article to FAC at a time, it translates into a very slow process that usually burns people out. (P.S. – This is why I am no longer an Ambassador—I feel Wiki needs more reviewers than writers. More writers can be a good thing, but if they burn out because no one offers feedback or reviews their GA or FA candidates, then they burn out and leave.) Anyway, sorry for the rant—I'm not trying to scare you away from Wikipedia editing. As I said on the Ring-tailed lemur talk page, I'm more than willing to help with your project. But at the moment, I can't do the research for people. I'm too busy researching and re-writing the article Strepsirrhini and Prosimian, and I also hope to create an aritcle for "Lemuriformes", which currently points to Lemur. Basically, I'm stuck cleaning up articles with horribly confusing taxonomy just so I can write consistently on the other primate articles. Fun!! Hopefully one of the other editors that have been monitoring this page can offer some additional research/writing help. – Maky ^« talk » 20:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

"Decimate"

You might not be inclined to agree, but I think we should stick with the preferred meaning of decimate, i.e. to reduce by a tenth. What humankind is doing to the habitat of Orang utans exceeds that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.193.224 (talk) 10:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It probably doesn't matter given the term's colloquial use, but for technical reasons, I agree. I've changed it. – Maky ^« talk » 14:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

No mention of P. Rodman in pioneering of orangutan research

Although Galdikas was instrumental in early popularization of research on orangutans, P. S. Rodman was actually the first researcher to do systematic research on orangutans. Perhaps a mention of him is in order.

Rodman, P. S. (1973). Population composition and adaptive organisation among orang-utans of the Kutai Reserve. Comparative Ecology and Behaviour of Primates. R. P. Michael J. H. Crook, Editors. London: Academic Press (pp. 171-209) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.118.0.255 (talk) 06:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

About the Blood Groups in Orangutans

The following paper is referred in the article Gorilla:

Gamble, K. C.; Moyse, J. A.; Lovstad, J. N.; Ober, C. B.; Thompson, E. E. (2011). "Blood groups in the Species Survival Plan, European Endangered Species Program, and managed in situ populations of bonobo (Pan paniscus), common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes), gorilla (Gorilla ssp.), and orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus ssp.)" (pdf). Zoo Biology. 30 (4): 427–444. doi:10.1002/zoo.20348. PMID 20853409. Retrieved 5 January 2012.

But some information is inconsistent in the same referred paper, for example: (See tables 1 & 6)

1. For table 1, the total number (N=938) could not be reproduced.

2. For table 6, the genotype "Non-A, non-B" should correspond to the group O, and "A/non-A, non-B" should correspond to the group A, but the phenotypes of such genotypes are all "AB".

What do you think?

HTH & Thanks, 125.33.243.40 (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the information has much meaning for this article. As the paper points out at the beginning, these blood types are similar to ours, but are not the same across species. So their A, B, and O types are not the same as ours, and that could be confusing to the readers. (And in some cultures, like Japanese, public interpretation of the blood types could play into local stereotypes.) What could be added to the article is a short blurb (citing this source) that notes that blood types for captive orangs have been studied to help with managed captive populations in cases where blood transfusions are needed. – Maky ^« talk » 15:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Dodgy English?

In the Anatomy and physiology section, shouldn't it read "hip joints" and not "hips joint"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.147.47 (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Fixed. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Conservation status

Orangutans are said to be close to extinction. Why the article does not have a "Conservation Status"?Neuras (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It does. It is section 7.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2014

Under the "Intelligence" subheading there is a sentence that lacks a "y" in the word they. It reads as such "Scientists hope the data they collect will help researchers learn about socialising patterns" 24.217.216.248 (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not seeing the problem you state. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I can't see it either - and I've gone back through the history to 9 Dec 2013, so the IP isn't seeing an old version, unless it is over 4 months old. - I'll mark as answered - Arjayay (talk) 08:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Intelligent Primates

Last I saw/read, Homo sapiens sapiens were also primates. Now, I understand that people may be annoyed with other people that they share a world with, but surely Homo sapiens sapiens is a somewhat more intelligent (citation needed) than Orangutans? I offer Wikipedia as an example of how much more complex Homo sapiens' tools can be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.35.160 (talk) 10:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to this statement: "Orangutans are among the most intelligent primates"? If so, it is not saying that orangutans are the most intelligent primates, just one of several highly intelligent primates. – Maky ^« talk » 15:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I too thought Orangutans are among the most intelligent primates was a bit of a non-statement. We primates are some of the more intelligent animals. I think that gorillas, bonobos (who certainly are a lot nicer than a lot of humans), chimps (in spite of their tendency to act a bit too much like us, particularly when they are enraged), most human species, baboons, and even some monkeys--even the damn'd annoying macaques (if you don't agree, then you just haven't spent enough time with the vicious, sneaky, poop-throwing, face-eating bastards)--are considered to be pretty clever. So what does it mean to be 'among the most intelligent primates'? This statement lacks precision or insight. If you could do some meaningful quantification, e.g. compare the smartest orangutan with the smartest bonobo with the smartest lowland gorilla, or some meaningful sample of them competing at the same task, then it would be interesting.

• I have no idea what to make of the fact that one of the most-shrill and aggressive orangutans ever seen has emerged as the US Republican party presidential nominee... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.1.89 (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2014

Please move these lines moved to "Social life"; Orangutans communicate with various sounds. Male will make long calls, both to attract females and advertise themselves to other males.[27] Both sexes will try to intimidate conspecifics with a series of low guttural noises known collectively as the "rolling call".[28] When annoyed, an orangutan will suck in air through pursed lips, making a kissing sound that is hence known as the "kiss squeak". Infants make soft hoots when distressed. Orangutans are also known to blow raspberries.[28] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.138.235.134 (talk) 00:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "move these lines moved to 'Social life'". Please clarify! Peter coxhead (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

They are from the opening paragraphs of "Ecology and behaviour" and should be moved to subsection "Social life". 155.138.246.163 (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, right. The opening paragraphs give a general overview; it seems to me that this information can go there just as well as in the subsection. I'd like some other views if it's to be moved. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with leaving it as it is. The Social life section is more about social organisation. The sentences in question could easily be part of a "communication" sub-section.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template.

Orangutan spelling

68.51.181.252 (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Orangutan ought to be spelled Orang Utan since the Malay word Orang translated to English means person, man or human. The word Utan translated to English means forest or woods. Thus Orang Utan means a “man from the forest”, or “forest man”.

That may be the etymology of the name, but "Orangutan" is how the English sources spell it. We follow our sources. – Maky ^« talk » 02:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Extinct species omission

The previously described extinct sub species P. pygmaeous weidenreichi, is no longer a representative of P. pygmaeous, but is now considered a separate species within the genus Pongo, as P. weidenreichi due to the species larger size, distribution and temporal range (early to mid Pleistocene) (Harrison et al. "Fossil Pongo from the Early Pleistocene Gigantopithecus fauna of Chongzuo, Guangxi, southern China". Quaternary International 354 (2014) 59-67). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.58.117 (talk • contribs)

The extinct species are discussed at ponginae. Please feel free to update that article. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Updating this article by reference to Wich's work

I just had a look at the section on language to see whether recent work at Liverpool John Moores University by Serge Wich suggesting that human speech descended from orang utan alarm calls is in this article, but it is not. This article could be updated with a reference to this work, which received coverage on a Today programme in early winter 2017. 81.140.1.129 (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Orangutan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120510084118/http://www.gibboncenter.org/publications/MolecularPhylogeneticsIsrafil_etal_2011_MPE.pdf to http://www.gibboncenter.org/publications/MolecularPhylogeneticsIsrafil_etal_2011_MPE.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Pongo tapanuliensis

Seems we've got a new species on our hands (for now anyhow): https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/nov/02/new-species-of-orangutan-discovered-in-northern-sumatra-tapanuli-pongo-tapanuliensis?CMP=fb_gu BronxZooFan (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

So apparently:

However, nuclear DNA sequence comparisons reported in 2017 suggest that Tapanuli orangutans diverged from Sumatran orangutans about 3.4 million years ago.[2][22] Tapanuli orangutans diverged from Bornean orangutans, much later, about 670,000 years ago.[2]

and also

Based on genome sequencing, the Tapanuli orangutan separated from other orangutans about 700,000 years ago, and the two other species diverged about 400,000 years ago

Hmmm 82.36.145.224 (talk) 05:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Classification history

See Talk:Tapanuli orangutan#Not the first new great ape since the bonobo? for some additional discussion of classification history. WolfmanSF (talk) 02:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2018

{please I have a fact to add} 50.207.255.26 (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Not done: It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected article. You can do one of the following:

• You will be able to edit this article without restriction four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other articles.
• You can request the article be unprotected at this page. To do this, you need to provide a valid rationale that refutes the original reason for protection.
• You can provide a specific request to edit the article in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing the article will determine if the requested edit is appropriate.

Thanks, ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 02:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Including the Catarrhini parvorder

I was wondering whether the parvorder Catarrhini should be included with the taxonomy information in the sidebar template? That page even explicitly mentions Orangutans as members of the taxon. However, I'm new here and don't want to step on any toes by just adding it myself. Any input would be greatly appreciated. TheDealio (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

status system

just put the status system CRitcally endangered, as all orangutans species are CR. Oppa Justine! Talk 9 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done The CR status, along with references from IUCN, have been added to the taxonomic infobox.  spintendo  05:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks :). Oppa Justine! Talk 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Orangutang

Orangutang is a dinosaur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumpy72red (talk • contribs) 11:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2019

i am a reseacher for Orangutans and know very much 98.102.142.254 (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)