Talk:Southern pig-tailed macaque

Misplaced and dubious section

Following the references section of the article, an editor appended the following:

Alfred et al. (2002) report that India was not included within the distributional range of M. nemestrina by earlier workers. However, Agrawal and Alfred (1994) and Das et al. (1995) have reported this species from northeast India. So the range of distribution should be extended in north to northeast India.

Detailed References:

1. Alfred, J. R. B., Sinha, N. K. and Chakraborty, S. (2002). Checklist of Mammals of India Rec.Zool.Surv.India Occ. Paper No. 199: 1-289 (Publ: Director, Zool. Surv. India, Kolkata)

2. Agrawal, V. C. and Alfred, J. R. B. (1994). Macaca nemestrina (Linnaeus,1766) IN "The Red Data Book on Indian Animals Part !: Vertebrata": pp 17–19, Publ: Director, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata.

3. Das, P. K., Ghose, R. K., Chakraborty, T. K., Bhattacharyya,T. P. and Ghosh, M. K. (1995). Mammalia IN "Fauna of Meghalaya Part 1": pp 23–128, State Fauna Series No 4. Publ: Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata.

MSW3 and IUCN Red List do not acknowledge M.nemestrina in north-east Inda, and I suppose that the references above must refer the northern pig-tailed macaque, which is now M.leonina but apparently used to be considered a subspecies of M.nemestrina. --Stfg (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2011 (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.wikipedia.org/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) 12:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Bruh

I recognize that 99% of the editors that are trying to change the Malay name of this taxon to "bruh" are probably doing it as a joke, but there a few legitimate sources that do indeed refer to it as the bruh, e.g. Fooden 1975, p. 93. Taking this into account, would it be worth including that information on the page? Shuvuuia (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Wow, so it is, I honestly did try searching just in case but I never came up with anything. Beruk still seems to be more common (in fact the Malaysian wiki page on the pig-tailed is called Beruk), I think if it is worth mentioning it should be in addition to beruk or not at all (see example). I also think there is an argument to be made for removing the sentence about its local name altogether as most Wikipedia pages on species do not have them.

It is known locally as the beruk or bruh.

- Scio c (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I noticed bruh is also on the page for northern pig tailed macaques, and wiktionary had a source of it referring to rhesus macaques: google books Based on the multiple species associated I suspect "bruh" might just be one transliteration of the Malaysian word for "monkey" or something general like that. If that's the case, then it wouldn't bear mentioning. --71.89.24.41 (talk) 05:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2019

Change bruh to beruk. Vandalized before it was made protected. MelqartOfHinnom (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done (this was after). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/07/hellofresh-drops-thai-coconut-milk-after-peta-monkey-labour-campaign https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/monkey-labor-continues-in-thailands-coconut-market. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)