El directorio enciclopédico desde la Wikipedia.
[edit] Minor editMinor edit (I can't make it)- The caption under her picture gives an internal WikiLink to Root &Shoots. This is not valid, while Roots&Shoots is. Vixwald 01:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC) I did not know that Jane Goodall was still alive. I mean, you never hear about her. So I am glad wiki helped me!! -A reader —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.180.67 (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Flaunting scientific method"Goodall also flouted traditional scientific method in her study of primates by naming the animals she studied, instead of assigning each a number, a nearly universal practice at the time." This really needs an explanation of how this is flaunting scientific method - Ace of Sevens
[edit] BigfootI wanted to let all people involved in this issue know that The Jane Goodall Institute has decided to remove the content relating to Bigfoot from the bio entry. We have considered the points put forward by all involved and feel very strongly that this information is being added inappropriately, and is being placed here to further other peoples agenda, not to represent Jane Goodall’s work. Jane has not done any research on Bigfoot, it simply does not fit into her appropriate legacy. Please note that Jane Travels 320 days a year giving lectures and interviews on a variety of topics – to center in on a single interview in this space is inappropriate. We suggest instead that the content posted here be moved to the more appropriate location – under Bigfoot. We will continue to remove this section from this point forward – and it should be noted that we do represent Jane Goodall in this matter and would point to the Biographies of living persons section of wikipedia guidelines when it comes to the future of this posting string. Thank you, The Jane Goodall Institute.
I agree with both of these points, Working closely with Jane at JGI I can say with some authority that as far as major points in Jane's Life, The Gary Larson Story and the Bigfoot references could be removed if actually representing Jane is what the entry is for. while we all think that the Larson story is fun neither entry is particulary important to Jane or what she has accomplished and continues to accomplish today. - Bryce
I added the Bigfoot stuff. The content of an article about a person is not to be chosen based on what the subject would want, but rather what a reader would find interesting. So I included it because (1) it's true (that she made such comments) and (2) it is interesting, even if only in a tabloid sort of way. However, I have modified the article so that it only appears as a minor comment in the external links. Hope that is satisfactory. Thank you for contacting me before editing. Tpellman 13:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC) [edit] Far Side ControversyIs it really necessary to devote so much space to Gary Larsen and the Far Side? I'm a big Far Side fan, but this is a fairly minor episode in Jane Goodall's life. It seems odd that Gary Larsen should recieve more mention than Louis Leakey. I wouldn't have an issue if the rest of the article was more substantial. Tune in next week to see if I flesh it out myself, or if I'm to lazy.
(Back to margin.) Here's my attempt at a shorter version. (I think I've retained the important details.) If no one objects, I'll insert this paragraph into the "Biography" section just before the final ("Dr. Goodall’s many honors ...") para.
Comments, edits, etc welcome. —Chris Chittleborough 23:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] AwardsI fixed Goodall's Graham J. Norton Award so it's now correctly listed as the "Graham J. Norton Award for Achievement in Increasing Community Livability" rather than "Increasing Community Liability" (although I can see how that kind of award would be So Graham Norton). :) [edit] Cleanup/ExpansionI removed the cleanup notice as I think its fixed. if you disagree dont flame me just put it back. Olleicua 13:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] References for this pageThey are SERIOUSLY lacking.. there are only 2 for the whole article and they're not even inline references (ie: footnotes). This lack of references seriously compromises the general quality of this article and is no doubt one of the reasons why, despite its length and amount of content, it is still only rated "Start" class under the "wikiproject Biography" quality scale. I've just put up a "More references or sources needed" tag for this reason, hopefully it will facilitate some remedial action in this area. Kotare 10:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC) [edit] Professional AccomplishmentsI softened the language concerning Goodall's discovery of tool use and its impact on the definition of humanity. The previous version said "This discovery forced society to redefine the definition of being human" which appears to be a hyperbolized paraphrase of Goodall's own assertion:
The previous phrase "forced society" implies both a stronger and broader impact than Goodall herself suggests. If the original language is to be restored, it would be reasonable to find a third-party analysis of Goodall's legacy. I would suggest including a citation to In The Shadow of Man, not only for this but for much of the Professional Accomplishments section. I'm not sure what format would be preferable, since this book is already listed in the Bibliography. Vogelfrei 02:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC) [edit] Frodo and Taco BellWhat is up with "Taco Bell gives Frodo the chimp extra power"? Is this merely vandalism? Yes it is and it has been removed. --Cody.Pope 19:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC) Comments about Taco Bell and Frodo are all vandalism. The chimp lives in the wild in Africa and has never visted a Taco Bell. Please remove these comments whenever you see them. --Cody.Pope 19:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC) [edit] Parodied by the SimpsonsSo I think we neglected to include the episode in the Simpsons parodying her. (where I think Lisa discovers that Jane Goodall was secretly training chimps to be slave labors to work to mine diamond.) The part I'm confused about is that at the time when I first saw that episode, I found it to be amusing mostly because I assumed that it had some truth or was based on some major controversy about Jane's work. Afterall, that's why the Simpsons comedy is so brilliant--because they parody real life problems/issues with cleverness. However, I saw nothing in this article about Jane that could possible tie in with that diamond mining parody. Sure, I bet there are people who feel Jane may be adversely influencing the bonobos or abusing them perhaps during her long years of study, but I would have thought the idea for that parody would be based off of something more concrete, more substantial, more major.
[edit] Anthropologist??The article states that Jane Goodall is an anthropologist. Could we either be a bit more specific or delete the entry? What contributions has she made to the study of human life? It is true that the article mentions her involvement in the redefinition of humans (although defining humans by their use of tools was rejected by anthropologist before Goodall's findings, I think), but that hardly makes her an anthropologist. I think the statement relies on a way too broad definition of anthropology. Of course, anthropology borrows from sciences of animals (as well as diciplines as philosophy, history, linguistics etc.), but that does not make an ethologist an anthropologist.
Okay, so she's an anthropologist. But still, why is her picture the representation of anthropological article stubs? She's clearly not the "most famous" anthropologist (Mead, Malinowski, Boas surpass her in anthropological influence, I'd say!), indeed, most would characterize as being more along primatology than anthropology (the layman would just say "chimp-lady" :-)). So shouldn't the picture be changed? -- Wikigeek at gmail —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.163.213.226 (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC) [edit] Article status?Seems like this article should either be unprotected, or marked with a 'protected' tag. 71.231.107.188 02:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Prosopagnosia?I see in the history for this article that the sentence which stated that Jane Goodall suffers from Prosopagnosia was deleted. The reason given for the deletion was simply that she doesn't, in fact, suffer from so-called "face blindness". However, Dr Goodall admitted in her memoir "Reason For Hope: A Spiritual Journey" that she does indeed suffer from Prosopagnosia, or at least a form of it. I'm not sure this fact necessarily needs to be reinstated purely because it's true, but its deletion does speak to the need for discretion when deleting statements based on ignorant presupposition. Interestingly, Dale Peterson's comprehensive 2006 biography of Jane Goodall makes no mention of her Prosopagnosia. Nor does it mention her having gained respect for the biosphere and importance of the higher order primates after meeting Sir David Attenborough while she was living in Bournemouth, as the Wikipedia article suggests. But that's a whole other story! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Natedogg923 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC). [edit] Does She Really?Does she really believe they are little cavemen? Anyway, why the long face, Jane? Arkhamite 19:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC) [edit] CriticismThe criticism section is too heavily worded. Jane's methods will not be called into question. She like Dian was following the method first suggested by George Schaller in his study of gorillas, which preceded Dian's. Dian took over from Schaller. The method is to observe as an insider rather than an outsider. All behavioral studies wherever possible are now being conducted on that basis. If the animal cannot be habituated, then hidden cameras are placed among them! I knew there must be some good to that practice. More importantly, the section really borders on being spiteful; however, it has a historical source. The spite comes from Richard Leakey himself in younger days, which he has since deeply regretted. Jane's mother effectively took Louis away from Richard's mother and for a while the young Richard hated Jane. Initially Jane had been using bananas to lure the apes. Those apes are dangerous, you know. Some people have been been attacked and mutilated. The apes were coming into the camp and the tents and taking over, so Jane devised a remote box system of banana feeding. Richard came to visit and reported to his father that Jane was not studying the apes as they were in nature. This caused a rift between Jane and Louis for several months. (See under Louis Leakey and the Virginia Morell source) She gave up that practice on Louis' advice and he reinstated her in his professional opinion after he came to understand the source of his son's dislike of Jane. Now, those incidents do not invalidate or call into question a lifetime of primate research! Not for nothing was Jane made a dame. That subsection is rightly tagged. A source is mentioned but it needs to be checked out as the language goes far beyond. what you would expect, calling into question what is now a whole branch of primatology. I'd suggest a footnote about her first few years. To me the subsection looks like an excuse for an ideological attack of some sort by wolves in sheep's clothing, say, the opponents of evolution. Dave 15:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Removed non-encyclopedic wordy personal opinions by 68.175.23.87. There may be some merit to what was posted but that needs to be extensively redone. Myron 17:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC) [edit] Weird photo captionI'm surprised no one else has picked up on the strange and unwieldy enlish in the heading for the second picture from top in this article; " Dr. Jane Goodall listening to volunteers about their group of Roots & Shoots." I'm just tidying the caption up now but I think the "Roots and Shoots" page which has an internal link in the caption- which is uncategorised and unreferenced- possibly shouldn't even be on wikipedia. Kotare 02:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC) I made a very minor edit to this section - changing the location of the word "Group". roots and shoots has membership groups - and that is what the photo is talking about - the Group being refferenced is not named Roots & Shoots - the Group is a Roots & Shoots Group. [edit] Margaret Powers linkThe article references Margaret Powers, author of "The Egalitarians: Humans and Chimpanzees". The hyperlink for her name leads to Margaret Powers, a fictional character in Marvel comics. While hilarious, this is obviously not the right Margaret Powers. I don't know if this is the result of deliberate misdirection or if no wiki page exists for the proper Margaret Powers, but in either case it should be re-directed or removed as appropriate. Onouris Onouris 16:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC) [edit] Life with Jane GoodallJane Goodallwas not only a zoologist, but a primatologist. She was born in London England on April 3, 1934.She moved to France in 1939.She went and saw a list of jobs at Oxford University. She chose to be a scientist (of course!). If you think about it, Jane Goodall is a amazing person.You might wonder why this isn't very detail. That's because I'm only a 9-year-old. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.164.218.235 (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC). [edit] False filmRemoved the "1971 Don't Rape The Children" film entry (added 23:50, 3 May 2007 66.175.169.28). Forgot to fill the Edit Summary field, sorry. Exaton 01:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC) [edit] Criticism/Tanzania Hostage IncidentI find both sections of criticism and the hostage incident too one-sided, too destructive. I don't know about her comportment during the hostage crisis nor do I know much about how she conducted her research, but I am convinced there are arguments that defend both her scientific and her private behavior. Cheers. --Ben T/C 18:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC) I agree, I can't see how this particular historical event plays into a brief biographical entry of this kind. It seems rather pointed, negative, one sided and is only sited with an article from Stanford that doesn't speak to Goodall's involvement - mind you that the students were there presumably under the auspices of a University - Not Jane Goodall herself... I just think this is not an appropriate place for this kind of remark - perhaps the event should be given it's own page where the facts can be fully accessed and researched. It seems to me that there must have been more to the event and all involved than what is included in this entry. -Bryce —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Btugwell (talk • contribs) 05:26, August 21, 2007 (UTC).
Perhaps someone should contact Jane Goodall about this or investigate archives of the Stanford Daily from the time. If you talk to people who were Stanford students at the time, it was a huge scandal. This is certainly an important part of the Jane Goodall story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.210.195 (talk) 05:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC) fuck u —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.201.106 (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, Jane's eight-year-old son was in the cabin with her at the time of the kidnapping, according to Peterson's account and others. If she had been notified of danger DURING or BEFORE the kidnapping, does it seem at all likely that she would have jeopardized his safety to slip through the forest to warn the students? The only scenario that rings true based on the accounts I've read is that Jane slept, for the most part undisturbed, during the kidnapping and only found out about it shortly after the fact. As to her not paying ransom money: so many governments and ambassadors were involved in the negotiation process that I seem to remember reading she was advised, in essence, to butt out. I also recall reading that the American Ambassador in Tanzania initially refused to allow anyone to treat with terrorists by giving in to monetary demands. But I could be wrong there! Please correct me if so. Natedogg923 23:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC) [edit] Tanzania section fails WP:BLP - immediate removal is called forThe Tanzania section fails WP:BLP and should be removed '*immediately*. As is often the case on Wikipedia, the references cited do not support strong accusations and insinuations made in the article. The Tanzania section is apparently only there because someone wants to cause a bit of mischief and raise the suggestion that Goodall's behaviour was in some way scandalous here. It would be okay to include this section and criticism of Goodall if there was indeed good references for the widespread or authoritative suggestions that Goodall was at fault. Again, as is often the case with Wikipedia articles, a defender of the problem content will claim that there has been much discussion of this accusations or insinuations but fail to come up with any actual references that are actually support the accusations and insinuations made. They will then call for people to wait while sources are found (it is much more common that they never are or new, poor/unreliable/misinterpreted /inappropriate sources are provided) while the libellous accusations - or often, "neutral" statements which under their deceptive mask of neutrality pretend that there really is a public controversy when no evidence is actually provided of this - are allowed to remain in the article - often the first or one of the first Google hits for the victim-for months and years. All we have here is pure speculation accusing Goodall from a letter in a alumni magazine from someone who has no familiarity with the case - speculation which is immediately dismissed by the publishers of the original article. I strongly suggest alerting an administrator to enforce this core policy if necessary. WP:BLP is intended to remove poorly referenced accusations against living persons (it applies equally to unreliable references and misinterpreted or inappropriate references as it does to no references) and to remove them IMMEDIATELY without waiting to see if proper references show up or not. The policy is intended to protect public reputations from groundless rumourmongering and badmouthing and to protect Wikipedia from legal action for libel and defamation and public condemnation and mockery as a harmful unreliable source. Negative statements about people described on Wikipedia should ALWAYS be PROPERLY referenced right from the time of their insertion in the article or else they must be removed. I believe this should be immediately in the case of all persons, but as policy stands, it only applies to the living. But the current policy should be properly enforced (it is not widely so at the moment). I will not carry out this necessary action of removal myself as I am sure I will be attacked as an interfering anon editor (actually I was a very frequent editor under a registered account for 2 years but left because of incidents like this. I only do a little anonymous editing now). 207.151.255.43 (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC) [edit] Removed sentenceI removed a sentence about Frodo inspiring Goodall with a "demon ape theory" that doesn't really show up anywhere in the web... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.140.6.118 (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC) [edit] Transcript of Dr. Jane Goodall's Comments on NPR Regarding Sasquatch (Bigfoot)Transcript of Dr. Jane Goodall's Comments on NPR Regarding Sasquatch On Friday, September 27, 2002, during National Public Radio's (NPR) Talk of the Nation: Science Friday with Ira Flatow, Dr. Jane Goodall made a striking comment on her strong beliefs that large "undiscovered" primates, such as the Yeti or Sasquatch, do indeed exist. The following is a transcript of the relevant portion of the program: Dr. Goodall: As for the other, you're talking about a yeti or bigfoot or sasquatch. Ira Flatow: Is that what he's talking about? Dr. Goodall: Yes, it is and ... Ira Flatow: Is that the message I'm missing here? Dr. Goodall: I think that's the message you're missing and ... Ira Flatow: (To the caller) Is that right? Caller: Pretty much. Ira Flatow: (Laughing) I'm out of the loop. Go ahead. Dr. Goodall: Well now, you'll be amazed when I tell you that I'm sure that they exist. Ira Flatow: You are? Dr. Goodall: Yeah. I've talked to so many Native Americans who all describe the same sounds, two who have seen them. I've probably got about, oh, thirty books that have come from different parts of the world, from China from, from all over the place, and there was a little tiny snippet in the newspaper just last week which says that British scientists have found what they believed to be a yeti hair and that the scientists in the Natural History Museum in London couldn't identify it as any known animal. Ira Flatow: Wow. Dr. Goodall: That was just a wee bit in the newspaper and, obviously, we have to hear a little bit more about that. Ira Flatow: Well, in this age of DNA, if you find a hair there might be some cells on it. Dr. Goodall: Well, there will be and I'm sure that's what they've examined and they don't match up. That's what my little tiny snippet says. They don't match up with DNA cells from known animals, so -- apes. Ira Flatow: Did you always have this belief that there., that they, that they existed? Dr. Goodall: Well, I'm a romantic, so I always wanted them to exist. (Chuckles.) Ira Flatow: (To the caller) Alright? Caller: Thank you. Ira Flatow: Thanks for calling. (To Goodall) Well, how do you go looking for them? I mean, people have been looking, right? It's not like, or has this just been, since we don't really believe they can exist, we really haven't really made a serious search. Dr. Goodall: Well, there are people looking. There are very ardent groups in Russia, and they have published a whole lot of stuff about what they've seen. Of course, the big, the big criticism of all this is, "Where is the body?" You know, why isn't there a body? I can't answer that, and maybe they don't exist, but I want them to. [edit] Reference
Atulsnischal (talk) 08:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC) [edit] NationalityChanged nationality to British because in the United Kingdom, a person can only either have British, Irish or both British and Irish nationality. There is no such thing as English (or Cornish), Scottish or Welsh nationality, so while she is undoubtedly English (and British), her nationality can only be British. Christopedia (talk) 00:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC) Página espejo de la WikipediaDirectorio de Enlaces Directorio dmoz Directorio espejo dmoz Pedro Bernardo | ||||||||||||||||||
