Talk:Philippine tarsier

Rewrite

Ok guys, to play the game according to your rules, I have rewritten the article and it is now in the Temp page. Kindly notify me first before you do any summary executions again. Look, I am not hiding in any way.

I still have rewritten this soon-to-be-deleted page because the copyright violation notice looks bad and, again, suggest an air of paranoia.

A large part of the information and the digital images are courtesy of Serafin Ramos Jr.

Most excellent! You're also welcome to take part in policy formation in the future. If you think the current way of dealing with copyright infringements, feel free to bring it up on the village pump, on meta, or in some other suitable forum. David Remahl 17:42, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

image rights

This issue has been cleared now. I got the permissions to publish the images. The permissions were given to me personally by the original copyright holders Serafin "Jun" Ramos <junram@gsc.weblinq.com> and Gene Boyd Lumawag. Latorilla 09:19, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My humble contributions

Hello all! This is my first attempt here, and I am sorry to be so excited to get to work, I did not realize there are protocols, etc. I might have taken for granted. At any rate, I did what I could and will hopefully be doing more contributions...Guest818 09:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up some more. Lots of good work you're doing, though. Some notes:

1. There are several passages where "tarsier" is used. Are these facts true for all tarsiers, or only the Philippine Tarsier? If these are unique, please clarify. If these are truely about all tarsiers, then be more explicit in that and also think about putting some of that information in the tarsier article.
2. When refering to the species, please use the singular. Also, use the capitalization of the article title. "Philippine Tarsier" refers to this particular species. "Philippine tarsier" refers to any tarsier found in the Philippines.
3. I commented out a few small sections on communication. Don't use "this refers to" language. These sections need to be rewritten.
4. Section headings should have only the first word capitalized, except for proper nouns. All other words should not be capitalized.
5. "Other significant information" is not a valid section heading. Either split up the section with better headings, or merge that text into other sections.

Keep up the good work! - UtherSRG (talk) 12:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I will be doing some more work on this, too. Guest818 04:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Just checking with you on a couple of things: the rationale for removing the local names, and category: primates. For your questions:

1. Statements refer to the Philippine tarsier.
2. Philippine Tarsier and Philippine tarsier - what is the distinction?
3. will fix the communication soon
4. will also work on thisGuest818 20:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Different works use different naming conventions. In Wikipedia, at least in the primate realm, we use full capitalization to denote the common name of a species, and sentance case to denote a larger, possibly less formal, grouping. As I said above, this means that "Philippine Tarsier" refers to this particular species, while "Philippine tarsier" refers to any tarsiers in the Philippines. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy reply, and the clarification. As far as I know, there are no other tarsier species in the Philippines except Tarsius syrichta, although there might be subspecies not yet documented, the Philippines being an archipelago, hence species may vary from island to island. Guest818 21:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Sarangani tarsier

Guest818 22:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Please help find citation for tarsier Sarangani sighting.

Smallest primate?

if the philippine tarsier is not the smallest, what's the smallest primate? please educate me on this matter. thanks. --RebSkii 16:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The smallest primate is the Pygmy Mouse Lemur while the smallest monkey is the Pygmy Marmoset. Nevetheless, the Philippine Tarsier is still one of the smallest primates...--Guest818 16:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

GA comment

I'm not here to review, but just provide a few comments. I think the article looks really good and could pass for GA but it has a few things that should be fixed:

• The prey that it eats is listed twice (once in the habits section and again in the predation section) and should probably be chosen to be included in just one of those sections (some in-line citations would be good to).
• "Scientists are interested in these animals because of their unique taxonomic position, and study of tarsiers may aid human economies." It would be good to describe how it would aid the human economies and again add sources for this, as it may risk being labeled as original research.
• There is a statement that the tarsier will commit suicide in captivity. It would be best to add a citation to it since it could be questioned and adding a source would help back it up.

Besides these small things, I'm sure the next person who comes through here and pass it. Keep up the good work! --Nehrams2020 08:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

GA Passed

I agree with everything said by the previous commentator. In particular I think that the subsection on predation should only discuss predation on the tarsiers and leave the discussion of the tarsiers diet in the habits subsection. Beyond those comments I also suggest that all the information on geographical distribution should be removed from the introduction and placed in a separate distribution section. I also think the prose in a couple of the subsections (particularly Taxonomy and Economic importance) could use some improvement. For instance the sentence The Philippine Tarsier has been called "the world's smallest monkey" or "smallest primate" by locals before. obviously needs a little copy editing as does the phrase The IUCN taxonomic notes lists two subspecies but that the non-nominate one is poorly defined as present which I assume should read at present.

Despite a few such minor issues this article easily meets the criteria for a good article. With only minor exceptions it is well structured, and the writing is mostly good. There is an impressive amount of good quality sources and inline citations, and it’s clear that a lot of effort went into the research. This article is one of the most comprehensive single species articles I have ever come across with very good coverage of both the biology and the conservation issues. It is also effectively and attractively illustrated by some very good photos.

It has been a pleasure to review such and informative article. I hope you continue to improve it. With just a little cleanup and polishing, I think that this would make a good feature article candidate. I may even pitch in and help. Rusty Cashman 19:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Rearrangement

Mind if I try rearranging the article with a more scientific approach (as I've been doing with other organismal WP articles)? Shrumster 06:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If you are asking me, no I don't. Definitely not. You are welcome to it! And thanks a lot! --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 07:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Done! I'll be going over the article over the next few days, fixing anything that needs to be fixed. I patterned it after some of the biological articles I've been fixing as well. Shrumster 07:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you sooooo much! --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 07:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Predation

removed "citation needed" tag since predators really affect their prey and whoever preys on them. I put the necessary links in exchange--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Angry Tarsier

I linked to the Angrytarsier.jpg image by Serafin "Jun" Ramos, Jr. that's been on Wikimedia Commons since April 2005. It is surprising that the image wasn't used in the article, as it provides a good view of the animal's dentition, and is more useful to the casual reader than a cryptic dental formula. —Quicksilver^{T @} 20:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if the caption ought to be revised so as not to ascribe a human subjective emotion to a nonhuman animal? 67.51.57.35 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC).

Since the photographer lives in the Philippines and is familiar with his subject, I'd defer to his description of the image, not your opinion of what's happening in the scene. —Quicksilver^{T @} 23:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Biggest eyes?

The statement under "Etymology and taxonomic history" that the Philippine Tarsier "... is considered to be the mammal with the biggest eyes" doesn't pass the smell test. The whole animal is only about the size of a human fist, so a horse or a cow almost certainly has eyes much, much larger than that of a Tarsier! Perhaps the sentence should say that the Tarsier has the largest eyes in proportion to its skull. —Quicksilver^{T @} 20:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Section neutrality

No matter how cruel their captivity might be, I still think this can be said in more neutral words. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 19:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here, here, and here. 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 according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if 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. Diannaa (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Philippine tarsier. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.inq7.net/globalnation/sec_phe/2005/jan/19-01.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bohol.net/PTFI/tarsier.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boholprovince.com/articles.php?article_id=58
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bohol.net/PTFI/proclaim.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/3712/tarsier.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://nmnhgoph.si.edu/msw/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100317013927/http://www.cites.org/eng/app/appendices.shtml to http://www.cites.org/eng/app/appendices.shtml

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Suicidal Tarsiers: reference update / fact-check

Apologies in advance - complete newbie here!

The assertion made by this article that tarsiers batter their own heads in due to stress is quite startling. While i am no expert, this is quite a profound assertion and implies a linguistic capacity for abstract thought, forward planning, and logical analysis. As far as i can tell the only source for this assertion appears to be an article published in 1999 by a Filipino news outlet, which is based on a report by one individual. This has been referenced as fact by many other media outlets and societies, undoubtedly with the good intention of dissuading interest in seeking tarsiers as pets, however the veracity of the claim seems highly questionable.

This is the only published journal, which is concerned with the observation of captive tarsiers, that i can find that mentions suicidal tarsiers, however its only reference is a huffington post article that presumably is routed in the 1999 article referenced in this wiki page!

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_De_La_Cruz/publication/305390545_Captive_observation_and_comparative_morphology_of_Philippine_tarsier_Carlito_syrichta_in_Brgy_Hugpa_Biliran_Biliran_A_preliminary_study/links/578c76ac08ae59aa667c532e.pdf

This journal ( http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pr0.97.2.547-558 ) states that "Modern naturalistic studies have found little evidence of self-harming conduct among nonhuman species" and it describes most accounts of suicidal behaviour to be folklore.

Credible literature on animal psychology concludes that behaviour such as lemmings walking of a cliff, or animals losing the will to live through grief, do not constitute a willful cognitive capacity to decide to intentionally end their life.

May i suggest that the reference given here is inadequate and that the section on captivity be amended to say "It is reported that..." rather than stating this behaviour as fact until a decent reference can be provided to verify the claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coops-c (talk • contribs) 12:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)