Talk:Gombe Chimpanzee War

A fact from Gombe Chimpanzee War appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 June 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that one chimpanzee group killed off all the adult males in another chimpanzee group during the Gombe Chimpanzee War? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/June. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gombe Chimpanzee War.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Primates High‑importance High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Africa: Tanzania Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Tanzania (assessed as Low-importance).

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 6 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MaroonPants, Sol Azure, Ifein, G.keppler.

Above undated message substituted from

Ok this is a cool subject and it's scientifically significant but isn't it a bit ridiculous to use the normal sidebox for wars here? "Result: Decisive Kasakela victory." It's good that whoever made the article had fun but give me a break. It involved 30 chimps. Are we going to use this template for bar fights or battles between ant colonies? 216.36.8.232 (talk) 02:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If they're especially notable, I don't see why not. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 09:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If people write books about individual wars: Sure. --mfb (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a military conflict infobox isn't quite necessary, but a civil conflict infobox could suffice? After all, this conflict seems to have relevance to the theory of war driving human evolution, which could have social aspects. --107.179.249.218 (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the researchers who witnessed the events call it a "war" I see no reason why not to use the normal war sidebox here. And using "decisive kasakela victory" is technically correct however funny it may be. StraightOuttaBoston (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then why didn't the Emu War use the same infobox? I see no difference between two of them, though Emu War involved more combatants and even humans. Mhatopzz (talk) 09:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing the same thing other primatologists did when first confronted with Goodall's research: kneejerk reacting to label anything human like done by non-humans as "not real ___." Probably this is because the idea that chimps are as smart, and as capable of evil, as humans makes you uncomfortable. The fact is that the Gombe War was, definitionally, a war. It was a conflict over land and political power between two populations of the same species and their two governing authorities. The size of the groups is irrelevant, the infobox designed for wars is useful and accurate here since this WAS a war and so all the basic information necessary to study it can be communicated in this infobox. And yes, if a war between ant colonies was significantly notable enough for a wikipedia article the infobox would be appropriate there too. It would not be appropriate for a barfight, as a barfight is not a war. 2601:642:C481:4640:487A:F71:5100:72E6 (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree, the war infobox should be changed into event infobox just like the Emu War Mhatopzz (talk) 09:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bruv, we reached no consensus on this, I liked the war box better as it applied here since as random IPv6 above said, it was a real war, it was political, it was for land and the women chimpanzees.

We need a consensus on which one to use before you just change stuff like that. Reverting. LucasImpulse (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Gombe War is not analogous to the "Emu War." The so-called Emu War was a campaign of extermination in which only one side was actually committing violent action. The Gombe War was a conflict over territory between two equally intelligent groups of the same species, with comparable political and social lives, both acting violently. Also, I don't find the phrase "decisive Kasakela victory" funny at all-- it was a pretty brutal victory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:C481:4640:0:0:0:B029 (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why Goliath is marked as the leader of the Kahama community. According to "Chimpanzees of Gombe: patterns of behavior" Goliath was old and low-ranking at the time, while Charlie was the alpha male of Kahama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.173.112.229 (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this one get counted as a war, right down to ‘decisive Kaskella victory’, but the Emu War is just an ‘event’ --StrexcorpEmployee (talk) 07:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Emu War wasn't an actual war, it was just a time when some Australian soldiers shot at some Emus (and missed). This, however, is a prolonged violent conflict between two organized groups. If that isn't the definition of "war", what is? 2600:1:92AC:6619:461E:72AA:E6D1:D3C0 (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the numbers involved I would say this was more a of a feud than a war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.32.168.5 (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no objective difference between the two, really. Like when scientists say that grizzly bears and polar bears are different species despite being interfertile and even repeatedly interbreeding over the past several thousand years, these terms are pretty loosey-goosey. Gang wars might be definable as "just" feuds, too, but the term "war" frames the conflict in a way which (those who use the term assume) conveys useful information in itself. CallMeSalticidae (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to numbers involved, keep in mind human societies are far larger than animal societies. You could accurately identify conflicts involving very few people as feuds rather than wars, and if this were a human conflict then I'd actually say it fits that moniker. But this is an internal conflict between a chimpanzee society that's relatively average in size. As far as chimpanzees go, this is a pretty big conflict, and it's accurate to call it a war within that context. Not only that, but from a large sum of articles I've looked up involving this event describe it as a war waged rather than a feud. NekomancerJaidyn (talk) 08:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article infobox mention that Kasakela chimpanzees suffered 1 casualty, but nowhere in the text does it say when. Nor the source (Through a Window...) mentioned any Kasakela casualties or at least I couldn't find any. However in subsesquent conflict against the Kalande, two Kasakela males disappeared, presumably killed. --2001:14BA:AB01:3186:0:0:0:1 (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Came here to ask this exact question! I also feel like the female chimpanzee (Gigi) who tagged along to multiple attacks and even participated should be listed in the ‘strength’ column. Given that we know females were involved on both sides, shouldn’t they be counted as part of the whole? EerieSomething (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article "A Brief History of the Gombe Chimpanzee War" by Matthew Bian, published September 17, 2021 on the Discover magazine website, is suspiciously similar in structure and content to the version of this article that already existed at that time. I am becoming deeply concerned about the increasing difficulty of finding reliable sources that are independent of Wikipedia content. The very existence of Wikipedia is making the project of creating Wikipedia more difficult. Gildir (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The german article has a very important section on how war among humans isnt necessarily necessary and can be avoided which the english version lacks. I cant add it, can someone else do it? (Maybe take a quick look that the words are correct because im max C1, not C2, and cant flatten the translation out)

Interdisciplinary importance/relevance

(Not soooo important: Evolutionary Biology

How male specimens of common chimpanzees organize themselves into 'fighting associations' to maintain the territories they occupy against predators and species-specific competition, how the 'conquered' female communities care for their offspring, and how the offspring in turn interact, is of interest to anthropology as well as psychology. Jane Goodall was one of three assistants commissioned by Louis Leakey to explore forms of cohabitation among chimpanzees, orangutans (by Birutė Galdikas), and gorillas (by Dian Fossey). As a paleoanthropologist, he hoped to be able to draw conclusions about the evolution of behavior in the early phylogenetic development of humans from the results of the new research areas thus established - for Goodall, a mission she made her life's work.

But NOW it gets important!)

Philosophical anthropology

Homo sapiens has several other options to choose from: its members possess a consciousness that has evolved to such an extent that they are in principle capable of memorializing and transmitting the events of wars they have experienced, and of controlling their birth rate in wise consideration of the planet's limited surface. No less are they in principle capable of consciously taming their combative impulses themselves, e.g. by agreeing with their enemies on treaties that compensate for the lack of resources (as a frequent result of overpopulation) by peaceful exchange of goods. This capacity is called attention to by primate ethologist Frans de Waal, on the occasion of the very impression of the cruelty of the war-like behavior of our closest relatives and the questions, also raised by the interview, of what we share with them that makes us different. That No Joke (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Great Chimpanzee War and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 28#Great Chimpanzee War until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The info box is ridiculous, but if it must be there it needs to be cleaned of the anthropomorphising nonsense about commanders and slaves. This is not Animal Farm. Claims that animals have commanders and slaves are extraordinary, and need explicit qualification with high quality sources actually using this trend, not just synth conclusions because that's what it sounds like to the reader of Goodall's book. If you want this extraordinary stuff in there the

It's good that you started a discussion. However, you've reverted or partially reverted three users five times in a row now (after attempting to remove the whole infobox against standing consensus) and waited until now to open the talk page, a prime example of

edit warring. I won't revert your edits again because I would technically be edit warring myself, but your latest edits should still be discussed as deleting sourced information just because it is, in your opinion, "silly", "stupid" or "ridiculous" is not the way to go about editing Wikipedia. Neither is putting the burden of proof on others simply because you find it extraordinary that our closest living relatives, ones we share 99% of our DNA with, have been found to sometimes behave similarly to us. I'll ping Applodion and Vfp15

for the discussion too because they were also involved in your reverts.

Now, regarding your latest edit:

• The infobox says "Commanders and leaders". Goodall refers to "leaders" of tribes in her book. A leader leads the troop in battle (her choice of words). What exactly is the problem in mentioning these leaders?
• We have sources stating that three females were beaten and kidnapped. I actually agree here that "enslaved" is original wording that doesn't really accurately portray the situation, but something like "three female captives", "three females captured" or "three females kidnapped" should still be included as casualties. Tweak rather than delete.
• There is no reason not to include the adult females as part of the group strength. YOU made the claim, with no source, that the females don't fight. When I pointed out a random example of them fighting in my edit summary you flippantly commented that sources don't go in edit summaries. How can I source something that isn't in the article? This is you - again - putting the burden of proof on another when it is on you. Plenty of other examples in Goodall's book of them fighting, particularly to protect their offspring. Prinsgezinde (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Prinsgezinde Vincent (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can't say something isn't in the article, so it can't be sourced. If it's not in the article, and it's not sourced there's no way it would be in the info box. It doesn't matter if there are plenty of other examples of females fighting. The burden is in you to support the claim they fought here. Put the sources in the article properly. Unbh (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the females fighting and any "commanders" being listed, if Goodall's account backs it up, I support the inclusion. @Prinsgezinde:, could you please add the specific pages as refs to the article - perhaps also in the infobox? Applodion (talk) 09:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Unbh: Alright, let's start over. Unbh, I sympathise. You're trying to make this article better and so do I, so I'll try to be more constructive in my argument this time. @Applodion: regarding the females fighting: I would, but nearly all of the actual fighting happened without Goodall or her assistants seeing it. Goodall never outright states or doesn't state that the females fought (in the pages I can read at least). However, she does state the following on pg.124: "Like Goliath, Madam Bee was old. And she was even more frail, with one arm paralysed with polio. At the time of the fatal assault she had already been subjected to a series of attacks and was weak from a number of unhealed wounds. Yet this defenceless female was set upon in the same vicious way, pounded and hit, kicked and dragged and rolled over." So we have an implication from Goodall that 1) had she not been old and frail from polio and unhealed wounds she could have been more of a challenge 2) the males considered her a combatant all the same with the entire male core attacking her just as they did the others. We also hear that two other females were very likely killed in the same way. The thing is, there is nothing in the article here I can source this with and it doesn't make sense to source "3 females" with this circumstantial evidence. In my opinion, distinguishing between the female and male combatants is enough of a clarification for readers to understand the power difference. Unbh, could there be a compromise you'd agree to? Prinsgezinde (talk) 11:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We can't include stuff that's implication. The problem here is the info box template that begs to be filled. There simply doesn't appear to be the information to do so without resorting to some level of OR, so unless reliable sources can be found that specifically state the females were combatants (my views on that sort of terminology are abundantly clear already) than we should leave them out. Unbh (talk) 11:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"unless reliable sources can be found that specifically state the females were combatants (my views on that sort of terminology are abundantly clear already) than we should leave them out." I still don't understand this. We don't have sources specifically stating the male Kahama chimpanzees were combatants either yet they're in there. What's your reasoning? By the way, you shouldn't have reverted Vfp15 again. Prinsgezinde (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then they should be taken out as well. if it's not sourced it shouldn't be in here. All this continues to do is emphasise the absurdity of including this infobox at all. it's not appropriate to the subject. Unbh (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox is appropriate, as several researchers described this event as a conflict which basically proved that chimpanzees could wage wars similar to humans. Either way, a "combatant" in this context is someone who was confirmed to have fought. By my understanding, male Kahama chimpanzees were confirmed to have battled their opponents, did they not? Unless the same can be said about the females, they should not be listed. Applodion (talk) 12:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is taking

WP:PARAPHRASE) and no cohesive article could ever be made. @Applodion

: I think that's fair and I'll give my two cents. Goodall and Morris's books confirm two things:

• For a year or so, the Kahama and Kasekela males would engage in (mostly intimidation) battles whenever they met in the area where their territories overlapped (Goodall p.121). There were no deaths during these engagements and presumably both sides were successfully intimidated by the other side's strength because they mostly avoided each other's territory.
• All six Kahama males were almost certainly killed in ambush assaults by the Kasekela males, with five confirmed and only Willy Wally's attack being unconfirmed (because his body was never found; Goodall p.125). One female (Madam Bee) was also killed in an assault (Goodall p.124). Two more females were thought to have been killed in assaults, but like Willy Wally their bodies were never found. Three other females were severely beaten and kidnapped (Morris).

Now, I see two ways to go about this: either we play it simple and give the total estimated strength (according to the sources) of both sides - excluding children, which aren't really mentioned anyway - OR we only mention those that are specifically mentioned to have been involved in a confirmed engagement. Option 2 seems preferable, but remember that this is only the ones Goodall or her assisants saw and includes for example Madam Bee. We would also have to decide whether chimpanzees that were presumed but not confirmed to have fallen to Kasekela troops (Willy Wally and to a lesser extent the two females) are included. However, in either case I think it's valid to not include any of the Kasekela females. There is no record of a Kahama troop ever assaulting a Kasekela female and they were not part of the patrols. Prinsgezinde (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, perhaps it would be best to list those with unconfirmed fates as "missing, presumed dead" in the infobox. Applodion (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Prinsgezinde (talk) 12:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to re-open this conversation, but Goodall claims that at least one female (Gigi) was involved on two occasions: on the initial attack against Godi she’s reported to have ‘charged back and forth around the melee’ and she actually joined in with the attack on Dé. (Through A Window p.122) It’s not mentioned whether she was around for any of the other skirmishes, but Goodall does mention at the start of the ‘War’ chapter that she joined a group of males attacking a female from one of the other communities. I think this information is significant - Goodall obviously thought it was relevant in her initial recounting of the war. EerieSomething (talk) 20:42, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EerieSomething: That's a valid point. I added her to the text and infobox. Applodion (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Applodion thank you so much! EerieSomething (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discovery of the violent nature of chimpanzee groups must have been one of the inspirations behind William Boyd's 1990 novel Brazzaville Beach, with the character Hope Clearwater modelled on Jane Goodall. Does anyone know whether Boyd has talked about this? PhilUK (talk) 11:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's an audio added to this page that could be vandalism, around midway through it the speaker starts laughing and it seems to be in an over the top accent, however I'm not 100% on it being made on bad faith or not. Kauefields (talk) 06:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kauefields. It's been nominated for deletion on Commons. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. I don't see any links to this audio currently in the article, but if I missed any, feel free to remove it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gombe Chimpanzee War.ogg –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]