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

Primates Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates 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.PrimatesWikipedia:WikiProject PrimatesTemplate:WikiProject PrimatesPrimate Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Africa: DRC 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Democratic Republic of the Congo (assessed as High-importance). It is requested that an image or images be included in this article to improve its quality. Cryptozoology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptozoology, an attempt to improve coverage of the pseudoscience and subculture of cryptozoology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CryptozoologyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptozoologyTemplate:WikiProject CryptozoologyCryptids Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Wikipedians in the Democratic Republic of the Congo may be able to help!

Any particular reason Mr. Bili has no taxonomy box, nor phylogeny diagram? Considering the topic, it would be of interest, if simply to make its location immediately clear. Objections? Handibles (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This article is confusing for several reasons (as pointed out by other users below), but I think the easiest fix would be to have a taxonomy box that clarifies exactly what these animals are. Right now this whole article reads like a cryptozoology article. Connorlong90 (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

just in case anyone takes a weedwhacker to this article (and it needs one) please keep in mind that when it was started, inline cites weren't common. it seems that what is listed as External links may in fact be the references for the article. Those of us passing thru should try and fix these references as inline cites when we can. Thanks.LiPollis 12:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have moved most of them up into a reference section and have been moving some to the footnote system - I suspect most of the requests for sources and quotes can all be referenced using those links. I can't work out what "(Cleve Hicks, March 2007)" refers to but if anyone can find it drop it in the reference section (prefereably footnoted). (Emperor 13:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Bili Apes are just big chimps which are less and less like Gorilla's the more thet is learned about them. The article points this out is some places but then contradicts is in many others. Overall an absolutely horrible article. .—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.244.90 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 02 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with the above statement. The article mixes a number of outdated, spurious, sensational, and just plain false media reports with the rather uninteresting facts that these are just an interesting population of chimpanzees. The article needs to be completely overhauled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.197.18 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know - a new subspecies of chimpanzee that is larger than other chimps and that sometimes nests on the ground is pretty interesting to me, even without all the sensationalism. thx1138 (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

: Its not a new subspecies - the "Bili apes" are known to be a population of the Eastern chimpanzee Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii. Recorded behaviour in the Bili - Ebola area appears to be diffeent from that in many other groups, but so is the behaviour of several groups within P.t. verus and P.t. vellerosus. This page should be deleted altogether, with some aspects perhaps transferred to the main "Common chimpanzee" page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.236.142 (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. As this population exhibits behavior that is far different than the rest of Pan, it deserves it's own article.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of the entry use both varients, the wiki entry on Karl Amman uses one n, but his website two. I know this is a very minor nitpick, but surely it can't be that hard to get someone's surname right? I initialy went by the Wiki entry on him, and removed the second 'n', but i think if his own website is anything to go buy, then it should be double n here and on the wiki entry on him.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.240.79.125 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some articles refer to them as "grey", similar to the apes in Michael Crichton's Congo. If people have seen them, why are there no pictures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.29.167.236 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added one. --Cody.Pope 16:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are pictures, but they're all dead in them Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but I think this was part of the reason why this became a "media craze" years ago. People saw these odd pictures of these chimpanzees, and then it was hyped as "new, different apes", before it was revealed to be bogus. I think from a historic point of view, it would be useful to also show these pictures on wikipedia. Not everyone knows that it was fake, so showing the picture and explaining what was wrong with it may be useful for common visitors. 2A02:8388:1641:5500:8207:8CE:DF2:AB90 (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whats with the cryptzoology and paranormal tags? And the article contradicts itself and repeats alot of the information. Needs a look at by someone with a fair knowledge of the ape. Kokiri kid 09:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC) 12:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not sure why the cryptid tag is appropriate, considering it now seems there is enough material to justify the animal as real..? If nobody objects, I will take it off. Kokiri kid 22:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was also wondering if this should still be classified as crypto? Bakilas (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should not. It was some promotional thing years ago. I did not even notice it back then. Only recently it was mentioned on Rogan's podcast, and I never heard of these apes. Then I found out quickly that it was bogus, but I did not see the picture again (the first picture looked weird, like a mangled chimpanzee). 2A02:8388:1641:5500:8207:8CE:DF2:AB90 (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the picture? Is it real? Is it a regular chimp? --Damifb (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are pictures where they're dead Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right. But people initially wondered, so I think it would be useful to clearly state when these pictures were made, and whether these were the initial ones. Right now I see none of these pictures on the wikipedia article. 2A02:8388:1641:5500:8207:8CE:DF2:AB90 (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have any DNA tests been done on either the "lion killers" with sagittal crest or the "tree-beaters" that Cleve Hicks is studying? The only studies I can find claim that mtDNA ( mother ) is Chimpanzee which would indicate a hybrid but really doesn't prove anything. A pointer to actual results would improve the article. Somitcw (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section is redundantly repetitive, anyone want to clean it up? 75.121.137.23 (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The height and weight of the Bili Ape should be listed on this page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.15.20 (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Find a reliable source that medntions either one and they can be added. Heiro 22:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bili ape. 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/20070915144159/http://www.wasmoethwildlife.org/bili.php to http://www.wasmoethwildlife.org/bili.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/scitech/SciTechRepublish_1674285.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090213151720/http://richarddawkins.net/article%2C1650%2CThe-Bili-Apes-Are-in-Trouble%2CCleve-Hicks-of-the-Bili-Ape-Project to http://www.richarddawkins.net/article%2C1650%2CThe-Bili-Apes-Are-in-Trouble%2CCleve-Hicks-of-the-Bili-Ape-Project
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090119090446/http://thestory.org/archive/the_story_686_Vietnam.mp3/view to http://thestory.org/archive/the_story_686_Vietnam.mp3/view
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/papers/bili.html

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) 03:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged this cite:

• "Bili ape myths". New Scientist. 2 September 2006. Archived from the original on 2007-11-18. Retrieved 23 January 2011.

as having failed verification because: This is a letter to the editor about two points, neither of which are related to this sentence (and it wouldn't be valid anyway, as a letter to the editor). Did this cite mean to refer to the original article (1 July 2006, p. 14), which might be this: https://web.archive.org/web/20071224210112/http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19125584.000-dna-tests-solve-mystery-of-giant-apes.html ?

The issue came up because of a dispute (between a bot and Jose Hdez H) over the characterization of 220 mm as being "well beyond the range of" 190–210 mm. To me, it was a subjective statement that may depend on knowledge of how tight a range that is in this field, so I went to see if the source provided that characterization, and found it did not discuss it, so I removed the characterization.

If the source is needed (in the four places it is used), perhaps someone can fix it. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried fixing the spacing on two separate devices, to no success Red dwarf (talk) 07:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a bit of repetition in the article, particularly the stuff about the chimps circling humans, and an odd phrase "exchange longing glances" which I think might be from a Cole Porter song. Will clean up the repetition, unless there are any objections..? Robin J Thomson (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]