Infinite monkey theorem is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics 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.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics 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.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics
This article is about a metaphor used to illustrate a point in mathematics. It has nothing to do with the taxonomy of the animals. Loosely speaking, "monkey" has been used to describe all simians, and this metaphor has never indicated a specific type, but is nearly always visualized using chimpanzees or something similar in appearance. That's probably because they're commonly used in contexts where the intended meaning is "sub-human intelligence" and a stereotypical caveman image isn't sub-human enough. From a practical standpoint, we can imagine chimpanzees plunking away at a typewriter, while their smaller cousins, the true monkeys, wouldn't be able to. But the main point is, the picture adequately represents the metaphor's intention, and is how it is conventionally depicted. Applying a strict taxonomic definition of "monkey" to a metaphor that has never employed it is both unnecessary and misleading. P Aculeius (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed several times (search "ape" in the archives). Ironically, one of the definitions for monkey is "a persistent or annoying encumbrance or problem" (Websters 9th New Collegiate, 1982). Sparkie82 (t•c)17:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the pronoun from "it" to "they" and the edit was reverted.[1] Other articles about animals, such as Koko (gorilla) or Laika use the gendered pronouns he and she. I couldn't find a WP style guide for when the gender of the animal is not known. Does anyone know if such a guideline exist for this case? Sparkie82 (t•c)18:08, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't something that appears to have—or would necessarily be expected to—come up in policy discussions. However, as I indicated in my edit summary, it is perfectly appropriate when referring to animals of indeterminate gender, which this is, since the monkey referred to is an abstraction with no real existence or gender. This is also consistent with the explanation here: "It is used to denote an inanimate physical object, abstract concept, situation, action, characteristic, and almost any other concept or being, including, occasionally, humans" (emphasis supplied). Note that two of the four examples given refer to human children. An entirely abstract monkey without any particular gender can just as easily be referred to as it, without using a plural pronoun for the sake of avoiding having to choose between he and she, where choosing the wrong gender or implying a lack of gender might be rude when referring to a particular human. Because we are dealing with an animal—and a hypothetical animal, at that, in a context to which gender is unknown because it's entirely irrelevant, there should be no objection to it. P Aculeius (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
