Talk:Monkey hate

Gooptar comments

I am wondering if the article should include comments from Dave Gooptar, who was a prominent (albeit amateur) investigator of the monkey torture ring. I mentioned them in the article originally, though they were twice removed by an editor who said it was conjecture.

Some suspects and customers linked to the monkey torture community defiantly claim that they are normal people who happen to hate monkeys. The reality, said Gooptar, is that the sexual sadism meted out against monkeys, as seen in some videos, reveals that monkeys are used as a proxy for children. How so? Gooptar explained that when being abused, baby monkeys tend to mimic certain childlike behaviours and characteristics which excite sexual sadistic predators. Rather than run the risk of paying to see children get exploited online, such individuals pay to see baby monkeys get hurt, or worse, in order to satisfy their depraved perverted desires, added Gooptar.

To leave it out in my opinion kind of whitewashes this issue as people just not liking monkeys. The Independent article also supports Gooptar's comments somewhat by stating monkeys are used due to their similarities to babies. JSwift49 15:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. I wonder if the Natasha doll phenomenon might have a similar motive. These dolls resemble human babies, but since they are black-skinned, they are viewed as “less human” and thus it is more socially acceptable in some countries to abuse them on video. There is also a related phenomenon of tourists mistreating African children on camera (who are also less likely to face legal consequences than if they abused children in their own countries). The fact that “monkey” is sometimes also used as an anti-Black slur makes the possible connection even more striking. ~2026-34038-59 (talk) 06:51, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Monkey hate/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: OpalYosutebito (talk · contribs) 17:01, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Thepharoah17 (talk · contribs) 21:41, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Maybe the lede could be expanded more? Maybe add something about macaques or COVID-19? Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

@Thepharoah17 done - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 02:37, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Also there are two sources that I see in refideas. Do you want to add them to the article? Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I'll add them when I get home - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 23:44, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm currently adding to the background section - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 02:50, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Sources 4 and 12 make no mention of "Million Tears." Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I added a ref call to source 1 - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 02:46, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Source 16 makes no mention of "Adriana Orme" and "Holly LeGresley." Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Moved ref call - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 02:43, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Source 3 is a dead link but I'll assume WP:AGF. Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Spotcheck per source

1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 
10. 
11. 
12. 
13. 
14. 
15. 
16. 
17. 
18. 
19. 
20. 
21.