Talk:Infinite monkey theorem

I changed the pronoun from "it" to "they" and the edit was reverted. 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)

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)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change Jorge Luis Borges traced the history of this idea from Aristotle's to Writing after Borel, Jorge Luis Borges traced the history of this idea from Aristotle's Jdonalds1 (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Not Done

I am unsure what the nature of the edit is. Please try to add some sources and explain in which way the edit would change the article. EvenLeoEme (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I think I see what you're asking for: clarification that Borges is not an earlier example of the concept. However, reading the sentence, it seems apparent that Borges is mentioned because he traced the idea back to Aristotle, Cicero, and early modern writers, not as an example of someone who wrote about it before Borel. I do not think that adding "Writing after Borel" to the beginning of the sentence would clarify anything, since the confusion I think that you're concerned about seems improbable; anyone reading the whole sentence should understand that it's not a claim of priority for Borges. Having "Writing after Borel" or similar words at the beginning of the sentence seems unnecessary, and that would draw attention to the wording rather than the point of the sentence. P Aculeius (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2026 (UTC)