Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:25, 23 January 2014

Birds Start‑class Low‑importance

Talking bird is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not substitute this template.BirdsWikipedia:WikiProject BirdsTemplate:WikiProject Birdsbird Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Birds To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Endemic birds of Papua New Guinea (more) Cleanup : Bullfinch • Vesper sparrow • Bird flight • Bird bath (more) Copyedit : Plushcap • Magpie duck • Saker falcon (more) Expand : Phalarope • Nidicolous • Gouldian finch • Cathartes • Cnemophilidae • Avian malaria (more) NPOV : Debeaking • Driven grouse shooting • Abu Dhabi Falcon Hospital (more) Stubs : Cathartiformes • Semiplumbeous hawk • Rainbow-bearded Thornbill • Sunda scops owl (more) Update : Coal tit • Scottish crossbill • New Caledonian lorikeet • Operation Migration (more) Verify : Argus (bird) • Blyth's frogmouth • Nik Borrow • Pytilia • Fregata • Chestnut-headed tesia • Darter • Pallid scops owl • Starling (more) Wikify : Ninox boobook ocellata • The Institute for Bird Populations (more) Other : Add photos to bird articles needing photos (search Flickr for free images). Add taxonomic authorities to genus articles. More outstanding tasks at the project's cleanup listing, Category:Birds articles needing attention, and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Birds/Todo.

This article was selected as the article for improvement on 2 December 2013 for a period of one week.

Delete Category:Nonverbal communication

I deleted ] because that category relates to human communication. If there is a category for animal communication, this article surely belongs in it. Cbdorsett 09:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, this article is junk, and ought be deleted.

I disagree with that entirely,but it does need work. It's a good overall topic, but the emphasis is too much detail on individual birds, and not enough general information about which types of birds in general can talk. Essentially most of the crow family, most (if not all) of the starling family (which includes Mynas), and most (if not all) of the parrot order can talk, but the article barely touches on the general information. Instead it goes into too much detail about 3 individual African grays, and 2 individual budgies. I don't consider the detail crufty or non-notable, but it is out of balance given the shortage of GENERAL information.JeffStickney 16:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Created a new category for talking birds.

I just created a category for talking birds. With the large number of bird species that have this ability I feel a category would be appropriate. I could use some help getting this filled.JeffStickney 17:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

This article focuses primarily on specific individual talking birds. The information about bird species' ability to be taught to speak is sparce and generally redundant to their main article. Therefore, I propose adjusting this article towards what I percieve is its intent, List of notable individual talking birds. Alternatively List of notable talking birds or List of talking birds. Regardless of the title, we should add a "Lead selection criteria" as defined in WP:SAL explaining that this is a list of individual birds who are known by way of independent sources for their ability to talk. -Verdatum (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Recommend "adjusting" the article first - this will garner more onlookers to contribute to a discussion for any renaming. JPG-GR (talk) 05:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from, but having only just come across the article, I wanted to leave time for discussion before repurposing the article. I'll try to reorganize it within the next day or two. -Verdatum (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

more corvidae birds

regular crows and ravens can be trained to talk, and are much better imitators than parrots. i don't know how widespread across corvidae this is, so not added anything, but its certainly not just the minor bird.

Maybe add a section discussing the evolutionary advantages to bird speech?

I'm trying to find out why some birds would have evolved to mimic other animals. I would think that it would be disadvantageous if they mimicked a predator's mating call or something or attracted a predator of the animal they're mimicking. 123.243.215.92 (talk) 12:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting question. Not much seems to be much known about why birds mimic; leading theories are that it's to attract a mate, establish their place in the pecking order, or identify birds from their neighbourhood which speak the same dialect. If anyone wants to add this info to the article, here are some useful sources:

• "Why do parrots have the ability to mimic?". Scientific American.
• "Mimic birds 'copy other species'". BBC News.
• "Parrots and lyrebirds: the great pretenders". Australian Geographic.

DoctorKubla (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Disappointing article

This is a disappointing article. It says too little about the most interesting aspect of this subject, which is how far birds understand what they are saying and how far they are just dumbly mimicking what they hear. It also uses phrases like "vocabulary of almost two thousand words", leaving the reader to guess at the extent to which "vocabulary" is meant in a human sense, without ever properly developing the topic. 86.167.124.229 (talk) 03:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

mimic vs utter in lead sentence

I have recently been reverting edits indicating that birds "utter" human speech to indicate they "mimic" human speech. This is for two reasons. (1) There has been research on only a very few (I think 5 or 6) numbers of individual birds in relation to their cognitive abilities with respect to talking. This article is about talking birds in general, not just these few isolated individuals. The lead sentence should represent this generality and therefore "mimic" is the appropriate word. (2) The research on the limited numbers of individual birds is contentious. It is not universally accepted that these birds understand what they are saying. The articles on Alex the parrot and N'kisi the parrot both acknowledge this as they have sections entitled "controversy" which indicate that not all experts agree on the interpretation that the birds understand what they are saying. This Talking birds generalist page should not have controversial information in the lead sentence by saying the birds are "uttering" human speech - "mimic" is the appropriate word__DrChrissy (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

so clear that all will hide reason animals so even if all be against must leave utter (but most likely not leave)__CYl7EPTEMA777 (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I could not understand your message above. Please could you try to state it a different way.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

if fully proved in 6 it does not mean that everyone other mimic. possible that most talking birds not mimic CYl7EPTEMA777 (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

It is unclear what is being said above, but to clarify what the article is saying, it should be noted that the word "mimic" does not suggest that birds understand speech, merely that some birds can reproduce some of the sounds of speech—an obviously correct statement. Johnuniq (talk) 09:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

this wrong and therefore should either speedy delete wrong article or correct mimic on utter or other word. CYl7EPTEMA777 (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm also sorry that I need to be blunt, but the message above does not have any meaning in English. There would need to be reasons explained here as to what is wanted. What is wrong with "mimic"? How does "utter" fix that? Johnuniq (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Alex the parrot don't mimic human speech but Alex the parrot is talking bird._CYl7EPTEMA777 (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I infer that the proposed edit (to change "that can mimic human speech" to "that can utter (generally mimic) human speech") is an attempt to make a definition of "talking bird" that applies to all cases, including Alex (parrot). That is not necessary because the article is not a legal document which needs to be interpreted so that any bird can unambiguously be assigned to the "talking bird" category, or not. In common usage, "talking bird" refers to mimicry. There may be plausible arguments to say that one or two birds were capable of more than mimicry, but that does not influence what the lead of this article should say. Johnuniq (talk) 07:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

"In common usage, 'talking bird' refers to mimicry" Johnuniq did not provide scientific evidence to support this statment. It is false . The cases of 'mimic' is covered by 'utter'. Utter is better.124.149.103.50 (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

"Utter" implies an understanding of the language. "Mimic" does not. I can mimic a dog howl, but I can not utter a dog howl. Utter is utterly the wrong word.__DrChrissy (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

'implies an understanding' that is only your opinion (WP:OR). Where is the source?124.170.234.78 (talk) 04:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:OR does not apply when an editor comments on a talk page, although anyone is welcome to offer an opinion or provide a source showing that a comment is incorrect. In particular, a discussion about the best word to use does not require a source, and if such a standard were applied, it would be impossible to ever decide anything because someone could always demand a source to prove another step in the logic that led to a conclusion. By the way, following an editor around in order to disagree with them is likely to lead to a repeat of the range block. Why not find something constructive to work on? Johnuniq (talk) 05:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

utter not implies an understanding of the language of birds CYl7EPTEMA777 (talk) 09:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

In that case, what does "utter" imply? Why is "utter" an improvement on "mimic"? Johnuniq (talk) 10:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

utter mean mouth, sound, emit (in google translator) and mimic mean ape, mock, monkey, mime, travesty, burlesque (in google translator) CYl7EPTEMA777 (talk) 10:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

My own search of google using 'define mimic' (not a translator because we are working in English, reveals "imitate (someone or their actions or words), especially in order to entertain or ridicule. "she mimicked Eileen's pedantic voice" synonyms: imitate, copy, impersonate, do an impression of, take off, do an impersonation of, do, ape, caricature, mock, make fun of, parody, satirize, lampoon, burlesque, travesty;" __DrChrissy (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

more wrong than utter__CYl7EPTEMA777 (talk) 11:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The page has now been protected for a week due to the slow edit-warring over the past month or so. No more back and forth reverting, please. Try to discuss and reach a consensus on here before making any more of these utter/mimic edits - thanks. For what it's worth, I think that it's quite probable that some parrots can be taught (or may come to understand) the meanings of certain words and phrases - but there are also a lot of parrots that will simply sit on the perch and just repeat the two things that the know how to say, on a loop (I suppose everyone who's ever owned a talking Budgie or Cockatiel knows what I'm talking about here). As though they're just incorporating human noises into their 'song', or something... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Discuss is an excuse to protect DrChrissy's edits. Because the page will always protect her desired version, and a consensus can never be reached because DrChrissy will insist her edits. This happened many times in the past, read recent talk page history of 'animal welfare', 'pain in animals', Marian Dawkins you will see why 124.170.234.133 (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I am not protecting DrChrissy - I have encountered him on occasion while editing bird-related articles and as far as I recall, discussed the occasional edit with him on talkpages, but there is absolutely no 'special relationship'. No-one has contacted me with regards to this current dispute and asked me to come here. If the other ('utter') version had been on top at the time I noticed this (having had it on my watchlist for years, with edits going back to 2007), I can assure you that I'd have protected that one and insisted that everyone stop reverting and talk about it instead. And I'm sure that DrChrissy would now be the one claiming that I had protected The Wrong Version... :) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hee hee! Thanks for that - very humorous!__DrChrissy (talk) 01:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyhoo - perhaps it would be a good idea to put something in the lede along the lines of 'Talking birds are birds that can mimic, and in certain cases possibly utilize with understanding human spoken language' (or words to that effect)? It's a bit clunky, but it is, as far as I know, the current widely-accepted thinking on this matter - and it is reflected later in the article with the direct mentions of Alex and N'Kisi. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

i like this solution, although perhaps to make it a bit less clunky it could simply be split into two sentences? e.g. "Talking birds are birds that can mimic the spoken language of humans. Some species may also be able to understand certain basic concepts of language." if that's correct and all. ~ Boomur 01:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. It accurately reflects the English language and the scientific debate about whether they understand the language or not. Good compromise.__DrChrissy (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

To me, saying that a talking bird mimics speech falls into "the sky is blue" range of statements, but anything else would need a reliable secondary source. Would we say that some species may understand the basic concepts of chainsaws? Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

like Kurt Shaped Box said above, i think the citations for specific info about certain birds later on in the article are sufficient sourcing for the concept that some birds might understand language (although, obviously, using "may" here indicates that it's not a hard fact). ~ Boomur 01:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Alex, Prof. Pepperberg's other African Greys and (to a lesser extent) N'Kisi have been written about extensively - and there are already a few refs in the article body. We don't always need to put references in the lede anyway, provided that the material is covered in more detail and referenced later on. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The evidence that these few birds understand speech is highly contentious. Several bird species are very good at categorization tasks and other "higher" cognitive capacities, such as the mirror test. My objection to the lead is primarily based on the generalising of the potential capacity to understand speech to all birds that talk. I have no objection whatsoever to objectively discussing the few examples where simply mimicing human speech is questioned, and higher cognitive functions might be the mechanism. Perhaps we should consider two articles Birds talking human language and Birds mimicking human language. This seems like an extremely clumsy way to deal with the issue though.__DrChrissy (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

not clumsy because many people look this article that find birds talking human language.Talking birds will redirect on Talking birds (disambiguation).--CYl7EPTEMA777 (talk) 11:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

So, for now (future discussion of splitting the article aside) - would using the wording that Boomur suggested above be a good compromise, do you think? I like that wording and it seems accurate, to me at least... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that. Boomurs wording is: "Talking birds are birds that can mimic the spoken language of humans. Some species may also be able to understand certain basic concepts of language." Perhaps the wording could be made more explicit, something like: "Talking birds are birds that can mimic the spoken language of humans. There is controversy over whether some talking birds also have some cognitive understanding of the language." --Epipelagic (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC

Yup - I would agree with that.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Or "there is debate within the scientific community over whether some talking birds...", perhaps? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I think that does it well. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

+1! ~ Boomur 23:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

definitely split article!different concepts!--CYl7EPTEMA777 (talk) 10:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

No, that is unnecessary. There is not enough hard information or scientific agreement to warrant a separate article on the cognitive understanding of talking birds. But the topic warrants a section in the main article on talking birds. Perhaps part of the confusion CYl7EPTEMA777 and the IP hopper seem to experience comes from the term "talking birds". While that is a generally accepted colloquial expression in English, it generally refers to birds that merely mimic the sounds of human language, and not to birds that actually "talk" or communicate using human language. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes I agree there is no reason for a split. This would cause confusion as there is already an article on Talking animal which includes dogs, cats, seals, elephants, etc. for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for them understanding the words they sound as if they are vocalising.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

i write administrator and unlimited banCYl7EPTEMA777 (talk) 09:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Start-Class bird articles
• Low-importance bird articles
• WikiProject Birds articles
• Misplaced Pages former articles for improvement