Talk:Talking bird

Delete Category:Nonverbal communication

I deleted [[Category:Nonverbal communication]] 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)

Please stop threatening to get people banned. No-one has done anything here that would be considered a bannable breach of the rules. Anyway - I'm going to unprotect this now and edit the lede as discussed here, because I think that we've reached a consensus here on the disputed wording. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

where talk split articles in english wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CYl7EPTEMA777 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

A proposal to split this article should be made here, preferably in a new section. I have removed the tag on the article because there is no need to alert readers at this stage, given that no proposal has been made (what material would go where? why? what sources?), and so far it appears to be an idea from one editor. Johnuniq (talk) 08:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

no,this you 1 editor with many accounts-CYl7EPTEMA777 (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Current statment of mimic in the open sentence is simply wrong. The issue was not resoved.124.170.218.196 (talk) 06:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

so definitely split article -- CYl7EPTEMA777 (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus for a split. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Why no consensus for a split?(why no split) - _CYl7EPTEMA777 (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

If you feel so strongly about this, why not create in your Sandbox the page you would like to see and invite other editors to make comments.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I dont speak english and likely i dont can create articles but i created how i would like to see page Talking bird (disambiguation) -- CYl7EPTEMA777 (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

No one here wants to write your article Talking bird (cognition). You have no business ordering us about like this. If you want the article you should write it yourself. If you can't write it, at least show us there is enough reliable material out there to make the article work. I'm not going to do it for you because I don't think enough material is there. I doubt anyone else is going to try doing it for you either. So demonstrate to us why the article should be written, or stop wasting our time (and yours) with this endless grizzling. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Created -- CYl7EPTEMA777 (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, cool - seems like a reasonable start. Have you used some text from existing WP articles (not that this is wrong/not allowed) - it looks that way to me? If so, read Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia before you put anything into article space, and ensure that everything is attributed correctly. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

copying corrected (links on main articles) -- CYl7EPTEMA777 (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes well done, that's a good start. However the research you cite consists of primary sources from just one researcher, Irene Pepperberg. The only third-party sources you have provided have rejected her research. For this topic to warrant an article of its own, you would need to show that other reputable researchers apart from Irene Pepperberg have investigated the matter, and that there is at least one reliable independent review endorsing the validity of the research. Can you do that? --Epipelagic (talk) 04:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

corrected -- CYl7EPTEMA777 (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Well communicating with parrots by telepathy certainly introduces a creative new angle. But have you found scientific evidence that birds can comprehend the meaning conveyed by human language (whether in English, Chinese or Swahili)? --Epipelagic (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

There is controversy about whether parrots are capable of using language, or merely mimic what they hear. However, some scientific studies—for example those conducted over a 30-year period by Irene Pepperberg with an African Grey named Alex and other parrots, covered in stories on network television on numerous occasions—have suggested that these parrots are capable of using words meaningfully in linguistic tasks. Some in the scientific community are skeptical of Pepperberg's findings, pointing to Alex's communications as operant conditioning. Critics point to the case of Clever Hans, a horse who could apparently count, but who was actually understanding subtle cues from the questioner. In another case, Nim Chimpsky, a chimpanzee was thought to be using language, but there is some debate over whether he simply imitated his teacher. Dr. Herbert Terrace, who worked with Nim Chimpsky, says he thinks Alex performed by rote rather than using language; he calls Alex's responses "a complex discriminating performance", adding that in every situation, "there is an external stimulus that guides his response." However,supporters of Alex mention that Alex was able to talk to and perform for anyone involved in the project as well as complete strangers who recorded findings unassisted and during first contact with the bird, making the arguments of rote learning and operant conditioning difficult to substantiate. -- CYl7EPTEMA777 (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

That's just stuff you've copied that is already in Wikipedia. There is no hard evidence that birds understand human language. We are back to what has already been said above, that the topic warrants a section in the article on talking birds, but no more. It certainly doesn't warrant an article of its own. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

not, evidence so hard, that even not could criticize -- CYl7EPTEMA777 (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

create, because 2 day not answered -- CYl7EPTEMA777 (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Creating the page because there was no response was not appropriate. Regardless of whether or not your most recent message received a reply, the consensus is that a second article is not necessary at this time. Cognition in talking birds can be sufficiently explained in an article about talking birds in general. The "cognition" article appears to simply restate the content of this article, sometimes incoherently. ~ Boomur [☎] 21:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

down written not about telepathy and about n`kisi and his research,just they hide animal intelligence -- CYl7EPTEMA777 (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I have submitted the new article to AFD [1]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

References

Taxonomy of African grey parrot

A recent edit indicated that there are 2 species of African grey, rather than 2 sub-species. When I initially entered 2 sub-species, I was using information provided on African Grey Parrot. Which is correct? I am not a taxonomist, and I am not overly concerned about this, its just there seems to be a bit of inconsistency.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The Timneh Grey was designated a separate species by BirdLife International in 2012 - see here. I was under the impression that the two articles had been updated, but it seems not. I'll ask at WP:BIRDS with regards to the current situation and if there's a specific reason why it hasn't been done on WP yet. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Cheers!__DrChrissy (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

African Grey Parrots using human language in context - articles...

See some of the articles by Erin Colbert-White. I'll just leave this here before I lose the link.

- "Social context influences the vocalizations of a home-raised African Grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus erithacus)" - "Higher-order semantic structures in an African Grey parrot's vocalizations: Evidence from the Hyperspace Analog to Language (HAL) model"

I find them to be quite heavy reading but they may be of relevance to this article. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Talking bird. 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/20110923150518/http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/Parrots-and-other-wild-birds-able-to-talk.htm to http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/Parrots-and-other-wild-birds-able-to-talk.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 16:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Taxonomy

I'm thinking maybe we should rearrange birds in this page according to IOC taxonomy. This is Wikipedia's official taxonomy for birds. It will be similar to the List of birds of (region) pages, with a section for each family. Grey Clownfish (talk) 01:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)