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)