Talk:Washoe (chimpanzee)

Untitled

More than half of this article is arguments or cases against the shit done on Washoe. It has little to do with the actual Chimpanzee, and is not a good, unbiased wikipedia article. (preceding unsigned comment by User:63.100.44.98)

Washoe's main notability is due to the research done with her, so I doubt this can be separated. don't think the article is far from NPOV, though it could certainly do with more editing than I have just done. Martinp 04:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Language

Anyone who says that she could not understand language is just kidding themselves. She did aquire language, not just some 'symbols.' If you are skeptical, go to a Chimposium at CHCI located at the CWU campus in Ellensburg. The chimps are not 'trained', but rather have aquired language. Anyone who actually WORKS with the chimps and talks with them will know this. It is very irresponsible for someone to post on here (Washoe's bio page) that she did not know ASL. You can ask any of the chimps at CHCI something using sign language, and you don't get some generic 'trained' response. The chimps there are extremely intellegent, and can understand ASL and the english language. If someone says different on here, than they are simply ignorant.

Washoe learned about 300 words or about 5% of American Sign Language. To say that she learned the English language is a vast over statement. If chimps really that the capacity to learn the English language the work with chimps would be going on everywhere. The studies have all but stopped as people realize that chimps simply are not wired to learn ASL to any great extent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benste15 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Limitation I would like there to be a point on where the communications to and from this chimpanzee limits, as to how much you could teach this chimpanzee and what she would not come around to understand.

as an example, she was unable to ask questions, she never once asked a question, and I find that a rather important point in this article and the of what this research shows.

If you truly believe that a chimpanzee could understand the complexity of human grammar, I pity you. Washoe did not actually know the correct structure of the symbols she was taught. In fact, more often than not, she would make incorrect gestures than correct ones. The only time she would make a correct gesture is when the trainer would point at a particular object and then lead her. That is not understanding the language, that is conditioning at work. Let's not kid ourselves here. I recommend reading The Song of the Apes by Andrew R. Halloran for a good objective view on the study of language on apes. Anything in this article that claims she was able to communicate without the help of a trainer comes from the very organization that trained her. Hmm. Isn't that interesting? By the way, someone refuting your claim doesn't make them 'ignorant', it makes YOU ignorant to opposing views. Optim1 (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Multiple articles on great ape language

This article is one of at least 16 articles on Wikipedia primarily about the fascinating but controversial subject of Great ape language. These articles have been created independently and contain much interesting but uncoordinated information, varying levels of NPOV, and differences in categorization, stubbing, and references. Those of us working on them should explore better coordinating our efforts so as to share the best we have created and avoid unnecessary duplication. I have somewhat arbitrarily put the list of 16 articles on Talk:Great ape language and would encourage us to informally coordinate efforts there. Martinp 18:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Clarifications

Note that someone inserted the following HTML comment into the article:

"Potential and limitation of other species' use of human languages is likely to come from an integration of the results of all these projects, rather than an essentially historical pursuit of what did or did not happen in Project Washoe.{{unclear}}{{Fact}}<!-- Is this statement a very complicated and polite way of saying to people like the Nim Chimpsky researchers: "Don't you dare doubt the results of Project Washoe!"?-->"

Also, the article states:

"Cognitive scientist Steven Pinker believes that the argument that Washoe is the first non-human to acquire a human language is generally considered without scientific support (see Pinker, 1994)."

"Generally considered" by whom? Does this mean Pinker himself believes there's "generally" no scientific basis for the claim or is he merely reporting a "general" lack of support of the claim among scientists? - dcljr (talk) 18:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Need quotes

Can we get some of Washoe's quotes, like we see in Nim Chimpsky? Badagnani 21:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, a good idea. I put some in. Then User:UtherSRG rudely reverted them without comment. So I put them back in. Of course they are relevant. Knowing the type of things actually said is critical to understanding Washoe. By all means improve this section, an expert may have better quotes. I would say that a casual comparison of the Washoe quotes and the Chimpsky quotes suggests that Washoe was much more sophisticated, for whatever reason. Tuntable (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Final paragraph

I think Nim Chimpsky is often seen as a refutation of it rather than a failed replication; while he could pick up signs, the researchers basically showed that he wasn't actually using a language but rather simply responding to operant conditioning, doing "tricks" rather than actually using language. It wasn't so much "we can't do what they did" as "The Washoe folks were fooling themselves and here's why". Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, a year and some-odd later, I decided to implement some changes to this article. I altered the criticism and other projects section, drawing heavily on the resources of the Nim Chimpsky article. It was far too credulous regarding the claims of those who ran project Washoe. Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that the opinion of Jane Goodall is important and must be in the article. Akhran (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The only thing Nim Chimpsky "refuted" was the claim that healthy child development can take place in a cage in a laboratory. How well do you think a human child would do if raised in a cage, and had lab researchers pop in every now and then to feed them fruit and make hand signs at them? Would the fact that they'd be a babbling idiot "refute" the idea that humans are intelligent? Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

In the section entitled "Related animal language projects," it is stated that, "This failure is attributed to poor teaching, and to Nim being consistently isolated in a sterile laboratory environment, and often confined in cages, for his entire life." A documentary describing the life of Nim absolutely contradicts this statement. Nim was raised by a human family and spent a lot of time out of the lab being taught by scientists, who hoped to replicate human learning. Not only is there extensive film footage of this, but the scientists themselves talk about his communication abilities. It was Terrace who eventually declared the project a failure, but there is much within the documentary -- again in both footage and interviews -- that contradict this. Other scientists who worked on the project dispute this claim.

Whether or not Nim was engaging in language can and should be laid out as a debate. The experts disagree. But what is absolutely incorrect is the statement that Nim's learning was, "isolated in a sterile laboratory environment." This is false and easily disproved. It should further be noted that by the time Nim ended up in a cage the project had come to an end. He didn't sleep in a cage until Terrace gave up hope that Nim could learn without physically attacking his trainers and caretakers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marconiplein (talk • contribs) 13:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

References

Pronoun

Since Washoe was an animal, shouldn't the article refer to "it" rather than "her"? Manormadman (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Controversy

The article should contain some reference to the controversy on chimp language. A good reference might be this NYTimes article: http://www.nytimes.com/1995/06/06/science/chimp-talk-debate-is-it-really-language.html DonPMitchell (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Dead Links

All citations for Washoe’s signing vocabulary are dead. 2601:249:380:69F0:E822:2313:E216:605E (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Research group’s disagreement of criticisms

There was a large section in here about the disagreements the research group had with the broad rejection that Washoe displayed linguistic abilities by linguists. Given the overwhelming consensus of pertinent experts, we don’t need to dedicate large sections of this article to the team’s countering of criticism. Per WP:PARITY:

Giving undue weight to the view of a significant minority or including that of a tiny minority might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject.

Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Linguists aren't the only pertinent experts here, other types of scientists and researchers are not fringe simply because they disagree with the linguists. Andre🚐 18:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

When the question is "what is a language" they (and certain subsets of neurology and psychology) are. Primatologists aren't qualified to weigh in on a technical definition of "language" in a way that disagrees with those whose field that is. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

But that isn't the question posed. The question is about research and evidence in biological studies. Primatologists are qualified to make observations about primates. Andre🚐 19:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Not when the observation is "Wow, they used language!" Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

That text isn't in the text you removed. [1] That is a response to methodological criticisms of their studies. Andre🚐 19:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, you're right. Too many of these going on at once, which is why I pinged wikiprojects and tried to centralize it. The answer is fairly clear to me, for example:

Washoe's advocates disagreed that the research had been discredited, attributing the failure of the Nim Chimpsky and other projects to poor teaching, and to Nim's being consistently isolated in a sterile laboratory environment, and often confined in cages, for his entire life.

I think it's fair to include this line. The rest of it gets into WP:ADVOCACY, it's not particularly surprising that authors of a study generally considered discredited object to those statements. A detailed description of the differences between Washoe's conditions and Nim's doesn't change anything except try to make a case to the reader that maybe the critics were wrong. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. It's not advocacy, as it is attributed to the researchers and sourced to reliable sources about it. Andre🚐 19:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

But it is a WP:PARITY issue to give it that much of the article when there's no evidence that their objections were taken particularly seriously or had much impact. That said, in the grand scheme of issues I've seen on the great ape language articles this one feels way more like a bog standard content dispute and I won't argue too much over it if we disagree here. Maybe someone else can weigh in? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Parity isn't going to come into play in this case. Because primatologists and great ape researchers aren't WP:FRINGE. They're a minority opinion within the reputable scientific research community. Linguists disagree, as you said. But these aren't crank crackpots. They are scientific researchers. Andre🚐 19:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Because primatologists and great ape researchers aren't WP:FRINGE.

Those claiming to have communicated via sign language, as opposed to just signing, are absolutely espousing a fringe result. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Not by the Wiki-policy definition of FRINGE. FRINGE would be people who are significantly departing from the mainstream within a particular field. But the field of linguistics isn't the same as the field of primate biology. Andre🚐 19:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

FRINGE would be people who are significantly departing from the mainstream within a particular field. But the field of linguistics isn't the same as the field of primate biology.

”Is this language” is not a biological question, though. I mean, it’s cognitive, which does get biological, but the experts there reject these the idea that language has been demonstrated in great apes as well.

We cannot cite the consensus of unrelated fields when determining what is and is not WP:FRINGE, and for the related fields it’s not just linguists that reject these findings. That primatologists do is somewhat irrelevant, they need to publish to the satisfaction of subject matter experts, and extraordinary evidence has never been forthcoming. Statements show up in papers all the time from people making forays outside their expertise, and those are frequently wrong.

That this is big, “sexy” science seems to be causing people to lose sight of how poorly received claims of ape language have been outside of public perception. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 00:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you just want the sources to be a little more unequivocal, but I don't think we've seen sources that are so clear as the standard that WP:RS/AC wants to rule out the validity of these studies. As SamuelRiv said at the Talk:Great ape language, criticism is welcome, but claiming "no evidence" is another thing entirely. There are also researchers who have a less critical view. They may not be linguists, but maybe some of them are! Andre🚐 01:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I want the sources to be pertinent. I don’t care what a primatologist’s definition of “language” is when against the consensus any more than I care what their definition of “planet” is, unless they’re very clearly and explicitly working from a distinct definition. No matter how we slice it, primatologists are not qualified to answer “what is a language”. The researchers who have the less critical view are a slim minority.

If there is consensus among subject matter experts that language is uniquely human, which even if WP:RS/AC isn’t met it should be very, very clear for the purposes of at least a talk page discussion among editors that the pro its-language side is a slim minority against the academic understanding (which is why I keep invoking WP:FRINGE, regardless of objections). Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)