Talk:Alex (parrot)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Birds
Birds Portal
Alex (parrot) 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. Please do not substitute this template.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Birds To-do:
Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. See talk page guidelines.

Contents

[edit] Broken Link

The link referring to Alex having a concept of 0 is broken.

Also, an interesting sidenote: Irene Pepperberg used the mirror test on African gray parrots, though Alex was disqualified because some students seeking to entertain Alex told Alex to look in the reflection and say "That's Alex." Her two candidates both failed the test. This doesn't necessarily mean though that all parrots fail the test - I believe Koko the gorilla passes it even though other gorillas do not. Simfish 01:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Self image recognition is apparently a very difficult thing to grasp in the entire animal kingdom —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.76.30.78 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC).

Link repaired two minutes ago. Athænara ✉ 05:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wild parrot vocalization

Media reported that wild parrots have individual-specific calls which they use as names. I edit out bit about wild parrots. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.14.19.45 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Inconsistency

In the beginning of the article, Alex is purported to have a vocabulary of 100 words. Further down in the text, that number jumps to 1000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.240.18.81 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The discrepancy is between the number of words Alex uses in context - those words which appear to have specific meaning for him (about 100), with the words Alex "parrots" without apparent meaning (which is about 1000). Alex sits and babbles in English for much of the day, and uses all kinds of words he's overheard, but which aren't considered part of his "vocabulary." For example, one of Alex's favorite phrases is "you be lunch, I'll be tomorrow" which is parroted from phrases he hears often such as "I'm going to lunch" "You be good" "I'll be back tomorrow." This doesn't mean, however, that Alex has any idea of what the word "lunch" means, and so it isn't considered part of his vocabulary. By contrast, he only uses the word "blue" when asked to describe blue objects, he doesn't sit around randomly naming colors.

That's a long-winded way of saying the 100 number is correct, and the larger number is unnecessary for the purpose of this article. --Camipco 06:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

no. most parrots, who are not trained in the manner of alex, but speak by mimicry alone, are typically given vocabulary numbers by their owners. that would be like saying alex has a vocab of 100 words, but most other parrots that talk have a vocab of zero words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.37.157 (talk) 01:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abuse

Other experts suspect that Alex was subjected to emotionally abusive behavior, as seen in a National Geographic documentary hosted by Alan Alda.[13] In the documentary, Dr. Pepperberg repeatedly prompts Alex by hitting his beak, and subjects Alex to ridicule.

That´s blatantly false. I've seen the video, and there are no experts in it saying that Alex is abused. Those are merely the conclusions of the editor of that paragraph.Andrev 15:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Does she hit his beak and subject him to ridicule? We could include that if it's factual. delldot talk 15:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • As long as we state it's in the video, not that experts suspect it, I totally agree with delldot. - Mgm|(talk) 21:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That beak can break a wooden stick of 2cm diameter in seconds, a gentle touch hardly qualifies as abuse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.1.37 (talk) 11:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Missing quote/refutation of criticism?

I'll always remember "banerry", his name for apple (looks like a cherry, tastes like a banana [to a bird at least]). This seems like pretty good evidence of comprehending language, synthesizing new words. --Belg4mit 17:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ripley's

I just saw Alex featured on Ripley's Believe it or Not! Episode 1009 on a scifi channel rerun. Might be worth mentioning. --Stux (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)