User talk:Monkeywire

June 2024

Hello, I'm AgisdeSparte. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Pygmy marmoset—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. AgisdeSparte (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I'm a noob and need to learn more about editing protocol.

I understand that all of the changes may not be accepted but the entry under "As Pets" currently reads that "...these primates are not in danger of extinction" -- contradicting the fact that this species is listed on the IUCN list as Vulnerable, defined "as being threatened with extinction unless the circumstances that are threatening its survival and reproduction improve." Perhaps that at least could be changed? It directly contradicts the earlier sections of the pygmy marmoset entry. Monkeywire (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also, I will make sure to use the sandbox going forward! Monkeywire (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ape communication

It’s clear you and I are going to be interacting a bit on this, so we should probably try to get a little bit into the same page rather than risk an edit war (though so far we seem to be doing quite fine).

Wikipedia has a problem with the ape communication articles being written with a pop sci understanding. It’s pretty much impossible to deny that not a single one of these experiments has demonstrated linguistic ability per actual experts on that exact topic, which the involved primatologists are typically not. Given the sheer uniformity of the stance against the notion that nonhuman great apes are using language, the large paragraphs explaining that the teams involved don’t agree are WP:UNDUE. They’re not owed a detailed response to the consensus on Wikipedia, and there’s a lot of interlinked articles that need to be cleaned up on this perspective.

Going by your username here, I assume you’re a bit more on the ape side of things? My understanding is that some primatologists who don’t work with animal communication explicitly aren’t aware that these results have been pretty widely rejected by subject matter experts. That doesn’t mean we need to deride them. Take a look at Kanzi, which does a much better job of extolling her communication without presenting long lists of researcher-hallucinated sentences, I think that’s probably a better example of the tone to reach for, and that’s mostly nothing to do with my edits but whoever was working on that page prior. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing: You won't find me anywhere writing that apes can speak a human language, but you also won't see me saying "apes have no linguistic skills". Perhaps, technically that is true for a linguist -- I don't know how a linguist defines "linguistic skills" -- but a linguist's understanding of language is not the same as a lay reader's (who we're supposed to be writing for). People speak of body language, etc. If a chimp uses a sign for apple when he wants an apple, lay readers will see that as a "linguistic skill." The fact that apes can do that for a number of signs was fairly well established. (Even Terrace acknowledged this.)

The Clever Hans conference was not a one-sided debate and to simply erase the criticism of the Nim study is to leave that piece unbalanced. I agree that the page probably needs a ton of editing, including the Nim bit. But you just wiped the whole bit, citations and all. Monkeywire (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a chimp uses a sign for apple when he wants an apple, lay readers will see that as a "linguistic skill."

If we attempt to use a lay understanding of a technical topic it’s going to fail WP:VERIFY, though; linguistic sources are clear on the topic of great apes and language. We can’t write using misleading terminology just because of a prevalent and incorrect lay understanding. Animal communication and language are distinct topics, and the question of great ape linguistics is a fairly settled one at present. Some primatologists/lay people wanting to term animal communication as a linguistic capacity doesn’t make it so.

When writing for lay readers we shouldn’t just mislead them because accuracy requires a bit further understanding. One of the reasons I’ve been all over these articles for the last few months is they objectively misread readers, and that’s resulting in the need for some pretty heavy rewrites and unfortunately that means we can’t treat multi-word utterances reported by primatologists as something to take at face value, because the people who are subject matter experts in those utterances are in lockstep in their disagreement with a subset of primatologists.

to simply erase the criticism of the Nim study is to leave that piece unbalanced.

WP:NPOV doesn’t call on us to present all sides equally. The “debate” isn’t between two subject matter experts disagreeing on a nuance, it’s one group publishing outside their field (“Behold, an ape with language!”) and the entirety of said field rejecting the findings (“Nope, thats not language.”). Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially: just because the research group disagrees doesn’t mean we owe them space to make their case when it’s already clear that the community of experts have rejected their arguments whole-cloth. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]