Talk:Koko (gorilla)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Koko (gorilla) is part of WikiProject Primates, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use primate resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

	Mammals Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Mammal-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	It is requested that a picture or pictures be included in this article to improve its quality.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

No word on her care of cats? Her search for a suitable mate? or Koko in fiction? - Sparky 23:11, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether the characterization, "Some scientists... language. Many others... operant conditioning," isn't subtly non-NPOV, suggesting that the (purported) minority position is wrong simply by virtue of its being in the minority. Does someone have hard data (or at least a reference) about the split in opinion on this matter? In the meantime, how about changing it to "Some scientists..." and "Other scientists..."? Also, it would be nicec to have a bit more information about why Patterson and others think Koko is actually using language. Not mention a link to an article or website that discusses the difficulties of verifying language use in non-humans. (I don't have the time at the moment or I would look for these myself.) - dcljr 23:56, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've made the change I was discussing above. I also was uncomfortable with the use of claimed in the sentence:

Patterson eventually claimed that Koko had a vocabulary of over 1000 signs.

which I changed to:

Patterson eventually assessed Koko's vocabulary at over 1000 signs.

I think the word claim carries unnecessary negative connotations. - dcljr 08:48, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• • • similarly the word "allegedly" in the first para seems to undermine the ability of the great ape and rather belittle.I recommend changing that word in the light of the fact that koko can communicate.

[edit] Mammalian Communication

I still find it odd the intensity with which communication between humans and other mammals is labelled 'anthropomorphic'. I remember people saying that a dog coming up to its master and licking its face and wagging its tail when that master comes home is not a sign of happiness. While certainly, the sensory equipment is different - ie a dog has better sense of smell and better hearing and appears to have better pattern-recognition with respect to that hearing (can tell who it is walking towards the house) - most mammal brains have similar wiring. This is more especially true in an ape that has so much similarity to humans in a morphological sense. Is there really some 'mystical' realm of 'mind' that distinguishes the way we communicate and the way an 'animal' communicates? My opinion is that some, in the name of scientific correctness, bend over backwards so much as to be sliced by Occam's Razor. <grin> Greg 18:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

In several "conversations" with Koko, language primatologist Francine Neago noted he signed so fast she couldn't read it, and after asking him to slow down, he'd respond by saying "Oh, I forgot, you're just a stupid human, you're not a smart Gorilla like me." Neago said he'd make "jokes" like that all the time, then he'd start signing so slow a baby could read it, as if mocking her. I noted this in the article, but was taken to task by Ward3001 for "vandalizing" the article. Hopefully it can be mentioned here? Source

Of course, I looked up Wikipedia "vandalism" and found I hadn't violated anything by including the above quote. From the vandalism page: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism" 76.17.147.234 (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The source you cite is a personal blog, a completely unacceptable source by Wikipedia's standards that made extremely exaggerated and misleading statements (I know Francine Neago and know about the interactions with Koko). The amount of "good faith" in such an outrageous edit is very questionable. To the extent that your edits were naive I apologize, but I must say that either the edit was entirely in bad faith, or you are about the most naive Wikipedia editor I have encountered if you believe that Koko was capable of signing "I forgot, you're just a stupid human, you're not a smart Gorilla like me". Even your statement above makes no mention that the source is completely non-credible. You present the information as if it came personally from Francine Neago. So you be the judge: your edit was in bad faith, or please accept my apology as well as the fact that you are incredibly naive? Ward3001 (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pets

"Koko is also the only known non-human animal known to keep a pet of a different species; she has cared for several cats over the years."

I wouldn't be so sure about this. I know of a family with both dogs and cats, in which one of the dogs is specially attracted to one cat and 'protects' that cat from the other animals. It could be argued that the dog considers this cat as its pet (or the other way around? maybe the dog is protecting its 'owner'?). I can't think of other examples right now, but there probably are various.

Chantek the orangutan kept a pet squirrel. -See Miles, HLW. 1990. The cognitive foundations for reference in a signing orangutan. In: Taylor Parker, S, Gibson, KR. “Language” and intelligence in monkeys and apes: Comparative developmental perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 511-539.

Yes, however a dog cannot perform some of the necessary functions to take care of a cat. A gorilla can do basic things like open containers, fill food & water bowls, etc.

Isn't the word "pet" used only in describing an animal kept and cared for by a human? Parental feelings from one species for another, while uncommon, have been exhibited many times. You should probably just indicate that Koko's manner of care for her cats is easily likened to a human's care for a pet.

I cut more of the text on Toto (well, all of it really). Instead I left a reference to Toto (gorilla), and created the page with a cut and paste from this diff [1].--Bookandcoffee 21:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Not unique: Kamuniak, Owen and Mzee. However, I see the text is already changed. Mlewan 17:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael

Is there a page or section about the late gorilla friend of Koko, Michael the artist, in this article?

[edit] Unbalanced

The interventions of the above Dcljr had made this article exceptionally unbalanced. I have inserted a paragraph regarding the problems a vast majority of scientist have with the degree of "interpretations" by the trainers - so as to better reflect that Koko's ability to "speak" is highly controversial. As an edit by another reader, this is wrong. True, koko sometimes makes nonsensical phrases. But she also asked Mr. Rogers about his cufflink: "what that flower?" when she went on his show. She talks about places she doesn't see. She expresses emotions. She remembers things from far in the past and talks about them. To say she cannot truly speak would be ridiculous.

[edit] Commentary removed from article

A major concern amongst scientists who have studied Koko's alleged ability to express coherent thoughts through the use of signs, is that interpretation of the gorilla's conversation, if such it be, is left to the handler, who generally sees any improbable concatenation of signs as deeply meaningful. During the 1998 on-line chat you saw bits of in Harper's (the whole thing is at www.koko.org/world/talk_aol.html), for example, Koko, without being prompted or questioned, made the sign for nipple, which Francine Patterson, her trainer, interpreted as a rhyme for "people." (Patterson further claimed that this was a reference to the chat session's audience.) Even if you buy the idea that gorillas, who cannot speak, grasp the concept of rhyme, this sounds like wishful thinking. Similar examples abound: "lips" is supposedly Koko's word for woman, "foot" her word for man. Koko made a lot of signs, and sometimes expressed desires or other thoughts, but nothing in the transcript suggests a sustained conversation, even of the simple sort you might have with a toddler. (Cecil Adams 2003) 80.213.143.228 15:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article thus remains hugely unbalanced

I certainly believe the article should reflect that Koko's alleged ability to "speak" is highly controversial. At this point it certainly doesn't and as such represents only wishful thinking on the part of some of the contributors.

[edit] Attempt at bridging the gap

I have taken a large piece of the above commentary, edited it and added it to the language section of the article, doing my best to make it factual and NPOV. In the process I also did some mild refactoring. My goal is to remove the need for a disputed-factual-accuracy tag. Comments/edits welcome. -- Martinp 04:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual Harasment

I looked up this episode, and the history of Koko on her webpage and she never did this. Knowng how Jesse is she might of huged him and he flenched to make it look like she grabbed his nipples. They just edited it to make it look like that.

Did you actually view the episode? Koko succeeds in grabbing his nipple a few moments after they meet, and Jesse James has to fend off her arm several more times when she tries to reach down his shirt again. Next time you want to make an assertion about something like this, search out the original source before doing so. Google won't find you everything. And so what if she grabbed someone's nipple? Why is everyone so uncomfortable with the idea that she could do this? Dogs sniff people's crotches, and a pet rabbit once tried to have sex with my foot. Animals, regardless of how accustomed they are to humans, will still do things that makes sense to them, not necessarily what we want them to do. Koko has a mind of her own, and if she wants to grab someone's nipple, as a gorilla she's entitled to try. She won't always play by our rules, and if her handlers have not taught (or have been unable to teach) her what's appropriate, then they should simply warn her visitors that this is something she might do and instruct them how to gently reject her probing fingers.

I'm not fully convinced that this part is notable, but happy to keep it in if others continue to feel it is. However, if yes, someone should check/update the status on the lawsuits. There is one sentence that claims some are still outstanding as of December 2005, another that all claims have been dropped. Martinp 04:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, one lawsuit still remains unsettled. There were two lawsuits, one filed by Keller and Alperin, and one filed by someone whose name has not been reported. Keller and Alperin's lawsuit was settled on Dec 1, 2005, while the second remains pending, as far as I know. I will remove the sentence about all lawsuits being dropped, and I will keep the koko.org link. I think we should keep this section; other than being amusing (albeit in a prurient way), it illustrates the vast difference in communication that remains between humans and apes, even if the ape has been taught some rudimentary sign language. Cheers, Skinwalker 20:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] biased and unobjective

there are many intelligent debates about the plausability of great ape languages... it's not enough to say "it's obviously true!" read a few articles from encyclopedia britanica or here about washoe or other "talking apes" and you'll see what i mean... it's not that i don't think they could be talking but it's also possible that what they are doing is a pidgin or just a result of conditioning. you can't say it's obvious if you don't even give sources for your own information.

Hopefully my recent edit of the page addresses the concerns of this unsigned comment. Martinp 04:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, feel free to remove the NPOV notice :) - FrancisTyers 11:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this article is NPOV at all. The scientific community is largely against the idea that apes can 'speak' in any reasonable meaning of that term. A baby will cry to let others know it is hungry, but that doesn't mean it's 'telling' people that it is: it's an instinctive or learned response. You can train a dog to bark for food; it's the same thing with these apes, except they make random signs. I have a quote here from Steven Pinker's The Language Instinct from the only deaf (ie. native sign-language speaker) on the research team (this relates to a chimpanzee supposedly taught to speak):

Every time the chimp made a sign, we were supposed to write it down in the log...They were always complaining because my log didn't show enough signs. All the hearing people turned in logs with long lists of signs. They always saw more signs than I did... I watched really carefully. The chimp's hands were moving constantly. Maybe I missed somthing, but I don't think so. I just wasn't seeing any signs. The hearing people were logging every movement the chimp made as a sign. Every time the chimp put his finger in his mouth, they'd say 'Oh, he's making the sign for drink,' and they'd give him some milk...When the chimp scratched itself, they'd record it as the sign for scratch... When [the chimps] want something, they reach. Sometimes [the trainers would] say, 'Oh, amazing, look at that, it's exactly the ASL sign for give!' It wasn't.

I think this perspective needs to be better reflected. I would like to put the NPOV tag back up. Makerowner 18:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I'm not sure those comments pertain to Koko. It would be interesting if the same person observed Koko.

I agree that a dissenting opinion should be included, however. From what I have read, most critics point out that Penny tends to publish in the popular press rather than scientific publications. Anybody have citations? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 03:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's true that my quote doesn't pertain directly to Koko, but I think it show that communication by non-humans is much less accepted than the article makes it seem. The objections to this idea and the alleged problems with the methodology of the studies run on this subject are barely mentioned. Makerowner 04:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple articles on this topic

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 17:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Darling of the Media?"

Yeah, that totally doesn't sound POV... And I like how someone went thru the chat log and found the most bizarre thing that they could, as if that disproved the whole thing. I'm personally not sure as to if I belive that Koko's communicating, but the current article doesn't look very NPOV... 24.8.183.231

Actually that was me, most of the "log" was undecypherable, but I picked one that made me smile in the hope that it would make other Wikipedians and visitors smile too :) - FrancisTyers 10:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction?

I don't see one in the section tagged as such - if nobody can point it out to me soon, I'll remove the tag. John (Jwy) 14:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

There was some confusion about whether any of the lawsuits regarding sexual harassment were still open/unresolved. I didn't personally follow the discussion since I consider the whole topic non-notable compared to Koko's use of language and the controversy surrounding it, but if you wish you can check the history of the page and of talk for this. Basically, at one point that section said both "all lawsuits have been resolved" and "one is outstanding". May be fixed now. Martinp 16:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the tag can be removed. It is probably left over from the law suit confusion. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 17:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed. Martinp 03:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing sentence

"Gorillas and bonobos (a species of chimpanzee) are relatively adept with certain forms of communication, whereas common chimpanzees and orangutans tend toward mastery of manual skills, including brachiation." - Two problems here: (1) This opposes certain forms of communication (without specifying what they are) to mastery of manual skills. Can we clarify which forms of communication we're talking about? (2) This seems to say that brachiation is a communication-related activity or vice-versa. Can we clarify this? -- 201.50.123.251 11:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hanabi-ko or Hanabi-kko

Unless the official books or website didn’t mention the precise origins of “Hababi-ko,” I think the following would be useful. It’s true that “fireworks child” (as described in the official website) is a direct translation of “Hanabi-ko” or “Hanabi-kko,” but “Hanabi-ko” and “Hanabi-kko” have a very different nuance in Japanese. 花火子 ”Hanabi-ko” would be interpreted as a female named after fireworks. This is because ko is a common suffix of a female name and is not used for males (except in the ancient times). 花火っ子 “Hanabi-kko” would be interpreted as a person who have a great liking for fireworks. This is because (k)ko is a suffix that refers to a person (female or male, child or adult) being in a certain situation.130.54.114.6 03:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IQ?

The BBC article puts her IQ at 75-95 (which seems a bit high). Is this confirmed elsewhere?—Wasabe3543 03:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is confirmed, or at least mentioned, elsewhere, but I'm still pretty sure it is wrong. Koko's world and allegedly LA Times? for example. In this kind of cases, I think it is important to have reliable sources, which say what kind of text was applied, and what it measured. If a test actually took place, I very much doubt spelling was measured, for example.

[edit] National Geographic

There was an article about Koko called "Conversions with a Gorilla" in the October 1978 issue of National Geograpic.

References: October 1978 issue of National Geograpic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.162.76 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 9 April 2007

[edit] a very interesting article

But too short. Can someone extend this topic. Does anyone know about Koko's views on Declaration on Great Apes? 144.173.6.75 09:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cultural reference

Isn't there a reference to this in the movie "Madagascar"? Classicalkid87 16:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't take it from me; research it yourself!

Francine “Penny” Patterson is either a fraud or delusional or a wierd conbination of the two. Don’t take my word for it. Just read the transcript of the chat session in which Penny “translated” between Koko and a bunch of very confused AOLers. It’s obvious what’s going on. This woman is reading into gestures Koko keeps making to provoke Penny into giving her a treat! Native users of American Sign Language who see a "conversation" between Koko and Penny know that this is what is going on.

Penny is not a scientist, if you understand "scientist" to mean a person who allows his or her data to be checked by peers. She controls all the research and finances at her foundation with a man named Dr. Ron Cohen, who used to be a scientist in a completely different field, but, since he first trained a camera on Koko and Penny, has come to make a nice living controlling the film which should be, but is not, shared with as raw data with the scientific community. According to their Gorilla Foundation web site, Dr. Cohen is "an authority figure for the gorillas whose presence is an integral part of their daily routine", a worryingly odd choice of words which begs explanation more than it clarifies.

Penny appears in public to raise money to move her, her gorillas, volunteers, and employees to 70 acres in Maui. Tourists and their dollars will be encouraged there, but I doubt she'll allow the kind of access that would make it a real scientifically valuable institution.

What seems to be driving Penny crazy is her need to believe she is not delusional or running a scam. It’s possible Penny really thinks Koko is having a conversation with her, as many, including National Geographic Magazine, have been fooled into thinking. But some part of Penny must have some doubt, because otherwise, why does she hide from her peers? I think some part of her must know and is constantly looking over her shoulder, wondering who will clue in and tell on her. If I'm right, this explains the wild control-freak behavior she's been accused of in court, most of which is garden-variety psycho boss stuff which is not as dramatic as the weird nipple thing.

About the nipple fetish, it's obvious Penny either can't or won't stop Koko from grabbing people's nipples, because Penny apparently is not a good enough animal trainer to teach Koko not to do that and instead indulges her like some sad pet owner who doesn't command enough authority toget it across to her dog that humping legs is just not acceptable behavior and will not be tolerated. Animals can't be controlled by delusional, indulgent people who treat them like roommates, pals, or babies. (Watch and learn from the great Cesar Milano of The Dog Whisperer show on the National Geographic Channel!) In the case of a dangerous wild animal who is allowed contact with people, it could be a recipe for disaster.

Francine "Penny" Patterson's scientific malpractice, mistreatment of employees, incompetence as an animal keeper, and spooky detachment from reality should be exposed for the world to see and learn a lesson from. Her foundation should be taken from her and given to responsible parties who can rationally debate and decide what is best for the gorillas and all the assets Penny and Cohen have amassed. Chrisrus 02:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Include this in the article, then, with references to back your claims. SoulSkorpion 14:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You ask me for references. I said that the transcript is accessable to you. This is the discussion page, not the article itself. Just google it yourself, I said.

So you deleted my addtion to the discussion page. Well, fine, Here is some of the transcript, I guess you couldn't be bothered, so even though it's long here it is, or at least in part. To read it without my comments, google it yourself.

PENNY: We're going to be on the phone with a lot of people who are going to ask us questions... KOKO: Nipple. (Koko sometimes uses 'nipple' as a 'sounds like' for 'people.') PENNY: ...about you and about me. . . Lots of people. KOKO: That red pink. (Indicating Penny's shirt.) PENNY: That red pink. Yes, right! KOKO: Hurry good. PENNY: This is red—this is pink, exactly. KOKO: Pink. (Koko reaches for Penny's pocket which contains treats.)

You think maybe Koko has gotton treat for gesturing, or is there some reasonable doubt?

PENNY: OK. That's the kind of things they are going to ask. KOKO: Good. PENNY: Questions about colors or how you're feeling. OK? KOKO: That red. (Indicating her own hair.) PENNY: Honey, this is black. KOKO: XXX XXX. (XXX looks like 'sun'.) Koko is trying to sign 'black.' Penny touch prompts 'black'. KOKO: Black. There hurry. (Indicating Penny's pocket.) K has one ape doll kiss the other. KOKO: Kisses.* KOKO: Lips lipstick. PENNY: Yes, 'lips lipstick,' right. KOKO: Lips fake candy give-me. (Then Koko reaches for Penny's pocket.) PENNY: Wait . . . a minute. KOKO: Good. KOKO: Bad hear (left hand on lt. ear) hear.(left hand on rt. ear) Hurry. (Koko reaches for Penny's hand.)

Ok, what's your impression as to what is going on here? Sound like the animal wants a treat and is trying different things to get Penny to give her one? Can you spell "Okkham's Razor?"

AOL: Is Koko aware that she's chatting with thousands of people now? PENNY: I just explained it to her so she has some idea.

What do you think makes Penny think that is so? Have you seen any evidence for it?

KOKO: Hear. (Koko reaches for Penny's treat pocket.) PENNY: You want to hear? . . . OK. Koko is ready. AOL: Welcome, Dr. Patterson and Koko, we're so happy you're here! PENNY: They said 'Welcome.' . . . That was me actually. I'm translating for her. . . . I gave Koko an explanation of what we're doing and she said 'Good hear.'

You want to see more for yourself, hire a native user of ASL to check the film of her, to varify her claims? Would that be a good way to test her claims? Has anyone tried? What happened? You think you can write an encyclopedia article on this topic without this information? What else would constitute a good peer review of her claims? What happened when they asked for the raw film? Copyrighted property of who? What do you know about this to be writing an article on this case if you don't know that?

Koko pulls Penny close and kisses her cheek. KOKO: Pink this. (Grasping Penny's shirt sleeve.) PENNY: She's just signed 'pink' and she's looking . . . KOKO: Pink this pink. (Indicating Penny's shirt sleeve.) PENNY: . . . at my shirt. We have had earlier discussions about color today. Koko pulls Penny's phone hand closer. PENNY: OK. She wants to listen. Do you have a question? KOKO: Listen. PENNY: She said 'listen.'. . . AOL: MInyKitty asks Koko are you going to have a baby in the future? PENNY: OK, is that for Koko? Koko are you going to have a baby in the future? KOKO: Koko-love eat ... sip. AOL: Me too! PENNY: What about a baby? You going to have baby? She's just thinking...her hands are together... KOKO: Unattention. PENNY: Oh poor sweetheart. She said 'unattention.' She covered her face with her hands..which means it's not happening, basically, or it hasn't happened yet. . . I don't see it.

Ok, we can accept Penny's explanation. Or we might think there might have been some other reason that Koko covered her face. Do YOU think that Penny is justified in "translating" this the way she did? DON'T take it from me, make your own judgement. Koko covered her face, and Penny explains what Koko is saying in more detail below.

AOL: That's sad! PENNY: It is responding to the question. In other words, she hasn't had one yet, and she doesn't see a future here. The way the situation is actually with Koko & Ndume, she has 2 males to 1 female which is the reverse of what she needs. I think that is why she said that, because in our current situation, it isn't possible for her to have a baby. She needs several females and one male to have a family.

Credit to Penny for saying "I think that..." Do YOU think Penny was justified in interpreting it that way? Is this science?

AOL: Do you see that situation changing when you get the Gorilla preserve on Maui? PENNY: Yes, we do. KOKO: Listen. PENNY: Koko just signed 'listen' and she wants to hear the phone so I'm going to hold it to her for a second. Did you hear them? (to Koko.) KOKO: Huff.* PENNY: She just made a vocalization. Did you hear that? That was her talking on the phone. AOL: Hi Koko! I can hear her! She breathed at me! This is so cool! PENNY: I'm working to create a family here in Woodside which would mean that we would need to add an additional female at a minimum. So I've been working with the zoo community to do that. And in Hawaii, we'll have much more space which means we will be in a much better situation to welcome additional gorillas to our family and then she's almost assured to have a family of her own. KOKO: Purr.* AOL: So she really is looking forward to this! PENNY: That's a happy sound when I said 'a family of her own'...Yes, she seems to be responding to my English.

In YOUR opinion, does Koko seem to be responding to Penny's English? What does Penny seem to be doing?

AOL: SBM87: ask What are the names of your kittens? (and dogs?) KOKO: Candy give-me. PENNY: OK. Penny gives treat. KOKO: See give-me. (Indicating the phone?) PENNY: What's the name of your kitty ? Kitty's name and dog's name? K picks up the foot of the large stuffed gorilla doll she is sitting on. KOKO: Foot... (Many times, first on the doll's foot then on her own foot.)... Foot. (Twice on the doll's foot.) PENNY: 'Foot' isn't the name of your kitty. KOKO: Hear lip.

Is this the ASL sign for "foot" or just touching a foot? Touching her lips is "translated" as "lips", so it's a reasonable question, no? Just asking, but wouldn't you like to see the film? Try to find it, or any raw data released by her to the scientific communty without her "interpretation". Go ahead, try. Then you write your article containing truth and facts about what this animal can and cannot do.

PENNY: She wants to hear the lady on the phone. Maybe you can ask her that question. Penny knows what Koko wants, I gather. Penny puts the phone to K's ear. AOL: Koko, what's the name of your cat? KOKO: Huff* no. (Headshake.) PENNY: She just gave some vocalizations there... you probably heard soft huffing. AOL: I heard that soft puffing. PENNY: Now shaking her head 'no'. Are you not going to answer that question? K pulls PP's head close & kisses her cheek. AOL: Question: Do you like to chat with other people? PENNY: Koko, do you like to talk to people? KOKO: Fine nipple. PENNY: Yes, that was her answer. 'Nipple' rhymes with 'people,' OK? She doesn't sign people per se, so she may be trying to do a 'sounds like...' but she indicated it was 'fine.'

Think for yourself. Does that make sense?

K climbs up on lg. box & PP asks her to turn around. KOKO: Give-me. (For more treats.) AOL: BSikor439 wants to know, Koko, Which of your paintings do you like most? Is she still painting? PENNY: Uh-huh. OK. Gosh, you know, she hasn't seen her paintings for awhile. She is (still painting.) K starts getting down from box and it comes away from the sink. AOL: Tell us what she's doing right now! PENNY: She's re-arranging the furniture in her room, basically. Let me move some of these boxes back. There's a lot of stuff here. Let me ask her if she LIKES to paint...one second..She's taking a toilet break. AOL: Dr. Patterson, why is this such an important project? PENNY: We're learning so many things on a number of levels, many of which I did not predict. What's that? [jingling sound] What's she got? Wait a second. AOL: You've devoted your whole life to it! What are we learning? PENNY: I had started to simply see if another species could communicate with us in our own language, that being sign language. And we have found that, yes, that is so and that she is actually very creative with that language (K returns.) and that we share not only the ability to form words and thoughts but also to talk about abstract things like feelings, the past and future... AOL: I can see that!

Can you "see that"?

PENNY: ...so those were sort of surprises, that she would be so creative. And that she would be essentially adding to the process. What I've discovered in the meantime is that she has already got the system, it's not that I gave her a system to communicate. Gorillas already communicate with a rich vocabulary of gestures. (K looks at a birthday card.) What I've done is simply share the vocabulary with her. So those things were all unexpected. We have a window into the mind of another species, which is, I think, one of the values in (that) this species is really part of our family as humans.They are our closest living relatives. So we stand to learn a huge amount about ourselves - our ancestry. How we might have evolved into the species we are today. That's just part of it. I could go on. We are learning a lot about gorillas themselves in terms of things as diverse as reproductive physiology... KOKO: This. (Indicating a picture in a magazine she is looking through.)

Well, Penny does seem to think her work is very important. But koko used the ASL sign for "this" by pointing to a picture? I mean IN YOUR OPINION!

PENNY:... to their ability to direct their own lives, in a sense, with a language tell us what they would like and how they would like to see things happen in the future; react to things in the environment and these are things that are quite unexpected sometimes. KOKO: This. (Indicating another picture in the magazine.) PENNY: Things that are not even meant for Koko's ears, she will respond to things at rather a sophisticated level. We have documented her comprehension of English and this is not just at the level of tone (of voice), but this is at the level of the tiny pieces that the language is made of. . .she actually discriminates phonemes. And that kind of thing had never been know before. The fact that they can create representational art is yet another aspect that I certainly didn't expect but that has implications for anthropology in terms of how far back the roots go for this kind of representational behavior.

Oh, this is another good one you could try for yourself. Google yourself up a picture by Koko and see how undisputably "representational" it is, IN YOUR OPINION.

KOKO: Lip apply-lip lipstick. (Looking at the picture of a woman model in the magazine.) This. (On the page) Koko turns the pages then puts magazine down then grooms the fingers of the large stuffed gorilla doll. AOL: I've heard people say she's not really communicating -- I think she's smarter than we are-- after all, how many of us can speak Gorilla! PENNY: Exactly! She has learned our language but we haven't learned hers. So that does say a lot about the relative capacities of our species to communicate with another one. K takes Penny's hand and Penny sits down close to Koko. KOKO: Purr.* AOL: What new is there to learn after 26 years? PENNY: Every day brings new surprises in terms of learning about gorillas in order to save them, but also in terms of learning about ourselves and mainly that consists of (learning about) new ground about how similar we are. Every little nuance that she comes up with often surprise me, and I don't know why I'm surprised, but I am still surprised when she shows a new level of sophistication. . . She's back. AOL: A basic earthy question for Koko from Earth2Kim: Koko, what is your favorite food, fruit, or vegetable? PENNY: OK, hey. We got a question for you, honey. Whats your favorite food? The one you like eat the very best. What's your favorite food? The one you like best.. Ok...she's thinking... AOL: People have a lot of stereotypes! KOKO: Sip. PENNY: She likes drinks. What your favorite drink? Do you have a favorite drink? KOKO: Drink apple. AOL: SickboyRE asks: Koko, have you taught other gorillas sign language, on your own? PENNY: That's a good question. Have you taught other gorillas to sign? KOKO: Myself lip. PENNY: She taught herself. That's really true, too. That's very good and I think what part of that answer might be, is that she's taught us. In other words, 'myself lip' was her answer and 'lip' is her word for woman. So 'herself' has taught 'lips', perhaps. So there are a couple of interpretations there. So, assuming your are a reasonable intelligent person, do YOU think Penny is justified in interperating koko's hand movements as evidence that he understood the question and responded. AOL: She's really creative! PENNY: Uh-huh, and I think she's acknowledging that in that answer. AOL: She makes up some of her own terms, like 'lips' for woman. PENNY: Oh yes, and 'foot' for male. Do you wonder, how exactly does Penny know that Koko means "male" when she clearly forms the ASL symbol for "foot", assuming that is what Koko did, we donno cuz we can't see Koko, but even given the benefit of a doubt. AOL: Another question from the audience: Does Koko like birds? I have the bird t-shirt she painted -- I'm wearing it now! PENNY: Koko sweetheart, do you like birds? Do you like birds?.. She's very thoughtful today, she walked away, she's looking out the window... AOL: She's looking at the birds! PENNY: You know actually there are a number of blue jays that have been frequenting her play yard because they are nesting nearby and she looking out into the play yard. She's going to look at them, right. AOL: Are there any birds out there now? PENNY: She's looking out the window and one just flew by. She [expresses herself] with actions and this is very characteristic of young children. Actually, the newer ways of studying very young children is to look at very subtle behaviors. She's looking out the window... KOKO: Lips. PENNY:... and signing 'lips', which is her word for 'woman'. I can't see what she's seeing completely. I'm at an angle with the window and can't leave where I am.

It sems that both "nipple" and "lips" mean "woman" to Koko. How, do you think, could Penny or anyone know this?

AOL: This is a very abstract one for her: Are you content with your life? That was from Jedi114. I'm very curious to see what she might say to that! We know she might not be able to answer everything, but we're going for it anyway! (Koko comes back) PENNY: OK. I can ask that in a different way. Can you come here sweetie and be patient? She's got her back to me. Koko, are you happy? KOKO: Fine.

Now that one DID seem like communication, didn't it? Every now and then there might be a word or two in isolation that sound like linguistic interaction. "Are you happy?" "Fine". Ask again, though, and Koko might say "foot" or "give me".

AOL: Here's one: Koko, where would you like to visit? PENNY: That's hard because Koko doesn't travel. AOL: We were wondering about that. PENNY: So, her concept of space is very limited compared to even a child, because we really stay here of necessity. So we could ask her if she would like to go to Hawaii. AOL: Would she like to go to Hawaii? PENNY: Would you like to go to Hawaii? KOKO: Look. PENNY: She says 'look.' AOL: Me too! PENNY: : Maybe she'd like to see it first. She actually has travelogs of Hawaii that she looks at on her video machine; travelogs, Hawaii videos. So she has seen it.

Ok, I suppose you could tell me that a reasonable person could read that and find Penny justified in her interpretation of Koko's meaning by signing "look", assuming that is what Koko did?

AOL: Does she watch TV? PENNY: Yes, public broadcasting only. Right, so she'd like to look at Hawaii. KOKO: Think XXX. (XXX - Koko's hand is partially out of frame - possibly 'lie-down.') PENNY: What do you think about Hawaii? We talk a lot about it. AOL: Storm 1004 asks: Dear Koko...I've watched you for years now...your gentle spirit is inspiration for many... I'd like to know what you'd like for your birthday. AOL: What a sweet question! PENNY: OK. Your birthday is coming up, Koko. What do you want for your birthday? What do you want? KOKO: Birthday... Food smokes. AOL: SMOKES? PENNY: Well, she sort of signed 'food' and 'smokes.' You have to understand...Smoke is also the sign for her kitten. Her kitty's name is Smoky. So that one could have a double meaning.. Yes, she (does) still have Smoky. She's looking out the window right now, so her back is to me.

Google the rest yourself, if you're still not convinced. It goes on and on like this. To MY mind, I can't understand how any reasonable, objective person could read this and interpret it differently than I have, but maybe I'm wrong. Don't take it from me! Go see for yourself! Google the rest of the transcript, look at it scientifically, what does it indicate to you? Can you imagine any informed, reasonable person interpreting it in any other way than I have?

Chrisrus (talk) 09:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs) 08:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another anecdote

"Another Koko anecdote relates directly to Persson's research. One day when Koko had been, with some effort, lured inside from her yard for some purpose unremembered by me, Penny Patterson noted that a purple plastic toy that she had been playing with was missing. Penny searched the yard without finding the toy. It was important that she find it, since Michael was soon to enter the yard, and he had a habit of trying to eat plastic, which wasn't at all good for him. Penny thought of taking Koko back into the yard and asking her by sign language where the toy was. She decided against this tack because of the anticipated effort required to lure Koko back inside. Following a hunch, Penny drew a diagram of the yard and its furniture, showed it to Koko and asked her where the toy was. Koko promptly pointed to the image of a barrel in the drawing. The toy was found under the barrel. Needless to say, Penny was more than a little surprised. Nothing of this sort had been tried before by her." Fig (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting an unsourced claim removal

An anon has removed a number of claims about Koko's use/nonuse of language, correctly pointing out that they have had fact tags for a long time without resolution. The rationale beyond the removal is a sound application of WP policies, but on due consideration I am reverting the removal and leaving the unsourced tags. The claims - that some have said Koko does use language and some claim she hasn't, and that she is claimed to understand a significant number of spoken English words - do need citing, but I think they are central enough to the primary context of the article that a potential reader is better served by leaving them it, and perhaps it will better provoke someone to source them. I would do it myself - and I believe the book by Patterson and Cohn will source two of them and any of the literature critically reviewing the ape ASL experiments the third - but finding the precise reference will need someone who has those sources at hand, which I don't. Again, the principle behind the removal by the anon was sound, but in my opinion the informativeness of the article, however imperfect it may be, as well as the future evolution of the article, is better served by leaving them in, tagged. While there is significant controversy whether Koko does use language, I believe there is no controversy that all of the claims mentioned have been made in notable sources and thus should be included. Martinp (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I acknowledge your good faith in restoring unsourced information, your rationale is terribly lacking. To place information in an article that is unsourced, with the reason for the absence of a source that you don't have access to the sources, flies in the face of WP:V. The information can always be added later by someone who does have access to the sources. Instead, you should move the unsourced information to the talk page. If a source is found, no problem. Otherwise, however, it can linger unsourced in the article for months or years (yes, I have seen such unsourced statements remain in articles for more than a year). But with your line of reasoning that "someone can source it later", I could go on an edit spree and add everything that pops in my head to an article as long as I know I read it somewhere even though I can't get to the source. Sorry, that's not the way it's done on Wikipedia. I'll give this issue a couple of weeks, then I'll be moving the unsourced material to the talk page. --Ward3001 (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Good to have a discussion on this, Ward3001. And I hope someone (maybe even one of us) will be somewhere where we have access to sources as soon as possible. In the meanwhile, we're here to write an encyclopedia. If the fact whether someone had really made that claim was controversial, or the inclusion of the claims was advocating one point of view in an unbalanced way, or harming an individual, then we should be merciless in removing them while unsourced. In this case, however, the fact that some experts have claimed that Koko uses language and some have not, and the fact that the claim has been made that Koko understands a large number of spoken English words, is uncontroversial. The actual issue of whether Koko is using language is controversial, but not the fact the claim and counterclaim have been made. Whether one believes those claims have foundation or not, they have been made in a verifiable way. I hope very much that someone is able -- soon I hope -- to look up the references and source them. But while noone has done so yes, the presence of fact tags is more likely to provoke someone to do it than removing them. But it is a judgement call and there is a slippery slope argument issue there, so I would be comfortable, if no one is doing anything, to move to the talk page pending verification. Sorry I can't help more myself. Martinp (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we're here to write an encyclopedia, but that does not justify adding unsourced information to an article. No legitimate encyclopedia writes an article with the intention of adding the sources later. It just doesn't work that way. As for whether the information you added is balanced, that's a matter of opinion. It does present more than one point of view, but does it present it in a way that reflects the available facts? The answer to that question is unknown based on the article because none of the information is sourced. I don't think we are in complete disagreement on this matter, but I also don't think allowing unsourced material to remain in an article more than a few weeks is acceptable Wikipedia practice. --Ward3001 (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added some sources. I will be the first to confess that I am no expert on this subject, having only read up on it today, so feel free to remove them if anyone thinks they are unreliable or irrelevant. ascidian | talk-to-me 17:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plans to move Patterson's organization to Maui not "nearing attainment", please edit introduction

The Honolulu Advertiser in 2005 published an article about the Gorilla Foundation's move to Hawaii which looks as though it won't take place. (http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Mar/09/ln/ln06p.html) The Maui Land and Pineapple Company wants to support species native to Hawaii and the Gorilla Foundation is $3 million short of the $5 million they needed to raise for the move. It looks as though Koko will probably live out her life in California. 2005 was more than a decade after the original plan was announced and this writing is three years later. Either omit this here or discuss the failed plans under an article about Patterson or The Gorilla Foundation.Chrisrus (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised you would cite an article from 2005. I'm even more surprised you would interpret it to say something it doesn't. Many articles have been published since then, all maintaining that the Maui Ape Preserve is a go. The Honolulu Advertiser article was superseded by this one in the same year, and the most recent update can be found here. I've readded the information. Two things you need to remember. One, these people are on Hawaiian time, which means, it gets done when it gets done, and two, they were running three million dollars short, so they are attempting to cut corners to get there. Viriditas (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grammatical level?

I can't seem to find any sources that talk about the level of koko's communication. The AOL transcript didn't seem to have many examples of, say "A is B" type sentences, except where the subject is Koko. Interestingly, when asked if she wants to have a baby, apparently she replied that she hasn't had one yet--I'm also curious if she can talk about the future or knows anything of tenses.

To be honest, I think without any kind of in-depth analysis of how Koko communicates, this isn't a very useful article. Citizen Premier (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)