Talk:The Gorilla Foundation

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force.

Reversion[edit]

I decided to revert (rather than re-wikify) the latest rewrite of this article because:

The author states that this completely unreferenced stub is a "placeholder" article for a longer, properly referenced article (which may or may not ever be written).
While assuming good faith on the part of contributors, I can't help but wonder whether recent editors may have a conflict of interest with the subject. The rewrite sounds like a promotion or glowing endorsement of this organization - an organization whose belief in the language ability of non-human primates is quite controversial.
I find the statement that, "The above information is based on the Gorilla Foundation's official records of its mission, history, programs and current progress" troubling. Organizations do not get to write their own Wikipedia articles. The same (or similar) rules as apply to autobiographies also extend to organizations. Using only "official" material as a reference is problematic because the guidelines for Verifiability and Neutral Point of View require facts to be documented by independent, reliable, third-party sources.
The recent addition of the Bibliography - while interesting - seems somewhat irrelevant to the topic of the Gorilla Foundation. It appears to be a comprehensive list of publications authored by the organization's founder (Patterson), rather than a list of sources of information about the organization. But perhaps that's a separate discussion?

I would like to see this article improved (it needs it) and I'd be willing to help, as long as it conforms to Wikipedia's five pillars.--Koppas (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to "Reversion" on 5/21/09[edit]

Thank you for explaining your rationale for the reversion, and for offering to help create a more complete and balanced article. We would like to take you up on your offer. Can you please contact me by emailing [email protected] (with "ATT: Gary" in the Subject Line) and perhaps we can schedule a phone call to share ideas and information. Garymitchelstanley (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but I don't generally give my phone number (or email) to internet strangers. Hopefully, all interested parties can hash out any major changes to the article here. As a start, I had planned to review some of the references at the page for Koko to see if any of them could be used in this article. I already did a quick Google search on the topic, but independent sources seemed scarce. Also, in case I gave a different impression, the foundation's website is an allowable source, but with a few limitations.--Koppas (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the improper humanization of animals[edit]

Fascination for the study in the use of language and the cognition prevail also observing a one year old cat playing in its familiar environment. In a small school office with a dozen of persons between teachers, administratives and guests, the cat, owned by one of the teachers, happens to play with every person it meets, endlessly and without "personal" distinction or preference, from aisle to aisle, to the tables. The cat surely enjoy its times but most probably won't ever be able to "communicate" anything more than by breaking curtains. --par7133wiki 10:01, 17 Nov 2014 (UTC)

Add Citation 4 July 2019[edit]

Can someone add this citation? I'm not sure the correct way to do it. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/psychology/primatecognitionlab/References/cananapecreateasentence.pdf

Naddruf (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Something that bothers me.[edit]

For me, alarm bells go off when I notice adjectives that do not advance the article.

Saying “The childless”, is as meaningful as saying “The Blond haired”, or “the blue eyed”.

If she was Hispanic, would that be worth mentioning in the context of the article? Of course not. Indeed it would be considered racist.

I am left with the impression that the author feels something must be wrong if she is childless.

The adjective “childless” is offensive in this context, and should be deleted. Russ The Rail Guy 09:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Railguyruss (talk • contribs)