Talk:Northern mockingbird

comment

Theocrats and ultra-liberals like mockingbirds and portray them with deceptive veneration, such as by calling their vulgar, simple, and repetitive chirp formations 'singing', and suppressing all of the damage that mockingbird chirping has done to society, due to stress-related health effects, drowsiness-induced automobile accidents and other accidents, distraction-induced accidents, heart-attacks (particularly in people with heart conditions), and suicides (particularly in depressed people). The people who's activities are most disrupted by the crude mockingbird chirping are people of fine character (as contrasted with crude character) - that is, people who are deep, distant, rational, and inquisitive -the greatest of people, whom the mockingbird supporters, such as the wikipedia users Jimfbleak and Smyth, regard as enemies. Mockingbirds are hardly a neutral subject

source for above rantings please? Also, song is a technical term that does not imply musicality, the "caw" of a crow is its song, jimfbleak 9 July 2005 13:45 (UTC)

Reply

Ah, the tactic of discrediting statements (calling them 'rantings' here) so as to prevent people from considering them and in turn seeing their truth. My source is life experience and talking to people around the neighborhood and on the internet about their opinions and experiences regarding mockingbirds and what they are willing to do about them, which I initiated after said birds had bothered me for some time. I was initially surprised by the patterns that I found regarding character traits and political affiliations and how people were effected, and the notably malicious affect (facial expression and tone of voice) of the many mockingbird supporters that I met personally, but then I realized that the correlations make sense because the tone of voice of mockingbirds and the disruption of the subtle beauty of the darkness and silence of the night corresponds to the tone of voice and crude character of the people that support them. By the way, if 'song' is the technical term, then it is a biased and inaccurate term and should be boycotted. Also, why did you delete my addition that the mockingbirds' air loops are territorial displays?; that is a widely accepted fact. I'll write that fact back in unless you have any objections.

I don't think you can object to "ranting" when you launch personal attacks on the characters of other contributors. jimfbleak 05:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Exposure of the truthful malicious motives of particular behaviors is socially constructive, being a far cry from a rant. That's 'detractors', not 'contributers' (in this case).

If you're trying to make fun of the typical Wikipedia edit war, then well done, but please go and do something constructive. And you see the button when you're editing a page marked "Show preview"? Please use it. – Smyth\^talk 21:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah, now Smyth is trying to discredit my statements and thus prevent their consideration by falsely portraying them as a joke and non-constructive. Evidently Smyth has not challenged my statements themselves because he knows personally that they are correct. Saying that I am merely joking also gives him false pretense for removing the NPOV tag of a disputed article, a gross violation of wikipedia policy. I have to admit, that's a clever tactic.

Please sign and date your talk page contributions by adding four tildes (~) at the end. Regarding the NPOV tag, it appears to be up simply because one user thinks that the call of the mockingbird is not songlike. It also appears to be correct that "song" is a term of art in ornithology and refers boradly to the vocalizations of birds, however unpleasant they may be to human ears. (Heck, I've heard some Heavy Metal music that is less songlike that a crow). Anyway, unless there are some legitimate NPOV issues we should remove the tag. -Willmcw 01:37, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Seriously, how can anyone not like the Northern Mockingbird?! Such a beautiful, colorful, bold, type-A bird. A tireless singer and tireless defender of its territory it is fearless and will attack whatever is a threat be it cat, dog, hawk or person. I would even vote for it to replace the Bald Eagle as the national bird - it is the proverbial underdog that thrives. User:dojodan

Also, please try to be more moderate in your writing, or people will think you are some sort of a crank, and be more likely to revert you than they would be otherwise. – Smyth\^talk 09:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

"Special protections"

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 USC Title 16 Chapter 7 doesn't mention mockingbirds. What I could find on the history of the act doesn't either; I found mentions of plume hunting and the Snowy Egret, as at http://www.audubon.org/states/fl/fl/main/timeline.htm and http://www.tigerhomes.org/animal/snowy-egret.cfm . So I took out the claims that mockingbirds get special protection under the MBTA and that it was written to protect them more than other species. If anyone puts those back in, please include a source. —JerryFriedman 20:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, mockers have the same protections as other migratory birds, no more and no less. We have a brief explainer on our site with regard to migratory birds, including the sources for the definitions under the Act (second question from the bottom). Since our site is CC-BY-NC-SA, we can't mingle our text into Wikipedia, but someone else can revise the article accordingly. Sandtouch (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

"Further Reading" Section

The "Further Reading" section in this article seems to be quite extensive to say the least, but could it be getting too long? It's already much longer than the article itself. I believe it may need some revising, and some of the resources may need to be removed. Does anyone have any comments or suggestions? Mears man 00:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:UTC MOCS mascot.jpg

Image:UTC MOCS mascot.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood

I beg to differ with the following section, removed from the Mockingbird in US Culture section:

• In the PBS series Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood, King Friday XIII made a pet of a wooden bird on a stick, who he called Mimus polyglottos. This stick-bird moved up and down when it spoke to King Friday, but it spoke in musical chimes that only the members of the show could understand. King Friday would often sing a detailed song to his bird, with the repeated lyrics "Mimus polyglottos is my pet.." and ending with "Have you met my pet yet?"

Unless there was an alternate version of the song I'm not aware of, his wooden bird was Troglodytes aedon, as mentioned at House Wren. Lusanaherandraton (talk) 07:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Too many pictures

This article has more pictures than it needs. 1 generic picture near the top is required, any other pictures should be specific to the section they are in. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe these could help. More on the way. (Self-interest disclaimer: We made all of those photos and songs.) Sandtouch (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

9 months later, the article still has the same problem. There are a couple of flying mocker photos on Commons that could be used in this article to provide context. We just put one up showing the wing bars, and commons:user:Stickpen has an awesome shot of a mocker mobbing a hawk. Sandtouch (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

After user:JerryFriedman's edits of April 11, 2009, the article is much better. Previous criticism withdrawn. :) Sandtouch (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add to this discussion that the picture underneath the caption "Northern Mockingbird" and above the conservation status is quite misleading. The angle of the photo makes the bird look shorter, fatter, and seem to have a shorter bill than it does. If you enlarge the photo you can see that it is a mockingbird; it's simply a poor picture to demonstrate the species. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deejaye6 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)