Talk:Double-crested cormorant/Archive 1

Archive 1

"Taunton Turkey"

ok, i searched the web for "taunton turkey" and the only place the compound word appears is in descriptions of the double-crested cormorant, saying that people sometimes call it the Taunton Turkey, but apparently, nobody actually does call it that. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22taunton+turkey%22+-%22taunton+turkey+trot%22&btnG=Search

I did find a reference to this name in The Audubon Encyclopedia of North American Birds. I have added this information to the article with a citation. Empidonax (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic, thanks for snooping around. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

wikified

I have organized the whole article into categories, added a picture I took myself, and have also reworded a lot of the article. However, I still kept the information all there in some form. Hope everyone likes the new look. Phaldo 02:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

New image

Cormorant during breeding season, displaying the "double crest" plumage it was named for.

I figured the article could use an image showing the "double crest" the bird is named for, so uploaded the image to the right; where in the article it is placed I will leave it up to the people working on it. If a close crop on the head is required I can perform a lossless crop and upload that version as well; feel free to leave me a note on my Commons talk page and I'll get it done for you :) — Editor at Large^(speak) 18:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 04:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Recovery

• Recently the Double-crested Cormorant has greatly increased in abundance beyond what was known historically. It is believed that the recovery was allowed by the decrease of contaminants, particularly the discontinued use of DDT. It is believed that it has increased to such great numbers because of aquaculture ponds in its southern wintering grounds. The ponds favor good over-winter survival and growth.

Although this is widely believed, there is no reference given for this. This paper:

Wires, Linda A., and Francesca J. Cuthbert, Historic Populations of the Double-crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus): Implications for Conservation and Management in the 21st Century, Waterbirds 29(1): 9-37, 2006.(sadly not online)

states that there is solid indication that cormorants were once at least as common in North America as they are now, and most likely much more so, but were killed off physically, like so many other predatory and game species, in the 19th century, although beginning earlier than that, and continuing to the present.

In 1894, Thomas McIlwraith in his book, Birds of Ontario, concludes his section on Double-crested Cormorants by saying: “When the young are sufficiently grown, they gather into immense(my bold) flocks in unfrequented sections, and remain until the ice-lid has closed over their food supply, when they go away, not to return till the cover is lifted up in the spring.”

Even if there is documentation for Cormorants being more plentiful now than historically known, I think this should be revised, to inlcude these historical notes. Bob98133 15:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if 'lethal culling' is a tautology so it should be changed to 'culling' but it may instead be a subtle reference to alleged primative means to cull in which case please put forward academic evidence? Adam37 (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Implicated in decline? By whom?

Double-crested Cormorants eat other species of fish besides alewives and have been implicated in the decline of some important sport-fish populations in the Great Lakes and other areas. Scientists are not in universal agreement about the exact extent of the role of cormorants in these declines, but the growing consensus is that Double-crested Cormorants are a real factor for some populations and in some locations.

The above from this article's Recovery section needs some documentation. It's very vague. Unless someone can document it, I'll reword it to reflect that this is an opinion. Bob98133 15:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Great photos

Checked out this page after looking up something else online, and I just wanted to say that the photos accompanying this article are excellent. Very nice. deeceevoice 09:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Seen in London

The article says these are "very rare" in Britain but I've seen then in London on the Thames: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/42924810 QuentinUK (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Different species. Maias (talk) 07:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of colloquial name "nigger goose"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing this discussion, the consensus is to include the term but we must be mindful to be comprehensive in listing alternate names so it does not appear that we are giving a pejorative one undue weight. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Okay folks, I've locked the page so we can sort this out. The dispute is over whether to include the term "nigger goose" in the taxonomy section. (Note that we are not talking about the lead). I will alert the birds and US wikiprojects and we can get some idea of consensus and why. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Be aware that source states this is a Floridian "local term". Ankh.Morpork 22:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Include

1. Support - Although the term may be offensive to some it is a common name for the bird and Wikipedia is not censured. Kumioko (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

   I believe self censorship is in order here. I have edited over 10,000 articles. The anonymous user that added this name has 7 edits; 6 of which concern this affair. The other is a racially charged article. I have never seen foul language used in any bird article. Is that due to censorship? Cluebot regularly removes vulgarities. Isn't that censorship? This name is very vulgar it would never be used by anyone I have ever met. Why do you think we should codify its use in this article about a black cormorant? This is a good time to change your vote. It is indeed a no-brainer. Would you use it in front of a black audience? Why then should a very public and well-respected encyclopedia condone its use? Dger (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

2. Support, of course. Bit of a no-brainer; the name has a good ref and adds to the historical context. Anyone trying to remove the term is attempting censorship. Maias (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

   There is a place for censorship when it harms a group of people. Dger (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

3. Support This is a well-established colloquial name. What a horrible and irresponsible precedent it would be to remove this term. Political correctness has no place interfering with the truth. Natureguy1980 (talk) 03:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

   The truth is, it is a racial term that offends a particular group associated with slavery. It is not a neutral term unlike similar terms that are used as common names. I notice that you are a white male. Would you change your mind if you were an American black whose ancestors were slaves? Think about it and, I suggest, wisely change your vote. Instead of being politically correct or incorrect let's just to the right thing! Dger (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

4. Support Agreed - we don't censor for PC reasons (and I say that as a proud supporter of PC in real life). Include it, solely for the reason that it's a search term. However, make it clear that it's a historical name only, unless we can find a reference that suggests it's still in use (hopefully it isn't!) SP-KP (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

   It will continue to be used if we continue to use it. Do you want to continue its use or to stop using it? I advise you to change your vote. Dger (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

5. Support Definitely include. It's a common name and still used, as mad as that might make Dger. 'Misleading' because it's not a goose? It's not a turkey, crow or duck and yet 'taunton turkey' and 'crow-duck' are included. The *only* justification for removing it is that some people are sensitive to taboo words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.233.172 (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

   Why didn't you include "Florida Cormorant" in that list, if you were just including all names listed by that reference you cited?

   The real question is why aren't you sensitive? Dger (talk) 01:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

6. Support It's a widely used local name. Examples:

• [1] (1985) mentions that the name is in "general use", particularly in the Gulf Coast region
• [2] (1990) suggests that it's a Okefenokee name
• has been used in literature: [3], [4], [5], etc.
• also given as an alternative common name in Kale & Maehr (1990) Florida's birds: a handbook and reference (ISBN 9780910923682) (and many other bird books, though not as recent). Sasata (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Most of these references use the term vaguely or for a cormorant in general. They lend very little support for the general use of the name for this specific species. Is it really necessary to search through every reference, no matter how dated, that used the term nigger-goose to justfify its use as a suitable common name for this species? Dger (talk) 01:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Is it really necessary for you to badger everyone that doesn't agree with you? Sasata (talk) 02:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• More data:

• Source: W. L. McAtee "Facetious Monickers for American Birds" American Speech Vol. 31, No. 3 (Oct., 1956), pp. 180-187 (JSTOR 453677

Has a table of derogatory names for birds. Indicates that "Nigger goose" is used for "Cormorants" (does not specify species), gives known distribution of the name as "General". Note the title of the article indicates American birds.

• Source: W. L. McAtee "Bird Names with Animal or Plant Components" American Speech Vol. 30, No. 3 (Oct., 1955), pp. 176-185 JSTOR 453936

"Nigger goose has a range almost coextensive with those of the Eastern species of cormorants and is sometimes used for the anhinga or water turkey (Texas);" (p. 180)

• Source: Mariana D. Birnbaum "On the Language of Prejudice" Western Folklore Vol. 30, No. 4 (Oct., 1971), pp. 247-268 JSTOR 1498426

"… and the popular name of the cormorant is "nigger-goose" (Webster's)."

• Source: Harold Harris Bailey "‪The birds of Florida: a popular and scientific account of the 425 species and subspecies of birds that are now, and that have been found within the state and its adjacent waters; with special reference to their relation to agriculture‬" (1925).

"FLORIDA CORMORANT. Phalacrocorax auritus floridanus (Shag, Nigger goose)" (p. 17)

• Source: United States Bureau of Biological Survey. "Wildlife and management leaflet" (1935)

"The double-crested cormorant, "shag", or "nigger goose", is a glossy …"

• Source: Nebraska Game, Forestation, and Parks Commission, Nebraska. Division of Game and Fish "Outdoor Nebraska" (1952)

"These nests are made by the double-crested cormorants, also known by such names as crow duck, shag, black loon, water-turkey, lawyer and nigger goose." (p. 117)

• from the Double-crested Cormorant entry at the the Birds of North America Online (Cornell lab of Ornithology): "The Double-crested Cormorant is the most numerous and most widely distributed species of the 6 North American cormorants. In the U.S. and Canada, it is the only cormorant to occur in large numbers in the interior as well as on the coasts". Based on this data, is there really any doubt that the term nigger goose is/was used for this species? Are there other black cormorants found in the United States to which this moniker might apply? Sasata (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

7. Support - While this term does have pejorative connotations, it is not the role of Wiki to "continue its use or stop its use", and informative details should not be bowdlerized. However, to include this term, it should be substantiated by several sources and it should be demonstrated to be a "common name" and not a local term as the current source states. Ankh.Morpork 22:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

8. Reluctant Support – Doesn't WP:PROFANE provide the appropriate guideline for this topic? Yes the wording is cringe-worthy, especially in the U.S., but if it is part of the historical record then it should be retained in a tastefully-presented fashion. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

9 Support as historical - While the term is quite unfortunate, it was a widely-used, not local, name for the bird in the "good" old days. It very likely should not be in the lede, but Wikipedia is not censored, and pretending inconvienent past facts don't exist is, indeed, censorship. The current wording should be changed though, as it is not (thankfully) a current common name, but a past one. Historical facts do not go away because they are ignored. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Not include

1. Emphatically It is offensive and misleading. It is NOT a goose. There are many other common names for this bird. That one does not need to be included as it is highly localized and racially tainted. Censorship is appropriate when racist names are propogated unnecessarily. I doubt Floridians currently use such a name. Dger (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
2. I see no reason to include this. It must certainly be a very local name; I've never heard it, and I've birded extensively throughout this bird's range. I'd certainly dispute the "it's a common name" argument invoked above. We don't include every single colloquial name in other articles (regardless of how well referenced they are) and I see no reason to change that for this article! MeegsC (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

   I'm surprised that you've not heard it used, Meegs. I've heard it a number of times around Illinois and Indiana. Natureguy1980 (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

   Perhaps I just hang around with classier birders! :D MeegsC (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

   These were not birders; they were hunters and general outdoorsmen. I've never heard the term uttered by a birder, but let's face it, the hunters and outdoorsmen have us outnumbered. Natureguy1980 (talk) 04:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

   The well-intentioned objections by Dger are not relevant for this kind of discussion as NOTCENSORED is intended to rule out those kinds of considerations when deciding if information is due and of encyclopedic value. However, the proposal to add this term is defective. According to this, the source is from 1919—a local name would need to be highly significant for it to rely on a single source from nearly a hundred years ago. The source specifies that the bird has a common name of "Florida Cormorant", and a local name of "Nigger Goose". The source has numerous examples where a local name is given, yet that name is not in our corresponding encyclopedic article. For example, the source states that Mergus serrator has common name "Red-breasted Merganser" and local names "Sawbill" and "Hairy-head", but those local names do not appear in the article (indeed the local names from the many other parts of the world where the bird is found are not included either). Google of course finds many hits of "nigger goose" (thanks to Urban Dictionary and similar), but only a few like this. That last page is based on Wikipedia, but includes: "Alternate common names of this bird include crow-duck, Farallon cormorant, Florida cormorant, lawyer, shag, devil bird, nigger goose and Taunton turkey." An article here should not contain a similar list of alternate names, particularly since each is pertinent only to a relatively small location, while this is a worldwide encyclopedia. Exhaustive lists of alternate names are not suitable for an encyclopedic article and there should be good reason to include "nigger goose" while excluding all other common names. Johnuniq (talk) 11:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

   Note that 12 sources are listed above by Sasata that use the term, including Cornell's "Birds of North America", a routinely-updated authoritative website that is the ultimate encyclopedia on birds in the U.S. and Canada. You said, "there should be good reason to include 'nigger goose' while excluding all other common names." Is anyone actively excluding the other names? If so, then you have a point. If not, I don't understand why this is relevant. Rather than trying to eliminate this one name, we should be adding these other names to the relevant entries. Natureguy1980 (talk) 04:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• Have a look at the Talk page for Brazil nut. Three different discussions have taken place about using the term "nigger toes" for that nut. It is encouraging to notice that the name currently does not appear anywhere in the article; there is only a redirect. I suggest that we do the same here. It is very offensive to use the term "nigger goose". I am surprised that we need to have this discussion. It should be obvious that it be excluded. This isn't called censorship. It is called good manners, common sense, sensitivity, .... Dger (talk) 08:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This completely misses the point of what an encyclopedia is. It is a repository of information, no matter how offensive, for current and future generations to access. Why not eliminate all mention of the KKK? That organization is offensive. Why not eliminate all mention of Oldsquaw? When you remove any legitimate information because it's offensive to someone, that is the very definition of censorship. This should not be up for debate. Dger, you said above, "There is a place for censorship when it harms a group of people", so you have disagreed with yourself in this very discussion. I know terms like this elicit an emotional reaction in many people, but if you cannot articulate a logical position without contradicting yourself, you're not going to convince many people. Furthermore, I really don't think it's helpful to bring users' races or genders into this discussion. But since this seems to matter to you, I'm gay, and if there were a long-established name for the bird called "Faggot Goose", I'd be advocating for its retention. Being a member of a minority group does not give anyone the right to whitewash the truth. Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Natureguy, I don't think Oldsquaw compares in any way, shape or form to this — most Native Americans I've spoken with don't see "squaw" as being a pejorative term. The same can certainly not be said for "nigger", which is pretty much always pejorative — unless you're a rap artist, of course! MeegsC (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Meegs, I was standing next to a woman at the Battle of Tippecanoe memorial just this week as she proclaimed her disgust at the usage of the word "squaw" in a sign at the site. The word is indeed considered quite a slur by many people. See squaw. But that's besides the point. If it's true, and it's about the topic, then it belongs in the entry, IMO, sensitivities be damned. Natureguy1980 (talk) 04:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, I find it interesting that the name "Florida Cormorant" (which was the primary name in the linked reference article) wasn't added to the list of alternate names, though the problematic "local name" was. Why not? MeegsC (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I've heard it called nigger goose outside of Florida. I'm not sure that I've heard it called a 'Florida cormorant' even IN Florida. The latter seems like a more obviously local name, no? See the other user who's heard it as far away as the Midwest.

There is no contradiction in my replies. I do advocate censorship of this term in this article. We can chose to exclude it in this public and widely referenced encyclopedia. It adds nothing to our understanding of the species. It might be appropriate to place it in a list of obsolete racial terms for animals just as there is for racial slurs of humans. You might note that the anonymous instigator of this item had a total of 7 Wiki entries; six of which concerns this item. One was in a reply to me where he called me a "dork". Such name calling is meaningless considering the source.Dger (talk) 01:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Please explain to me how the first of the following three remarks is not directly contradictory with the other two: "This isn't called censorship. It is called good manners, common sense, sensitivity, .... Dger (talk) 08:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)" "There is a place for censorship when it harms a group of people. Dger (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)" "I do advocate censorship of this term in this article...Dger (talk) 01:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC) " Natureguy1980 (talk) 04:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

One more point, why in all the years this page has been active has the term not been added earlier if it is so important to include now? Perhaps self-censorship has been rampant? Let's keep it up. Choose to not perpetuate it down the generations. This is not bowdlerization. It wasn't in the article one week ago. Dger (talk) 01:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

My Good Faith guess is that the IP remembered the name and then googled to find a source, which comes from a historical record, and then included it. I have no strong opinion myself, which is why I felt I was able to put on an admin hat and lock the page to halt the edit-warring and discuss. I think we'd all agree though that if it were to be included, it'd be fair to include other names and note somewhere that it was historical and/or local. As a comparison name-wise, the fungus Laccocephalum mylittae was known as blackfellows' bread in Australia. And the iconic Xanthorrhoea were mainly known as blackboys when I was growing up, though this name is rapidly being replaced by grasstree here in oz. Actually that article needs some rejigging.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Sasata’s list gets longer but many references still suffer from: referring to any black cormorant; being dated articles (e.g., 1925, 1935, 1955, 1956); or being included in a list of other misleading names (Water-turkey, Black Loon, etc.). By the way, Devil Bird was missed. The article that added the least support was "Facetious Monickers for American Birds".

We could do as Natureguy1980 suggested and add all the names in these lists but I suggest that would make the article a poor tool for school-age children and would require us to do the same for most other cormorant articles. Is this the better precedent we should select?

Clearly, Nigger Goose is a wrong term, as mentioned it wouldn't have been used by birders that knew the bird since geese don't dive and cormorants always dive to feed. The use of nigger was used in the past as a substitute for black. I doubt any of the people who support of keeping this moniker would actually use it in front of a audience. The audience that uses Wikipedia should be shown the same respect.

I will no longer be involved with this discussion and will no longer make any more additions, deletions, or corrections to this article as the personal attacks on me seem to be growing. I am saddened by many of the above responses. As most of you are veteran editors you recognize that we regularly exclude certain trivial, offensive, and misleading items in these articles (e.g., Devil Bird, sea Crow, etc.). In my humble opinion, this is one of those items. I now leave it up to others to make the final decision, in good faith. Dger (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

PS. Please don't add Devil Bird. That would likely ignite another even more rancourous debate. Dger (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

A similar problem at Orsotriaena. Shyamal (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Update

Okay, I have unprotected as more eyes are on, and whatever the outcome, certainly including other terms such as "Florida Cormorant" and offering a fuller discussion and expanding would be prudent. But please no edit-warring. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Am I correct in thinking that since a consensus was not reached, the outcome is that there should be no change? Natureguy1980 (talk) 04:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

These calls for input on inclusion or not should remain open a while longer. Plenty of other material to be added and sourced in this article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Double-crested cormorant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011192722/http://www.earthroots.org/index.php/20080506125/News/Latest/Cormorant-cull-on-Middle-Island-ends.html to http://www.earthroots.org/index.php/20080506125/News/Latest/Cormorant-cull-on-Middle-Island-ends.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)