Talk:Chicken eyeglasses

Is the first sentence correct?
In the ffrst sentence, should this not be 'poly peepers' rather than 'poly peppers'? DrChrissy (talk) 10:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope. It's possible the newspaper got it wrong, but the article I sourced this to does indeed provide poly peppers, not peepers. Maybe it should come out. After all, you're probably right that that's what the newspaper actually meant, and it's only a list of a few examples where others could go.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * They certainly seem to be called "poly peepers" now - e.g. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Illegal to use on pheasants in the UK?
A few years ago (less than ten), there was a place that had a pen of pheasants, presumably being raised to be put to the gun, that I walked past a couple of times a week. Thinking back, each bird was wearing a device on its face that resembled those 'poly peepers' mentioned and linked above - I can't say for certain, but seeing the picture certainly made me think back to those pheasants. Just as a matter of interest - do the 1982 regulations that DrChrissy mentioned in his addition today apply only to domestic chickens? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting. If you live in the area, an image would be very welcome, despite the fact that it's a different bird. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The DEFRA Codes of recommendations I cited were for laying hens. The law may be different for gamebirds - I will try to clarify.  There are several other devices used to prevent feather pecking such as 'bits' and 'bumpers'.  It is possible that from a distance, these might be mistaken for poly-peepers.  DrChrissy (talk) 10:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The relevant section in the DEFRA codes of recommendations for Gamebirds is ''5.1 The use of management devices or practices that do not allow birds to fully express their range of normal behaviours should not be considered as routine and keepers should work towards the ideal of management systems that do not require these devices. Such devices and practices include mutilations such as beak trimming, procedures to prevent or limit flight such as brailing (placing a band on a wing to prevent extension of the wing), trimming of non-sensitive flight feathers and the use of bits, spectacles and hoods to prevent feather pecking, egg eating or aggression. Their use should be justified on a flock by flock basis and regularly reviewed in the flock health and welfare plan. Any device that is designed to pierce the nasal septum is illegal.'' DrChrissy (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot. I can't honestly say one way or the other whether the devices that the pheasants were wearing were in fact poly-peepers. From memory, they looked a bit like the image on the site linked above, but we all know what memory can be like. :) I don't live/work anywhere near the place now, if it's even still there, so I won't be able to get pictures (sorry) - the pheasant pen was probably too far back from the road to get a clear pic with my current camera anyway. I think that I only started paying attention to the birds in the first place (or even noticed that they weren't chickens) because they had bright blue objects clipped over their beaks... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither here nor there, but I just read a rather fascinating book, The Invisible Gorilla which talks quite a lot about the subject of what memory can be like and how little it can be trusted in ways that surprise most people (and not just the well known unreliability of eyewitness misidentification and the commonality of confabulation).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Definitely neither here nor there. :) But, a very cool video of the experiment, as you've probably youtubed. Now, again, what about getting a decent photo of a chicken wearing the glasses, or the glasses themselves. I would even settle for a picture of Janis Joplin in a fuzzy coat at this stage. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a thought: What if we write to a guy on eBay who sells them? These folks take photos of their stuff, right? It would be good for them to have their pic at WP. What do you think? I already wrote to the company listed in the refs and ext links. No reply. Anyone want to take a crack at this? Crack! Ha. I did it again. I know. Bad yoke. Oh, and again! Stop me! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the article I wrote on Feather pecking I provide a link to a commercial producer of the peepers (not spectacles) which has a photo of a pheasant wearing them. I don't think Wiki likes links to commercial websites, (and I have absolutely no commercial interest myself) but this seems to have got through. DrChrissy (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Nice work on Feather pecking. I've cross-linked both articles via See also section. I'm not too fussed about the commercial links. When I started this, I was scratching around for any refs I could get my hands on, and added a bunch. I'm astonished at the amount you've all come up with. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all
Thanks to all of you who have added to this freakish article. I'm very pleased. Did anyone DYK it? It's expanded faster than a husband after a honeymoon, and is probably still fair game. Get it? Game! Ha! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I had the DYK already drafted before I finished writing the main content (and then found you scooped me when I went to post!) It's at Template:Did you know nominations/chicken eyeglasses.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Nice, but I didn't submit it. I find the hook a bit cryptic, and am not sure about the pipe. But, I'm at a loss for better hook. Maybe something dead simple like what's in the lead. We're after hits, and how it is now could easily be passed up by confused visitors. Maybe we can hatch something else. Hatch! I'm out of control. It's a sickness! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol. No, no, when I went to submit the article, not the DYK. It's an extremely well know metaphor/expression, and to my mind a perfect "hook" because it applies it to an animal when it is normally only applied to humans. The point is to draw in readers: "what the hell could that mean, 'chickens wearing rose colored glasses', let me click on this and see."--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Video clip in ext links
What happened the this ext link: Paramount News newsreel: ''[http://www.nationalband.com/Chickenglasses.mov Barnyard Flash! HENS WEAR GLASSES TO SAVE LIVES!]'' in QuickTime File Format? Is it the same is this: http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=47123 ? I can't see the latter, so I don't know. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I watched the paramount newsreel about 10 mins ago! DrChrissy (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Expansion of this page to include 'blinkers for hens'?
I've just realised that we are in danger of confusing people here. This article is about "eyeglasses", i.e. devices which allow the bird to see, but change the colour perceived by the bird. Some of the references, and certainly the films (one of which I posted) actually show opaque blinkers, i.e. devices which do NOT transmit light, so having a fundamentally different purpose. Eyeglasses are, I believe, historical - I know of nobody using these (but of course waiting to be informed otherwise!). Blinkers are in wide use throughout the world. Perhaps we need a separate article on these blinkers. I'm not sure it would be wise to expand this current article by including these, and I doubt the original author/s of "eyeglasses" would want to change the name, so I suggest a seperate article is needed for the 'blinkers' devices. Any thoughts? DrChrissy (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

More accurate first paragraph
I've been looking at the first paragraph and this appears to be a little confused. The original 'eyeglasses' were to protect the eyes, whereas the spectacles with tinted lenses were to reduce feather pecking and cannibalism. I've suggested below a re-write of the first paragraph to reflect this. What do people think?
 * Chicken eyeglasses, also known as chickens specs, chicken goggles, generically as pick guards and under other names,[2] are small eyeglasses worn by chickens. The original purpose, as stated in the patent application of 1903 by Andrew Jackson, Jr. of Munich, Tennessee (An "Eye-protector for Chickens") appropriate reference was to prevent injuries to the eyes from pecking.  Similar devices were developed which rather than being transparent, have rose-colored lenses.  This coloring is thought to keep a chicken wearing them from recognizing blood on other chickens, and thereby reduces the motivation for severe feather pecking and cannibalism. A patent for such devices was filed in 1938.   They were mass-produced and sold throughout the United States as early as the beginning of the 20th century.[3][4]  Other similar spectacle-shaped devices to reduce feather pecking and cannibalism are blinders which are totally opaque.  A patent for these was filed in 1935 appropriate reference

DrChrissy (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge?
It seems logical to merge this article with Blinders (poultry). Any comments? __DrChrissy (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of merge tag
It was a blight, with due respect. It was improperly formatted with no talk page discussion link initiated with rationale. I'm not even sure we can propose a merge to a sandbox draft. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, okay. The sandbox has been moved to the mainspace. Ok. I will wait to see if others support it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Clearing things up

 * Blinders (poultry) is an article created from DrChrissy's sandbox.
 * The same merge tag at this article also appears at Blinders (poultry). It calls for these articles to be merged into his sandbox.
 * User:DrChrissy/sandbox contains Blinders (poultry) as well as articles on crabs and other things.
 * Blinders (poultry) "... block their forward vision ..." and "...are opaque, unlike similar devices with transparent lenses also sometimes called Chicken eyeglasses...". So, I don't think this article should merge into Blinders (poultry).
 * I suggest we forget about the merge, whether to a sandbox or to Blinders (poultry).

Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

See also: User talk:DrChrissy Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. This is the first merge I have attempted so please excuse me if I am not following protocol.  My rationale was to merge the two articles into one in my sandbox.  My idea was to let people look at the merged article, comment and edit, then post the article with a new name and appropriate re-directs from the two original articles.  At the moment though, the bigger question is perhaps whether the articles should be merged.  I was asked by an administrator to look at this and I felt they could be merged.  This is mainly because these devices serve exactly the same purpose, although they achieve this in different ways.  I also noticed that the two seperate articles occasionally confuse the fundamental difference of whether they have lenses or not: I felt this could be most easily clarified in a single, merged article.  My own opinion is that the two articles could remain seperate, but probably need several tweaks to avoid confusion.  A single merged aticle is certainly possible and may be bettter for the reader.  I am relatively easy either way.  One extra point.  If we go for a merger, please can we include the term 'blinkers'.  The term 'blinders' is rarely used in the UK, even for horses, and this would help UK readers.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello DrChrissy. No worries about the merge thing. We can sort that out.


 * I agree that a merge may be a good idea, and may indeed help visitors. But, the target article name is tricky. Blinders are used for different birds, while eyeglasses are used only for chickens. An umbrella term like Poultry eyewear gets 42 google hits, so we'd sort of be making up a term by doing that. What do you suggest? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought that spectacles had been tried on other poultry such as turkeys, but I doubt I could verify this as it was probably just one of those things that farmers tried and very little written down. Regarding the title, I believe it is bad practice to 'invent' words or terms for WP.  Shall we see what other people think about the merge first? __DrChrissy (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure, but a decision to merge depends on finding a good target name. Here's a suggestion: Get rid of the current merger proposal. Then, I will post a new section here with a summary of where we're at, to save visitors from reading all this. Then, I will post at the other article talk with a link to the new post here. Okay? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Per your talk page DrChrissy, I think the combined name of Chicken eyeglasses and blinders is both readable and accurate. Steven Walling &bull; talk   21:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * But blinders are used by several other birds. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * So how about Poultry blinders and eyeglasses ? The title Chicken eyeglasses and poultry blinders is certainly too long. Putting blinders first more clearly associates it with all poultry, but in general "chicken eyeglasses" is such an unusual term that we're not exactly messing with people's expectations about the definitions by using the full combined titles. Steven Walling &bull; talk   22:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Could I just reiterate that 'blinders' is rarely used in the UK, even for horses. I am struggling to remember ever seeing the term associated with poultry here in the UK (my previous edits may not indicate this, but I was new to editing then!).  We call them blinkers. Clearly we can not just drop 'blinders', but this term might confuse UK English readers.  How about Poultry blinders, blinkers and eyeglasses or Poultry blinders (blinkers) and eyeglasses.  It might also be worth remembering that, to the best of my knowledge at least, eye-glasses are no longer used, so if there is a merge, I suggest blinders is given priority by being placed first in the revised version__DrChrissy (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have edited the merge tags and Talk:Blinders (poultry) to direct the discussion here. I hope this is the correct procedure.  If not, please feel free to advise or edit the merge tag/s.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * We are doing this to connect the articles to help visitors, but each new title as a fatal flaw. I can't think of a title that satisfies short and accurate at the same time. Let's reconsider walking away from this one. They are already connected with See also and in the lead, which we can improve to really help readers be aware of the other article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the duplicate articles is very confusing though: I am roughly familiar with the terms and poultry husbandry, and it's confusing for me as well. I think maybe we should just redirect to Chicken eyeglasses with a sufficient mention of the fact that they may be called "poultry blinders", per DrChrissy's comment above. Having one article is clearly advantageous, and if we have to explain the subtleties, let's do so. Steven Walling &bull; talk   07:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I could get on board with that. Two things: Blinkers or Blinders? Glasses change vision, but don't blind the birds. "Blinders are opaque" it says. But, this may be the best solution. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with moving all the material into Chicken eyeglasses. First, these devices are no longer used - surely, if there is to be a merge, a currently used method i.e. blinders, should be used as the primary title.  Second, I don't think the phrase 'chicken eyeglasses' has sufficiently wide general understanding; in the UK, at least, the word 'spectacles' is used considerably more than 'eyeglasses'.  At the moment, I am in favour of keeping the articles seperate rather than having a poor (misleading) single title, but both articles tweaked to address Steven Walling's concerns about confusion.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Having two overlapping articles on the same topic is just not acceptable, especially since neither term is one very commonly understood. No one presented a compelling argument against poultry blinders and eyeglasses, so I'm going to merge the articles there. Steven Walling &bull; talk   22:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "I'm going to"??? That's pretty arbitrary right in the middle of a discussion. How about addressing my "I could get on board with that."? I'm actually pretty fine with the whole thing, but find it inappropriate to state that because of the lack of compelling argument so far, you are going to act unilaterally. How about getting consensus, which by the way is only one step away anyhow? Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm citing WP:BOLD. We've been muttering around in good faith more about ten days now, and while there are no perfect answers, we should do something better than the current mess. Steven Walling &bull; talk   06:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It's probably the best name after all. I really can't think of any tweak to it. Go right ahead. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As a compromise, it's acceptable to me too. You may wish to copy and paste my version of a merged article which is in my sandbox.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merger
In a nutshell, it seems that Blinders (poultry) and Chicken eyeglasses both contain the same information, and should be merged together. Support or oppose? Steel1943 (talk) 05:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * support Looks like accidental duplication of a topic. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that the topics are very similar but the two devices are different. Blinders are opaque and do not allow the hen to see forward.  Eyeglasses are transparent and allow the hen to see forward, but change the appearance of what they see.  I do not oppose a merger, but what title would be used that does not perpetuate this confusion?  I feel it is less confusing to have two seperate articles but perhaps clarifying the differences__DrChrissy (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The commonality is that they both have the same function: to control the behaviour of chickens by limiting their vision. The difference between opaque, space-restricted or coloured is much less in comparison. I thus can't see two articles that aren't either substantially duplicated, or are heavily cross-linking each other.
 * Naming is a good question, but I think chicken eyeglasses covers it adequately, even when some of them are opaque. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We are going over old ground a little here (please read the previous discussion about a suggested merger and title). Eyeglasses are no longer produced whereas blinders are in common use in game birds.  Here in the UK, the blinders are known as blinkers.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Present Tense?
The latest date mentioning them being in use is 1973. Can I edit the first paragraph to be in past tense?

Phrases like "A common variety uses rose-colored lenses ..." imply that they are in common production and use today. From the surviving evidence it seems they were patented 110 years and being produced 60 years ago, but it's not clear that they were ever common. They are a very uncommon novelty antique now.Tangledweb (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:BRD discussion: Manner of inclusion of UK illegality material
@DrChrissy:  Hey DrChrissy and any others who see this discussion. Background: I made this edit, with the shorthand edit summary "Legality section was out of focus. Turn into footnote", which was reverted here, seeking an explanation. This is not an article about animal welfare or one intimately related to that subject. On the other end, the law cited is not one that talks about this device. It is simply one law of one unrelated country that (one version of the device; see infra) would be illegal under that you happened to note and include. If this is included, why not place under that section a survey of whether the device would be illegal in every other unrelated country in the world? The answer is that it would not be improper to do so, if the focus of having this was not peripheral to the topic. We try not to include in high focus in an article, the views of tiny minorities on that topic. So how much weight should we give something in an article when it isn't mentioned by any source in relation to the topic? (To that extent, its inclusion at all borders on original research). Still, if this was purely connective trivia I would have removed it entirely. I do think it deserves a mention but, for the foregoing reasons, not in the body directly. I also limited its scope in two necessary ways. Specifically, besides making it a footnote, I turned it into an example, so that it would not be indiscriminate to include one country randomly. To wit, I changed the scope from the rather random statement about one country's laws (that could have been any other country's), into one to cover all, by introducing it as: "The use of such devises where the beak is pierced may be illegal some jurisdictions on welfare grounds. For example, the UK's..." Furthermore, the statement is incorrect in its ambit, which was also fixed. The current version states categorically that in the UK "the use of these devices is illegal ...", but chicken specs, as noted in the article, includes a type affixed with just "a strap", rather than the type that pierce the beak with a cotter pin, which I why it was necessary to define the illegality as specific to "where the beak is pierced".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We must remember that all WP articles are "Works in Progress". It is not irrelevant that some forms of these devices are illegal on welfare grounds.  This is/was included in the hope that other editors with their own local knowledge would contribute and also state whether they are legal or illegal in their own countries/states, etc.  This is the approach that is adopted in many animal-related articles where animal welfare is a concern.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Bundled citations
Bundled citations in Chicken eyeglasses

Hey DrChrissy. Responding to your recent edit, bundling citations is done for readability, generally because it's considered ugly by many to see rather than just and we generally try to maximize readability where we can. There are a number of choices to display bundled citations, including with and without bullets, as seen on the linked page in the section header. I prefer bullets when I do so as unlike the other citations, the bundled ones lack the blue caret (^) which shows a clear separation between it and the next one, which the bullet substitutes for, but it's no big deal (actually, it's not bid deal overall, though it would be unlikely to survive intact through a FAC without them bundled). So I do think you should re-bundle, choosing whatever format you prefer. By the way, your revert of the bundling placed spaces between the display of the footnotes, i.e., instead of. If nothing else, that should be fixed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

NOTE - The above message was moved from my UserPage to here to allow other editors of this article to comment__DrChrissy (talk) 10:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up on bundled citations. To be honest, I have been editing on Wikipedia for several years now and I have not encountered this approach to citations before. Maybe this is not used on the animal-related pages I mostly view/edit. My first reaction is that I am not very keen on it because it makes the references less readable - exactly what bundling is supposed to be avoiding. This is really a minor issue, and one of personal opinion, so how about we let other editors comment? In the meantime, I will edit to remove the gaps between [ref #].__DrChrissy (talk) 10:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

So do they work?
Is there any scientific evidence whether the rose tinted ones actually prevent attacks? Plokmijnuhby (talk) 08:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)