Talk:Lyrebird

No mention of the musical instrument
The lyrebird's tail looks like a lyre. Not that you would know it from reading this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.7.58 (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Untitled
The Lyrebird painting, by John Gould, of the British Museum specimens is now being used on a non-English version of Wikipedia to show what the lyrebird looks like. It is unfortunate and misleading that the painting by John Gould has been used to represent the lyrebird in the encyclopedia, instead of a photo of a live lyrebird. John Gould's painting does have its place, as an historic painting, but it should have been noted that the painting was based on a taxidermy specimen which had been prepared for the British Museum by a taxidermist who had never seen a live lyrebird and only had a dead male lyrebird, with his tail hanging down (i.e. not in courtship display mode), to work on, and that the representation of the tail was unfortunately inaccurate because of the circumstances of neither the taxidermist, nor John Gould (at that time) having ever seen a live lyrebird.

Could somebody please donate a photo of a lyrebird, with tail in courtship display mode, if this is at all possible without using a commercial (copyright) photo. Thanks. Figaro 13:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

'Flute' territorial calls
As I have been aware of the lyrebird flute territorial calls for a number of years now, and have also heard recordings of the 'flute' calls over the same period, along with numerous other bird, animal and mechanical sounds which make up lyrebirds' territorial repertoires, I am confident that the flute story is completely genuine. Lyrebirds are amazing mimics. Figaro 00:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Firstly, remember that Wikipedia has to be based on what published sources say; your personal opinion of what it sounds like is both point of view and original research. (The difficulty with this kind of assessment is the risk of the Observer-expectancy_effect of cognitive bias: when you've been told in advance it sounds like a flute, it'll sound like a flute (compare backward masking).


 * That leaves us with what external accounts say. David Rothenberg says not everyone thinks that this is true, but quite a few scientists do believe this. Whether his statement is based on systematic research is unclear: he's a musician and philosopher, not a scientist, and the intro to his Why Birds Sing says he "combines the insights of science, poetry and music". His assertion Some people say, "Ridiculous! That's not true." But there's a website that has endless lyrebird songs where you can listen to this is classic priming for observer expectancy effect.


 * Sydney Curtis says In recent years this story has been disputed on the grounds that a very similar territorial song is found 100 km futher south. But as there has been a period of 70 years for the song to have been culturally transmitted over that distance, it seems to me to be a possibility that that is what happened. I think you will agree that there is something flute-like about the sound quality which is not present in the other two territorial songs, and it does sound as though part of it could have been derived from a musical scale. The Keel Row, if it ever existed, has disappeared, but if you can track down a recording of the Mosquito Dance, you'll find there is a resemblance in the last part of the song. I favour the story being true, but admit there is no first-hand account of it by any descendant of the farmer, whose name has not been discovered.


 * So it boils down to some experts believing it, but there being no documentary proof.


 * Personally, I think the story has many characteristics that reek of urban legend, such as the variability in different versions - sometimes the farmer is the flute player, sometimes a daughter, sometimes a son. Tearlach 15:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * So I made a mistake with the sex of the flute player. Just because there are various versions, it does not mean that the 'flute' call is an urban myth &mdash; please remember that it was supposed to have occurred over 80 years ago.  How many accurate details can you supply of something, which occurred in your own country, from the same length of time ago &mdash; after all, you are setting yourself up as an expert about what a lyrebird can do, and what it can't do, without any background or authority to do so.  The 'flute' call does exist &mdash; there are recordings of it.


 * I wrote my comment about the 'flute' call from memory, having heard about this decades ago - long before the internet was established. I did not even know that the story was on the internet until you gave a link which led to it - you obviously decided to check for information for a 'source' when you became aware of it, after I wrote about it, and then registered your opinion here from information now available on the internet.  I have had recordings of lyrebirds' calls for decades, including the 'flute' call.  Yours is newborn 'knowledge', and you are not even an Australian - whereas I happen to be an Australian.


 * Published information on the internet should not be the only source of information available for Wikipedia. People's knowledge of individual topics should also be respected as a source of information for Wikipedia.  I did not submit the information about the folk tale of the lyrebird mimicking a fire siren, which you are also disputing the authenticity of, but I have heard comments about this, and evidently the person who did submit this information to Wikipedia, was also aware of the folk tale in question.  The criterion should be the reliability of the information supplied, rather than whether or not the information appears on the internet in published material. Not everything has been published on the internet.  Figaro 06:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You're mistaken on a number of counts. Some of us have access to newspaper archives, so certainly I don't rely purely on information on the Internet. However, as I've said to you before, the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability via a cited reputable published source. What you or I remember hearing or reading somewhere way back falls well short of that. See Verifiability and its subsection Verifiability. Tearlach 13:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * After checking, I have discovered that there is a reliable source for the information about the flute music calls. Please see the the reference on the main article for this. Figaro 16:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Good. Which article has the specific detail about Henderson's detective work? You have to admit that there's reason for suspicion, as the whole genre of lyrebird mimicry stories is full of tall tales, like the one about the lyrebird imitating an overloaded chainsaw engine and exploding. Tearlach 23:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Unsourced text
''Australian folklore is rich with tales of lyrebird mimicry. One is the story of a male lyrebird that used to regularly halt 19th century logging operations by mimicking the fire siren. Even if these particular stories may not be true, a hundred others are''.

Source? Tearlach 17:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * A possible source, with regard to the fire alarm calls, is the following fact sheet from the Australian Museum - where a loud alarm shriek is mentioned as being among the Superb Lyrebird calls.


 * Lyrebird photos and information, and also John Gould's Lyrebird painting - official website of Australian Museum online Figaro 09:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * A generic reference to an alarm shriek isn't verification for the very specific story above. What folklore? Aboriginal, bush tales, modern ... ? What's the evidence for "a hundred others" being true? See above comment about verifiability via specific reliable published source. Tearlach 13:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You are being finicky about what is acceptable, and what is not acceptable. Folklore is passed on by 'word of mouth', not written down.  The item deserves its place in the main article, provided it is acknowledged as folklore, which it was right from the start.  You had no right to remove the information.


 * I have returned the information to the main article under the heading 'Fact or fiction'. This should make it okay.


 * The Wikipedia instruction about 'citing sources' is so that people who are interested can check the information. It is NOT a 'hard and fast rule' - nor is it compulsory for editors to do so.  If this was the case, then this would not be an encyclopedia where people are able to pool their knowledge, or memories.  Also, this is supposed to be a free encyclopedia, where anyone can put up articles and edit - sourced or unsourced. Figaro 00:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

You're mistaken. Have you bothered to read the guidelines I mentioned? Read again Verifiability: One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher.

Sure, citing sources isn't compulsory at first draft (nor for stuff that is generally agreed to be true) but all editors are expected to actively look for sources. Various other guidelines apply:

Reliable sources If you can provide useful information to Wikipedia, please do so, but bear in mind that edits for which no credible references are provided may be deleted by any editor. Their emphasis, not mine.

And there's its subsection about unattributed material: ''Wikipedians often report as facts things they remember hearing about or reading somewhere, but they don't remember where, and they don't have any other corroborating information. It's important to seek credible sources to verify these types of reports, and if they cannot be verified, any editor may delete them. It's always appropriate to ask other editors, "How do you know that?", or "Can you cite your source?"

Now, in the light all that, what is anyone to make of the story about the lyrebird and fire siren? Maybe it's true. And whether true or not, it may well be floating around as folklore. But if you can't demonstrate the story's existence in some published source (e.g. a newspaper article) anyone can remove it on the grounds above. Tearlach 01:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Bookcover
Sorry, the licence says explicitly: to illustrate an article discussing the book in question, this article discusses the bird, not about the book and as such it is not allowed. If it is left on, it is a copyright violation, and can be and should be removed. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Google video
I don't know why but when I try to add the google video link ( http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3433507052114896375 ) my submission drops half the page. Sorry, if I messed anything up. --12.216.218.194 03:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"A lyrebird's tale"
I changed the title of this subsection to "An Anecdotal Example". The previous title is cute, but probably not appropriate for an encyclopedia article.
 * Andy 14:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lyrebird-on-reverse-of-Australian-10-cent-coin.jpg
Image:Lyrebird-on-reverse-of-Australian-10-cent-coin.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 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Broken Link
Removed one of the sources-- it was a broken link.--76.19.93.26 (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The anecdote
As it stands the anecdote is not appropriate for Wikipedia. First, it looks like plagiarism because of it's embellished language without in-text citation.

There is one citation for an Ambrose Pratt book. Whoever made that citation needs to specify, in the text, that Pratt writes this story. The entire anecdote needs to be rewritten anyway. Quoting a section from Pratt's work would also be okay.

If this isn't done in a week or so I will either delete the section or rewrite it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjweinberg (talk • contribs) 06:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed the anecdote - it was specific to just one species and didn't really add much to the page. Placed down here. If people want to add it back please prune a bit and format correctly. Sabine's Sunbird   talk  00:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

An anecdotal example
The following Lyrebird anecdote was cited by author Ambrose Pratt in his book The Lore of the Lyrebird. Ambrose Pratt was President of the Royal Zoological Society in 1921-1936. Later, he was Vice-Chairman of the Zoological Board of Victoria.

During the early 1930s, a male lyrebird, called "James", formed a close bond with a human being, Mrs. Wilkinson, after she had been offering food to him over a period of time. James would perform his courtship dance for her on one of his mounds which he had constructed in her backyard &mdash; and he would also put on his display for a wider audience, but only when Mrs. Wilkinson was one of those present. On one such occasion, James's performance lasted for forty-three minutes, and included steps to a courtship dance accompanied by his own tune &mdash; and also included imitating perfectly the calls of an Australian Magpie, and a young magpie being fed by a parent-bird, an Eastern Whipbird, a Bellbird, a complete laughing-song of a Kookaburra, two Kookaburras laughing in unison, a Yellow-tailed Black-cockatoo, a Gang-gang Cockatoo, an Eastern Rosella, a Pied Butcherbird, a Wattle-bird, a Grey Shrike-thrush, a Thornbill, a White-browed Scrubwren, a Striated Pardalote, a Starling, a Yellow Robin, a Golden Whistler, a flock of parrots whistling in flight, the Crimson Rosella, several other birds whose notes his audience were not able to identify, and the song of honey-eaters (tiny birds with tiny voices), that gather in numbers and "cheep" and twitter in a multitudinous sweet whispering. In order to mimic the honeyeaters' singing faithfully, James was obliged to subdue his powerful voice to the faintest pianissimo, but he contrived, nevertheless, to make each individual note of the soft chorus audibly distinct. Also included in James's performance was his perfect mimicry of the sounds made by a rock-crusher at work, a hydraulic ram, and the tooting of motor-horns.

Collective noun
I removed the following statement from the lead of the article "A group of Lyrebirds is called a musket." Firstly, the lead is meant to be a summary of the information in the article, stand alone claims should not be made here. Secondly, the claim is unsourced. Thirdly, Lyrebirds are not a flocking bird, being solitary, so a collective noun is moot. - Nick Thorne  talk  12:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  20:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yet again I have removed this item inserted by an anonymous editor. This time the text included some ostensible sources:

"Up Close with Australia's Fauna and Babies, Name of Male and Female, and Groups Of Animals"

These sources fall far short of the required standard for reliable sources. I note that no attempt has been made by the item's proponent to address the other issues I raised above. - Nick Thorne  talk  07:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again, I agree with that removal. The first source (australiaforeveryone.com.au) is a "vacation guide to Australia" and has clearly just collected interesting-sounding items, and is no authority on the topic. The second source (thefreeresource.com) completely fails WP:RS. It's easy for people to make up terms like this and put it on a few websites, but good sources are required before adding to an article here. Johnuniq (talk) 07:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Lyrebirds in Tasmania
The article mentions introduction to Tasmania in the 19th century, but most other sources say introduction began in the 1930's eg http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/01/03/1041566222793.html http://www.warra.com/warra/research_projects/research_project_WRA056.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.163.153 (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Newspeak
The recent edits are sensational:
 * William Avery – 17 July 2014: Downcasing per MOS:LIFE
 * Figaro – 18 July 2014: changed 'superb' to 'Superb'. Superb is a naming proper noun - not a description of the bird - and the name 'Superb' should begin with a capital 'S' in the same way that Albert's, the name of the other lyrebird, begins with a capital 'A'
 * Nick Thorne – 18 July 2014: Undid revision 617426549 by Figaro nonsense, superb is an adjective

For anyone who missed it, a bitter battle was fought, and the result is that text which used to read:
 * The Superb Lyrebird was first illustrated and described...

now should read:
 * The superb lyrebird was first illustrated and described...

To me, "superb lyrebird" is silly, and it would be natural to regard "superb" as merely the author's adjectival description of a lyrebird. However, it's the name. Johnuniq (talk) 11:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean: I used to think the same, but my mind was changed. I've found that the brain adjusts to the change quite quickly, and it soon ceases to look silly. William Avery (talk) 11:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * As someone who is familiar with terminology used in biology, common names are normally only capitalised where they would be in normal English usage. For example where part of the name is a proper noun (ie Murray cod), or at the beginning of a sentence.  This applies for all organisms.  That a subsection of the bird enthusiast community likes to use initial capitals has always bemused me.  In any case this issue has now been settled on Wiki by the community consensus and it has been decided to follow the same stanbdard for birds as that which applies for all other biology related articles - a completely sensible approach in my humble opinion.  Furhtermore the decision was that the move to replace the initial capital aberration should be done as soon as possible.  This was just one example.  I don't have a lot of birds on my watchlist, I'll leave the majority to others, but I do have some and I am keeping an eye on them.  Until and unless the community consensus changes all editors should abide by the decision. -  Nick Thorne  talk  14:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Is "nonsense, superb is an adjective" accurate? Johnuniq (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes - Nick Thorne  talk  23:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you wouldn't mind elaborating. In general, of course "superb" is an adjective, but in this context wouldn't it be more accurate to describe it as a name? I'm not saying that's a reason to spell it "Superb", but I think an acknowledgment of the situation should occur. If I saw a brown dog, the "brown" is definitely an adjective. Seeing a superb lyrebird is rather different. Johnuniq (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, taking your points one by one. In general, of course "superb" is an adjective, but in this context wouldn't it be more accurate to describe it as a name? In this context or any other the word superb is an adjective.  An adjective does not change its part of speech - that is, become a "name" as you put it - because it is used with a noun.  BTW, calling superb a name is another way of saying it is a noun.  We can see that this is nonsense by examining the putative sentence "Look, there is a superb!"  Unless we have already established a context this sentence is meaningless, it raises the question "a superb what?"  Adjectives are always used with nouns and they still remain adjectives.  The two word phrase "superb lyrebird" is what is known in the English grammar racket as a compound noun.  The individual parts do not change, the noun remains a noun and the adjective remains an adjective, it is just that for most purposes the compound can be used in a sentence as if it were just an ordinary noun.  There is no magic here, the whole point of adjectives is to modify the meaning of nouns.  They remain adjectives when used.  In this case we use superb lyrebird when necessary to differentiate it from Albert's lyrebird.  In the case of the latter "Albert's" is capitalised because Albert was a person and so his name is a proper noun. I'm not saying that's a reason to spell it "Superb",  You Figaro did indeed use that reasoning to suggest spelling superb with a capital S.  That was the first edit that I reverted that started this conversation. but I think an acknowledgment of the situation should occur.  There is no situation to be acknowledged. If I saw a brown dog, the "brown" is definitely an adjective. Seeing a superb lyrebird is rather different.  No it isn't, it is exactly the same.  "I saw a dog" "What kind of dog?" "A brown dog" is directly comparable with "I saw a lyrebird" "what kind of lyrebird?" "a superb lyrebird". Seeing a superb lyrebird is rather different.  This is called special pleading.  You have established no basis upon which it necessary, appropriate or desirable to treat the superb lyrebird differently to any other taxon.  Nick Thorne  talk  05:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Does this mean that you would therefore classify the name "Albert's" as an adjective too? Figaro (talk) 07:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Albert's in this case is an attributive noun.  Attributive nouns function in much the same way as adjectives but are not in fact adjectives. -  Nick Thorne  talk  07:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have a great concern about how the name is spelled, but I am troubled by inaccurate summations such as the above claim that "a brown dog" identifies a kind of dog in the same way that "a superb lyrebird" identifies a kind of bird. Johnuniq (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You make this claim, but you fail to provide any evidence or actual argument beyond mere assertion that this is the case. It does not matter how much one may wriggle about, one cannot get away from the fact that superb is an adjective, forming part of a compound noun in no way changes that fact. -  Nick Thorne  talk  07:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Albert's is certainly not attributive here, it's adjectival: this is how we're able to say "an Albert's lyrebird". Superb is an adjective too, but unlike Albert's it doesn't derive from a proper noun and so it should receive no capitalization according to MOS:LIFE. The descriptors were added only when the second species was discovered – superb denotes the superior mimickry and size of the first. One might think that's odd or even POV, but it's firmly established vernacular terminology. SteveStrummer (talk) 09:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lyrebird. 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/20060507061311/http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/nature_conservation/wildlife/threatened_plants_and_animals/endangered/the_alberts_lyrebird_project/ to http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/nature_conservation/wildlife/threatened_plants_and_animals/endangered/the_alberts_lyrebird_project

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)