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)

Quote the mockingbird: "really really gonna f*** your sh** up" 75.82.212.181 (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2018 (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)

• Not him, but there is no such thing as a "personal attacks", there are only those who take it personally. Either way, the actions you take may not be the best in response to the situation at hand. Two negatives don't actually make a positive. 75.82.212.181 (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2018 (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)

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)

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

They don't like them, because in my opinion, this country is filled with wicked, wicked people. The bird is actually smarter than them. Yes, nature can become highly comedic. 75.82.212.181 (talk) 02:57, 20 May 2018 (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)

Made significant edits to the article

I've recently made significant changes to the article, and I am not through with it yet. It still needs a lot of work (Added systematics/taxomony segment, rearrange and delete unnecessary photos, more citations, and rewriting total sections, etc.), but I needed to place the changes that I've done for today, since there is a chance I might not get back to it for today. If you'd like to help find citations or rewrite the article where needed, contact me on my page. LeftAire (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

More information added to the habitat and behavior sections

Hello! I am writing for a project of my behavioral ecology class. I added some recent research findings on the adaptation of northern mockingbirds to the urban habitats. I moved the original behavior-related topics under a "behavior and ecology" section and added a couple of new subsections. I also moved the "Youth" section from behavior to description and deleted the "social behavior" heading while moving its content to the opening part of behavior section. I would like to hear from you any suggestion or feedback you may have. Thank you so much! Let's make the entry better together!--Tianyi Cai (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Before I read your comment above, I copy edited this and moved some of the sections again! Thanks for your useful and extensive additions. I've changed the capitalisation of headings and bird species to the MoS and project standards (Full caps for bird species, but not for headings, removed a bit of pov and unsourced and removed the gallery (should be on Commons Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

This article is well written and I think that it flows well. I edited a couple sentences that I thought weren't clear. In addition, I also added some punctuation to increase the clarity of some sentences. I have one minor suggestion; the reference section could be formatted into two columns so that it doesn't take up so much space. I tried to do it but it messed with the formatting of the External Links. This of course isn't crucial to change just cause it doesn't have any real impact on the article. I know that the project is pretty much over, but it'd be interesting to read more about the nest defense mechanisms. This is just something to think about if you wanted to add more information. Great article Jeremy.winkler (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Tianyi Cai, you did a great job with the article! I made some wording/ grammar edits and rearranged some bulkier sentences. I also took out your use of "cuckold" under Parental Care, because I think you meant "parasitize." Also, could you just briefly mention, under Sex Allocation, why male offspring usually require greater parental investment? Is it because male chicks are slightly bigger than female chicks? Good job! Ihyuan (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tianyi Cai, nice work on the Northern Mockingbird behavior sections! At this point, many reviews have touched on the writing and flow of this piece, and the article is really informative. I added some minor grammar corrections and also added in a couple links to the article. To echo the above comments, it would be nice to explicate the defense mechanisms that these Mockingbirds employ, as would more referenced information on investment differences in male and female hatchlings. In addition, in the sections about calling and intelligence, I was left wanting more examples of their mimicry and learning of sounds. For example, it may be very interesting to post sound clips of these birds mimicing some sounds, or play them next to the actual sound. In addition, it would be nice to see literature (if it exists) and which sounds these birds will pick up across their lifetimes, and if those learned chirps are adaptive in any way. Hope to see this article keep on progressing! Good work so far. Nsavalia23 (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

This article has actually been contributed to by a fellow classmate of mine. When I viewed the article it seemed to be really complete, and it is just overall very interesting. It even has a sound clip of the bird’s call along with many images that enhance the article. I looked at all of the talk page comments and suggestions, and the article appears to adequately address them all. Moreover, the article is just altogether very interesting. It mentions a study about the species’ intelligence, it shows the relation of the species to U.S. popular culture, and I already noted the great images and auditory aids. Also, the article is well-written, remaining on topic throughout its entirety while staying concise. Finally, there is only one citation needed mark and no other cleanup tags on the page. I nominate this article for Good Article status because I believe that it deserves such a status and will pass all of the criteria. WhitleyTucker (talk) 12:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Northern Mockingbird/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 14:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I love reviewing bird articles, let me review this. I go section-wise, my comments:

Lead ✓ Pass

• I think you must create a section "Taxonomy" after lead. Here, as you may be knowing, you describe the bird's genus and species details. There also, say who described it and when and put the citations you have put in lead in this section.Once you cite a thing later in the article, you need not cite it in lead.

I added a "Taxonomy" section but more details are still needed.--Tianyi Cai (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Good, but you forgot to say who described it (Linnaeus here) and when (1758 here) (of course add a good reference for these details). Try to find more about these basic details. This is a must for a GA as far as I know. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 16:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I added some more details in "Taxonomy". --Tianyi Cai (talk) 04:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think this will do. I have some additional comments later in this page. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 06:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Add some description details in the lead.

Fixed. --Tianyi Cai (talk) 04:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• You say only about its habitat. For an ideal lead, I prefer the first paragraph for describing its name, taxonomy and description; second one to describe its diet, sociability and natural habitat (not range); and the third and last paragraph to describe its range, conservation measures (if any) and miscellaneous details. I wish you did the same.

I did some editing here. Does it look good? --Tianyi Cai (talk) 04:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

A great deal better. Add a line more about what the IUCN status (Least Concern, here) of the bird in the last paragraph. You know, the lead should be a mini article. You can add more relevant points about their interaction with humans, which you say about in some ways in "Intelligence". Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 06:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I added about the intelligence, interaction with humans, urban living, and culture. WhitleyTucker (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Taxonomy ✓ Pass

Hi, just a few comments:

• I have rewritten a few things. Looks well now. See the changes.
• Who are Hunt and Barber? In Wikipedia, you should write the name and identity (whether he is a ornithologist, zoologist and if possible his nationality - just as I have mentioned Linnaeus as a Swedish zoologist) of the person whose claim or research you are stating here. But never their qualifications. Check if there are other instances.

I do not know who these people are either, so I just reworded the sentence and did not include their names. Also, I was earlier told by another commenter on another article that it is best to not use names at all. Thus, all nondescribed names, I plan to delete and reword the sentences, such as the correction to the two following comments. WhitleyTucker (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

That is what I prefer to do in my articles. Good! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 15:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Northern Mockingbird is considered ... by some scholars "Some scholars" sounds a bit vague. Could you at least mention their nationality?

RewordedWhitleyTucker (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Who is Vigors? Link it to the correct binomial authority.

I cannot find any specific name or nationality. My search only shows other articles that have cited this reference. The original contributor will have to address this, otherwise I would just have to remove this part. WhitleyTucker (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

If there is no existing page, then no need of more research. It is not so important. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 15:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Link described, conspecific. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 06:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Too negligible, well, I am doing this. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 15:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Description ✓ Pass

• Though minor, I think your use of singular or plural must be uniform throughout the section.

I have adopted the singular form all throughout this section. --Tianyi Cai (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Good, it's well-written. You could add lifespan details here.

Added now. --Tianyi Cai (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Great, this bird has subspecies! This would add to the "Taxonomy" section I proposed. You should shift this into that.

Subspecies info is now under "Taxonomy".--Tianyi Cai (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Who is the authority of the first ssp. name?

What is a ssp. name?--Tianyi Cai (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Ssp. is short for subspecies. Here I refer to M. m. polyglottos. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 16:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but where can I find the author of the ssp. name? --Tianyi Cai (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Must be in the source, surely. But this is needed. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 15:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. LeftAire (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Habitat and distribution ✓ Pass

• I think the positioning of this section here breaks the flow. Better place after "Behavior" section.

Thank you for your advice, but I see almost every bird article follows the order from "Taxonomy" to "Description" to "Habitat" and then "Behavior". I think the text is generally structured in a way where non-behavioral information precedes the behavioral one. In this sense, "Habit" does not break the flow since it belongs to basic background facts of the mockingbird.--Tianyi Cai (talk) 01:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

okay, as you think right. Of course I haven't seen many bird articles. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 16:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Diet ✓ Pass

• According to WP:IMAGELOCATION, images should be placed rather on the right than left (mainly below headings). It applies here, but not everywhere, just the first one or two imgs, I think.

It says on WP:IMAGELOCATION that images can be staggered left and right as long as the text is not sandwiched between two images, so I staggered the images.--Tianyi Cai (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks fine. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 16:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• I am afraid there is a bit of overlinking here.

I undid the links to berry, seed and ornithologist, which I think can be readily understood without referring to the particular sites. I left the rest of the links as they were since they are mostly biological terms that require further explanation.--Tianyi Cai (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• The last para. is unsourced. Many parts of the article are like that. This is a big problem to satisfy Verifiability criterion. You can see the problem we are having in another article I am reviewing.

I can see what you are saying, but I don't know where this information comes from because it was not written by me. I'll try to find its source. --Tianyi Cai (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The last paragraph appears to be sourced now by some helpful Wikipedian! Tianyi Cai (talk) 05:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Great, it ends all issues of this part. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 06:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Breeding

• First part unsourced.

I redid this part and sourced my addition. WhitleyTucker (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps you forget to mention, but when do males and females reach sexual maturity?

Added. WhitleyTucker (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• In addition to harassing domestic cats and dogs they consider a threat, it is not unheard of for mockingbirds to target humans. needs reference.

The original writer seems to have referenced the human attacks to a newpaper article. I have found another source that addresses the dog and cat attacks.WhitleyTucker (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't comment much about the rest subsections. Just that parts are unsourced, and:

• It would be nice if you could add some details about what are the proceedings of the copulation. You only say about the arrangements and selections of mates.

I added as much as I could find. I have not found any legit information about the step-by-step copulation proceedings, but I added a note about how the perform a mating dance face-to-face.WhitleyTucker (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Better have a line describing "altricial".

Fixed. --Tianyi Cai (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Intelligence, In culture ✓ Pass

• Northern Mockingbirds are a species that are... --> Northern Mockingbird is a species that is...

Fixed.--Tianyi Cai (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• However, the mockingbirds do not demonstrate aggression towards every one of the hundreds of passers-byers on a daily basis. Should be everyone and passers-by.

Fixed.--Tianyi Cai (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• The image you have used in "In culture" is the same as that of "Description". You can't reuse it. Aren't there others?

I replaced the image with a painting of the northern mockingbird. --Tianyi Cai (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• You must not write pointwise. Make paragraphs.

Fixed.--Tianyi Cai (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• President Thomas Jefferson... President of where? Former or still working in office? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed.Tianyi Cai (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Very well, all issues fixed here! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Others

• I checked for duplinks. Very good, you have none here.
• Ok, I am rewriting the references. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

My preliminary comments. I wait till you reply. I have a good impression of this, cheers! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sainsf,

Thank you for your review! I will get to the edits as soon as possible. WhitleyTucker (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sainsf! Thank you so much for your comments! I have already attended to some of them. Let me know what you think about my edits. WhitleyTucker and I are both students in a behavioral ecology class in college. We are new to editing Wikipedia articles but we will do our best pushing this entry to GA standards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tianyi Cai (talk • contribs) 02:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Great help you are giving to Wikipedia! You can ask me if you need help editing here. About this article, this is a great deal nicer than other GANs I have reviewed, this has less issues, so that is a plus point. I have stroke out resolved issues and replied to some, go on with the rest. You are working good to bring this is to GA! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 16:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added the citation to the Florida Scrub-Jay reference to the page, and a few more. I originally began to edit the article back in August, but stopped because of school. I was previously working on the Portuguese Empire (taking a break from Bird-related), but I'll assist with citations where needed. Some of the work maybe remnants of information of what was there before I started working, but I think most of its gone now, excluding a few a might have to go back for. If there's some from inappropriate site such as bird watching sites, or some not from reputable books, peer reviews, etc, I'll try to root it out. LeftAire (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Good. I think some references are not correctly written, so presently I am fixing them.

Important note: But I have left the PDF references for you to fix up, as it is a journal PDF, and I have late access to PDFs on web. I say, you (who has cited) must know how to cite properly; you have made many mistakes which can be bad for GAN. I have removed an improper ref or two. See my overall edits here.Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I fixed most of the PDF references except for [16]. The online PDF appears to be a portion of a bigger work but I do not know where to find its author(s) and the journal name etc. Tianyi Cai (talk) 05:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed #16! My apologies regarding those citations. This isn't my first time assisting in a GAN, so I should've known better....If you need anything else, I won't be able to help until after exams tomorrow....LeftAire (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Almost all is finished, but "Behavior" still has unsourced parts and "Description" an unresolved issue. Let's get to those soon. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 15:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added more citations for the sections that I mainly worked on, everything past the 'feeding' section is material I didn't add onto the page, excluding a few citations. I'll look for some citations where I can find them to help those sections, but I'm limited due to the lack of full access to sites such as JSTOR. I'll try to find some on Google Scholar.LeftAire (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• OK, so now just one issue remains - unsourced parts in "Sexual selection", "Mating", "Parental care" and "Adaptation to urban habitats" sections. And the part The traditional American lullaby "Hush Little Baby"...American folk song, "Listen to the Mocking Bird" in the section "In culture". What is its reference? Please fix this soon. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot to LeftAire for fixing this issue. Now the article is gonna be a GA. Congrats! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 06:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

In culture references....

There was a reference the section that started as: "In Mexico the bird is known as cenzontle, which stems from the nahuatl word centzontlahtolli formed by centzontli ( four hundred) and tlahtolli (word, voice); the four-hundred-voices-bird, or bird of endless voices. Nezahualcóyotl,poet king of Texcoco, praised the beauty of the mockingbird's songs in one of his poems...." that was not referenced. There was a more famous song "Hush little baby...." that was once listed that was deleted because there was no reference. In fact it was one of the last factoids (trivial at that) that was deleted in order for this article to obtain GA status. As a GA, it needs to have a reference in order to stay on the page. If you can add a citation after what you listed, make sure you can add it. If not, don't bother. LeftAire (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Responding to request for peer review

Hi there!

I'm responding to the request for a peer review on this article. Let me first say that I enjoyed every minute I spent reading this. The style is wonderfully accessible in a way that eludes most Wikipedia science articles. As a non-scientist, I appreciate that it taught me the terms I needed to know to understand all the content. And, despite multiple contributors, it has a unity of style and voice that really surprised me. I found no unclear or cumbersome sentences. I have only a few suggestions and they are tentatively offered:

I don't know how scientific it is to describe a bird as "absolutely fearless" though I know what you mean and to word it any differently could be really awkward as in: "To a human perception, the bird displays no fear."

I think the information about sex selection of offspring needs a little more detail, however gruesome it might be, because some species, like turtles can actually achieve this prior to birth, others neglect to feed, and others harass their excess offspring. It caused me to wonder, so my suggestion is to provide more explanation there.

I think mockingbirds have been known to harass not just species that threaten them, but also species that pose no threat, like bluebirds if they are nesting in the same territory, so in my opinion something about that should be added.

Again, congratulations on a great article! --Georgiasouthernlynn (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

holly trees

I wish you would see if you can find a good resource about mockingbirds and holly trees. Near the DC area I have noticed mockingbirds choosing to live near holly trees. The berries are red like on the rosa multiflora, and of course persist through the winter. When a holly tree was cut down near me, our mockingbird migrated away; I fostered one in my yard, along with a white mulberry and lots of pokeweed, and last year a male claimed the turf. This year he mated and they are raising their chick in my yard. They are keeping my little veggie garden nice and clean, and I help them chase off nasty pesky squirrels. 71.163.117.143 (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Where does Northern mbird really live...

Article says, "The mockingbird's breeding range is from Maritime provinces of Canada westwards to British Columbia, practically the entire Continental United States south of the northern Plains states and Pacific northwest, ..."

These statements are confusing and seem to collide. British Columbia is north of the Pacific northwest. In addition to the habitat ranging only south of the Pacific northwest, the bird probably doesn't live in BC.

I live in the Pacific northwest and spend time in southern California. See mockingbirds only in the latter loc.

72.132.207.204 (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)muellerd

Hi- A couple links from sites with good info: Cornell's All About Birds (see also the interactive sighting map linked under the range map) and Audubon Eric ^talk 18:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

"the only mockingbird commonly found in North America"

Both the Bahamas and tropical mockingbirds are found in what is commonly considered North America. Lavateraguy (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment

This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Washington University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 15:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)