Talk:Bird

Scope of this article

It is currently unclear what this article is about. Given that Wikipedia is not Wiktionary, an article is about a subject, not a term, hence the issue of the definition of the term "bird"/Aves, while highly important, cannot be allowed to muddle the scope of the article. Either it is about Neornithes, or Avialae, or something else altogether, such as the definition of "bird"/Aves (in which case it should be renamed to Aves for clarity, to avoid confusion with the lay term). But it cannot be about all these things at the same time – especially as long as the introduction plainly gives "a beak with no teeth" as part of the definition, because this is the defining feature of Neornithes, as opposed to the wider group Avialae. In view of the fact that the Avialae have their own article, and Neornithes and Modern birds redirect here, I suggest making this article about the crown group Neornithes first and foremost, limit discussion of non-modern birds and remove parts such as "160–0 Ma" which clearly refer to Avialae. This is likely what lay readers will expect too, who will not generally be aware of fossil toothed birds (except Archaeopteryx). This also means mentioning Neornithes and Modern birds in the introduction in bold and right away, which will help reduce confusion about the article topic. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, it looks to me as if your suggestion is already being followed in the article. with the exception of the alternate taxobox time range, everything in the article currently concerns crown group Aves, except the evolution and origin sections, which are there to summarize background information about non-avian avialans. Is there anything in the article other than the temporal range that needs to be changed to reflect this? I think the short section on the definition is handy for readers who may come here looking for info on non-avian avialans. Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

If the article is NOT to be restricted to crown Aves, than the first two sentences need to be changed or heavily qualified. Taking Archaeopteryx as a classic example of a non-avian avialan, many of the descriptors do not apply to it.

• feathered (yes)
• winged (yes but probably not flighted)
• two-legged (yes)
• warm-blooded (no, likely mesothermic)
• egg-laying (yes)
• beak (no)
• no teeth (no)
• four-chambered heart (unknown)
• lightweight but strong skeleton (yes)

Add to that, the checklist above applies identically to non-avialans like Microraptor. Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Vertebrate theropod dinosaurs

I don't have a problem including "dinosaurs" in the lede, but the phrase " vertebrate, theropod dinosaurs" is nonsensical, since all dinosaurs are vertebrates. If anything, this should read "theropod dinosaur vertebrates" which is extremely awkward. I would change this to either just vertebrates or just dinosaurs, and vertebrate is arguably more important as it reflects an anatomical feature rather than a relationship. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree on this; simply calling them "theropodan dinosaurs" should be good enough; everyone knows theropods were vertebrates. :p Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmmmmm....I think you are over-estimating the understanding of the average reader in this subject.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

A layman's opinion

I was startled when I had a question about migration and I looked at the article on Bird and found the first sentence to be "Birds...are theropod dinosaurs, characterised by feathers, a beak with...". I thought I'd been misdirected and this was an article on the evolution of birds.

Most people do not regard birds as dinosaurs. An article's title should have the most common meaning to our readers. The first sentence of a Wikipedia article is not the place for introducing "new" scientific classifications to the ordinary non-expert.

Wikipedia is published primarily for the intelligent layman. (I believe that's policy; can anyone help me and find the reference?) By WP:UNDUE, editors should not ignore the majority consensus of our readers, certainly not in the lead paragraph. Otherwise, the Bird's article will begin to sound like an article which should be named (say) "Controversy about birds being dinosaurs". Or a taxonomic treatise rather than a part in an encyclopedia.

If you agree, I'll start us off by suggesting that the lead sentence be modified as:

Birds (class Aves and clade Avialae), including all modern birds, are really theropod dinosaurs, characterised by feathers, a beak with" and so forth.

I include the word really because, without it, the sentence won't make sense to most people.

Or we could take out the part about dinosaurs in the first sentence:

Birds (class Aves and clade Avialae) are characterised by feathers, a beak with...

And leave the part about being dinosaurs for the second sentence: Birds are really a sub-classification of theropod dinosaurs.

What do you think? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I agree that a change is needed. Have a look at the equivalent pages of Mammal, Fish and Reptile. The relationship to dinosaurs does not even need to be in the second sentence, but does deserve a place in the lead.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Really" is a term too biased to be used in Wikipedia, I haven't seen any WP article that uses "really" in an original phrase actually.

Most people do not regard birds as dinosaurs.

And most laymen regard pterosaurs, plesiosaurs, and early synapsids to be dinosaurs.

The dinosaur part shouldn't be taken out, unless you want to take it out in the Oviraptorosauria article to make it as this:

Oviraptorosaurs ("egg thief lizards") are characterized by short, beaked, parrot-like skulls, with or without bony crests atop the head. Editor abcdef (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

"Birds are vertebrates" seems to be too simply and undescriptive, I suggest the lead to be this:

Birds (class Aves and clade Avialae) are a subgroup of theropod dinosaurs, characterised by feathers, a beak with no teeth, the laying of hard-shelled eggs, a high metabolic rate, a four-chambered heart, and a lightweight but strong skeleton.

Laymen's misleading opinions do not take account in Wikipedia, unless people are going to add that peterosaurs, plesiosaurs, and synapsids are dinosaurs in their articles. Editor abcdef (talk) 12:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I accept that "Birds are vertebrates" might be overly simplistic. However, I think that having an opening sentence stating that birds are dinosaurs is very likely to be misleading - it is a statement about the evolutionary relationship, not about birds that exist today. After all, we don't start the Human page with "Humans are slime-moulds".

I copied the following from the Dinosaur article. I think this is a nice succinct statement.

The fossil record indicates that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs during the Jurassic Period and, consequently, they are considered a subgroup of dinosaurs. Some birds survived the extinction event that occurred 65 million years ago, and their descendants continue the dinosaur lineage to the present day.

DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The latest version states "Birds (class Aves and clade Avialae) are highly advanced Dinosaurs...". Is this not the same as stating "Humans are highly advanced slime-moulds"?

No it's more similar to stating "primates are mammals". Editor abcdef (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Would it be factually incorrect to state "Humans are highly advanced slime-moulds"?DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

"Slime mould" is a polyphyletic and paraphyletic group, it would be more correct to state "humans are highly advanced eukaryotes". Don't ask me if humans are highly advanced Archaea, they aren't, they are highly advanced lifeforms. "Archaea" is another paraphyletic group.

This is getting too far, as these groups above are far higher ranked than dinosaurs and birds. The purpose of Wikipedia isn't to let readers feel comfortable about their previously conservative knowledge, it's purpose is to convert information from reliable sources into a less (but not too less) technical encyclopedia to provide free information for the readers. Editor abcdef (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I've added the information about most scientists accepting that birds are therapod dinosaurs; it is now the second sentence of the lead. 00:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The point I am trying to make is that the vast majority of readers (non-biologists) will not initially understand that birds are dinosaurs - anymore than they are likely to understand humans are "highly advanced eukaryotes". Give the lay readers the basics first, so they know they are on the right page and they are being informed, and then develop the argument (which will be surprising to many of them) that birds are considered to be dinosaurs.DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Have you read the change I made, @DrChrissy:? The first sentence should let them know they're on the right page—without any mention of dinosaurs. Your analogy isn't comparable. Saying that birds are modern dinosaurs is like saying humans are modern primates; saying birds are modern slime molds would be like saying humans are modern slime molds. MeegsC (talk) 00:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@DrChrissy:, that's exactly what Wikipedia should let them know: birds are dinosaurs. As MeegsC stated, the analogy of eukaryotes isn't comparable, stating "humans are highly advanced eukaryotes" is analogous with stating "birds are highly advanced eukaryotes", not "birds are dinosaurs". The human article already states that humans are great apes. Editor abcdef (talk) 09:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you are both missing the point I am trying to make, however, I will not labour this as I am now happy with the way the first 2 sentences read.DrChrissy ^(talk) 10:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I know your point, but my solution to the laymen problem is that if most readers do not know birds are dinosaurs, then we Wikipedia should present the fact to them straight in the lead sentence. Editor abcdef (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

We may just have to agree to disagree here. I think the balance is right at the moment. We tell the reader some basic information so they realise they are on the correct page, then hit them with something they might not know but might be surprising to them....initially.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

No teeth?

In several places we state that birds do not have teeth, but what about the "egg tooth"? Of course I realise this is not a "true" tooth, but do we need to mention this in the article?DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's necessary here. We cover it in detail in the beak article. MeegsC (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not overly worried about this. I was just thinking that someone knowing very little biology might look at the Bird article after hearing the term and would not get any information. There is also the Egg tooth article.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Theropod Dinosaurs

Changed the first lines to further educate people in science, altough it is true that birds are vertebrates most people know this but by instead telling the readers that birds in fact, are Dinosaurs they might learn something by just reading the first lines of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornhead (talk • contribs) 23:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. It's getting really frustrating that you apparently don't feel the need to engage with your fellow editors before making these changes. If you keep getting reverted and directed to the talk page, it's a pretty clear indication that others don't agree. For one thing, there are now two sentences in a row that say exactly the same thing. And when laymen (i.e. non-specialists) aren't sure they're on the right page (see reader comments above), that's a bad thing. Make it clear we're talking about birds that we all know and love (i.e. the "usual suspects") and then hit 'em in sentence #2 with the new information. MeegsC (talk) 23:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

You have been the only one reverting, but I understand what you're saying. I just learnt how to use the talk page, so you'll understand if I'm having difficulty responding or engaging with others. Now, the reason I want to have the text saying that Birds are Dinosaurs is because it is not a new fact. If we look at another group of animals page (In this case Carnivora) it says Carnivora is a diverse order that includes over 280 species of placental mammals. What I'm saying is, if other pages deticated to certain groups of animals tell the readers what clades they belong to why should it be different from birds? One person mentioned it would look like the Bird page was a evolution page however with that logic so would the pages about, carnivora, sharks and so fourth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornhead (talk • contribs) 02:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

You need to read more than this page. Look at the archives. Look at the comments made by people from the dinosaur project. Look at the comments made just above by multiple readers and editors. And again you've changed the article so that the first two sentences say exactly the same thing. If you're going to leave your first sentence — against the positions hammered out by multiple editors over several days worth of work — at least fix that! Geesh. MeegsC (talk) 00:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. If you also look at comments by multiple editors you'll see that people (Believe it or not) also disagree with you. Geesh, take your negativity somewhere else, you haven't said anything to me proving that you're right or why people should learn that Birds are Vertebrates. All you've done is bashing a new user, good job. Keep it up. geesh.. I can also add that users who browse pages will most certainly be more interested to continue read about birds when they see directly that they are dinosaurs. After all, people are here to learn and most people actually know that birds have a spine, even if you don't think so. Therefore directly pointing out the fact that birds are dinosaurs (which is a fact that should be widely known but isn't because people don't like to point it out) people will learn about both dinosaurs and birds in the first sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornhead (talk • contribs) 03:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

"The birds are dinosaurs" statement in the lead is an old issue, lots of people think it is the most important thing because they are unaware of the complexity of phylogenetic labels. The complexity is well known to taxonomists, and although there is some shock value for science communicators to say something like "birds are dinosaurs", there are multiple possibilities when one deals with the tree of life (and please do not discount reticulate evolution), one can name a group based on the root node, a branch or the leaves/crown (see crown group, Avialae etc.). This is exactly the reason why we do not introduce humans as therapsids (or as synapsids or amniotes for that matter) in the lead although they are correct in one sense. These relationships require a nuanced explanation and that already exists in the main text. Featured Articles need more careful editing and have been through more eyes and the reason for such edits being reverted is not because of a disagreement. The general public can be easily misled by poor wording and the complexity of phylogenetic (or broadly cladist) nomenclature. Notice for instance that on your user page, you separate your liking for the the birds and the dinosaurs. Shyamal (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I prefer the consensus one already arrived at too, per Shyamal. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, so do I Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and I'll go one further - it doesn't matter much that birds are dinosaurs. It matters to Dinosaur that birds are dinosaurs because it changes the context in which we view dinosaurs, and changes them as a group from extinct to extant. But what does birds being dinosaurs change about BIRDS? Why is that important other than a piece of interesting trivia? It helps put them in a wider context when their ancestors are considered, but this is an issue best discussed in the evolution section, not the first sentence of the article! Birds being dinosaurs is not more important or interesting to know than the fact that birds are reptiles, or that birds are tetrapods. Emphasizing this fact smells a little bit like fanboyism. We want to mention dinosaurs because dinosaurs are COOL and so, if birds are dinosaurs, birds become COOL too (I guess if birds were not dinosaurs they would not be cool). Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't see the mention of theropods as "cool" personally, more a fundamental part of bird evolution and history. Wikipedia is here primarily for the layman's research. 82.132.219.101 (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

If I may put my two cents in: That birds are dinosaurs is as much of a scientific fact as anything in evolutionary science (and not some contested opinion as claimed in one of sections further up this talk page, neither is it the equivalent of saying humans are slime-molds, which they aren’t), and its something that the general public is not aware of. If this confuses laymen so much, that’s unfortunate, but Wikipedia is not supposed to only tell people what they already know (or at any rate, believe they know). In fact, that’s all the more reason to educate people of this fact (and yes, it changes how some people think of birds, but more importantly, it changes how they think of phylogeny). The opening sentence is probably not the right place for that, but somewhere in the opening paragraph and/or the taxobox it should be mentioned that birds are an extant clade of theropod dinosaurs, to help make this knowledge a little more widespread. --Ornitholestes (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Also I don’t see why the complexity of phylogeny is an argument against that. It’s not as if linnean taxonomy hadn’t long been abadoned by real scientists. If we have to mention that birds are vertebrates, certainly it is much more relevant to mention that they are also reptiles, and dinosaurs, as it sais something about their relationships. Ornitholestes (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

And there is an extensive section at Bird#Evolution_and_classification which explains the different usages. Shyamal (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ornitholestes:, the information is currently in the lead's second sentence! Is that not early enough? The question was not whether it should be included; clearly, it should. The question is whether it should be in the first or the second sentence. Have you actually read the article's lead, or are you just responding to the talk page comments? Please have a look at the actual lead and let us know whether you think that's clear enough for the lead. Thanks! MeegsC (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

No, you’re right. I was just taking reference to the discussion on this talk page, that’s all. Second sentence seems fine to me. Ornitholestes (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

"This is exactly the reason why we do not introduce humans as therapsids (or as synapsids or amniotes for that matter) in the lead although they are correct in one sense."

This analogy is not even close, introducing humans as therapsids is equal to introducing birds as sauropsids, not birds as dinosaurs. The closest analogy possible to "birds are dinosaurs" is "Primatomorphs are mammals".

Why? You seem to be thinking along the lines of old-fashioned classes and orders. How about changing both bird and human to "birds are tetrapods" or "humans are tetrapods"? This is a much more useful category based on obvious anatomical features. Entomologists would probably rank Tetrapoda as a class... ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

"Why is that important other than a piece of interesting trivia?"

By that logic the lead sentence of other articles on other groups of dinosaurs shouldn't state they're dinosaurs, since it's nothing more than "a piece of interesting trivia".

That's true, and I've edited many articles that started out with some tortured, convoluted intro to try and wedge the buzz-wod dinosaur into the first sentence. Like, "Protoceratopsids are an extinct group of ceratopsian cerapod ornithischian dinosaurs." This is like somebody listing the Virgo Supercluster in their postal address just to prove how smart and science they are. Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

"Most people don't know birds are dinosaurs" is actually an argument for rather than against stating the fact in the first sentence. If most people don't already know, then it should be taught to them, it's simple. Editor abcdef (talk) 03:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Re "it should be taught to them": it is - read the 2nd sentence. DexDor ^(talk) 04:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

This is getting ludicrous. People are acting as if the fact that birds are dinosaurs is the most important thing about birds, which is a very dinosaur-centric view for a bird article. Why not make the title of the article "Birds (which are dinosaurs you guys!!!!)"? Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

And people are acting as if the fact that other dinosaur groups, say protoceratopsids, are dinosaurs is the most important thing about protoceratopsids, which is a very dinosaur-centric view for a protoceratopsid article. Why not make the title of the article "Protoceratopsids (which are dinosaurs you guys!!!!)"?

And why should the bird article state they're dinosaurs in the second sentence and not the first? Why not just make the first sentences of articles on other dinosaur groups, say protoceratopsids, "Protoceratopsids are endothermic vertebrates, characterised by a horned face, a beak with teeth, and the laying of hard-shelled eggs. Scientific consensus is that protoceratopsids are a primitive subgroup of ceratopsian dinosaurs."? Editor abcdef (talk) 04:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

That actually sounds like an excellent intro sentence. It describes protoceratopsids based on what they are, their biology, and their appearance, not what they are related to, which for the majority of readers is less important. Minus the parts about endothermy and hard shelled eggs which are likely but not directly attested by evidence. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Another lead edit suggestion

While we are on the lead. I had a bit of trouble parsing this - " Birds have more or less developed wings;" (ie - developed as a verb rather than as an adjective) and felt that something on the lines of "Birds have wings that vary in the extent of development;" would read better. Comments? Shyamal (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. MeegsC (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Weight and longevity

Has this section been discussed? Shyamal (talk) 03:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

No. I would eliminate it. It's bulky (in an already huge article), North America-centric (with a couple of token exceptions) and could easily be converted to prose if we decide that some of the information is important enough to keep. And I'm not entirely sure why weight and longevity were chosen as the two table elements (since nothing is explained). The single line of text says something about these being different "even in closely related species", but then gives no examples. Not much use, really. MeegsC (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bird. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110315005353/http://lwa.gov.au/files/products/land-water-and-wool/pf061365/pf061365.pdf to http://lwa.gov.au/files/products/land-water-and-wool/pf061365/pf061365.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2015

I request that the sentence about Jesus speaking through the cock as a vessel be revised to reflect what is actually written in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Jesus never uses a rooster as a kind of avatar for himself. He merely states that he will be denied three times before the rooster crows or before the next day. 74.143.190.246 (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done - By another - Arjayay (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree with removal, -the verse cited does not explicitly use the cock as a messenger, simply says that XXX will happen before the cock crows. Given the common perception that roosters crow at dawn, Jesus could just as well have been saying XXX will happen before daybreak. Turning the rooster into a messenger seems like a stretch Cannolis (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Birds are NOT dinosaurs. Please remove.

I get it. Ostriches and some of the bigger birds look like dinos and want the thrill of living alongside the real deal in the 21st century. So we dig up articles by insane, religious cladists and use them to support the "Dinos live!" angle. Someone please do the right thing and remove the dinosaur stuff from the lede. Cheers. 5.64.42.147 (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Nope, because 100+ years of established, published science says that birds are unequivocally theropod dinosaurs. We will not remove valuable information from this article solely to appease the minorities, and that's what the YEC and BAND crowds are to this article; minorities. This is an article about birds as a biological group of animals, not the cultural conception of the word "bird". That's what Wiktionary is for. We cover as much of the minority opinion as is necessary, but not any more than that; so if you wish to make birds non-dinosaurs, then you have to prove 100+ years of science wrong in a manner that can actually convince the scientists. Pro tip; you won't be able to do it. We don't place "But maybe it was just God" in every science article, and we're not going to violate our own policies just to appease the BAND crowd.

Prove that science is wrong and we'll change it. Untill then, this article is not being touched. Raptormimus456 (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The comment from 5.64.42.147 is eerily close to what Cal King says here:[1]

Dinosaurs are extinct. Extinction is forever. They cannot reclaim the planet. There are nutty scientists who claim that birds are living dinosaurs, but these nutty scientists are cladists. Cladists have been severely criticized by Darwinians over the years as being insane, being religious, and being unscientific. Indeed, it is nothing short of insanity to say that birds are living dinosaurs, because even if birds evolved from a dinosaur (and there is a mountain of evidence that opposes that hypothesis), it does not mean that birds are dinosaurs.

After all, mammals evolved from a cynodont therapsid reptile, but that does not mean that mammals are reptiles. Similarly, dinosaurs themselves evolved from primitive archosaurian reptiles, which in turn evolved from a primitive diapsid. If we go back in time, all land vertebrates, including reptiles, amphibians, birds and mammals, evolved from a fish. So, why not say that human beings, birds, dinosaurs, lizard, turtles, snakes, frogs, salamanders and whales are all fish, if we insist that birds must be called reptiles?

Lastly, Dollo's principle states that evolution is not reversible. That means birds cannot evolve back into the same animals as their ancestors, no matter what that ancestor was. That is one more reason why it is insane to claim that birds are living dinosaurs. Birds evolving back into their reptilian ancestor is about as implausible as humans evolving back into a shrew.

King's comment was not a popular one, but he's clearly more knowledgeable about the subject than I. Does his position hold water? 82.132.226.196 (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Um, who is "Cal King"? He's not a scientist publishing in a reputable journal — Yahoo Answers is hardly that! And that "mountain of evidence" against birds evolving from dinosaurs? Funny that only a few fringe evolutionary scientists believe that; most modern evolutionary scientists feel the mountain of evidence favors what Cal King dismisses! No scientist is saying that birds are evolving back to reptiles; Cal King is misstating (either because he doesn't understand, or because he's trying to sway the argument) what scientists believe. The definition of "dinosaur" is changing; some people are clearly having problems with that! MeegsC (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Cal King is a notorious crank who used to do this kind of trolling on the Dinosaur Mailing List many years ago before he quit (I assume he was banned). Read literally any source by a mainstream paleontologist or paleornithologist (or modern ornithologist for that matter) from the last 15 years. Just to address a few basic points... "even if birds evolved from a dinosaur (and there is a mountain of evidence that opposes that hypothesis), it does not mean that birds are dinosaurs." Yes it does, under the most prevent current nomenclature. "mammals evolved from a cynodont therapsid reptile, but that does not mean that mammals are reptiles" therapsids are no longer generally considered reptiles. "So, why not say that human beings, birds, dinosaurs, lizard, turtles, snakes, frogs, salamanders and whales are all fish" Because "fish" is not a formal clade, but a grade of basal aquatic vertebrates. If you were to treat this as a valid scientific group, which most modern biologists do not, then yes, we are fish. "That means birds cannot evolve back into the same animals as their ancestors, no matter what that ancestor was." Straw man argument, literally nobody is suggesting anything like this; what has changed is the method of classification, not the course of evolution. Birds are now merely classified among dinosaur the way bats are classified among mammals. By the way, the fact that the anonymous OP uses the term "religious cladist" here makes me suspect this IS Cal King, and I have to wonder if it's a coincidence a second anonymous user extensively cited his Yahoo Answers page... Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Another compelling Cal King argument:[2]

As for dinosaurian feathers, it is a hoax. The first supposed feathered dinosaur is Sinosauropteryx of China, which is a close relative of Compsognathus of Sohnhofen, Germany. Sohnhofen preserved many feathers and Archaeopteryx, and yet there is no trace of feathers on Compsognathus. It would be very odd that Sinosauropteryx is feathered but its close relative Compsognathus is not. At the end of the 20th century, a group of 4 experienced scientists (John Ostrom, Peter Wellnhofer, Alan Brush, and Larry Martin) went to China to look at the supposed "feathered dinosaur" Sinosauropteryx. When they returned, not one of them would say that what they saw was feathered, not one. And yet you will find no shortage of web sites or scientists who claim that Sinosauropteryx is a feathered dinosaur. Other scientists have published papers claiming that what they find on Sinosauropteryx and other dinosaurs are most likely collagen fibers, which is an ancient protein that can be found on the skin of many animals, including animals as primitive as a nematode worm. Yet people who firmly believe that Sinosauropteryx is a feathered dinosaur are not persuaded by the lack of evidence of Compsognathus feathers and the lack of evidence that Sinosaurotperyx has feathers.

There is also a second group of fossils that are claimed to be feathered dinosaurs, such as Microratpor, Anchiornis, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, and even Archaeopteryx. The problem with these claims is that these animals also have a lot of birdy traits, in addition to feathers. Therefore many scientists claim that they are birds, not feathered dinosaurs. In conclusion, some scientists who desperately want to hang on to the belief that birds are descendants of dinosaurs (primarily because they don't want to suffer career damage by admitting they were wrong) believe that Sinosauropteryx has feathers and that Microraptor and birds that do have feathers are dinosaurs. In short, if the evidence does not fit the theory that birds evolved from a dinosaur, then make it fit.

Umm, it would appear that Phil Currie accepts that it had feathery thingies (integument) on it for starters....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

"Compelling" in what sense, anonymous IP? Again, some random person's rant on Yahoo Answers doesn't qualify as science! MeegsC (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I do find it compelling that this person who otherwise seems interested in the topic is apparently totally unaware of all research published this topic since 1998, nearly the past 20 years, and the numerous papers that have directly refuted the interpretations discussed above. This one is a good start.[3] To sum up, the entire argument against the dinosaurian origin of birds is one enormous logical fallacy hung on a constantly shifting goal post (Feduccia et al. in 1996: "Dromaeosaurids have nothing to do with bird origins! They are obviously totally reptillian in every way"; Feduccia et al. in 2002: "Dromaeosaurids are obviously early flightless birds! They have nothing in common with dinosaurs!") Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Birds are sadly not dinosaurs.[4] It's high time someone put an end to this little fantasy here on Wikipedia. 185.54.163.174 (talk) 08:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but you seem to think that a "dinosaur" should be a featherless monstrous creature that no longer exists. Please consider that what can be called a dinosaur may vary per person, and that animals that evolved from dinosaurs could be called dinosaurs because what differentiates a category of organisms from a another is a blur, and therefore whether a animals should be on a different category from their ancestor/s is also a blur.Gonzales John (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Class, to be exact

The Taxon Aves is a Class, not an unranked group. (It happens to be a clade, yes, but it is also ranked.) However, I am having trouble with the much less user-friendly new syntax for the Taxobox. I can't even find the lines of code that define the ranks in the table! Someone, please, help me fix the issue. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I've changed it back. user:ELP-PhD is attempting to expunge any use of the word "class" when describing Aves; I've advised that editor to come here to gain consensus for this category of changes. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I have YET to see a cogent argument supporting Aves as a valid taxonomic Class. Organisms CANNOT simultaneously be in two taxa of the same rank. Therefore, Aves cannot be BOTH a group within the Class Reptilia (as any modern treatment places them) and their own Class. This is not "cutting edge science". This is basically freshman-level college biology (Biol 101, if you will). You are choosing to ignore DECADES of science on this topic because it might ruffle some feathers (pun intended). This is a perfect example of why I tell my students to ignore Wikipedia. As the saying goes, "Garbage in, garbage out." This, by the way, is my LAST post on the topic. I'm tired of wasting my time. I should have known better than to venture down this InterNet worm-hole.ELP-PhD (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Our role is to reflect common perception: we and all our readers have a sharp concept of "bird", and it is as class-like as can be imagined. We (the public, and editors) know that cladistics places birds in with a group of dinosaurs, a fact we accept with bemused delight, without having our rock-steady concept of feathered, flighted bird even slightly ruffled, actually. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, not common perception so much as sources. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I have YET to see a cogent argument – In some sense, we don't make arguments like this here. We just write what is supported by sources. I've given you high quality, recent sources that call Aves a class. Do you have any that say it isn't? I don't have a super-strong opinion here, I'm no expert; I'm just trying to focus the discussion on what will carry the day. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

On a related note, Template:Taxonomy/Dinosauria was changed last month to always display Clade Dinosauria in automatic taxoboxes. There are thousands of bird articles using conventional taxoboxes that don't have Dinosauria, and a few hundred using automatic taxoboxes that now have Dinosauria. Plantdrew (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

About that: if we decide we want "clade Dinosauria" on (non-avian) dinosaur taxoboxes and do *not* want it on bird taxoboxes, I think we can do that by using template:Taxonomy/Aves/Skip. I think we used to use that but aren't any more, I don't know if that was intentional. If there's consensus to do that I can try to make that change. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

This is how it was done up until recently, somebody changed it. I would support using the skip template in situations like this and skipping to the next available crown group, to avoid being arbitrary. So I'd have Aves link to the parent taxon (Ornithurae) and then skip to the next crown clade (Archosauria). Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

So, are any of the entries in Category:Herpetology journals publishing papers on birds now? Not as far as I can tell. Google Scholar has 86 results for "clade Aves" or "Aves clade" since 2012, and 1030 for "class Aves". Papers using "clade" seem to be mostly palaeontological, papers using "class" are on living birds. Trying to shoehorn well known English words for organisms into cladistic definitions doesn't always work very well. My state conservation department has one set of (stricter) regulations for "game fish" (which are specifically enumerated) and another (weaker) set for "nongame fish" (all species not listed as "game fish"). I don't think conservation officers are going to listen to a cladist insisting that all tetrapods fall under the "nongame fish" regulations. Plantdrew (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that these things are useful for neontology and should probably be kept for articles on living animal groups. Extinct groups and non-crown groups should use clade only. Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable source in lede

Using "Inquisitr" is really a step down. I'd like to see it gutted (it's in the Dinosaur lede as well, if anyone cares to tackle that). 84.33.25.54 (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Is the link between birds and dinosaurs a recent discovery?

In 12 years of schooling I never once heard birds described as dinosaurs (reptiles yes, but not dinosaurs). In all my conversations with schoolmates, friends, co-workers etc, dinosaurs have been spoken of as a long-extinct species. The lede of this article was a massive shock to me, as I'm sure it is to many; I would go out on a limb and say that the vast majority of people consider dinosaurs and birds to be separate animal groups. If this is a recent discovery, could we mention this, in order not to confound the many generations of people who've been taught that dinosaurs were wiped out long ago? Or, if the dinosaur stuff is simply vandalism that slipped under the radar, could it be removed? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:6A44:4600:C826:6C56:1FCB:F1A7 (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I guess it depends on what you consider "recent", but I recall the first book I owned that described birds as a type of dinosaur rather than just descendants of dinosaurs was this one, published by a major museum in 1995:[5] I bought this at the museum after they had re-opened after a five year renovation, and I was as shocked as you to see birds included in the dinosaur display and at that time they even had a sign up nearby that stated "birds are dinosaurs". So I'd say scientific consensus on this topic was reached at least 20 years ago. , probably earlier as it would have taken a while for this to be proposed and incorporated into the museum display. Whether or not birds are dinosaurs rather than descended from dinosaurs is a bit of a semantic issue (like saying humans are apes rather than just descended from apes). Birds have been widely accepted as the direct descendants and continuation of the dinosaur lineage since at least the late 1970s, and prominent paleontologists like Bob Bakker were including birds within the same "class" as dinosaurs by the early 1980s. To the short answer to your question is: birds considered the descendants of dinosaurs but still "cut off" into their own distinct group of animals, at least a 40 year old idea. Birds as a group of actual dinosaurs, first proposed around 30 years ago, widely accepted 20 years ago. Dinoguy2 (talk) 09:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I noticed the Dinosaur lede mentions that birds were accepted as dinosaurs in the late 20th century. Could we have something similar here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.222.112.178 (talk) 13:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Why clade Avemetatarsalia and not clade Dinosauria

Throughout the article it is stated that birds are dinosaurs however when looking at the taxonomy box on the right side of the article the only clades listed are Avemetatarsalia and Ornithurae. Avemetatarsalia is a clade further past Dinosauria. It is a clade within Archosauria which includes dinosaurs, pterosaurs, their common ancestor, and all relatives to have evolved from said common ancestor. It's too broad and doesn't belong in the box. As for Ornithurae, that is a clade that groups modern birds with their closest avian ancestors and relatives thus they too are members of the class Ave. It's redundant to have Ornithurae or Euornithes as they are considered 'true birds' within the class Ave and serve no purpose as a clade above the taxonomic class Ave. I suggest that the first clade above class Ave should be Ornithothoraces which includes all true birds in class Ave and their closet non-avian dinosaur relatives the Enantiornithes, or alternatively you can use the more inclusive clade Avialae, meaning bird wing, which is a clade of Maniraptor Theropod dinosaurs that includes birds and non-avian dinosaurs more closely related to birds than to Troodon or Velociraptor. The second clade above that should be clade Dinosauria, not Avemetatarsalia. This reinforces the scientific consensus that birds are dinosaurs.