Talk:American Pekin

Incorrect / Unsourced Information

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

---

A lot of the information on this wikipedia page is unsourced and likely incorrect. I think it would be a good idea for us to work on filtering out or correcting the incorrect information. EditSafe (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, there was a mass of irrelevant or generic content, much of it either unreferenced or referenced to sources that do not meet our definition of a reliable source such as www.metzerfarms.com. In response to this request, I added nine or ten reliable sources, removed the dubious content and added some sourced material. EditSafe has put all the garbage back in the article. Since that was done without any vestige of an edit summary, I'm at a loss to understand why. Can you explain, EditSafe? I suggest reverting to this revision unless anyone can give any good reason not to. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

A lot of the information you removed had reliable sources backing it. Also, with the mass removal of information some important information was lost. EditSafe (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

For example, EditSafe? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Requested move 13 February 2017

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

---

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page Moved to 'American Pekin Duck. EditSafe (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Pekin (duck) → Pekin Duck – Grammar (non-admin closure) NON-ADMIN CLOSURE EditSafe (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Unnecessary title change. Pekin (duck) follows normal naming conventions. -- Dane ^talk 03:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• @EditSafe and Dane: To many people "Pekin" by itself is an old name of Beijing in China, except when those people are already specifically talking about domestic ducks. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. I made this move late at night, and thought better of it during the night in view of the existing discussion here. I was planning to undo it it this morning, but now this has been started so I can't. We should have two articles, one on the American Pekin and one on the German Pekin, the European version of this duck. I suggest moving this page to American Pekin. An alternative would be to have them at Pekin (American duck breed) and Pekin (German duck breed), but it seems unnecessarily cumbersome. "Peking duck" is a culinary dish; whatever title is chosen should not resemble that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I support Justlettersandnumbers, "alternative" suggestion in the above section. But both ideas would work ok for me. I know a bit about the subject but my Wikipedia skills are sadly lacking. Wingman1 20:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wingman1 (talk • contribs)
• Comment: I think that having two articles (one for the American Pekin and one for the German Pekin would be a good idea. Also, for the 'Pekin Duck' vs. 'Pekin (duck)', since pekin is a type of duck, and the dish is spelled differently (peking duck), naming the article as 'Pekin Duck' would make sense. We could also have the same 'For the chinese dish...' redirect at the top of the page so that people would not get confused. EditSafe (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks for your support of this suggestion (which really isn't mine, it comes from PigeonIP who knows 100 times more than I do about this stuff). I've therefore gone ahead and created German Pekin. In doing so, I've found a number of new sources, which can be accessed from that article. Based on them, I'm now sure that this page should be moved to American Pekin. I'll propose that below. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose move, or restore to American Pekin Duck. Actually @Justlettersandnumbers: your move was a good call. But without American "Pekin Duck" only immediately suggests the dish. Pekin is French for Peking/Beijing but also occurs in older English culinary sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Until consensus agrees with an English name, move to either Anas peking or Anas pekin per consistency with other articles using scientific names. I added inline citations on the scientific names referring to this domesticated species. Anas platyrhynchos domesticus refers to "domesticated duck" but also refers to this species and Khaki Campbell, so that option is out for now (unless "Anas platyrhynchos domesticus (Pekin)" is possible?). George Ho (talk) 02:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC); realized it's a breed (edited). 09:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • That might work, George Ho, except that (1) this isn't a species but a breed and (2) isn't named Anas peking but Anas platyrhynchos, as like almost all domestic duck breeds it derives from the Mallard (a few derive from the Muscovy Duck, Cairina moschata). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Anas platyrhynchos redirects to mallard. Nevertheless, I amended my comment to reflect the accuracy. George Ho (talk) 09:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

    Alternatively, if that's not a good suggestion, per WP:TITLECHANGES, change back to "American Pekin duck". Seems that more improvement and research are needed before the title can be revisted. George Ho (talk) 09:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)#Capitalisation and italicisation, the article would actually be moved to Pekin duck, not Pekin Duck ... which leaves another issue since Pekin duck is currently a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: American Pekin

Pekin (duck) → American Pekin

I moved this page to Pekin (duck) so that it would cover all kinds of Pekin Duck; that was a mistake, and I apologise for it – I was wrong, but also careless. I didn't pay enough attention to the section American? higher up this page, where PigeonIP clearly explains that the American and European Pekin breeds are different. Sources such as this and this make it quite clear that they are two separate breeds, with separate history and different genetic make-up. I've now created German Pekin for the European breed. It remains to move this page to American Pekin, and copy-edit accordingly. Ping Andrew Gray, who initiated that discussion in 2013. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support this alternative - This may do. George Ho (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• I think that we should move it back to 'American Pekin Duck' rather than just 'American Pekin'. That way it is more clear that it is referring to the animal. EditSafe (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

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

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

(Un)scientific names?

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

---

So, George Ho has added three "scientific" names to the page, with proper sources to support them: Anas pekin, Anas peking and Anas platyrhynchos domesticus. Neither of the first two are even listed in the NCBI taxonomy database or in the Integrated Taxonomic Information System, while the third is listed by both (NCBI, ITIS) as a synonym of Anas platyrhynchos. So the question is: should we include these apparently spurious names in our article, and if so, how? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Umm... correction. Two of them were present before my adding the inline refs and an extra term. By the way, I see other refs previously used before removal. I reinserted one of them. George Ho (talk) 09:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

My mistake, George Ho. I'd already removed them once. I suggest doing so again. The systematic name of all domestic ducks derived from the Mallard, including this one, is Anas platyrhynchos. We habitually put that in the infobox. There's no need for specific discussion of it in this page, because it is generic to (almost) all duck breeds. The place to discuss the synonym Anas platyrhynchos domesticus would, I believe, be our page on the domestic duck; the other two names have no standing, and I see no reason to include them at all – we're not here to perpetuate other people's mistakes. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay... which names shall I remove, and which other names shall I keep? George Ho (talk) 09:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, George Ho. Why don't we wait to see if agreement can be reached on the main content issue, and then deal with this detail once that is sorted out? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Previous and current revisions

Edits done by mostly Justlettersandnumbers were changed to the version done by mostly by EditSafe. Recently, I recovered the sources to fix errors. Back to this, to those primarily contributing this article, can anyone here explain the edits and changes? I don't know which version is better, to be honest. --George Ho (talk) 06:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm in no doubt which version was better, George Ho! In response to the complaints in the sections Wow and Incorrect / Unsourced Information higher up this page, I added about ten new refs, removed some unreliable ones, removed irrelevant generic content that is not in any way specific to this breed and so on – well, you can see from the edit summaries what I did. The changes were reverted by EditSafe; I've still to understand why, and am still hoping for some explanation and/or discussion. I see that Diannaa has, quite correctly, removed some unreferenced stuff (thanks, Diannaa!). However, some of that content was only unreferenced because EditSafe had removed the references from it; why exactly was that, EditSafe?

If there's consensus here, I propose (1) reverting to this revision, (2) incorporating any subsequent helpful edits, and then (3) rewriting in places to make this specifically about the American Pekin breed, for which I would use a couple of the sources from German Pekin. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

So, no answer. Unless there's any reasonable objection voiced here in the interim, I plan to go ahead with that tomorrow morning. If anyone disagrees with that, please say so! Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Which I have not done, as EditSafe is editing the article. What about trying to reach agreement here before you do too much more, EditSafe? If you've time to edit the page you probably have time to discuss and/or explain your edits. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

What are you saying that you have not done Justlettersandnumbers? Also, check my edit summaries and discussion posts if you want to know my reasons for editing. EditSafe (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

If you read this section from the top down, EditSafe, you will discover what it is in your edits here that needs explanation (and is not in any way explained by your edit summaries); then, a little lower down, you will find my proposal for removing the unreliable sources and irrelevant content, restoring the referenced and relevant material, and then making the changes necessary to make this page specifically about the American Pekin. Since you did not trouble to comment in this thread, I was planning to make those changes without your input; however, you made edits to the article, so I held back in order for more discussion to take place here. Perhaps we could start with this:

• What makes you think that www.metzerfarms.com is a reliable source?
• What makes you think that www.duckhealth.com is a reliable source?
• Why do you think that generic content about hatching duck eggs belongs in this article, which is about a specific breed? Do the sources you cite specify that this material applies only to the American Pekin?
• Same question, but for chick sexing
• Same question again, but for the WP:HOWTO content about raising ducklings – none of that stuff is about this particular duck; it might have some relevance at Domestic duck, but it has none here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

For the content about hatching eggs and chick sexing, this content I consider to be good because it gives information about the duck and how it is used. I am okay with the 'How to' content being removed - and have removed a lot of it myself - as long as none of the information that is important about the bird is removed. Some of this information may not be applicable only for the American Pekin, but it applies to this breed. As for metzerfarms and duckhealth, these sources do research about ducks and have a database with information about the American Pekin Duck. EditSafe (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@EditSafe and Justlettersandnumbers: Have you considered going to WP:RSN yet? They can evaluate the sources and determine their reliabilities. George Ho (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditSafe (talk • contribs) 02:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

So, several weeks have passed, and EditSafe has not troubled to reply to my questions above. Discussion should be the way forward here, but for that to work editors have to actually be prepared to discuss. Meanwhile the article just gets worse and worse.

Once again, I propose (1) reverting to this revision, (2) incorporating any subsequent helpful edits, and then (3) rewriting where necessary to make this specifically about the American Pekin breed, for which I would use a couple of useful (and reliable!) sources from German Pekin. Ping PigeonIP and GeorgeHo, the only people other than EditSafe who seem to have taken any interest in the actual content of the page (if I missed someone, please remedy my oversight). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, that should have read George Ho. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers:: I think this article is overdue to be rewritten based on reliable sources. Please note that it is even questionable that the ducks shipped to New York really were of the same breed as the ducks shiped directly to Europe. It is also not known if these Pekin ducks realy are breeds/ducks from Beijing (like the Hamburghs, that are not breeds from Hamburgh, but shiped to Great Britain via Hamburgh harbour). It is commonly believed that they were, but it is not a known fact. (but it is a fact the Hamburghs genetically may be two breeds ;) The only known thing is that both were (upright) white chinese ducks, both shiped in the same year from a harbour of Beijing. (I did not know about the shi-chin-ya-tze before. The authors I read were just hesitant to say that both were of the same breed/origin. --PigeonIP (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC))

I noted that you used GEH and VIEH-pages for the article about the German Pekin (the PCGB simply refers to it as "Pekin" as the American Association does to the American Pekin). If you want to use articles from "the" German expert for duck breeds use Amerikanische Pekingente and Deutsche Pekingente. The other authors do refer to P.-E. Oswald and his work.

@George Ho: You asked: which version is better? It is this on. The other one has terrible mistakes! --PigeonIP (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@EditSafe: Comments? George Ho (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: Yes. I think that the article could definitely use a rewriting, although the last time it was rewritten (by Justlettersandnumbers) a lot of good and sourced content was removed, and the article was completely changed, making it about both the American and German breeds. If this time the article is rewritten with the good information about the american pekin being kept, that would be good. EditSafe (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

EditSafe, I asked you higher up this page to specify what "important information" was lost when I cleaned up the page before, but you didn't answer. So let me ask you again: what good sourced content did I remove? I'm curious, because what I thought I was removing was (as I said higher up): "a mass irrelevant or generic content, much of it either unreferenced or referenced to sources that do not meet our definition of a reliable source, such as www.metzerfarms.com". Since I'm repeating myself so much, I might as well repeat that I did that in response to a specific request here, on this page, from three editors – of which you were one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers Here is some of the good content that you removed:

"The Pekin duck is the most popular commercial duck breed in the United States, after a small number were imported to Long Island from China in 1873 by James Palmer of Stonington, Connecticut."

"Pekin ducks bear a superficial resemblance to a British duck breed, the Aylesbury. Pekins can be distinguished from Aylesbury Ducks by their larger overall size, bright orange-yellow beaks and more upright posture."

"Pekin hatchlings have bright yellow plumage with an orange bill, shanks, and feet."

You changed the article from a multiple paragraph article to one that is just a few sentances long. EditSafe (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey, EditSafe. I think you can read the following essays, which can help you collect your thoughts: Wikipedia:Truth, Wikipedia:Truth matters, and Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. I'm unsure whether you want to read a humorous piece, Wikipedia:Truth is irrelevant. Also, you can read the policy, WP:V. --George Ho (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

George Ho You just posted opinion essays about not using your opinion, what is your point with those? EditSafe (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Well... sorry if I wasn't clear earlier. I will rephrase: I think I will abide to Justlettersandnumbers's revision. Even when the his/her version is small, the version is very cleaner and well verified. All of the sources are reliable. This version suffers from issues, even when there may be... "truth" about the ducks. I don't know whether you want the article to be truthful. However, in the case of this article, quality is more important than... trying to tell the facts about the ducks. Can you, EditSafe, let me change the article back to Justlettersandnumbers's version, please, so we can move on? George Ho (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC); un-struck. 11:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: The version by Justlettersandnumbers is not much better quality than the current one. It talks mainly about Chinese duck breeders, and says very little about the American Pekin Duck. Unless you are talking about a different version than [[1]] I think that reverting to the previous version rather than editing the current one would be a bad mistake. EditSafe (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... I may not know much about the ducks, and I may be uncertain whether either version is correct or clean or whatever. However, I hope the discussion is still productive. If it becomes unproductive, then I think one of dispute resolution methods, like a WP:DRN, would resolve content disputes. George Ho (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

EditSafe has listed three items of "good sourced content" that I am supposed to have removed from the article when I rewrote it. The first of those was not removed but expanded and rewritten for encyclopaedic tone, with new sources, to read "In 1872, at the request of a businessman named McGrath, fifteen white ducks hatched in Peking were loaded at Shanghai by James E. Palmer, of Stonington, Connecticut, for shipment to the United States. Nine birds – six ducks and three drakes – survived the voyage, which took 124 days and reached New York City in March 1873. ... It was soon in widespread use for production of birds for slaughter." The other two are without any reference at all, and are clearly marked "citation needed". Did I remove any other valid content? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

References

@Justlettersandnumbers: Here is one of Wikipedia's guidelines: "When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can; don't delete salvageable text. ..." You have in your previous edits removed a lot of content that with some editing can be brought up to Wikipedia's standards. I agree that this article needs a lot of work, but just deleting 4/5 of it does not improve it. EditSafe (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. About four-fifths of it (maybe a little less) needs to be removed immediately. That includes the non-reliable sources, all the material about hatching and so on that is generic to all ducks and not just this breed, and the remaining unreferenced stuff. On that topic, please read this part of our policy on verifiability:

In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. However, while verifiability is required for including something, it is not a reason for inclusion. When reliable sources disagree, maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight.

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.

Please excuse the long quotation, but it's important for you to understand how a Wikipedia article is supposed to be written. Unfortunately, the present version of this page is a long way from that ideal. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

After reverts by EditSafe, now I must support Justlettersandnumbers's version. George Ho (talk) 11:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: @George Ho: Seeing as this discussion has been going on for a while, and consensus has not been reached, I have submitted this discussion to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am not sure how good it is as I have never used it before, but hopefully this will help us reach consensus. You can find the submission here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:American_Pekin_Duck#Previous_and_current_revisions EditSafe (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The DRN case is closed as suggesting to turn back to this talk page. Should we do the RfC right away? Pinging Justlettersandnumbers, EditSafe, PigeonIP. --George Ho (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: Yes. Just going back to the same discussion is not going to work out any better this time. EditSafe (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested Move

I've (obviously) performed the requested move, which is better but maybe not best. We have German Pekin and American Pekin Duck...do we have consensus on changing the format of one or the other?  Frank  |  talk  01:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I would say move 'German Pekin' to 'German Pekin Duck'. This way it is more obvious that this is talking about the animal. EditSafe (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@Frank: If with "duck" than "German Pekin duck" and "American Pekin duck" – "Duck" is not part of the name of the breed, while the capitalisation of "Duck" implies that it is. German Pekin and American Pekin are perfectly good as well. All variations of "* Pekin Duck" are not. --PigeonIP (talk) 12:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

How about American Pekin (duck) and German Pekin (duck)?  Frank  |  talk  21:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

That would be the fastet way to get a non-bracket-name. There are authors who are moving all ***(duck), ***(sheep), ***(chicken) - breed-articles. even if it makes no sense and there is no source for it. --PigeonIP (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. What do you mean by a "non-bracket-name"?  Frank  |  talk  21:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry i meant "article-titels without parentheses" because of WP:NATURAL. Please, have a look at Category:Duck breeds. Once there were some articles with "duck" in parentheses. --PigeonIP (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess in retrospect I prefer American Pekin duck and German Pekin duck.  Frank  |  talk  22:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, I really wanted to keep out of this discussion because it's been such a monumental timesink in the past. But for what it's worth: there isn't, and there never was, any real consensus for titles like "German Pekin duck"; we have a lot of them because of the efforts of just one editor a couple of years ago. There is, of course, nothing remotely natural about having a title that has two words capitalised and one lowercase (New York city?, Chase Manhattan bank?, Pacific Coast highway?). In this case, we don't need to disambiguate with either "duck" or "(duck)", because we only have one American Pekin article so there's nothing to disambiguate from – that is also why I created German Pekin at that title. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I could support (and implement) American Pekin and German Pekin...any takers?  Frank  |  talk  22:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's what I'd suggest, certainly – it was my Alternative proposal in the move discussion. Let's see if anyone agrees … Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

You know I do. i just fear, the next random visitor moving it/them because of "consistency" with the other articles in the duck-breeds-category. (or worse: to "clarify" that it is about ducks, moves them back to "Ducks".) sorry I lost faith in that case, because of that one persistent editor consuming so much time we could have used much better writing articles and creating real content...

Anything is better than American Pekin Duck. American Pekin duck/German Pekin duck would be better, American Pekin/German Pekin the best solution to the "problem". --PigeonIP (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

It is done.  Frank  |  talk  01:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

And then it is undone, despite the consensus here, by EditSafe. That doesn't seem to be anything like collaborative editing, EditSafe, more like someone trying to enforce their personal preference even if it is against consensus. Frank, I'm sorry to bother you yet again, but could I ask you to do whatever you think necessary here? Might that perhaps include undoing the improper close of the RM above, and re-closing it in accordance with your reading of this? Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: There was no consensus here. See the other discussions and edit history. EditSafe (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 8 March 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. Overwhelming consensus for the proposed title. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane ^talk 17:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

---

American Pekin Duck → American Pekin – Consistent or inconsistent is not the main matter. What matters is what the consensus said at another discussion. Somehow, the name was reverted back to the present title, i.e. one with "Duck". If the consensus says scrap out "Duck", let's do that then. George Ho (talk) 07:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support "duck" is not part of the breed name and is not needed for disambiguation. "Duck" is appended in many contexts to clarify what an American Pekin is, as many people are not familiar with it. Well known breeds of animals almost never have the type of animal appended (it's "Labrador Retriever", not "Labrador Retriever dog"). We don't as a rule add words to the title to provide this type of clarification; it's assumed that readers have a general idea what something is when they search for it. Plantdrew (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support. It shouldn't be necessary to have a second discussion when the first one was improperly closed, but we are, so support per Plantdrew. In general, we don't make article titles any longer than they need to be. The German Pekin discussion should be part of this one, not separate, as exactly the same arguments – for or against – will apply. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: This breed is commonly referred to a the American Pekin Duck. EditSafe (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support per above and applicable policy.  Frank  |  talk  22:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support. All of the above, and consistency with German Pekin (which I disclose I just moved as an unopposed RM). Andrewa (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support American Pekin. --PigeonIP (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

I note that EditSafe has now been given a very mild warning regarding move warring, see User talk:EditSafe#German Pekin (or this diff if they've again blanked their talk page), and that an uninvolved administrator has restored the German Pekin page to that title. Andrewa (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

RfC Previous and Current Revisions

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

---

The article went undergoing changes done by Justlettersandnumbers. Somehow, the changes were reverted by EditSafe, leading to endless discussions about how to present the article subject, American Pekin. (See #Previous and current revisions and DRN case for more) As a stopgap, should the article revert back to Justlettersandnumbers's version or retain the current version done by other editors? Either version would be fine, though the article may be improved based on whichever version is preferred. --George Ho (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The below comment is too rushed and brief. Wrote the above comment for better understanding. --George Ho (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Recently tweaked by EditSafe. George Ho (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Should we edit the current version of the page or rewrite the page from scratch? 18:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditSafe (talk • contribs)

Opinions

• Edit Current Version. Editing the current version would be better than starting over. EditSafe (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
• Change back to Justlettersandnumbers's version - Much cleaner and a better stopgap than the current version. Has better sources. Information may be slim, but it's better presented. --George Ho (talk) 07:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• This RFC was confusing, so I'll summarize what I found for the benefit of other people arriving here. The older version is too short, and needs to be built up. There are concerns with sourcing and content in the current longer version, which would need to be trimmed down, in conjunction with new or modified content. The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard process was started nearly a month ago, with no meaningful point, and this RFC will take another month. Those two months would_have been/would_be better spent making and discussing edits. The entire RFC appears to be purely procedural - should this be discussed on the basis of "what should be removed" or "what should be re-added". If that is absolutely necessary, I'll say go back to the shorter Justlettersandnumbers's version. There appear to be reasonable concerns with some of the sourcing and content in the longer version. For what it's worth, I suggest that EditSafe withdraw the RFC, and start focusing on which of the content from the longer version should be copied or modified into the shorter version. Leaving the article stalled for a month doesn't help. Alsee (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I like and endorse your edit summary Justlettersandnumbers's version. Suggest withdrawing the RFC an getting back to work now. I suggest that either we confirm that we're talking about this version just to be sure (it is mentioned in the RfC above), and we take a poll on that and then close the RfC, or we just go back to discussing content issues one by one and base our edits on the current version. Andrewa (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support going back before fixing the new version. Fixing tends to be more pernicious than doing it right. I guess we can afford to wait for a more adequate version than the original. JonRichfield (talk) 06:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
• I've not commented here, partly because this is the third round of discussion of the same topic, partly because my opinion is probably pretty obvious. However, I might as well make clear that I do support returning to my earlier version, however imperfect it may be, as a starting-point for improving the page (which I am ready and waiting to do once this is settled). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

EditSafe, the OP you made was less clear and too brief. May I or Justlettersandnumbers please help you rewrite it? Also, why archiving the threads? Previous version and Current version. --George Ho (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: The above comment (in this original diff)was restored by me, after I deleted it while trying to restore the premature archiving --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you again, Lemongirl. What about Talk:American Pekin/Archive 1? Should it be speedily deleted? George Ho (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

This RfC seems completely pointless to me. Am I missing something? Andrewa (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

See #Previous and current revisions, Andrew. George Ho (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

But what is proposed here? If it were proposed to revert to a specific previous version, that would be a valid RfC, yes. But this is not, IMO. Andrewa (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

....May I remove the RFC tag then? I'll do the fresher RFC soon if the tag is removed. George Ho (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be better to just ignore it for the moment, and discuss specific content issues as needed. Andrewa (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay George Ho, you can rewrite it if you want. I just wrote it quickly and not very carefully. I am archiving old discussions that have not been edited in a while because this talk page is getting too clogged to be easily navigated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditSafe (talk • contribs)

Andrewa The RfC is here so that other non-involved editors can supply their opinions on whether keeping and editing the current version of the article or starting over is better. EditSafe (talk) 03:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't archive yet. The talk page is not yet big for archiving. George Ho (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC); 03:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Added my description to push down OP by EditSafe. George Ho (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

That seems at odds with everyone else, who see it as a choice between this version and the current version (the latter variously interpretted!). Andrewa (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

EditSafe, seems that three of us favor the previous version. May you please let me revert back? Also, may you consider changing your vote please? Thank you. --George Ho (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Make that four, George Ho – I've added my support above. Procedurally, it might be advisable to ask at WP:AN for an independent admin to close this muddled RfC. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: I will not change my vote because I still believe that editing the current version is best, however if the administrators think that there is enough consensus they may of course close the discussion. EditSafe (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

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

Premature archiving

Note, the talk page was prematurely and messily archived by EditSafe. I have reverted it and restored the content. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

As George Ho has observed, it would be good to delete this version of Talk:American Pekin/Archive 1. An archive bot can be setup if required later. But right now, archiving is not really required. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

See also this discussion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I have deleted the archive for now. I agree automated archiving will be more helpful, if archiving is required at all at this point. Huon (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Back to previous version

EditSafe, now that the article is reverted back to User:Justlettersandnumbers' version, would you please comply to the results and then not make one edit to the article? --George Ho (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I mean... we went through a couple months debating on which version to use, so I hope you accept this version for now. We don't want to drag ourselves into similar situations again and again, like reverting back and re-reverting back. Justlettersandnumbers and some others will take care of it. BTW, there is no need to have the archive bot at the moment. May I remove it please? --George Ho (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Who has decided that there is consensus on this issue? EditSafe (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

If you disagree, contact the one who performed the closure. Again, I don't think it'll change the closer's mind. You're not gonna do another RfC again, are you? --George Ho (talk) 04:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no need to remove the archive bot EditSafe (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Now that the bot performed the task, you're right. --George Ho (talk) 04:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The GOCE request was already performed, EditSafe. Then the other editor expands the version of the article. May you refrain from editing the article please? George Ho (talk) 10:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: You have no more right to edit this article than I do. See WP:OWN. EditSafe (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the tone. Still... I'm a little concerned. George Ho (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... are you sure that the source is reliable? George Ho (talk) 03:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Characteristics

The characteristics section mentions a little bit about how the ducks look, but does not mention anything about other characteristics such as sounds made, swimming, etc. I think that we should work on adding more to it. What do you guys think? EditSafe (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Which aspects of the sounds or behaviour of the American Pekin are sufficiently different from those of other domestic duck breeds to deserve mention here, and what sources discuss them? Generic content about domestic ducks in general belongs in our page on the Domestic duck, not here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Which info is unchallenging enough to be included? The essay Wikipedia:When to cite can explain that. What about the eggs? --George Ho (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

More sections

I think that we need more sections, for example sections or sub-sections that talk about the different life stages of the american pekin such as the duckling phase, growing phase, and adult phase. What do you guys think of this? EditSafe (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Which aspects of the "life stages" of the American Pekin are sufficiently different from those of other domestic duck breeds to deserve mention here, and what sources discuss them? Certainly the rapid growth rate is one, but that is already covered. Generic content about domestic ducks in general belongs in our page on the Domestic duck, not here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@EditSafe: please read articles that are dedicated to the (American) Pekin and to the Pekin alone. Than have a look at the article in WP, Than compare the informations both texts provide. Is there really something missing that is special to the Pekin?

At the moment I am under the impression, that you are under some presure to add anything. And if it is "Pekin ducks like pink water" you'd go and grap any source to proove it (even if that article says "dogs like pink water, like any other animal" - btw. this was a ref about turkeys).

I like your love to the Pekin, but please learn to differ what is about the breed of American Pekin and what is more general information about ducks or husbandry or anything else. --PigeonIP (talk) 07:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Layout of images

Hey again, Justlettersandnumbers. In the desktop view, the images are below the infobox when aligned to the right. They are also at the right side of the References section if viewed in the "220px" standard; at "400px", the images push a lot of space between the "References" header and the list of references. Well, I'm using a widescreen monitor. However, I didn't think about mobile readers when I changed the layout of the images, which was reverted. I guess the images belong to their own positions for mobile readers. However, on desktop, the images appear but not on their intended positions. If moving the images to Gallery section is not the best way, why not aligning the images to the left for desktop and mobile readers? --George Ho (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, George Ho! I can't reproduce every kind of screen, so my experience may be different from yours. I read on a laptop, and images on the left tend to squeeze the text into a thin line of toothpaste down the middle of the page. At the moment the images display correctly on my 13" screen and correctly on my telephone (except that, as with all portrait-format infobox images, only a strip across the centre is displayed). The gallery tag reduces the thumbnail size below the limit of usefulness and I try to avoid it where possible. Does adding a {{-}} after the body text help the display for you? An alternative would be to remove the duckling image – it doesn't really add much. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Well... I tested the clearing thing out in the my sandbox, and I will be fine with the clearing (though I am not thrilled much about it). Alternatively, feel free to remove the duckling image if you want, especially per WP:NOTREPOSITORY. However, I'm unsure whether others would agree with the removal. Off-topic, but the "External links" or "Sister projects" heading should be added between the list of references and the link to Wikimedia Commons for easier navigation, shouldn't it? --George Ho (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

History section

There is a section of the article under "History" that seems to be irrelevant to the Pekin duck, but @Justlettersandnumbers had a disagreement with the removal of this section. What do others think about its relevance? Also @Justlettersandnumbers could you explain why you think it should be kept or what relevance it has to the Pekin?

The mallard was domesticated in China before 1000 AD,[2]:92 probably much earlier.[10]:3 Force-feeding of ducks is documented from the tenth century, under the Five Dynasties.[11]:593 The Chinese were sophisticated breeders of ducks.[2]:92 Among several breeds they created was one named shi-chin-ya-tze, or roughly "ten-pound duck".[9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditSafe (talk • contribs) 22:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

EditSafe, this has gone through RfC, dispute resolution, move-warring and endless, interminable, tedious discussion where all editors but one were unanimous that the changes you made to the article were not an improvement – and yet you are still questioning it? The history of the duck in China in relevant to its history in the rest of the world; how exactly do you think that removing it would benefit the page? With extreme reluctance, @PigeonIP, George Ho, Andrewa, Alsee, Frank, Huon, JonRichfield, and Lemongirl942: (who seem to be the others who have commented here) in case any of them has any comment. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers Removing irrelevent information is helpful to the page. The ten pound duck and how good of duck breeders the Chinese are is irrelevent to this article. The information about the ten-pound duck could go on it's own page or be included in the domestic duck page and the statement about the skill of Chinese duck breeders could go into some article about duck breeding in China but they have no purpose here. EditSafe (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

EditSafe, can you please undo your edits and then discuss this first? Also, may you contribute to Wikiversity please? It's much more productive suitable to your needs there than here; moreover, original thought is allowed there. Thanks. Justlettersandnumbers, I wonder whether this matter can be taken to either ANI or Mediation Committee. --George Ho (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC); amended, 02:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC); rescinding consideration, 17:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC); mostly struck, 22:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with EditSafe that this is the wrong article for general information on the history of Chinese duck-rearing, including force-feeding and other breeds, unless sources connect that information to the American Pekin. I also don't see that the sources for "... domesticated into several breeds of duck including Pekins, sometime before 1000 AD in China" confirm that statement. They do confirm that mallards were domesticated before 1000AD, but one only says that "[o]ver time" the Chinese bred "various types of duck, including the Pekin". The other source is more precise but contradicts the claim, instead saying that the Pekin "originated in China as early as the Ming dynasty (1364-1644)" (p. 9). The history of the Pekin breed does seem relevant enough, though. Huon (talk) 10:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Huon, EditSafe made one (or more) of the changes. The history log can explain the difference between the previous version and the current one. --George Ho (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for taking the time to comment, Huon. Please see this version for the history and sources; parts of this have since been removed or muddled by EditSafe. The idea that a wild species can be "domesticated into ... breeds" is, I'm afraid, pure nonsense. The concept of a "breed" is modern, dating back to the eighteenth century. Ducks in China were domesticated early, and subsequently developed into a number of types, one of which was the forerunner of both the American Pekin and the German Pekin (there was also a British version, which no longer exists). In my opinion this is relevant history as it explains the common ancestry of the two breeds. Comment? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Double (edit conflict). I am struggling to sort out the exact issues here. I think it would be helpful for me, helpful for other uninvolved parties, and helpful for involved parties, if sentence-changes were discussed individually rather than vaguely addressed as a group. This edit by EditSafe was specifically cited, as I'll attempt to break it down into the eight changed sentences:

1. Other names for the Pekin: Removed "Peking" and added "Long Island Duck". I had trouble with the given ref, Google didn't want to display the individual page and a search within the book didn't apppear to find the text "long island". However this Google search clearly links "Long Island Duck" as a well used name for Pekin. Uncontroversial alternate names don't necessarily need a ref, but if the ref is retained it should be improved. I've also seen sources warning NOT to confuse the breed Pekin duck with the Chinese dish Peking duck. It is at best unclear to me whether "Peking" is an accepted name for the breed, and at worst an error to include Peking as a name here.
2. "domesticated into several breeds of duck including Pekins, sometime before 1000 AD in China" - the sentence seems to confusingly mingle two things. This may be the main concerns? Deciding when a sub-population becomes a distinct breed is a somewhat arbitrary point. According to the cited source, it appears that the Mallard was domesticated into multiple breeds before 1000 AD. It also appears to say that Pekin was a breed created in China prior to 1873, which then arrived in the US. However it appears incorrect to suggest that a Pekin breed was created before 1000 AD. Assuming this source is uncontroversial, the sentence should be untangled. It needs to say one (or both) of the true things, instead of a confusing/incorrect mix.
3. Removed: "The Chinese were sophisticated breeders of ducks." - Meh, seems like it could be included or not.
4. Removed: "Among several breeds they created was one named shi-chin-ya-tze, or roughly 'ten-pound duck'." - It's very unclear to me why this sentence was ever included. It seems reasonable to drop it, unless someone can explain the relevance here.
5. Changed "six ducks and three drakes" to "six females (hens) and three males (drakes)" - This seems potentially helpful for people unfamiliar with duck-terminology? I know squat about the field, so I'll leave that as a question rather than a position on the edit.
6. Added words: "The body is almost rectangular as seen from the side, and is held at about 40º to the horizontal while standing". Seems like a trivial and reasonable copyedit?
7. Changed "legs and feet are a yellowish orange, and the beak is yellow; it is fairly short and almost straight." to "legs and feet are a orange, and the beak is yellow-orange". I didn't look into this much but the one source I saw did say yellow beak, and the short/straight seemed reasonable. I'm leaning to the original version, but I'll leave it to editors interested in ducks to sort out shades of yellow-through-orange, and whether short/straight beak is an accurate and relevant description.
8. Changed: "reared almost exclusively for meat" to "raised mostly for meat, and is also used commonly for egg production". The first two-three words seems trivial and I have no opinion. As for egg production, do we have any sourcing saying egg production is a common purpose?

Hopefully the numbered list will help everyone shine a better light on where there's agreement or disagreement. Alsee (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Alsee. I agree with what you have said. #8 I agree is un-cited so I will find some sources for it. I will also work on getting more sources for the other things I have changed and hopefully others can as well.

@Alsee: #2: "domesticated into several breeds of duck including Pekins, sometime before 1000 AD in China" is false.

(1) It is unclear which breed the ancestor of the American Pekin is. It is also unclear if it was a flock of an actual breed, that was imported to America (or more then just one).

(2) "Pekins": American and European Pekins do have different ancestors. It is not prooven if both were of the same breed. The only things they certain had in common are the upright posture (that was unknown in Europe and America), the white colour and that they were shiped from a port in China (in the exact same year).

(3) "Pekin" was not a breed "sometime before 1000 AD in China". (there is no proof for that)

--PigeonIP (talk) 10:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

On #3: Indeed. We generally don't have reliable sourcing for any breeds, in any meaningful sense of that word, going back that far. We may know that animals were bred, and that some populations of them were described as being typically looking/behaving/laboring/whatever like this or like that, but usually little else, even for things that are well-attested in period manuscript materials, like Roman war dogs. Much of what you find in tertiary sources about "ancient breeds" is speculative assumption, and false equivalence of very loosely managed breeding stock, with the modern concept of a breed. For attested ancient populations of domestics we generally know nothing at all about the stock, the level artificial selection (if any), etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Alsee: #8: the duck egg-market is of a very low profile comparing to meatproduction. "The American Pekin is reared almost exclusively for meat." is correct. "is also used commonly for egg production" overestimates the importance of duck egg production. There are now 4 sources for that. It might be the "most common variety raised for eggs and meat"[2] (two purpose breed) + Maybe it became the most popular breed for eggs[3], but is most definitely not "commonly used" for eggs. The market may take off[4], but its importance in gerneral is very low (compared to meat). I can't find anything at http://www.fao.org/dad-is/en/ --PigeonIP (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I changed the #8 to "The American Pekin is raised mostly for meat and egg production," but then I added back the "exclusively" sentence and then added, "though the breed's egg production is sometimes considered." As for #2, if the current sentence is incorrect, was the previous sentence correct: "The mallard was domesticated in China before 1000 AD"? --George Ho (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I did prefer your version[5]. The FAO-Link is pure namedropping. There are no reports about domestic ducks (or the Pekin) in North America in the DAD-IS (Chicken and Goats yes, even Alpaca and domestic Yak, no ducks). In a report it discribes the Pekin as "reasonable layer" and "the major meat duck breed in Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and China" pdf page 13 (10 of the document).

You may also have a look at [6], search for "laying breed ducks" and "rural poultry" and note that the Pekin is specifically named a "meat breed". "egg breeds" are "the brown Tsaiya of Taiwan Province of China, the Patero Grade of the Philippines, the Indian Runner of Malaysia and the Khaki Campbell of England". The Pekin is one of the "most important breeds in rural poultry" (next to Indian Runner, Khaki Campbell, Pekin and Muscovy).

And yes, the previous sentence "The mallard was domesticated in China before 1000 AD" should have been correct. Most sources say "domesticated 3000 years ago in Europe and China". --PigeonIP (talk) 11:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Now I had a look in a standard book on domestic animals.[7] On page 121 it says, that there is no evidence for when and where the mallard was domesticated in Europe, just that it was and says something about finds in Haithabu and refers to Krause Untersuchungen an Entenknochen aus der Wikinger-Siedlung Haithabu. Kiel 1974. the EDDA (European dictionary of domesticated and utilised animals, Band 26) says, in Europe it was domesticated sometime in the mid ages. But that shall be not important for the Pekin. Important is that Herre/Röhrs say also that there was a center of domestication 3000 years ago in China (ref to Masing On the origin on domestic birds 1933, Zeuner A history of domesticated animal 1963, Clayton Common duck 1984 in Masons Evolution on domesticated animals pp.334-339). --PigeonIP (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, PigeonIP – Dave Holderread's date does not match what other sources say; 1000AD might be a reasonable date for domestication in Europe, but not in China. I'll remove that reference and add Herre/Röhrs instead – thank you for providing that! I'll also change "before 1000BC" to "some 3000 years ago", as that is what the sources say. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I was going to raise an OR objection, but that neutralized it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

this is NOT "irrelevant information" on the Pekin. Cause some do consider the ten-pound-duck to be the shipped ancesstor of the Pekin. --PigeonIP (talk) 05:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Of course; thank you for putting it back in the page. I'll add something to the next sentence to make it clear that it was ducks of this type that were exported to the USA, as the Broekman source clearly says. Alsee, does this seem to you a sufficient explanation of its relevance here – that it was from this Chinese type that the American breed derived? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers this talk page does give a good reason for mentioning ten-pound-ducks, however I was confused when I couldn't find any explanation in the article. Eventually I studied your edit and figured out what went wrong. You added that ducks "of this type" were imported to America. Unfortunately there's a paragraph split between the two sentences, and that second sentence already strains complexity at four commas. The paragraph split put a hard break when seeking a meaning for the phrase "this type", and the phrase got swallowed in the complex sentence. It looked like "this type" simply meant "Perkin type". That left the "ten-pound-duck" sentence disconnected and mysterious.

Reconnecting the two sentences in the same paragraph would help a lot, but I think many readers may still miss the intended meaning. I suggest reworking the text. Either get the sentence containing "ten-pound-duck" to indicate why it's being mentioned, or maybe split the four-comma sentence into pieces to more clearly say that ten-pound-ducks were imported.

I'm hesitant to try to rephrase it without checking the source. I'm not sure if we say "ten-pound-ducks" became "Perkin" in China and "Perkin" were imported, or whether we say "ten-pound-ducks" were imported to America and became "Perkin", or whether we have to avoid applying a specific label during import. Alsee (talk) 08:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Method of archiving

Archiving everything is too soon, including reducing the page to just one thread. Is that necessary? If so, why? --George Ho (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The bot I have set up does not archive everything. It archives all pages that have gone ~8 months without a response. The talk page is getting filled up with old irrelevant discussions so archiving the old ones (a lot of which are closed) is helpful. EditSafe (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

If you can specify which threads you think are old and irrelevant, that would be great. Even so, they also help serve readers to have second thoughts before discussing something that's already been raised. Therefore, similar issues don't have to be repeated. I'm unsure whether the argument that users can look into archives holds water. --George Ho (talk) 05:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Everything from "Incorrect / Unsourced Information" through "(Un)scientific names" is referring to the previous revision, not this revision. EDIT: I mean to say that they are referring to the version of the article before the "overhaul" EditSafe (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Is archiving those threads necessary? Either way, three is too small, and archiving those three threads is not a good or sufficient reason to add (or modify) the archiving bot, which you added. I would rather have the archive bot config removed. Also, I'd rather leave those threads alone at this time. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that leaving the bot alone and as-is would be a good compromise. EditSafe (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

If someone else agrees that removing the bot is better than leaving it alone, then there is a majority or a vote. Indeed, I lack energy to try to edit-war over the bot. --George Ho (talk) 03:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

At least we agree to not re-configure it. --George Ho (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Bot archival is a poor idea on obscure topics' talk pages, and in mainspace talk should be reserved for articles that get a high volume of low-grade talk churn. On pages like this, it's better done manually, with an eye to what has and has not been resolved. I know from direct experience at breed pages that serious WP:CCPOL issues can get filibustered at them for 3+ years. Readers who look at talk pages, and any incoming editors, need to be aware – without having to dig in archives which nearly 0 will ever do – about any dispute that remain unresolved, other than interpersonal crap that belonged in userspace.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The vagueness of "in China"

Han Dynasty in 200 BC, note that the Han Chinese were not in Southern China.

@Justlettersandnumbers: You are trying to deliberately make it sound like the Chinese were the ones who first domesticated ducks, by making the sentence as vague as possible while keeping the next sentence about force-feeding in the 10th century AD. That is not the case. Trying to hide it is nonsensical. My addition is a clarification sourced to a very recent scientific paper, which trumps your generalist layman's books. You literally have no reason to revert other than vague protestations about how "it's not relevant". If it's relevant enough for you to insist on putting the words "from China" there, then it's relevant enough for me to clarify that while it's (likely) in modern-day Southern China (though it might still be somewhere else in [mainland] Southeast Asia, of which southern China is a part of), it was not done by the ethnic Han Chinese, who did not arrive to the region until around 200 BC (2200 years ago).

Modern national borders do not equate to ancient ethnic homelands. The same reason that the Neolithic archaeological assemblage in Southern China like tapa cloth bark beaters or lingling-o jade pendants are in modern-day China but are not Chinese.

My revisions are factual. Not even you can contest that. I am complying with WP:RS and WP:NPOV and simply clarifying a potentially confusing sentence. What valid reasons do you have for a revert to a less informative sentence?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Obsidian Soul, I've no idea what your agenda is here, or why you are so keen to show that the Chinese were not responsible for the domestication of the mallard. Anyway, we do all know where "China" is, do we not (unless we're Taiwanese, I suppose)? Are you seriously disputing that the mallard was domesticated in that vast geographic region, and suggesting that it was introduced there from some other part of southeast Asia? If so, please provide some reliable sources that support that thesis – the source you've added does not (I've tagged that statement as "failed verification" for that reason). Your latest edit is somewhat better than previous attempts (at least you've omitted the unsourced mention of Han Chinese); if you'd kindly remove the remaining unsourced statement ("introduced" etc) I'd be content to leave it at that. The "generalist layman's books" I've cited are both from serious academic presses (Springer and CABI respectively), and are arguably more reliable than an opinion in a single paper (unless you can point to where that opinion has been picked up in other academic publications?). Oh, and if you edit the article again, would you please make sure that you adhere to the referencing system in use in the article? Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: Because it's factual? Why is it an agenda to correct one of the most common misconceptions by omission in articles AND written literature. "Domesticated/originated from China" does not always mean it comes from the Chinese people, like this article was previously implying.

Ducks are believed to have been domesticated in Southeast Asia (which includes pre-Han Southern China, not all of China) by wetland-farming cultures (whom the Chinese called the Baiyue) inhabiting that region during the time period of domestication. The Han Chinese were NOT in Southern China 3000 years ago. That is simple fact. Rather than use a vague term like "in China" or "from China", which while technically true (it is within the modern Chinese borders) is also seriously misleading, I simply specified the region and emphasized that it's not Han. Why exactly are you objecting to clarification? That is my only goal. That vague assertions like "domesticated in China" or "originated in China" (often fueled by nationalistic zeal to be the originators of everything) be more specific, because modern China is not Neolithic China. As simple as that. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Verification

"Southeast Asia, particularly southern China, is the major center of duck domestication, with records indicating duck farming in the region dating at least 2,000 years . . ."

"In the absence of archaeological evidence, the exact timing of domestication and the time of meat and egg type ducks split remains unknown, with the first written records of domestic ducks in central China shortly after 500 BC"

.." we modeled population demographics and found strong support for a single domestication event roughly 2,200 years ago, with the rapid subsequent selection for separate meat and egg/dual-purpose breeds roughly 100 generations later." - Zhang, Zebin; Jia, Yaxiong; Almeida, Pedro; Mank, Judith E; van Tuinen, Marcel; Wang, Qiong; Jiang, Zhihua; Chen, Yu; Zhan, Kai; Hou, Shuisheng; Zhou, Zhengkui; Li, Huifang; Yang, Fangxi; He, Yong; Ning, Zhonghua; Yang, Ning; Qu, Lujiang (1 April 2018). "Whole-genome resequencing reveals signatures of selection and timing of duck domestication". GigaScience. 7 (4). doi:10.1093/gigascience/giy027.

Domesticated in Southeast Asia. Single domestication event. Thus introduced to central China (and everywhere else that is not Southeast Asia), where the first (Han) Chinese written records of domestic ducks appear in 500 BC.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 19:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

If they were introduced to China (which is in southeast Asia), where were they introduced from, and which source(s) document that introduction? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Central China (which is not in Southeast Asia), which is where the actual Chinese were during the period the ducks were domesticated.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)