# Talk:Domestication

The "Cause and Timing" section talks specifically about the history of domestication by humans.  Maybe it should be re-named to clarify?  I was just going to add for humans to the beginning but I don't think it really works well since there's nothing else in the section. It also seems to be a little biased towards the idea of domestication being a completely conscience possess but that may be me reading too far into things. RoyalRatSilver (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. Domestication by insects is discussed in a whole chapter of the article; its timings are of course tens of millions of years ago, so there's no real ambiguity there, but I've tweaked the section wording since you mention it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Yes there is a section that is specifically on domestication by insects but that doesn't mean that the rest of the article should be wholly specific to the history domestication by humans, the section says Cause and Timing and then specifically talks about humans instead of domestication altogether.   RoyalRatSilver (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
I hear this, and the section makes clear the actors are human. All the same, we have a strong presumption against repeating the article title in section headings, and against making them long and clumsy. 'Cause and timing of domestication by humans' would be both repetitive and really clunky. If something brief, clear, and non-repetitive comes to mind I'll adjust it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe this is the best solution, just feels weird.  RoyalRatSilver (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I am quite revolted by the explanations on this page. Form my point of view, domestication includes the willingness of the domesticated to a participate to the relationship. Also, domestication implies for the most part, safety between the two parties, the domesticated and the domesticator. (The exception is the sacrifice of the domesticated beings, e.g. for food.)
Yes, a slave has the net benefit of being allowed to live, as long as it / he obeys satisfactorily. But is the slave "domesticated"? Are the circus animals domesticated? Lions, tigers... After all, they provide work, entertaining us - it fits the definition provided on the page perfectly.
The same discussion about the domestication of plants. We cannot make any assessment on their willingness to be our partners. We use them in any way we want and they have no ability to defend themselves. How an we guarantee that their actual status is not "slavery"? I think that it is safe to to say that there are 3 states with regard to domestication: domesticated, wild, and other / unknown / undefinable. And plants definitely go to the 3rd category. Possibly the silk worms too. I am curious if the beer yeast is domesticated, according to the definitions on the page.
So while the intention of the page is good, the actual result is quite terrible, I would say. And unfortunately, I am not sure how it can be improved professionally. Virolino (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for posting, and welcome to Wikipedia (I see this is one of your first few edits).
Talk pages are only for discussing the content of the associated page, and are not forums for wider issues such as of politics, philosophy, morals, or language. Wikipedia's job is just to provide neutral, reliably-cited coverage of what has already been documented on each subject. This article reports on what historians and biologists have written about domestication, including what they have had to say about its definition. You will see, for instance, that the 'Definitions' section is cited to nine scholarly sources.
Wikipedia covers all types of subject, including some such as extremism and pornography where views that many readers will find repellent are explained and documented. Wikipedia is not censored, so it is free to document anything; but since it is neutral, it does not take sides on any issue. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for answering, but I do not really get the point of your message. What is political about circus lions? And where is the "forum"? I only highlighted that the page remains mostly true if we replace "domestication" with "slavery". It could be that the "reliably-cited coverage" is not so reliable, in this case. What is "neutral" about saying that circus lions are "domesticated"? Or is "willingness" politically incorrect? Virolino (talk) 08:57, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
We use the same terns as the mass of sources, that's all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

On mobile so edits are a challenge. Suffice it to say, the idea that chickens were originally domesticated for cockfighting comes from a misreading of the anecdote in the (current) source article. A better source is here: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2121978119
The “purpose” is unknowable but likely was paired to rice cultivation as an additional source of food calories. 

This article also talks about other purposes for chickens that contributed to their spread: https://www.science.org/content/article/how-wild-jungle-fowl-became-chicken 217.141.114.38 (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Good find. We can't use Science.org but I've used the PNAS source to rewrite the mention of chicken domestication. Will do that article as well. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:19, 22 October 2025 (UTC)