Talk:Chicken/Archive 2

message: Has it ever been done before? is it legal?
It's as legal as buttsex with a chicken.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.113.205 (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artifical Insemination of chickens 

message: See Talk:Cluck. It shouldn't redirect here, it should instead describe the phonological sound humans make when clucking. See also Tut_tut.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.170.118.11 (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cluck 

message: What do chickens believe in?
I am quite sure that most chickens are atheistic and become quite violent when engaged in matters relating to religious doctrine. One pecked me when I called it an anti-semite
Thank you for the warning regarding the hostility exhibited by chickens when they are offended by human utterances. Your post may save a life.Obbop 16:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion of chickens 

message: How can a domesticated form of a bird have a conservation status? Shouldn't it be Red Junglefowl that is marked as secure? jimfbleak 7 July 2005 06:09 (UTC)
:I would say no since the Red Junglefowl is not the same as a domestic chicken. What you suggest would be like saying we should mark Homo erectus as secure since Man still survives today. SeaFox 20:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Status

message: In the UK chickens have started to gain popularty as pets, behind this up-surge in popularty is the advent of the [eglu] it's kind of like the imac of the chicken world.  The eglu has recived a resonable amount of press in the UK which has raised a lot of awareness of chickens as pet in the UK.
  
Does anyone know how many bones are in a chickens body?
Does anyone know what breed is depicted in the immage with the caption "A chicken at the 2005 Royal Melbourne Show"? I have a pet rooster, who i adore and have had for many years, who is very obviously the same breed as the one depicted. (for a long time I considdered him a rhode island red, but this picture calls my judgement into question) Paco 23:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Increased popularty as Pets

message: I'm surprised this rather basic information isn't in the article. Outside of the section on 'chickens as food', there doesn't appear to be anything about the life and death of chickens. -- Ec5618 22:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Compare to the 42 to 49 days  that the modern meat typically gets to live. Femto 14:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To what age do chickes live?

message: Currently, Gallus gallus redirects to Red junglefowl, which claims that the domestic chicken is Gallus gallus domesticus. Should this article be changed to reflect that? —Keenan Pepper 03:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, in the absence of any response, I'm changing it. —Keenan Pepper 13:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Binomial/trinomial name 

message: chicken is what you call somneone who backs down without trying
Thats actually quite innacurate. I own quite a few chickens, and considder them to be intellegent in most respects. except for one: judging opponants. I (inadvertently) trained my pet rooster 'Odyssues' to attack my father's black cowboy-boots. even though my father, who is at least 10 times Odysseus's size, often violently kicks him away, Odysseus persists in his attacks. Odysseus's behavior has now begun to include attacking car tires. (Lately, i've had to be very cautious when driving out of my yard) These factors have led me to conclude one of two possabilities:
1: Chickens are either quite stupid (which i've already stated they're not)
or
2: Chickens are some of the most suicidally brave animals in existence. Paco 23:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chicken Facts 

message: Where is the entire section on chickens going broody their incubation period and general mothering. Was it removed intentionally or lost in the never ending vandalism that occurs on this article? Kyle sb 16:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broody 

message: Does a project for creating an improving articles on the many chicken breeds exist yet? Minglex 16:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject chickens? 

message: In case nobody noticed, the picture of a woman holding a hen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chicken_as_pets.gif) is animated. Every couple of minutes or so the hen turns into a bucket of KFC. I find it hilarious, but that shouldn't be in an encyclopedia.
:Thanks for bringing that to our attention. It sure does. Yikes. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish I had seen that... Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 02:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Chicken as pets.gif]] 

message: Re "Chickens can make loving and gentle companion animals":  I have kept chickens for both food and companionship, and, while the birds can be sociable enough, I'm not sure one can honestly describe any chicken's behavior as "loving". Are fowl capable of love? Bchan 16:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Loving"? 

message: Are chickens able to swim? :/ Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 02:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thus meaning you can put them on an island somewhere for them to populate...Chicken Island! --TheJosh 10:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Water resistant? 32.97.110.142 10:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  * But only partially? - fiveless 15:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  It would imply that they would stay mostly dry under their feathers with only a little water such as when it's raining but not when they get soaked ei. dinked in a pol of water 124.150.69.217 09:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swimming? 

message: Me thinks this segment may possibly be more accurate if titled "Chicken Ratio." But, what do I know. When I read the word 'chicken" I think of the trucker talk on CB radio wherein "choke your chicken" refers to a male manipulating his male member in an attempt to achieve some form of temporary physical pleasure. Obbop 17:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This won't help matters. Despite what Fictional Jimbo Wales says :-) --Richmeister 14:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This might be simultaneously the best and worst idea ever.  Gorman 14:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hilarity Ensues! -- wtfunkymonkey 15:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  Best. Idea. Ever. Everyone knows about chickens! They can't swim, and aren't "loving," though. --Teknofatcat 9:37, 4 May 2007
Before the chicks are killed, there is a 50/50 hatch rate. There is no way to tell the gender of chicks before they hatch out. Indeed, some people make a living out of vent-sexing chicks at day old. However, unless you have these super-specialised skills, you need to wait until they are at least 8 weeks old, often longer before you can tell, as neither gender has any external sex organs. 
Hatcheries and big, commercial farms employ vent sexers, and then they gas the males, at day-old. If you want a rooster for breeding (this is the only reason you need one - hens will lay without a rooster), then the normal ratio suggested is 8 - 12 hens per cock.
Well, could someone put something about the chicken raTio in the main article ie someone with some knowledge on the matter(ie not me)? Blacklobster
Chickenman is an example of chicken radio. *Dan T.* 18:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chicken Radio

message: If anyone has time, could they:
* Create articles for the deceases that are externally linked
* Find common names for deceases
* Create a list of chicken dishes that have deceased
* Link to that list in the chickens for food section
TheJosh 10:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that most eaten chickens are deceased, if not diseased. Hopefully. — 66.195.210.123 02:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chicken deceases, chickens as food. 

message: Is there a reason we're not semi-protecting this instead? Phil Sandifer 17:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was getting heavily vandalized by registered users. --Masamage 18:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: YEs, this was a coordinated effort to vandalize. Users had no problem registering to do so. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 19:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was linked from  which in turns links to a joke site, which makes fun of Wikipedia. -- Equinoxe 21:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Semi-protecting also stops newly-registered users. And it's not a coordinated effort, it's a joke on a webcomic. Phil Sandifer 19:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And a web site. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 20:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Linked from the webcomic, and created as a back-up joke. Why don't we try semi, and see if it works. (By which I mean that I switched to semi, and we can re-protect if it continues as a big problem.) Phil Sandifer 21:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was semiprotected at first, and that didn't work at all. But now that it's the next day, we'll see. Hopefully things will calm down. --Masamage 23:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dinosaur Comics hasn't updated yet... probably once the T-Rex Chicken Solution To The Wikipedia Problem shifts off their front page, things will be more relaxed. --Grey Knight ⊖ 01:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: http://www.qwantz.com front page - updated! Now it can die peacefully in its sleep. --Grey Knight ⊖ 22:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protect or semi-protect from people not being a Digital Maoist

message: Vast majority of chicken living today were born in industrial farms.  Almost none looks like the photos showed in this article.  I got some photos of how 99% chicken looks like today. Please let me update this article with those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.162.139.183 (talk • contribs) 
:Where are the images you had in mind? (And please remember to sign your posts with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ .) JDoorjam     Talk 01:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign your posts.  The page is only locked for anonymous and very new registered users.  In order for images to be included in articles, they must first be uploaded.  Where are the images you're referring to currently located? JDoorjam     Talk 06:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're basically rectangular for greater space efficiency and don't actually have feathers. They definitely don't look like a differently-proportioned farm chicken. Sockatume 12:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're slightly funny...  D3matt 15:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please unlock this article! Illustrations are completly wrong!

message: I think that its weird, i read an article about the founder of wikipedia asking people to vandalize the chicken page, hoping it will keep them from vandalizing other pages, so when i get to the chicken page, it says that it has locked from editing because of recent vandalization.
:Actually, that was Ryan North, putting his words in the mouth of Fictional Jimbo Wales. Fictional being the keyword. --Masamage 17:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And indeed the picture of Jimbo on the page in question has the word "Fictional" in large rainbow type over its head :-P --Grey Knight ⊖ 22:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh oh! looks like this one could carry on for a while... wikipedia chicken controversy (theregister.co.uk) Crimsone 19:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I did my best to make your vandal wall entertaining, up to a certain point where I realized that I was wasting too much time and gave up. Thanks for the enjoyment!203.131.167.26 12:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Nope, per WP:N. It didn't make much of a difference in the world. --Masamage 19:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This came up during the Colberrorism incident as well: we have to differentiate between things that affect the subject of an article, and things that affect the article itself.  The chicken article is not about the article about chickens, it's about the chickens themselves.  Because this assault (albeit a light-hearted one) was on a Wikipedia article, not on chickens, it's not related to the subject of the article.  (It's also not terribly notable, undying love for Ryan North and Dinosaur Comics aside.) JDoorjam     Talk 19:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent vandalism

message: Hey, Ive noticed "your mom", on the cause of depresion cell. Revert it. --Walter Humala  21:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just curious, why didn't you remove it yourself instead of just marking it? --Masamage 01:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would 've removed it, but I didnt have the word to replace it. --Walter Humala  03:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, okay. In the future, you can feel fine about just deleting stuff like that outright.^_^ Someone else can make the other fixes. --Masamage 04:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent vandalism 

message: The guidelines say to add comments and suggestions at the bottom, and also refer to a "Post a comment" button... Confusing. However, the confusion that I wanted to comment on and ask for clarification of regards the history of chickens in the article. It says there were pictures of chickens in the 7th century BC in Rome, indicating an earlier introduction. It also says the bird probably originated in SE Asia and spread from there, but that's associated with a date of the 12th century AD. This is not making sense, though it might be that the 12th century thing is unrelated confusion and the chicken had actually been moving to the west long before that?
Shanen 03:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History problem with dates 

message: Please add interwiki link for Serbian language Wikipedia. The link is:
 sr:Кокошка
Thank you. --Branislav Jovanovic 19:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. By the way, congratulations on reaching 40,000 article over on srwiki, which has apparently been accomplished recently (based on the modified corner image.) Picaroon9288 02:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki request 

message: Do such places exist?  I had an informal discussion with my brother once and after determining that even Russia could / should have chickens (we are not 100% sure but find the idea completely possible), we couldn't find a normally populated place that wouldn't have chickens.
Actually as I was typing this I was thinking that likely the arctic would not have chickens, and thus northern Russia also shouldn't have chickens.  On a similar note the same with Antarctica.
Anywhere else? Piepants 10:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Places that DON'T have chicken 

message: I'm impressed with this article -- seems quite complete!  Yes, the tone could be improved in some sections, but the content/scope of material seems generally good.  And I am envious -- what a wonderful big list of chicken breeds!  Whenever I try to start something like that in an article, I get slapped down...  Keep up the good work! 69.87.204.169 23:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm Impressed!

message: www.everytopicintheuniverseexceptchickens.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michaelritchie200 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. See above. ^_^andry 22:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Are people aware of this?

message: I want to re-add,
:For the article on the human consumption of chicken, see Chicken (food).
or something similar at the top to this page, since, chicken has two direct meanings, the animal, and the food, and this is unrelated to the very long disambiguation page.   Many other articles do this such as Russia comes to mind do this, with both a direct link to a page and a disambiguation. Epson291 21:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I am going to add it back, it's been a while. Epson291 10:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-add Redirect 

message: It's even annoying to see that some people still believe that chickens are grown with the use of growth hormones. This is a myth! Even worse, those stating that such hormones are used in growing chickes are absolutly irresponsible by stating such things. Chickens are rised with no hormones. For those in doubt, look in the scientific (peer-reviewed journals) literature and you'll find NOTHING on the use of hormones to grow chickens. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.66.1.5 (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Growth hormones 

message: there have been more than a dozen recent major vandalisms of this page, by several repeat offenders. I move to protect. VanTucky 01:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: There's no reference for the 99% statistic given. I did find this study that suggests the figure is actually closer to 10% —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rjnienaber (talk • contribs) 09:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  E coli references 

message: Is Australia the only country that uses the word "chook" for a chicken? If there are other slang words for chicken, do you think there should be a section for this? Naysie 06:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Slang words

message: "chickens will eat styrofoam like candy." - http://www.google.com/search?q=chickens%20eat%20styrofoam
why? and is this bad? what if they're a safe clean way of disposing of styrofoam? mine will eat as much as possible and go ravenous for it. i never see styrofoam in their poops or find the eggs taste bad, I guess it isnt all that poisonous, we expected a few to die the next day or something... they still love styrofoam and still make eggs. --x1987x(talk) 03:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is bad because some people actually don't want their Styrofoam things peaked to pieces.  The little buggers ...~AFA Imagine I swore. 22:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chickens and styrofoam!? 

message: There's no section on the evolution of the chicken. Surely something can be said, referring to the proposed descent from dinosaurs for all birds. There's also this story 172.215.8.178 11:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All the news article is reporting in terms of science was that studies show chickens and dinosaurs share similar proteins, and by extension, genes. Fine. No surprise. Doesn't mean one is descended from the other, and in fact biology (post-Cladistics, anyway) doesn't normally make claims about ancestry-descent, but rather how close (or otherwise) groups are related relative to other groups. Hence humans and chimps aren't one descended from the other, but they are both more closely related to each other than either is to, say, gibbons. Anyway, this is the danger of non-expert Wiki editors quoting from non-scientific newspaper reports written by more non-experts about a highly complex scientific field that takes scientists years to learn about before they can contribute. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 22:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution of chicken 

message: I've done lots of copy editing, moving, and so forth. I've formalized nearly all of the wording (unless I missed something), so I removed that tag. I also removed the citation tag, since it was no longer true. Certain claims certainly do need to be cited, but the article as a whole has more than a few sources. I fixed the pet section, which read like a care manual. 
I think that some of these images are not helpful, and might need to be culled. Also, the history and religion sections are enormous and probably ought to be split into new articles. It would probably be well to go over the article again to delete unnecessary material in all the sections. 
Feedback is welcome.--Vlmastra 03:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision 

message: What is the utility of having a free range yolk in a container with a battery yolk?  I see they are different shades of orange/yellow, but I don't know if this is important or not, or what I'm supposed to be taking away from it. - MSTCrow 00:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It shows how the varied diet produces a richer (and possibly more nutritious) but less uniform egg. Also, not sure if this is in the article, but free-range eggs have much tougher shells as well. In other words, free-range eggs are better for you (or at least more natural). Compare it to the usefullness of seeing a wild salmon's dark pink flesh and a farmed salmon's (that hasn't been injected with dye) white flesh. Most anyone who didn't grow up eating factory eggs their whole life like most Westerners is a little unnerved by the look of a battery hen's egg yolk. VanTucky 00:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free Range Yolk vs. Battery Yolk 

message: My problem with this section is that it appears to be attempting to advocate some sort of middle way position. I'm not sure that's the idea of this article. To take, for example. PETA as an example of a group not happy with chicken farming is like using the NAZIs to define right-of-centre politics. There are plenty of groups who aren't opposed to farming but are opposed to some/all practises involved in intensive farming. Groups such as Compassion In World Farming and the RSPCA and chefs like Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall. Many stores (in the UK at least) sell poultry that has been farmed in some more humane way, with the retailers aiming to serve the desire among shoppers for humanely produced meat. So it's not just PETA wanting to ban chicken farming altogether!
To take another example, the author of this section seems to be trying to balance any pain involved in de-beaking against the benefits of the birds not harming one another. That's certainly an argument, but I'm not convinced we should be making it here. Better to reference verifiable sources on either side of the argument, plus any scientific studies attempting to quantify the benefits against harm.
I'm not wild about using the phrase "backed up the UDSA's Extension Program". At the very least, this implies the USDA has 'science on its side' which isn't really true at all. There are plenty of scientists who study bird behaviour who aren't in the least happy with battery farming. The USDA, like any other government department, has its own agenda and is lobbied by any number of agri-business groups. So they're hardly impartial scientists. Besides, it isn't up to Wikipedia to favour certain points of view where consensus doesn't exist in the real world, whether we're talking the industry or animal science.
Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 18:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you both that this section is far more POV than it should be. It seems odd that the Animal Welfare section would include info like chickens are slaughtered when they are young and tender. I've heard that they are manipulated to grow big fast to be more profitable, which would be a legit animal welfare concern if it adversely affects their movement or health. I'll look into some ways to make this more NPOV and have it stay on topic, and find references - and bring that back to the discussion page before posting. Bob98133 14:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Humane Treatment" section 

message: If you care about the Chickens in popular culture article, and want a place to put such material, then voice an opinion over at the discussion for that articles deletion, here. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 17:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Chickens in popular culture]] 

message: - Animal welfare is the concern for the welfare of animals, animal rights is the belief that animal have rights.  I advocate that instead of using 'those concern with animal welfare oppose factory farming', we should just use 'animal advocates' are against, and than state the different motivations.  Animal welfare and animal rights are very different things, and at times, the causes contradicts.  Example, PETA advocates the right of animals to be free from human control, this includes, care for, which falls under welfare.  PETA believes that we have no right to manage animals, whereas with welfare, the viewpoint is that we have responsibilites to go with our management of animals.
[11:47am EST, July 21, 2007]
: It seems fairly clear. In the humane treatment section it says "animal welfare advocates" which is sort of what you're saying. I'm not sure I understand your reference to PETA. They say they are an animal rights group, which might mean we have no right to manage animals, but they are equally clear about responsibility to avoid suffering with animals who are being managed. If you look at the KFC page, it looks like they are fighting for improved conditions, or better welfare, for KFC chickens, not just that KFC shouldn't use them. Bob98133 12:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well here we are, in spite of the different philosophy, the actual blurring of the lines by groups in real life?  When does the advocation for animal welfare cross into animal rights?  (or when the argument for the later violates the former, as in the case of those who advocated for that German polar cub's death.  The one clear thing about any advocation for animals, be it, "don't eat them", or, "farm humanely, hunt moderately", is that, it's advocation for animals.  So I think the article would be better, if through out, we just use 'animal advocates', unless we are dealing with something that's specifically animal rights, like PETA (which concerns itself with improving the lives of animals because they advocate that animal have rights, and ultimately believes that we shouldn't use them), and something that's just animal welfare, like, a chicken farmer who advocates free ranging chicken?  10:29 EST, August 3rd, 2007
Wikipedia should not frame issues with industrial farming as pro versus con or this side says this and that side says that. The are many separate issues and a variety of ever changing practices. H5N1 has caused numerous changes in poultry raising practices. The experts are advocating a change from old style industrial farming to a gradual change to sustainable farming. Only people who don't base their opinion on evidence never change their opinion. Animal activists are only too eager to paint it as people who care about animals against people who don't care about animals. There are not two sides and one issue. Many opinions. Many issues. Many facts.  WAS 4.250 19:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animal advocates 

message: The term "battery" appears in two photo captions, but that is it. The article does not explain what a "battery egg" is. Confusing.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.251.230.56 (talk) 23:17:53, August 19, 2007 (UTC) 
Battery eggs are eggs from battery chickens on battery chicken farms raised in battery cages.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by WAS 4.250 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Battery"? 

message: I want to edit this page. "protected"?? What kind of bullshit is this? "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" my ass.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.48.241 (talk) 07:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the article wasn't a repeated target for vandals, it wouldn't be protected. But it is. Once you create a user account (which is free) and then make some constructive edits elsewhere, you'll be able to make constructive edits here, too. Cheers, Neale Monks 08:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit protection

message: Under the topic of "humane treatment," there is a "citation needed" regarding chickens playing the piano.  I offer this link as proof that chickens can indeed play the piano:    75.61.182.230 08:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Appears to be a blog, which is not generally allowed as a reference, see WP:V--Doug.(talk • contribs) 15:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chicken playing the piano

message: I was down in the pub the other night, when I had a furious row over rooster dongs. I say roosters have to have dongs, they said they couldn't, it was pretty bad. Anyway, I looked it up on wikipedia, and, well, do roosters have dongs? It says something about "mounting the hen", which implies dongs, but has anyone ever actually SEEN a rooster dong? Nah, I didn't think so. More pics!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.215.227 (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want a pic of that, you're out of luck...  Like most male birds, they do not have one.  They have a cloaca, similar to that of the female – a single all-purpose opening.  Mating is done by pressing the two together.  Some male birds do have such an organ – waterfowl, and ratites (ostriches etc).  You're right, this does need to go in somewhere, & it's not easy to find at the moment. (Snakes and lizards have two...)--Richard New Forest 22:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs more information on courting 

message: :it:Gallo (animale)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.11.15.110 (talk) 01:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fix interwiki it