Talk:Centrocercus

message: I propose changing the name of this article to Sage Grouse in keeping with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds guideline to use common names rather than scientific names. Lexaxis7 (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename proposal 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Centrocercus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140627000000/http://www.iucnredlist.org to http://www.iucnredlist.org
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140627000000/http://www.iucnredlist.org to http://www.iucnredlist.org
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Can you spot what's wrong with this sentence?
"Lewis and Clark are credited with the discovery of five gallinaceous birds in addition to the sage grouse: the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, the dusky grouse, Franklin's grouse, the Oregon ruffed grouse, and the mountain quail."
I'm sure they are "credited" with the "discovery" of these birds: White people in their day couldn't credit the Indians with knowing the birds for thousands of years; it didn't count unless white men knew them. Don't we know better today? How about "In their day, Lewis and Clark were credited with the 'discovery' of five gallinaceous birds in addition to the sage grouse — the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, the dusky grouse, Franklin's grouse, the Oregon ruffed grouse, and the mountain quail — and what's certain is that they were the first to widely spread knowledge about these birds to the white man." Better yet, if someone can find citations that Indians showed them the birds or told them about the birds. 
But I would submit that leaving the text as it is is an act of unreconstructed white supremacy, insidious through its unstated assumption that people not yet contacted by whites couldn't possibly be credited with discovering anything. And if I sound strident in this line of argumentation, it's because I'm the son of an anthropologist who often talked about marked and unmarked categories, and in the U.S., white men were traditionally such an unmarked category that everything in history was taught from the viewpoint of white men (especially very wealthy ones) without even ever stating that that was the viewpoint or that there could be any other. We haven't come very far from that, but let's at least try. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted the whole History section. The only thing in it was that sentence, and a discussion of something that happened in a legislative session in the United States: oddly specific, not relevant to the genus of bird, and generally out of place. 162.233.200.152 (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  User:Discospinster reverted the deletion. They responded to a comment on their talk page. 162.233.200.152 (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

text: "Described" is the most commonly-used terminology for description or recognition by Europeans in similar articles. Rather than throwing out the baby and bathwater together, a consolidation and rephrasing would be a more reasonable route. I'm not convinced that the whole paragraph concerning Trump and the NDA is really necessary. Acroterion (talk) 00:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Discovery"