Template:Did you know nominations/Theory of mind in animals
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 03:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator.
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Theory of mind in animals[edit]
... that ....? If scrub jays are watched caching their food, they re-cache this when they are in private.
Created by DrChrissy (talk). Self-nominated at 20:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC).
@DrChrissy: I think this proposed hook is missing something, looks a bit like it needs the article mentioned and linked in there somewhere. Date and length are fine otherwise. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback.
How about (Alt 1) "...animals possessing theory of mind are able to understand the knowledge of others, e.g. if scrub jays are watched by another jay caching their food, they re-cache this later when they are in private." This is a little over the 200 characters, but I am sure could be trimmed if this is a problem. DrChrissy (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- @DrChrissy: Unfortunately WP:DYKHOOK states that 200 is the limit so you would need to change the hook. Also, I don't think that using "eg" in there is a good idea. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- @The C of E: Is it the use of "e.g." that is a problem, or that I am providing an example? Could the hook say "...for example, scrub jays..."? DrChrissy (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- The example would be fine, however it would still make it too long, how about merging the example with the original hook, something along the lines of "that the theory of mind in animals holds that scrub jays can learn from others how to catch food and copy their behaviours?" The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- @The C of E: Is it the use of "e.g." that is a problem, or that I am providing an example? Could the hook say "...for example, scrub jays..."? DrChrissy (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- @DrChrissy: Unfortunately WP:DYKHOOK states that 200 is the limit so you would need to change the hook. Also, I don't think that using "eg" in there is a good idea. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Alt 2 * ... that the theory of mind in animals holds that animals understand others’ perspectives, so dogs forbidden to take food, preferentially steal food from humans who have their back turned? (195 characters, with spaces)
- I have changed the example to appeal to a broader audience (many readers will have dogs), rather than the somewhat esoteric scrub jay. DrChrissy (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
That hook reads a lot better and is within length. AGF on offline source, QPQ not needed as first nomination. Rest as per original comment. Good to go on ALT2. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, the prose needs to be more distanced from the source. Pulled from queue. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- The original review only mentions date and length; it does not mention checking for close paraphrasing or copyvio. Once these issues (see WT:DYK#Copyvio in Q4 for moreo details) have been satisfactorily dealt with, such that the close paraphrasing and non-free templates are removed by the editor who placed them, a completely new, full DYK review will need to be done. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- It has been twelve days since the article was pulled, and it still has a close paraphrasing template on it. DrChrissy, I hope this can be resolved soon; if not, the nomination may have to be closed. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- It was @Nikkimaria: who placed the template. They have subsequently edited the article (one can only presume to their satisfaction) but have not removed the template. I have pinged them to this post, so hopefully they will take appropriate action. DrChrissy (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- @DrChrissy: I edited the final two sections and then stopped when you indicated that my editing had introduced inaccuracies. It is my opinion that the tag is still appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: You edited the "in goats section" and "in pigs" section, so these are presumably now OK with respect to close paraphrasing. In which of the other 3 areas you initially indicated do paraphrasing problems remain? Would you be willing to fix these? DrChrissy (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- You indicated that my rephrasing was problematic, and obviously fixing one problem by creating a new one is suboptimal. Can you clarify what problems you saw with regards to the reworded sections? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Your edit at the "In pigs" section deleted "The researchers subsequently commented that although there are alternative (somewhat tortuous) explanations, it remains possible that the single pig genuinely demonstrated visual perspective taking". This, in my opinion, is essential to give a balanced section. In your edit at the "In goats" section, you re-wrote saying "... suggesting that they are able to perceive a threat based on being within the dominant animal's view." This totally misses the point and the major finding of the study, i.e. theory of mind. DrChrissy (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- What perspective do you feel that pig quote adds that is currently missing to create balance? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have just seen your edit at the goat section. This still completely misses the point. The goat with theory of mind is not reacting to threat, it is reacting to the perceived knowledge of the dominant goat. In the pig section, it is absolutely crucial that the authors acknowledged alternative hypotheses could explain their findings, albeit rather tortuous ones. Are you prepared yet to address my direct question of where you believe close paraphrasing is still a problem, in your opinion?
- The lead, History and development, Knower-Guesser, Competitive feeding paradigm, Goggles Method, Chimpanzees, Other primates, Ravens, Scrub jays, and In dogs. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Many of these are large sections containing multiple sources. Please can you be more specific. DrChrissy (talk) 14:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Lead para 2; History para 4 and 5; the single para of Knower-Guesser; Competitive feeding para 2; the single para of Goggles; Chimpanzees para 5 and 6; Other primates para 1, 2, and 3; Ravens para 2, 4, and 5; only para of Scrub jays; and In dogs para 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. The issues extend beyond the sources listed in the article - for example, the pig quote above is from this source - so that list is not necessarily exhaustive. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Many of these are large sections containing multiple sources. Please can you be more specific. DrChrissy (talk) 14:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- The lead, History and development, Knower-Guesser, Competitive feeding paradigm, Goggles Method, Chimpanzees, Other primates, Ravens, Scrub jays, and In dogs. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have just seen your edit at the goat section. This still completely misses the point. The goat with theory of mind is not reacting to threat, it is reacting to the perceived knowledge of the dominant goat. In the pig section, it is absolutely crucial that the authors acknowledged alternative hypotheses could explain their findings, albeit rather tortuous ones. Are you prepared yet to address my direct question of where you believe close paraphrasing is still a problem, in your opinion?
- What perspective do you feel that pig quote adds that is currently missing to create balance? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Your edit at the "In pigs" section deleted "The researchers subsequently commented that although there are alternative (somewhat tortuous) explanations, it remains possible that the single pig genuinely demonstrated visual perspective taking". This, in my opinion, is essential to give a balanced section. In your edit at the "In goats" section, you re-wrote saying "... suggesting that they are able to perceive a threat based on being within the dominant animal's view." This totally misses the point and the major finding of the study, i.e. theory of mind. DrChrissy (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- You indicated that my rephrasing was problematic, and obviously fixing one problem by creating a new one is suboptimal. Can you clarify what problems you saw with regards to the reworded sections? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: You edited the "in goats section" and "in pigs" section, so these are presumably now OK with respect to close paraphrasing. In which of the other 3 areas you initially indicated do paraphrasing problems remain? Would you be willing to fix these? DrChrissy (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- @DrChrissy: I edited the final two sections and then stopped when you indicated that my editing had introduced inaccuracies. It is my opinion that the tag is still appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- It was @Nikkimaria: who placed the template. They have subsequently edited the article (one can only presume to their satisfaction) but have not removed the template. I have pinged them to this post, so hopefully they will take appropriate action. DrChrissy (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- It has been twelve days since the article was pulled, and it still has a close paraphrasing template on it. DrChrissy, I hope this can be resolved soon; if not, the nomination may have to be closed. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)