• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Petition to AOS Leadership on the Recent Decision to Change all Eponymous Bird Names (1 Viewer)

Mysticete said:
1000 characters seems to be a reasonable number of characters to get your general point across, especially since at this point its unlikely its a point that will either be unique nor original compared to what others have said.
Click to expand...

Having (apparently) recognised that it has failed to behave appropriately to date in its implementation. this is an attempt to appear more inclusive. The organisation therefore has sort more wide-ranging input.

In doing so, it has decided to control that input in two respects. Firstly, the window available for the submission and secondly the length of the submission.

I have sat in plenty of rooms where individuals seeking engagement for instance from employees have used both of those elements really to restrict input as they are not interested in alternative views.

This could easily have been 30th June and 2,500 characters as a minimum.

Those supportive of the organisation will, of course, say that they consider what is being done is reasonable but in reality, this is illustrative of an attempt to restrict input. A character limit is likely to prevent substance in circumstances where to date, an absence of substance appears to have dictated the debate.

Most often in such circumstances those who complain of aspects in an opposing view eg a closed mind are really holding a mirror up to their own behaviour. A good judge is probably to view the elements against the organisation's behaviour to date.

All the best

Paul
 
Last edited:
Paul Chapman said:
The four principle reasons would be:-

(1) the potential use of the names by an international system that you may use - eBird;

(2) the potential use of the names in future American or international literature that you may purchase or indeed free content such as the Internet;

(3) in order to show support for individuals who have expressed views with which you may agree; &

(4) because as a matter of principle, the change of non-offensive eponyms in circumstances where there is no cogent evidence (that it will increase either diversity or engagement) is likely to damage a hobby with which you engage either simply internationally or also in the area concerned or indeed, if you feel to the contrary that the change will increase diversity or engagement and you wish to show support.

Those are the reasons why I will express my views.

All the best

Paul
Click to expand...
Sorry Paul, I guess invested was the wrong word, I was going to say angry but decided not to
 
I am not going to belabor this point or continue with this specific subthread, but you can absolutely detect tone in written response. Hell, my very first lecture of the semester, I specifically go over email etiquette with my students, where I bring up this very point.

Although the fact that you (Andy) are arguing you can't really does make everything click into place given that you are almost certainly guilty of having perhaps producing the largest number of rant-posts on this site (you literally start off the reply with "Sorry but that is crap").


At any rate, on a more general note, comment or don't comment. But it does feel like some folks are moving goalposts on what they want from the AOS.
 
Andy Adcock said:
Sorry but that's crap.

I can easily write that without foaming at the mouth, you infer what is not there and the example you use is factually correct so why should one tip-toe around the isssue?

Some of the stuff coming from the other side which involves claims of racism, are most definitely rants.

The actual definition is this - 'to speak, write (capital letters in print, right?) or shout in a loud, uncontrolled, or angry way', I argue that whilst you may think you can infer some physical actions from a writer, most often, you'd be wrong. I didn't highlight 'angry' there because one can be calm yet angry at the same time. If I were to write something like stay away from my wife or I'll effing kill you', this could be presumed to be a rant but even that, can be verbalised without loss of control.

I argue that you can only guess, at how the person, writing the words is acting, if he's throwing his arms around and swearing or if he's the personification of calm. I don't consider what I write to be any kind of rant. I write what I think and I'm calm when I do it. One observation is that the longer an opinion piece is, it's more likely to earn the title of being a rant.

The other thing, offence, your free speach rights include the right to 'offend' unless it's against one of the so called 'protected' classes. and just because one me feel offended, you have no right to describe the writers words as a rant, just because you don't like them.

Bottom line, rant is an over used word in relation to the written word and most often used by people whose argument is being dismantled and who want to arrogantly dismiss a view point without addressing it. I'm writing this after packing my six year old off to school and I'm calmly, sipping my tea, no rant going on here.
Click to expand...
I really don't care about your physical actions or emotional state while writing. Writing still has a tone, and communicating with generalizations, insults, and hyperbole does carry the same tone as a rant. You by all means have the right to communicate however you please, but don't expect anyone (at least anyone you disagree with) to listen unless your writing carries a respectful, logical tone. The reason you would, as you say, "tip toe around the issue", is the same reason you wouldn't ask your wife, "have you noticed you're getting really fat?"
 
Andy Adcock said:
The actual definition is this - 'to speak, write (capital letters in print, right?) or shout in a loud, uncontrolled, or angry way', I argue that whilst you may think you can infer some physical actions from a writer, most often, you'd be wrong. I didn't highlight 'angry' there because one can be calm yet angry at the same time. If I were to write something like stay away from my wife or I'll effing kill you', this could be presumed to be a rant but even that, can be verbalised without loss of control.

I argue that you can only guess, at how the person, writing the words is acting, if he's throwing his arms around and swearing or if he's the personification of calm. I don't consider what I write to be any kind of rant. I write what I think and I'm calm when I do it. One observation is that the longer an opinion piece is, it's more likely to earn the title of being a rant.
Click to expand...
Against my better judgement, I'm weighing in here, though let me start by saying my primary intent here is not addressing Andy specifically, but our forum communication in general.

I joke a lot, both here and elsewhere in written form - and I've been warned time and again that my tone, intent, intensity, and/or seriousness is not always apparent just by reading what is written. It's obvious but I'll say it anyway - here in the forum we don't have the benefit of nonverbal cues to observe, nor of conveniently asking one another to explain the mood behind their statements. If we're lucky, there's an emoji to help us out.

I've learned to do my best to be cognizant of this in posts. That means extra explanation, extra care in word choice, yes emojis sometimes, and overall just thoughtfulness of not only what I'm typing but how it presents. That doesn't mean I always succeed at this - I don't. But at least I know I try, and then when it flubs its easier for me to circle back and course-correct with someone who misunderstands.

That said - I do believe some people kind of "want" to misunderstand - or more accurately interpret selectively. We are all guilty of interpreting through our own narratives - it's a human thing. I also need to remind myself to give the benefit of the doubt on "tone" sometimes, or to see past poorly styled wording to get to the meat of the product instead of getting caught up on what is basically word selection. For example, is the tone really what is important or is the message? (sometimes the answer is yes, it is important... but am I reading it correctly?). Sometimes, yes an emotional crescendo is someone's point - but then what would be the importance of my response? What good would it do? Would it just further detract from the conversation? Would it suck me into the same emotional whirlpool? Would it even make me feel better?

The bottom line is this cuts two ways. 1) if I want to be an effective communicator it is my responsibility to pay attention to the "tone" or the way my message will be received. Otherwise, I am (either deliberately or accidentally) introducing unnecessary communication error. But also 2) if I want to be an honest receiver and responder to this information, it is my responsibility to put effort into understanding that the intent of a message, and frankly it is also my responsibility to ignore postings which are so emotional and inflammatory as to be useless to the conversation.

And I'll add a third point - if a person doesn't care about these responsibilities then it would be ignorant to expect that there won't be misinterpretations (and to be clear, I don't believe anyone involved in this conversation is ignorant - but we can all use reminders from time to time).

So if you're limited to a thousand words, be sure they are chosen wisely.

Here are some emojis, less than wisely chosen: 👻😺🦾🦷🧑‍🌾🧜‍♀️🕶️
 
Well I just took the time to write the most thoughtful, polite, yet direct statements I could on this, and submitted them at the AOS site mentioned above. I'm asking that they simply go back to the NACC's reasonable proposal. Negotiate. Be moderate. Give both sides some ground. And remember that if were are going to proclaim diversity as a goal, we need to honor diversity in ideas.

Wouldn't it be refreshing to see an organization such as the AOS address the deeper culture wars by seeking accords, instead of embracing one camp only? I'm not optimistic, but I've tried to do my little part.
 
Last edited:
Paul Chapman said:
Angry best avoided. 😀

(I hope all is well with you. Just dipped into latest news to see another strong breeding season for your excellent work.)

All the best

Paul
Click to expand...
Thanks Paul, yep another record breaking season - 38 chicks fledged, or almost fledged, last few should go this week

Just to go back to your previous post briefly & try & explain the point I didn't really make - international birders don't seem to be bothered by 'official' OSNZ bird names in New Zealand & use names that have never been used in New Zealand (South Island Wren, Parkinson's Petrel, Magenta Petrel etc.), ebird uses some names that they've come up with themselves (South Black-backed Gull, Chatham Parakeet) and there's also a sociopolitical shift here to give Maori names at least equal prominence as English names (I think government documents now have to use English, Maori, and here at least, Moriori names for birds & anything else - I'm really glad you got to see a Karure/Kakaruia/Chatham Island Black Robin on Hokoreroro/Rangatira/South East Island!) & there's been no international outcry, people use whatever names they want & everybody knows what they're talking about. I just don't understand why Brits are so concerned with what the AOS are doing, just ignore it if you want & go on calling the birds whatever you want
 
Paul Chapman said:
Where can I find this 'poll'? Or do you mean the form referred to here...

"The AOS leadership is interested in any ideas, comments, feedback, and suggestions you would like to share with us about the development of this pilot project and how you might become involved; about any AOS decisions or actions regarding English common bird names; or about the upcoming AOS public forum that will address this initiative at our 2024 annual meeting. Please submit your ideas and comments to us through this online form by Friday, 31 May 2024."

The short window was something that led to me raising my eyebrows when I read it. The fact that it was devised as an on-line form which needs to be completed to see its contents is also offputting. There are basic information gathering aspects including your organisation affiliation and your AOS membership status and then the substance can be added under the following headings:-

"Comments, Suggestions, Feedback, Ideas (OPTIONAL)
Please share your comments with us.
AOS English Common Names Pilot Project
OPTIONAL: Please share comments, suggestions, feedback, and ideas about the English Common Names Pilot Project. (1,000 characters max)
Your answer

Past AOS decisions & actions about English bird names
OPTIONAL: Please share comments about past AOS decisions and actions about English bird names. (1,000 characters max)
Your answer

AOS Public Forum at 2024 annual meeting
OPTIONAL: Please share content and format suggestions for the AOS Public Forum on English Common Names at the 2024 annual meeting in Estes Park, Colorado, in October. (1,000 characters max)
Your answer

General comments
OPTIONAL: Please share general comments, suggestions, feedback, and ideas. (1,000 characters max)"

This email totals 1,828 characters which is pretty indicative that this is cynical lip service.

All the best

Paul
Click to expand...

raymie said:
Where is this way to submit thoughts? I must have missed it above.
Click to expand...

Link is in my post above. The online form.

"Please submit your ideas and comments to us through this online form by Friday, 31 May 2024."

All the best

Paul
 
Last edited:
Dave Boyle said:
Thanks Paul, yep another record breaking season - 38 chicks fledged, or almost fledged, last few should go this week

Just to go back to your previous post briefly & try & explain the point I didn't really make - international birders don't seem to be bothered by 'official' OSNZ bird names in New Zealand & use names that have never been used in New Zealand (South Island Wren, Parkinson's Petrel, Magenta Petrel etc.), ebird uses some names that they've come up with themselves (South Black-backed Gull, Chatham Parakeet) and there's also a sociopolitical shift here to give Maori names at least equal prominence as English names (I think government documents now have to use English, Maori, and here at least, Moriori names for birds & anything else - I'm really glad you got to see a Karure/Kakaruia/Chatham Island Black Robin on Hokoreroro/Rangatira/South East Island!) & there's been no international outcry, people use whatever names they want & everybody knows what they're talking about. I just don't understand why Brits are so concerned with what the AOS are doing, just ignore it if you want & go on calling the birds whatever you want
Click to expand...

Excellent news on the important stuff! Good luck with the last few fledglings and tying up the end of season tasks. 😀

I totally get the point on names generally but in my view, there are elements here where what is being done is daft and the changing of non-offsensive names as has been proposed is actually damaging some quite important messaging.

On the names, I am sure that absent the "fuss" eBird would have changed Blackburnian Warbler on my list to whatever followed. I will call it Blackburnian Warbler regardless so I agree that is unimportant.

But there are important things here about engagement, diversity, messaging, etc and a wholesale change of eponyms is the worst of all worlds in my view missing the opportunity to educate on the most offensive names whilst managing to over-react and leave important messaging open to criticism.

I will try and express that succinctly in less than 1,000 characters but time to walk my five moth traps before topping up my generators.

Edit - it is quiet here! It occurred to me as I pottered around the traps that what I am seeing here with the AOS decision appears to be the opposite of the hearts & minds approach in New Zealand.

All the best

Paul
 
Last edited:
Lerxst said:
Yet.

Click to expand...
These are serious considerations, but I also understand some of them, e.g. in the case of the Hitler's beetle. But there is the Principle of Priority in the ICZN, which means that a original describer of the species has the right to name a species. However, if a woke community is of the opinion that they don't like the name, then you can't just change it without involving the original author. This is similar to a book author from whom you withdraw the copyright for his book.
 
Dave Boyle said:
d there's also a sociopolitical shift here to give Maori names at least equal prominence as English names (I think government documents now have to use English, Maori, and here at least, Moriori names for birds & anything else - I'm really glad you got to see a Karure/Kakaruia/Chatham Island Black Robin on Hokoreroro/Rangatira/South East Island!) & there's been no international outcry, people use whatever names they want & everybody knows what they're talking about. I just don't understand why Brits are so concerned with what the AOS are doing, just ignore it if you want & go on calling the birds whatever you want
Click to expand...
You can't do that with a World, list though, the names are intended to be written in English but for the record, I have no issue with listing native names in books etc. I was looking at a field guide a few weeks ago which had I think, three languages in the index.

Can't help thinking it's just box ticking though, on a practical level, who will use Maori names?
 
Melanie said:
These are serious considerations, but I also understand some of them, e.g. in the case of the Hitler's beetle. But there is the Principle of Priority in the ICZN, which means that a original describer of the species has the right to name a species. However, if a woke community is of the opinion that they don't like the name, then you can't just change it without involving the original author. This is similar to a book author from whom you withdraw the copyright for his book.
Click to expand...
I don't think you can withdraw copyright ("right" is a clue) although a publisher can of course refuse to publish.

John
 
Melanie said:
But there is the Principle of Priority in the ICZN, which means that a original describer of the species has the right to name a species. However, if a woke community is of the opinion that they don't like the name, then you can't just change it without involving the original author. This is similar to a book author from whom you withdraw the copyright for his book.
Click to expand...

I agree. But, rules and guidelines change. Nothing is set in stone. All that needs to happen is that a critical mass of postmodernists get into the ICZN. They do not care about science's practices as they relate to priority, rules, rights, etc., for these are merely tools of 'white colonialism' and 'oppression'. The continued existence of honorifics in Latin names will ultimately depend on how widespread the critical theory mindset becomes among biologists going forward. One can see from the paper I linked to that such biologists are certainly out there, and they are thinking big. And honestly, I never dreamed that they'd be able to pull off what they did within the AOS. It's rather impressive, really.
 
Last edited:
Melanie said:
These are serious considerations, but I also understand some of them, e.g. in the case of the Hitler's beetle. But there is the Principle of Priority in the ICZN, which means that a original describer of the species has the right to name a species. However, if a woke community is of the opinion that they don't like the name, then you can't just change it without involving the original author. This is similar to a book author from whom you withdraw the copyright for his book.
Click to expand...

No, it's not similar. The "original author" did not create the species, he merely happened to be the first person to describe it. There is nothing preventing us from sitting down and deciding to abolish any "Principle" if it's not practical Why should the scientific naming of all species be forever a hostage of those who first named them?
 

Similar threads

Bewick
  • Poll
Poll - Do you agree or disagree with the AOS's recent decision to abandon the use of eponymous bird names?
40 41 42
Replies
823
Views
42K
Mysticete
Mysticete
dragnil
Urgent - the birds in Italy need your help
Replies
4
Views
805
SueO
SueO
Mysticete
AOS community forum on English Bird Names
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
8K
Mysticete
Mysticete
C
A Moorland Vision- And How You Can Help
Replies
12
Views
2K
coaltit
C
seedyrom
The Netherlands July 2017
Replies
0
Views
895
seedyrom
seedyrom

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top