Talk:Pair bond

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 January 2022 and 4 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Quesedillon (article contribs). Peer reviewers: HT416.

Images

The image in the Lead section does not relate to the information in that section. The image of the birds seems out of place when that section does not mention anything about birds but does mention a lot about the Voles. To improve I believe the image should be showing Pair Bonding between two Voles, or information should be added to show that the article is going to reference different species Sophykbutt (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Added Section

I added the "Humans and Pair Bonding" section as well as two more examples and two more paragraphs under the Overview section.

Quotation needs clarifying

In the "Examples" section there is a quotation, apparently from The Myth of Monogamy by Lipton and Barash. The way it's formatted, it's impossible to tell where the quotation begins and ends, so you can't see what text is quoted and what's original to the article. There is also no clear citation (the linked web pages are not the source, and would be inadequate even if they were). I would fix it myself, but I don't have access to the book. Hairy Dude (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

More examples needed

The examples section doesn't have very many examples. This article could be improved with a list of known pair bonding animals for each of the pair-bonding categories listed. Right now only two or three species are named. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.139.220.200 (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Citation for gibbons being "swingers?"

Is there a ready source for gibbons being swingers? According to a page from Davidson College (http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/vecase/behavior/Spring2004/eppolito/matingsystem.html) gibbons are monogamous but prone to cheating (not unlike monogamous humans). I don't see any "wife swapping" going on... did the original poster mean bonobos? --InformationalAnarchist (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

"Humans and pair bonding"

The first paragraph is quite good, but the second paragraph (and especially the later half of it) is very difficult to understand and could use some revision. Phiarc (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Being clear is not difficult

The section Fishes begins as follows:

"A University of Florida scientist reports that male sand gobies work harder at building nests and taking care of eggs when females are present – the first time such “courtship parental care” has been documented in any species."

In any species??? Is it so very difficult to add the words "of fishes" that would remove the possibility of ambiguity? No, it is not.

Sure, some people could guess that since the section is about fish, that you mean fish. But don't be lazy. If it only requires a small number of additional words to make your editing unambiguous, then please, by all means, spend another 10 seconds typing those additional words. Pretend that you are a professional.50.205.142.35 (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

So do it. Prinsgezinde (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC) if you don't know pair bonding its okay.

Humans and Pair Bonding

The citations for the claim that "humans and other vertebrates" socially and hormonally pair bond is unsupported in the actual citations and is misleading.

The first citation claims that humans socially pair bond.

The second citation claims that a species of fish hormonally pair bond and doesn't support any claims about humans or vertebrates in general. It's also a Ph.D thesis and Ph.D theses are not peer-reviewed. The inclusion of a Ph.D thesis as a source risks running afoul of Wikipedia's original research policy and Ph.D theses should not generally meet Wikipedia's standards as a reliable source. A Ph.D thesis is grammar checked and checked for internal consistency, often by a panel who are not experts. It is not considered either a formally published academic work OR peer-reviewed.

I would strongly suggest finding another citation to support the claims made in this sentence. 2601:CD:4200:380:A1D3:1306:9116:DCE5 (talk) 03:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)