Talk:Rock Pigeon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rock Pigeon article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Good article Rock Pigeon has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
WikiProject Birds
Birds Portal
Rock Pigeon is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please do not substitute this template.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
It is requested that an audio file(s) be included in this article to improve its quality.
WikiProject Birds To-do:
Rock Pigeon is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Rock Pigeon as food.

It should be mentioned that the Rock Pigeon is edible and very good dishes can be made with it. It is a common menu in some parts of Mexico. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.163.151.241 (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Good picture?

Can anyone tell me if this picture of a rock pigeon is good? Kind of dull but...

Josh215 22:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Why did you post that? Wattylfc 15:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's my first picture.. I'm sure that when someone uploads their first pictures they ask something. Anyway, I'm asking because I want to see if my picture can be used for good measure. Josh215 23:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's nice. The picture itself isn't too dark, it's a good size, there's a good level of detail, and the bird displays its species' natural markings. 71.217.114.221 04:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rating

I've rated this article per a request on the Wikiproject birds. The article is somewhere between a start and B - it has a lot of information but is heavily skewed towards pigeon-human interactions; the article needs to be widened to include more about the biology of the species. Its getting there, and is quite an important species. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for rating this article. It's amazing how such an article didn't get rated until now. Josh215 01:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rock pigeon

I redirected Rock pigeon here (and Pigeon to Columbidae); that article was subject to a long edit war, and it contained the vague definition of:

A Rock pigeon is any of several species of Australian pigeon. The rock pigeons are related to, and in many ways similar to, the bronzewing pigeons. A rock pigeon is not a Rock Pigeon Columba livia.

  1. We don't normally disambiguate just by capitalization
  2. We don't normally need dab pages for 2 items, especially not when one is far more prominent than the other
  3. When one types "rock pigeon" in the search box, it's far more possible that he wants Rock Pigeon than Australian species (actually, those are two species)
  4. I added the dab notice on top of this article, fixed a couple of incoming links, and created a stub of Petrophassa.

Duja► 12:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Spread of Disease

I'm concerned about the objectivity and reliability of the Spread of Disease section. The citations for the Spread of Disease section only references one site - http://www.urbanwildlifesociety.org. Many of the quotes seemingly attributed to reliable sources, such as the CDC or the NY Dept of Health, in fact point to a quotes page on that site. However, this quotes page is unsubstantiated. --PCStuff 11:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The only disease I've ever heard about pigeons suffering from is coccidiosis. A decade or so ago, I read some articles about humans acquiring this disease by inadvertent close association with pigeons. The story was that several people had contracted the disease because their living spaces or office spaces were open to air currents that carried infective material from the nesting areas of the birds. I do not know the frequency of such disease transmission but judging by the required circumstnces it must have been low. The moral of the stories seemed to have been that if you had pigeons nesting on your window ledge it might be hazardous to your health unless the window was well sealed. Generally speaking, it is rare for humans to inhale dust arising from pigeon nests. I wonder what other sources of information on disease transmission there may be. If the rate of transmission is indeed low then it may well be that only people who want to sell their extermination services will write articles on the subject. P0M 04:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Coccidia is something most pigeons seem to have; some veterinary medicine folks think that a low level is actually prophylactic — keeps the immune system functioning. One article somewhere in MedLine asserts that tests indicate 30 percent of people in frequent contact with pigeons show coccidia antibodies — against something like one-tenth that in people with no such frequent contact. Seems generally to be controlled, then, by normal immune systems. People with compromised immune systems, of course, have problems; they would have them anyway. --djenner (talk) 04:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
My memory must be bad, or else some people use medical terms without due care. There are three diseases associated with pigeons that humans may get, and all transmissions are rare. Generally they are related to activities such as major clean-ups of pigeon roosts in buildings. See http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/epi/epi-pigeon.shtml
P0M 04:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The key element is the rarity. The number of cases described is vanishingly small. The clean-up thing is also interesting. Here, the issue is not pigeons propter se, but pigeon detritus — lots of old poop and lots of other stuff, allowed to accumulate, sometimes for decades. This is more stuff than one normally sees, even if one deals with a dove-cote; outdoors, a mild rain usually washes the stuff away; indoors or under shelter, a 15 minute hose-down cleans up pretty well what one might see in, say, a week. The "industrial quantity" situation is more dramatic: The stuff is dry and dusty; a NIOSH approved negative-pressure mask is recommended and washable clothing (not hazmat suits, or anything dramatic, though); wet down the poop (control the dust), shovel it into sacks, and put it out with the garbage (unless the landlord has been really remiss, in which case you may need a serious dumpster!). The point here: Pigeon detritus is not hazardous waste, proximally and for the most part. --djenner (talk) 04:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
"Though feral pigeons are often associated with the threat of disease, this is actually a fairly recent idea. Pigeons have been associated with a variety of diseases, including histoplasmosis and cryptococcis." This is a rather ambivalent line, seems to me. Whatever. A great deal of research on pigeons has been done by a chap at Basel, name of Haag-Wackernagel. Seems to have a sort of cognitive-dissonance problem with the wee birdies; on the one hand, seems fairly admiring, on the other, seems to be getting a good living from telling Basel how to knobble its pigeon-population. [Academics can be bought.... Cheaply.] Reading through his papers (some available online) one has the sense he really wants to make a case that playing with pigeons can make you sick; his summary survey and analysis of the relevant literature suggests that some allergic reactions (as with other animal contacts) and immune-system difficulties can render one more prone to problems — but not a great deal more than that rather modest level of susceptibility. His complaints anent pigeon doodoo-damange reflect on public-servant/building-staff laziness (a bit of water under pressure applied every couple days seems to flush pigeon droppings away pretty effectively), at least as much as on the problems of pigeon-shit. --djenner 17:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I changed the wording of the risks involved in spreading avian flu. The originally cited source was a secondary source that made its own further conclusions without further studies. The primary source, which I have added in the reference section, more clearly supports the present wording. --LasseFolkersen 20:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Edited even more in the disease-section. Somebody was referring some bird-breeding society as a source for the H5N1 susceptibility of pigeons. I found the original scientific article and used that instead. It seems however that there was two contradicting works. A definite conclusion here will have to wait untill more is published. --LasseFolkersen (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The reports on H5N1 in pigeons are spotty, and for that reason, suspect. The hypothesis is too easily subjected to falsification, therefore prima facie not robust; the other side, some sort of verification, in a wider range of labs, is also lacking. The evidence from the wild (so to speak) is that one or two dead birds have been reported as having H5N1 in post-mortem examinations (I seem to recall, this was the report of a team looking at Avian Flu outbreaks in Hong Kong). It was not, as I recall, maintained that the birds died from this, nor that they had been either a vector or repository for transmission. Even allowing that pigeons could pick up the virus — not unreasonable — it is prudent to recall just how hardy they are. That is a line of thinking that needs further development, and someday I may have the time to do it.--djenner (talk) 04:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
BTW, the most serious zoonotic-disease allegation involving pigeons is C. foramens. This can induce pneumonia in human beings. However, this is another one of those diseases that no one ever seems to get from pigeons — no cases actually described showing the transmission. I seem to recall seeing a reference to this when I was searching it out last November, saying that CDC has actually dropped pigeons from the list of transmission vectors — but I failed to copy the citation and I haven't time to track it down. I suspect it was somewhere in a Pennsylvania agriculture bulletin, advising farmers how to keep healthy, but I'm buggered if I can find it. --djenner (talk) 04:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rock Dove

Does anyone seriously think that the quasi-official name change resulted in drastic change in usage? Does anyone have a cite for that? WilyD 13:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

still rock dove for me jimfbleak 14:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Same - I heard the usual nomenclature of Pigeon had been promoted to official-like status, but I had never once heard Rock Pigeon until today. Of course, I haven't been a serious bird watcher in 10-15 years, but I still get a lot of questions about why there are four or five pairs of binoculars in my car - I'm no stranger to the hobby. WilyD 15:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought that the change was made to differentiate feral populations (Rock Pigeon) from any populations that had not undergone human-induced selection (Rock Dove).

[edit] Dietary problems?

I believe the following uncited paragraph of the article is bogus, although quite amusing.

Unfortunately, their descent unto the urban landscape has led the naturally reticent fowl to feed on the abundancy of junk fodder which self-presents. This has led, inevitably, to the degradation of their available food matter, thus causing an irreversible delapidation of their already notoriously fragile urinary tract system. In a randomised study by Dr Marti Humble (Ph.D.) of the University of Vienna, the findings indicated an acidity level in excess of 10.4 pH in the City Pigeon as opposed to the norm of 8.9 pH (max) in a 'normal' Wood Pigeon in the Netherlands. These findings led Dr Humble to conclude that there is a direct correlation betwen intake of batter and high concentration of amino acids in the liquid expulsions of the 'gutter birds'. A sorry consequence of this is the unnatural loss of upto and including one or more toes per claw from each pigeon foot. The resultant instability of which can, and all too often does, have fatal implications for the aforesaid ornothods.[citation needed]

208.204.155.241 14:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Stefan Economou, Boston MA

[edit] National varieties of English

There seems to be an edit war occurring over the spellings of words such as color/colour, luster/lustre, etc. This needs to stop. Wikipedia policy is that we respect a "ceasefire" with respect to national varieties of English, leaving stable articles alone rather than changing from one version of English to another. If the edit war continues, I will issue 3RR blocks in order to stop it; please let's not make that necessary. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. For guidance, this article was originally written in British English, and is about a species which was native to Europe, so there really shouldn't be any argument about the preferred form. jimfbleak 05:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

So the fact that this bird is native to Europe means that UK English should remain? You didn't follow that logic with the Common Loon, which has a N. Am. population 2 or 3 orders of magnitude bigger than the minuscule European population. Come on, mate. Be consistent. 70.48.44.98 16:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I am consistent - Great Northern Diver and Rock Pigeon were both written in British English, both are common birds in western Europe, so no reason to change either. The only point I was making was that this species is not even native to NAm, so there isn't any justification at all for Americanising the spelling/ jimfbleak 17:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use in military crest

Hi everyone! I'd like to point out somewhere on this page that the rock dove is the main image in the crest for Tactical Communications Wing. I was wondering where would be best to do this? Thanks! --LookingYourBest 07:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved Video

Hello again all! I've just removed the video from the article because I think it really made the page look a mess! Here it is;

Pigeons eating seeds
Pigeons eating seeds

Could anyone add it back in, under Feral Pigeons in cities, and make it look nice ... I don't have the skills! Cheers! LookingYourBest 14:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rock Pigeon/Feral pigeon/Domestic pigeon

There are good separate pages for feral pigeon and domestic pigeon. I wonder if quite a bit of the current Rock Pigeon page might be better on one of those?

That would leave this page as principally a wild bird page, with mention of the others and links to them. It would provide an umbrella for the species as a whole, but would avoid losing the wild bird information amongst the domesticated/feral stuff.

Any thoughts?--Richard New Forest 14:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

makes sense to me Jimfbleak 14:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I've already moved the 'Population control' section to the Feral pigeon article, as this exclusively described population control amongst feral birds. --Kurt Shaped Box 14:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
So I see – that was quick, you did it even before I suggested it...--Richard New Forest 15:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that there is current discussion on this point at talk:feral pigeon (apparently copied from somewhere else, but not sure where) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#Rock pigeon. Shall we have the discussion in one place, and if so, where?--Richard New Forest 15:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

How about here? I'm copying the two comments below from the bird-project talk page:

I'm quite happy with the fork - we've regularly separated wild and domesticated species (eg chicken from Red Junglefowl, and domesticated and wild turkeys). I'd also hive off the cultural stuff if there was enough. Jimfbleak 14:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
The split seems sensible to me (in fact coincidentally I'd just that minute suggested it myself). As long as there are suitable summaries and links on the Rock Pigeon page, I don't see that there's any danger of the different branches of the species getting lost. My own feeling was not so much in the article getting too long, but that the wild Rock Pigeon was getting lost in the much fuller domestic and feral stuff. I wonder if this discussion is better conducted on the relevant page(s)? --Richard New Forest 15:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
My preference is always to have everything on one species together, but in this case the different topics are substantial enough for different articles, and I can see why people like for one part not to get lost next to another. Despite "be bold", though, I might have discussed so big a change before making it. —JerryFriedman 17:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
That's why I'd become so concerned about the move. The user who had made the change has never posted on the talk page, and had made only one edit to the article prior to this one. Nothing was discussed here on talk, and nothing was explained in the edit summaries. I was suspicious that an individual who seemed to edit so haphazardly might be neglectful of policies or guidelines concerning splitting articles in this manner. I'm still convinced that the article wasn't really long enough to warrant a fork (and it wasn't, according to size guidelines), but if the rest of the community and members of the project find it acceptable, then I have no real issue with it.--C.Logan 18:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I split Domestic pigeon & Feral pigeon off because I feel the three articles will grow better separately. Wikipedians with special knowledge of wild rock pigeons, domestic pigeons or feral pigeons will be more inclined to add to the articles. I will add more links.Barbara Shack 14:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I’ve split off the stuff about the symbolism of pigeons and created a new article, Doves as Symbols
Barbara Shack 13:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the splits you've made. I think the info on this article page re "Pigeon lung" would probably be better with the Domestic pigeon article as that condition is more pertinent to pigeon fanciers in close contact with their domesticated birds. The Rock Pigeon being more in the natural state isn't going to contribute to a keepers health simply because they are not domesticated. What do you think? Sting au 11:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right there. Done and done. --Kurt Shaped Box 12:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Good work on splitting out the feral and domesticated details. Can the same be done with the pics, so that the Rock Pigeon article is illustrated with birds that at least look like wild-type birds! At the moment they all show obvious domesticated or feral birds - MPF 12:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

J.M.Garg's pic from Kolkata looks OK, I'll move that to the taxobox - MPF 12:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
That's definately a better picture of wild type Columba livia. Well done. Sting au 12:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

Although is is ok in broadness and fine in neutrality, it is very weak in referencing. Since there are many things to be fix, I'l fail it for now so that it can be renominated and have a second review once these things are fixed.

  • this bird is often simply referred to as the "pigeon". Which? domestic, feral, wild or all three?
Comment - well all three but I've moved the text up to make it less confusing. So Y Done
  • was named Rock Dove until 2004 - include source Y Done
  • introduction at port royal - needs source Y Done
  • Characteristics and Reproductions sections need sources. The further reading section looks like it really is meant to be references. Use inline citation instead. Y Done I have left the further reading section though as I believe it to be useful and in no way detracts from this article. Sting au Buzz Me... 01:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • These birds come in many different colours mature birds or Stock Doves? Y Done
  • The domestication section is unreferenced (as is its parent article). Y Done
  • These show a variety of plumages, although some look very like the pure Rock Pigeons. needs source Y Done
  • The scarcity of the pure wild species is partly due to interbreeding with feral birds needs source Y Done
  • The prose (hard to follow, and expressions such as like any other wild animals isn't helpful) and paragraph layout (too many, and in random order) in Spread of disease isn't good.
Comment - I've merged the disease section but think another option is just keep first summary of feral and merge rest of it to feral pigeon article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sting au (talk • contribs) 01:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The lead contains terminology (which is ok) but lacks a summary of the article.
Comment - Summarized main sections. Y Done Sting au Buzz Me... 03:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I can't tell which reference is for the text about west nile virus Y Done

Narayanese (talk) 10:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your review Narayanese. I had a feeling that it wouldn't pass but as this is my first nom for getting an article to GA I can use it to learn from. I appreciate the feedback and will get to work (in due time, bit busy today) on the fixes. I was wondering about the further reading section? I probably need to create a "notes" section and footnote to that with page numbers etc. Still a learning curve for me here. Going through this process will help teach me how best to work on articles. Thanks again for the suggestions. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
My own preference is to have it all under References (see cat for an example). That way the reader can click on a note in the text and immediatly get to the reference to read more on soething a sentence touched upon - a notes section introduces an extra step (although a notes section can help sort out page numbers if you have many cites to the same book).
I guess you can keep the further reading section if it is meant as book tips and not references, although I don't see much point in it. If they are references as I suspect, put it in a <ref> it the end of the right paragraph instead.
Happy editing! Narayanese (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I found a ref for the first intro' to North America. I'll mark off the above list as I do the fixes. Removed comment about many colours from characteristics section as that mainly applies to feral populations. Wild type is commonly blue barred but chequer (that's the English spelling) pattern was a mutation from wildtype. Not sure if that mutation happened in the wild or after domestication? Although Columbia affinis rings a bell?Sting au Buzz Me... 23:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking for suggestions for an article summary in the lead section. Any ideas anyone? Sting au Buzz Me... 01:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

  • The 1st EL isn't necessary as you have the Commons template. The 3rd could/should probably be used as a ref. Same with the BBC one...(so you can remove the section)Y Done (Ref'd one and rm section)
  • The stuff in the Further reading could also be used as references, if possible Y Done (ditto)
  • "which was the official name used by the British Ornithologists' Union and the American Ornithologists' Union until 2004, when they changed their official listing of the bird to Rock Pigeon" - change the "when" to "at which point" or something like that. Y Done
  • General practice is to cite everything, or nothing, in the lead, not a mixture of the two Y Done
  • I think you should swap the lead's 2nd and 3rd paragraphs (that seems logical to me, and would require swapping the sections too) Y Done
  • "Often found in pairs in the breeding season but usually gregarious." - this isn't a sentence...Y Done (it is now?)
  • "This species" --> "The species" (throughout)Y Done
  • "10 million km². It has a large global population, including an estimated 17–28 million individuals in Europe" - 10 million km² could do with a ref, and you need a full stop after Europe Y Done
  • "evidence suggests Columba livia" - either refer to it as Rock Pigeon or C. livia throughout, don't use both Y Done
  • "the Rock Pigeon probably only occurs pure in the most remote areas" - OR? Y Done (probably OR but I agree with the idea. Removed comment anyhow.)
  • "The species was first introduced to North America in 1606 at Port Royal, Nova Scotia." - standalone sentence, merge into a paragraph Y Done
  • "The rock pigeon has a dark bluish-gray" - you can just use "it" here Y Done
  • "Homing pigeons, domestic Rock Pigeons" - are you missing an "and" or a semicolon (all I can think of) here? Y Done (I just made it one)
  • "The Rock Dove breeds" - again, use a consistent name (Rock Pigeon)Y Done
  • The "Predators" section could easily all be one paragraph...Y Done
  • "As shown by the high losses of racing pigeons to these predators" - is this part of the previous sentence?Y Done (it is now)
  • "look very like the pure Rock Pigeons" - very much like? Y Done (changed it} Sting au Buzz Me... 03:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Leave a note on my talk page when done. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 01:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok I'll get to work on them. Sting au Buzz Me... 01:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Passed. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 23:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for doing the review. It was much appreciated. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry or butting in.....

I just tweaked the headings a bit so they match up with other bird GA/FAs. Taxonomy is good to have at the top as it pushes description down further past the taxobox so facilitates the ue of images further down the article....

I wasn't aware if the Rock Pigeon has any subspecies. If not, this should be noted as a one-liner in taxonomy section.

Overall, shaping up to be a pretty nice article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is looking much better. Thanks for your additions Casliber and Narayanese. You are certainly not butting in as Wikipedia is a combined effort. The Taxonomy and naming section makes the article look more scientific. Perhaps I should have nominated for FA instead of GA? Sting au Buzz Me... 22:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Cas; always nice to have someone more knowledgeable than me :) You could go for FA now if you wanted to, Sting, but I dunno if it's ready...ask a specialist maybe :) dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 23:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
No not yet. There are some things to do before that. Have a look at some other FAs but off the top of my head I'd add (as well as the subspecies issue):
  • taxonomy - what's it related to within the genus Columba
  • egg dimensions
  • I'd consider Domestic Pigeon a sub article rather than a separate one, so a very brief sumary alluding to pigeon use, breeds, racing etc. should be in the article. Bit more than what is in now. Bit more in health or somehwere how they crap over everything maybe...
  • Courtship and mating displays? See how other bird FAs have behaviour section wiht reproduction and diet within it. Actually the 2nd last para in description would go into there, and the last...not sure.

I'll think of some more and post a note on birds wikiproject. It isn't too far off, but going to FA with it not as polished as possible is courting disaster. Once all content in, then it will need another lookover for copyediting. I'll keep a look in as FAs are really fun to work up. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll continue to work on the article but other stuff to do today. Thanks for the advice :-) Sting au Buzz Me... 23:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, there's no hurry. Best in between noms rather than running 'round like a headless chook when at FAC...Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok saying "chook" was a dead giveaway that you are an Aussie ;-) I like your work by the way. Sting au Buzz Me... 22:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] As food

For GA, all you need is broad coverage. For FA, you need comprehensiveness. That in mind, the article is completely missing a section on the hunting/raising of the species for food (usually called squab as a meat, sort of like lamb is for sheep). If you're looking to go for FA, you need to create an "As food" section. VanTucky 23:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

On the Domestic Pigeon article is better place for that. The species as found in the wild is not processed into squab as the domesticated utility breeds are. Mention of hunting for food already made in predators section. Just had another thought. Would the predators section be better named as "Predation"? Sting au Buzz Me... 02:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Subspecies

There are 12 subspecies of this species, according to Pigeons and Doves, I'll add them in the next few days as time permits, Jimfbleak (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

What about closely related species like the Hill Pigeon and Snow Pigeon? No probably not I guess? C.livia will forage alongside the Hill pigeon from what I've read. I wouldn't be surprised if they could interbreed? But that's just opinion on my part. I'm looking for a picture of the Hill Pigeon if anyone has one? Sting au Buzz Me... 22:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Feral and domestic pigeons

There is absolutely no need to expand on what a domestic pigeon is on the Rock pigeon article. Following the Domestic pigeon link will explain what it is. The Rock pigeon article is rated GA. Please don't stuff it up by going on about differences in colours etc in the article when that information is clearly found at the other articles. Have you actually read the article? See the sections on Domestication and Feral pigeons? Go read them and add info there if you like. A lot of work was put into this article by people who actually know about the subject. The external link section can be done without as that pdf link is unnecessary.--Sting au Buzz Me... 10:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh and what is "irridescece"? It's a new one on me!--Sting au Buzz Me... 11:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you want to provide a reliable source for males having more iridescence on the neck? I bet you can't. This is the biggest problem with Wikipedia. People who have absolutely no idea about the subject trying to add information.--Sting au Buzz Me... 11:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(Above copied from User talk:Richard New Forest)

Ah, apologies for tpyo. Otherwise I don't think I have messed up anything.
Yes, I have read the article, and in fact some of the previous work was done by me. I agree (as I said above) that little needs to be included about feral and domestic pigeons in this article. However, it does already mention them, rightly, to make it clear that the others are derived from the wild species. I felt that as it stood there were several places (GA or not) which were confusing:
  • "The domestic pigeon is this species". This sounds as if there are no wild ones, defining the whole species as the domestic pigeon. It needs to be clear that domestic pigeons are only part of the species. "A form of this species" would do.
  • "Rock Pigeons are pale grey with two black bars on each wing". As other parts of the article talks about all three, this makes it look as if all are this colour and pattern. It could however be covered more succinctly than I did by changing to "Wild Rock Pigeons...".
  • "Males and females are similar in appearance". The article does clarify the differences later (including the iridescence, which is referenced), but my feeling is that it's tidier and more consistent if the differences are at least implied here. "Similar" doesn't really mean "the same", but some might read it as such. How about "There are few visible differences between males and females."?
  • "the Rock Pigeon has been introduced to cities around the world." This makes it look like the wild type.
  • "The species is abundant". Likewise. Perhaps there are areas where the wild ones are common, but not in Europe, and the figures in the same sentence cannot be the wild European population.
  • I'm not sure either way about the external link. It does include some useful info, and good photos, but perhaps not enough to justify inclusion. It was a good faith edit though, and I think deleting it did need explanation.
  • Other changes were typo corrections.
--Richard New Forest (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
There's no need to change to "Wild Rock Pigeons". This article is about the wildtype species. Narayanese has made some fixes (thanks) but in my opinion the ref for males having more iridescence is quite simply wrong. Cornell ref or not it's still worded wrong. Both cocks and hens genetically have the same amount of neck feathers and as such the same amount of iridescence. Cocks when courting hens inflate their crops giving an optical illusion of having more iridescence. But I would be happy with few visible differences between males and females (apart from courting behavior which is visible). The species is abundant in the wild. They have capitalized on mans grain growing and spread allover to feed on our crops. From accounts I have been given the species is common in Europe (out in fields etc). That's not talking about what are regarded as ferals hanging around the cities. There are separate articles for Domestic pigeons and Feral pigeons, so the excess was trimmed from this article long before. If you had been watching this article from previous edits you have done you would have seen the changes no? So no need to put it back there. If people want to read about the other types they are directed to their main articles. As for that external link! Quite frankly it is crap. Poorly written and researched info added by 195.5.90.182 that in my opinion doesn't help to improve this article. The pdf file also takes ages to load if you happen to be on dialup. It definitely wasn't worth the long wait! I was the second person to remove the external link. That was two editors saying they didn't want it there (see WP:CONSENSUS). I'm going to remove the external link and the external link section again as I believe it is of poor quality and the article looks much better without it.--Sting au Buzz Me... 23:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I could only find sites sayes the sexes differ in iridescence, and a search for inflation being the reason didn't turn up anything. I don't have access to zoology publications, mind. One could play safe though and leave it at saying males and females look quite alike. I can't say anything about how good the content in that external link was, since it wouldn't load for me.
Another thing: don't add unique content to the lead, it is supposed to be a summary. Narayanese (talk) 07:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I wasn't being clear enough. I was talking only about the phrase: "Rock Pigeons are pale grey with two black bars on each wing". As the article is about the whole species, this could be taken to mean that all members of the species are this colour, which is incorrect. I was suggesting making it clearer by changing it to "Wild Rock Pigeons are pale grey with two black bars on each wing" – then it is saying nothing about the other types.
It may may possibly be right about the difference in iridescence being an illusion, though I'm sure I've noticed the difference (in feral birds) when the male was not displaying. If it is indeed right, I think we need a ref for that too, as it's contrary to what we already have.
Having contributed to the article previously does not make it compulsory to watch every edit. It has improved a lot (and from what I can see that's largely down to you, Sting), but that does not mean that no more improvements are possible. We never reach perfection on Wikipedia...
Yes, Columbia livia is common in Europe in fields as well as cities, but no, those are not wild birds but feral ones. It's very hard to find truly wild birds – I've seen them a few times on remote rocky coasts in Wales and Ireland, and they are noticeably different (very shy indeed, all uniformly wild-type pattern). I believe similar populations also occur in some mountainous areas of mainland Europe. However, most rocky coast populations (for example here in southern England) are feral birds, and so are the birds found in the general countryside – feral birds are certainly not restricted to urban areas. There are also many actual domestic birds living wild – either lost homing pigeons or foraging dove-cote ones. (It might be worth clarifying the meanings of "feral" and "wild" in this context. Feral means living entirely wild, but derived from domestic stock. Wild means living wild, from stock which has never been domesticated.) There's no doubt that the very large numbers in the article do include the feral birds.
Yes, I'm happy with the removal of the external link – I think the size of the PDF is enough reason anyway. It would still have been polite to the contributor to give a reason for the original deletion (it wasn't obviously deliberate spam, as suggested by Raven in Orbit).
Narayanese – I don't understand your edit and comment about the phrase "the feral form of the Rock Pigeon has been introduced to cities around the world". You removed "the feral form" (which I had added), and said "this was just wrong, you must have forgotten there are domestic pigeons". I hadn't forgotten them – but how are they relevant? The phrase without my addition effectively says that wild Rock Pigeons have been deliberately introduced, which is wrong. What has actually happened is that domestic pigeons have gone wild in cities (there may also have been colonisation of feral birds from city to city). Either way there was no deliberate introduction, and the birds are not wild Rock Pigeons. So my amended phrase is also wrong – it ought to read something like: "feral Rock Pigeons have become established in cities around the world". --Richard New Forest (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm it was the domestic form that was introduced... why would one introduce wild/feral doves? An saying Rock Pigeon does not automatically the mean wild-stock birds, so the current sentence is correct. Narayanese (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Wild birds have been deliberately introduced to very many places all over the world. For instance: Red Kite, Great Bustard, Ring-necked Parakeet, Canada Goose to England; Starling, House Sparrow, Indian Mynah to US; Blackbird, Greenfinch, Goldfinch to New Zealand; etc, etc. So it would not be at all surprising for wild birds to have been introduced, for whatever obscure reasons.
This article is about the species as a whole, but the feral and domestic types are dealt with in more detail in other articles. If we are talking about those in this article, we need to make clear when we do not mean the wild ones. The current sentence is not literally incorrect – but it is misleading, and therefore it is not correct either. The straightforward interpretation of the sentence as it stands is that wild Rock Pigeons were deliberately introduced, and that needs clarification. --Richard New Forest (talk) 21:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I find it hard to agree with what gets written in books sometimes. I think I need to add this because ornithology books invariably get written by people who just copy down what went before. The statement that all wildtype (and you really need to understand the concept of wildtype) are blue with black bars is true. But you need to understand that wildtype is the nominate species. You need to understand mutations from wildtype. Was the chequered (English spelling) pattern the first to mutate from the bar pattern? When did it do that? Was it after domestication (10,000 BCE) or was it before? Where there cheq' marked varieties present in wild genepools when man (that's us) decided to come along and declare the barred rock dove (now pigeon) as the nominate species? There were from what I've been told. Can't find a source for that though? Cheq' pattern would appear to be more common than bar if you look at the ferals in the park. That's understandable as Cheq' is dominant to bar. Darwin (Charlie) considered the barred pattern to be the original type. A fellow called Charles Whitman (American professor of zoology , University of Chicago 1892-1910) argued that Darwin was wrong. His reason being he could get barred squabs from checkered (his spelling) parents but never check squabs from two barred parents. Works that way in my loft too. Simple Mendelian genetics. So his thoughts and he managed to convince others at the time was that cheq' preceded bar and if you follow that reasoning then chequer could not be considered a "domestic gene" (I prefer domestic mutation there but just following what the book : Origins and Excursions in Pigeon Genetics by W.F. Hollander) says. Anyhow I could go on and on about this subject and get into different pattern markings and their genetic symbols but my point is that when referring to the "Wild" Rock pigeons markings it would be much better to just say that the "nominate" species is pale gray with two black bars etc. But since "Rock pigeon" is the nominate species there is no need at all to add the word "Wild". It is misleading and in fact untrue, because in the wild, varieties with different markings "can" be found. Please drop the word "Wild" from the description.--Sting au Buzz Me... 23:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that chequered pattern is more common in feral pigeons (and my impression is that it's becoming almost ubiquitous in parts of London, where I most often see large numbers). However this does not mean it is the wild type, just a genetically dominant type. There are many examples of domestic species mostly or wholly showing a characteristic that is absent in their wild relatives: long mane in horses, small size in donkeys, yaks and cattle, single coat in pigs, long tail in sheep, etc etc. These characteristics have either been bred for, or have become frequent by mechanisms such as the founder effect or the release of selection pressure against them; feral populations of these species often maintain such differences. Incidentally, wild-type genes are not by any means always genetically dominant.

Charles Darwin (the greatest scientist ever) became an expert in pigeon breeding, as he did in most things he turned his mind to. However, he did not know about Mendelian genetics, so his opinion could not be more than a guess. (Incidentally, as I recall Mendel did not agree with Darwinism – so not all great scientists are right all the time...) It's worth remembering that wild populations of most species (and certainly all other wild pigeons and doves I know of) are relatively uniform in appearance; significant variation such as you describe is normally a characteristic of populations with at least some admixture of domestic genes.

So I'm sure it's correct that all wild Rock Pigeons are grey with wing-bars, not just the nominate subspecies. Your phrase "in the wild, varieties with different markings can be found" is true when applied to feral birds. These are indeed living "in the wild" – but they are feral (see definition I gave previously), not truly wild in the sense of the phrase we are discussing. In the subspecies descriptions in the article, none of the wholly wild ones is described as having anything other than the nominate pattern – the only variations in these are darker and lighter shades, and the presence or degree of contrast of the white back. So if you can find evidence that there are non-feral wild populations with other patterns, then yes, the phrase should be changed (and the subspecies list amended of course). Until then, the ref for the subspecies list is also a ref for the phrase as it stands. --Richard New Forest (talk) 09:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)