Talk:Peregrine falcon/Archive 1

Grammar

"Maybe I can?"

Moved

Moved "Peregrine Falcon" here to preserve edit history prior to deletion Tannin 10:41 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and merged the history at this talk page with the main article. Graham87 09:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Source for speed

Does anyone have a source for the high estimate of diving speed ("over 320 km/h")? —JerryFriedman 16:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Have a look at terminal velocity. In fact it shouldn't be the upper limit that is in question but the lower limit. I think the source linked has transposed km/h for mp/h. Simply put, if it died mid air it would fall at about 120mph - a similar speed to a human skydiver. If a sky diver pulls in his arms and goes head first his speed will approach 200mph. Peregrines being as aerodynamic as they are in a stoop easily attain similar speeds. Incidentally I remember seeing a documentary some years ago whith a hand-reared Peregrine that would follow its handler. The handler and a cameraman jumped from a balloon with a significant head start over the bird. Despite the men falling at c.120mph the bird caught up with them in seconds and was filmed easily circling them, visibly having to slow itself to their speed. LiamE 15:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

After a bit of a dig around I have seen claims of over 270 mph recorded on radar guns pointed at Peregrines. Guinness world records entry for the fastest bird reads as follows "Fastest Dive By A Bird - The fastest dive by a bird was recorded in a series of German experiments, when a peregrine falcon reached a velocity of 270.5 km/h (168 mph) at a 30-degree angle of stoop, rising to a maximum of 350 km/h (217 mph) at an angle of 45 degrees. This falcon, also known as a duck hawk, ‘stoops’ by circling high up and then folds its wings back to dive at its prey with their talons." On the basis of that I will edit the article. --LiamE 16:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

There was a TV program in the UK in which they tested a falcon I can't remeber which program it was but they couldn;t calculate the speed as it was going so fast. Way faster than any skydiver could go. They thought faster than 250mph though.

Well, here's one that the author might've used- ((http://raysweb.net/specialplaces/pages/falcon.html)). Arosaurer

Uh, what happened to the speed? I don't see the removal in the History, and I don't have time at the moment to find it. Vandalism? —JerryFriedman 18:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

These sources should appear in the article, not only on the talk page. Apus 11:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

There was a documentary called Flying With Falcons, shown last night on Channel 5 (UK). In it, falconer Lloyd Buck and a team of balloonists, skydivers and BASE jumpers trained some peregrines to target a brightly coloured bean bag with meat attached rather than the usual swung lure. See [1] for some detail although that is mainly about the camera equipment used. They started training the birds on the ground, then from a tethered hot air balloon, then from cliffs in Devon and finally by jumping from some high bridges and cliffs in Italy (Mount Brento?). As well as high speed camera equipment filmed from different points which could accurately measure their speed, they fitted the birds with tiny accelerometers. The best result they got was from a bird that was already in the air and "waiting on" above the cliff. As the BASE jumper leapt, the peregrine stooped for the lure in his hand. It hit it once, veered off, stooped again and hit it again. During that flight it hit a top speed of 204 mph & pulled 6G! And these are just young birds, 2 or 3 years old. -- SteveCrook 02:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, and the amazing thing was that the guys were hurtling towards the group with the lure, and the falcons were just nonchalantly taking it on the wing with no effort, and then pulling up as you say; they can clearly go a *lot* faster than this. I'd love to watch that documentary again, it was beautiful - I actually came across these comments as I search the net for a DVD of it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mongoletsi (talk • contribs) 14:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

---

This article is too "America-centric" If these falcons range throughout the world, why is there very little information about these falcons from other parts of the world? This article isn't a sub, but it obviously isn't finished. 01:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)gazowelz

They peregrinate (wander), but not usually from one continent to another. I don't think it's very "America-centric". The nominate Falco peregrinus is described as being found over much of western Eurasia. -- SteveCrook 02:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

National Geographic records a peregrine falcon flying at 242 mph in this video.

Likewise essentially same video from National Geographic also here - but is that a "fair" measurement/test, as the bird may not have (fully) climbed under its own power before the dive. — Michael.Paoli (talk) 06:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Should specify "in a dive" with the speed reference, so that level flight is not inferred. The peregrine falcon isn't the fastest in level flight.

Thanks for that — that's a useful clarification. Do you have a source for it not being the fastest in level flight? Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC) p.s. Please sign your posts using "~~~~".

How about Animals in Flight by Steve Jenkins and Robin Page, which states that Spine-tailed Swift is the fastest, with level flight speeds of 112 mph over short distances? See here: web. MeegsC | Talk 15:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Source for being a pest

Since people were so helpful about my request for a source for the speed (thank you!), does anyone have a source for the statement that it's considered a pest in rural parts of the U.S.? I find that very hard to believe. —JerryFriedman 17:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, They are considered a threat to endangered species such as the california least tern.

http://www.calacademy.org/calwild/1994spring/stories/falcons.htm and

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/info/bm_research/bm_pdfrpts/2000_01.pdf

and to many species of game birds and poultry raised for food or profit see: http://www.extension.org/pages/Hawk_and_Owl_Damage_Assessment Bugguyak 21:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"they live up to 30 years old"

Removed the dubious passage. Just because of the fact that it doesn't say whether in captivity or in the wild.

Subspecies

"The Barbary Falcon, Falco (peregrinus) pelegrinoides, is often considered to be a subspecies of the Peregrine." Why is this sentence beneath the list of subspecies? Shouldn't it be in it? --Mithcoriel 20:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No, because it's often considered to be a separate species, so its status is not clear-cut. jimfbleak 20:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

"F. p. ernesti — is found in New Zealand and is non-migratory" This statement is incorrect. The peregrine falcon does not maintain a range within New Zealand. The only falcon native to New Zealand is the New Zealand falcon (Falco novaeseelandiae). The black falcon (Falco subniger), an Australian resident, has been observed on one occasion in New Zealand, and was believed to be a vagrant from Australia. The Nankeen kestrel (Falco cenchroides) is the only other falcon species observed in New Zealand. These kestrels are generally considered to be vagrants, and are uncommon to rare. Sakernzl 16:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed! NZ is the largest landmass on Earth that is neither ice-covered nor has Peregrines (and the others that don't have Perries are tiny islands)! Dysmorodrepanis 07:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Heart Rate

Could someone verify the falcon's heart rate? Its really high at 600-900 bps. I think it's closer to 250. --Arcette 03:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Edit I changed it to the correct 268

Perigrine lungs

These two sentences confused me, and need clarifying

"The respiratory system is also unique; the Peregrine Falcon maintains a one-way flow of air so that it can breathe while flying. This system is much more efficient than the more common two-way flow of air. "

Does this refer to the continous flow of oxygenated air over the lungs that birds maintain using their airsacs? If so it is not unique to the perigrine falcon but is common to all birds. Or is there something particually unique about perigrine falcons lungs compared with other birds? Furthmore, I would be surprised if other birds (and bats) could not breathe while flying. Could someone who knows more about perigrine falcons please clarify this issue.

The whole part concerning physiology is obvious nonsense and should be removed. Peregrines do not differ in this aspect from any other bird of prey. Any claim for such differences should be substantiated with scientific sources. Accipiter2 21:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The RSPB also mention the baffles, which suggests that it is probably true. Jimfbleak 07:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"air intake?"

At this speed, the air intake is powerful enough to burst the lungs of the bird but the curved cones around its nose divert enough air from the lungs to keep the bird from being injured.

I removed the above because it is nonsense, akin to saying "if the bird had a scoop shaped face, the pressure in it's lungs would increase". This is true of any animal that moves, it is not particular to the Peregrine and it is not remarkable.

If anyone can cite a reference which states how the adaptions of this bird are exceptional in scientific language with reference to the aerodynamic pressure around the shape of its body in a dive, then please rephrase the above to make it mean something.

TomViza 01:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Recovery efforts

There is something missing before the first sentence of the fourth paragraph, "These structures typically closely resemble the natural cliff ledges that the species prefers for nesting locations." I assume "these structures" refers to man-made structures like bridges, cooling towers, church belfries, etc. Anyway, I think this belongs under "Habitat" or "Behavior" rather than "Recovery efforts"

Am I alone in thinking that Virginia has a disproportionate share of the world-wide recovery section? jimfbleak 10:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Upside down

Does the male hand-off food to the female all the time, or is that just during courtship? The text is not clear. Jive Dadson 20:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Webcam to add

There is an additional webcam of peregrines in Jersey City, NJ available here:

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/peregrinecam/jcp-live.htm

Plural or singular?

Should we use the plural or the singular in the article (The Peregrine Falcon vs. Peregrine Falcons)? Right now, it uses both. Is there a policy regarding which one to use? --Jude. 17:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it's a policy, but the overwhelming majority are written as singular. Jimfbleak 05:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

nit pick

In para 2 of "description" , there is a reference to see the "Subspecies" section. Should it be "subspecies"? Jimfbleak 08:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know - the section title is capitalized, so I used that. (Added intra-page link on that occasion). Dysmorodrepanis 16:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Which photo?

I really don't like the Alaska photo. You can't see the underside, it could be Eleonora's Falcon if we didn't know otherwise (just as a thought experiment - I'm not suggesting a misID or something). But the average reader might not know. It is non-diagnostic and thus not good for a taxobox photo. The "Spanish" photo has a captive bird of uncertain ssp. (though the possibilities are really not that many...), but it allows for proper identification of the species.Dysmorodrepanis 02:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Also the falcons aren't this small when they actually sit on a rock.Akhi uk2394 (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Peregrines should not be a least concern.

Least concern? these animals were once endangered! well, right now, they are threatened, as it said somewhere in THIS aricle. please change, or prove me wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.20.70 (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. USFWS heads and biologists have determined that their recovery is accomplished. Their numbers are skyrocketing since DDT was removed from the equation and the reintroduction efforts. Today, all a falconer has to do is take out his bird to see a wild pair show up to harass it or drive it out of many hunt-worthy territories, and it has been that way (in areas where peregrines would be found) for at least 15 years. At this time, the peregrine population can easily sustain take for falconry of well over 100 birds per year, and that's still only 5% of their annual production, an insignificant factor. So yes, they're Least Concern.

Further point: Peregrines occur all over the globe. The only ones that were ever actually "endangered" were the Anatum subspecies. Due to gross errors in judgment by P-fund and others, many of the birds reintroduced to historical Anatum territories are not pure Anatum. Less than a decade ago, pure Peale's peregrines were being released near St. Louis, MO.

The fact is that the Peregrine was poster-child for the P-fund and ecological movement. Once DDT was out of the picture, the recovery was already under way. While captive breeding certainly gave it a major jump-start (and taught us much about captive breeding of raptors) it also introduced mutts into the ecology. Natural selection will resolve that error over time... and the Peregrine is no longer in any significant danger. --JT 19:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Medium or large?

In the introductory paragraph, preregrines are described as "medium-sized"; in the Description heading, they're called "large." These are matters of degree, of course, but it might be good to homogenize them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.22.110.8 (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

order of headings

I had been standardising order of headings in many articles I've been working up to FA, and it has ended up with etymology/taxonomy and/or naming before description. Anyone have any strong feelings aobut swtiching the first two sections in this one to match up with other recent bird FAS? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Like for example in Gyrfalcon maybe. Though with the long intro here, a section could well be appropriate. Dysmorodrepanis 22:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Falconry

Quite surprising that falconry usage of the Peregrine is skipped in the relationship with humans section. Shyamal 15:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Also need mention of use of trained birds at airports to disperse birds that may be hazardous to aircraft. Shyamal 15:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Snjezana Kuzir and Jasmina Muzini 1999. Birds and air traffic safety on Zagreb airport (Croatia). The Environmentalist. 18(4):231-237 doi:10.1023/A:1006541304592 [2]

Citations

It is perhaps worthwhile to note that the Barbary Falcon is one of the rare cases that may arguably be considered a species under the Biological, but certainly not under the Phylogenetic Species Concept rather than the other way around as usual. In addition, this case demonstrates that what makes a "species" is not just its descent, but also what happens to a population in the course of evolution, how it adapts, and how this affects its reproductive isolation (or lack thereof) from sister taxa - and being coincident with the evolution of modern humans, it also illustrates the time taken in the process of speciation: The lineages of the "peregrinoid" complex diverged about the time when stone-age humans were working with Aterian tools and were just starting to adorn their body with jewellery;[31] the eventual outcome of the evolutionary process is unlikely to be resolved until 50,000 AD or later.

The above section seems to go tangential with notes on human use of jewellery etc and the entire bit can do with more serious reference citations. Shyamal 15:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Map

[Copied from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peregrine Falcon; FAC page closed before queries answered - MPF 11:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC) ] I'm working on the map to distinguish summer breeding, resident breeding, passage, and winter - might be a few days till I'm done - MPF 14:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. I've also made a subspecies distribution map (breeding ranges only). This is compiled from the textual range descriptions in HBW, some of which are a bit poorly defined - can someone check it against other published subspecies maps and say here if there's any incorrect boundaries to amend before I add it to the Peregrine article. Thanks, MPF 23:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources

There is no advantage in using refs, if the sources are not selected for quality and actuality.

"Essentially, this species can be found everywhere on Earth, except in the polar regions, on very high mountains, in deserts, and most tropical rainforests making it one of the world's most widespread falcons (though only as a winter visitor in some areas)."

Incorrect, it is not "one of", but "the" most widespread falcon, and in fact the most widespread bird of prey.

"Both the English and scientific names of this species mean "wandering falcon" and refer to the species' wide range and its highly migratory habits."

Incorrect, the peregrine is highly migratory only in its northernmost ranges.

"It nests in a scrape, normally on cliff edges or, occasionally, tall man-made structures.[6]"

No longer "occasionally", but "regularly". Furthermore, regionally it nests in tree holes (Australia, Pacific coast of North-America) and (formerly) in old nests of birds of prey in large parts of western and central europe

"The Peregrine Falcon became an endangered species due to the overuse of pesticides such as DDT."

Incorrect. Not due "overuse", but by "normal" use, and not "such as" but especially and mainly DDT."

"Subsequently, wildlife services from around the world bred the species in captivity for release to the wild, and the use of DDT ceased; with this the Peregrine Falcon has since made a recovery."

Incorrect. Not "around the world" but only in North-America and in two countries in europe (Germany and, recently, Poland). The main reason for recovery was the ban on DDT, and without that no recovery would have taken place anywhere in northern climates.

This was only a review of the introduction, unfortunately the whole text contains numerous similar mistakes. Greetings, - Accipiter2 18:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Good points! you need just go ahead and make the edits along with citations where needed. Shyamal 07:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• I am very surprised that this article attained FA status with the mistakes and innaccuracies that it contains. Additionally, some of the formatting of the references are in-consistent and should be fixed, I'll have a look at these when I get time. The article does seem to be a good article but I'm concerned that with the mistakes listed above that it isn't really wikipedia's best calibre. It needs a good going over by an expert. Polyamorph (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Which "mistakes" are you referring to? The ones listed above? A quick check shows these have been dealt with. Or do you have more? MeegsC | Talk 20:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

In terms of mistakes in the article then I was referring to the ones above, if they have been fixed then that is good although Accipiter2 did mention numerous similar mistakes which they didn't elaborate upon. I would suggest an expert give it a once over and make sure all is ok. The other problems are with the citations in that there are many inconsistencies in the formatting (This is part of the FA criteria). Some sources are quoted in full in the Footnotes and others in the References. A good way of dealing with this would be to use an inline template such as {{citation}} to deal with all the cross referencing, hence doing away with the footnotes section. Unless there is a specific reason why the footnotes section is used? Polyamorph (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

hmmm, the footnotes are messy. E.g. [4] White (1994) could either refer to White, C. M. (1994) or White, C. M.; Olsen, P. D. & Kiff, L. F. (1994). It is probably the 1st but the citations should be clearer than this. Its not a short task but I try to sort some of these out. Polyamorph (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

While it's great that you're doing this, please be careful when choosing your citation format. You've put "Raptors in Human Landscapes" in as a journal—however, it's a book (according to its entry at Amazon.com, anyway). Also, is there a reason why you're using "citation" rather than "cite book" "cite web", etc.?

The details in the original citation were incomplete - I should have marked this as such since it was difficult to tell exactly what it was. If it is a book then it should have its ISBN listed. I chose the {{citation}} template because each of the other templates vary in format and it is therefore best to be consistent. Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. But the very next citation (#3) originally did have an indication that it was a journal—and the name of the journal was included. The "cleaned up" citation doesn't show that journal name anymore; instead, the reference appears to be the 50th volume of a book! (The issue number is also missing.) This cleanup doesn't appear to be helping much at the moment!  : ) MeegsC | Talk 12:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, that's because there was a typo, they have to be lowercase! I have fixed that. However, the fact that a book had its isbn missing and I thought it was a Journal only demonstrates why this cleanup is necessary, does it not? Polyamorph (talk) 13:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that! I'm not sure why some form of the citation template wasn't used; all of the recent FACs from WP:BIRD seem to do so... MeegsC | Talk 13:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm such an idiot, just re-read what you wrote, I agree. The below still applies but it is in response to what I thought you wrote, not what you actually did write! Polyamorph (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well the main reason why they should be used is that this article has FA status and one of the criteria for this is consistent formatting of the citations, see [3]. The main thing though is to ensure the current citations make sense, for example: what source is White (1994) actually referring to? Where there are missing isbn numbers, broken links, missing volume/issue numbers etc, the easiest way to fix this would be to make all references consistent. That way that even if during the process of making everything consistent a few details get missed (like isbn numbers) then at least it is obvious what needs fixing and what is ok. Does this sound ok? If not then maybe the Harvard format should be used but it should only be one or the other, not a micture of the two as it was and currently still is. :) Polyamorph (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

<- The Beckstead, D. (2001) reference refers to a dead url. I cannot find an archive of the page at [4]. So this reference should be removed. Any ideas how to do this without having to add a load of {{fact}} template in the prose, i.e. do you know of references that can replace where Beckstead (2001) is cited? Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You might give it a day or two before removing this. According to the message I got when I tried to access several other pages from the "Science and Nature" option off the main menu, it's possible that the website is undergoing some maintenance or construction—nothing in that section was currently available. I find it hard to believe that such material will be completely removed for good! MeegsC | Talk 19:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well I've left it in for now, I tried running a search from the main page and no results came up, but by all means we'll give it a bit of time and see if it comes back. However, if not, we can't have dead links, the material may be duplicated elsewhere. Polyamorph (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And today it's working fine. MeegsC | Talk 14:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it? The citation links here: http://www.nps.gov/yuch/Expanded/key_resources/peregrine_falcons/peregrine_falcon.htm which returns "page not found" on my machine. Polyamorph (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops! I was looking at the USFW one; the YUCH one does indeed seem to be dead. I'll go through some sources this weekend—I'm sure I can find a replacement. MeegsC | Talk 17:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay! Any idea what Snow (1994) is refering to? It is missing from the bibliography, and I can't find it in any old revision of the article. I'm thinking it might supposed to be Snow (1998), which we do have a bibliographic reference for, and perhaps it reads Snow (1994) due to either a typo or vandalism at some stage? Polyamorph (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Subspecies number

The lead now says there are 17 recognized subspecies, but lower in the article, it says 19. We need to make this consistent—which is correct? MeegsC | Talk 12:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The 19 seems to be one with a citation (HBW). But it definitely needs to state that the numbers are taxonomy dependent. Shyamal 15:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Number of subspecies in the peregrine is always dependent on the authors point of view. 19 are given by Ratcliffe 1993, anyway an authoritative source should be used and given in the text. -Accipiter2 17:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Maps

The maps needs some update, they reflect the situation at around 1980. Among else, the peregrine has now reestablished itself in the whole of Germany, in Poland, the Netherlands an in large parts of the eastern USA. -Accipiter2 17:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

barbary falcons

in the part about barbary falcon is written that barbaries have smaller feet than peregrines. This couldn't be further from the truth, in fact in proportion to their body size they have much much larger feet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.91.122.106 (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Idaho quarter reference

I wasn't sure whether the Idaho quarter sentence was removed because it was unreferenced, or because it was considered extraneous; both conditions may have applied! But if it was merely because it was unreferenced, there's a news item explaining the bird's significance on the coin here. It says The peregrine falcon was picked because of Idaho’s role in removing the raptor from the Endangered Species List. Apparently, the Peregrine's selection was the cause of some considerable controversy. MeegsC | Talk 17:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

US Air Force Academy

According to the Academy's website, no particular species of falcon is specifically the school's "mascot", so the related "removed information" shouldn't be reintroduced to the article. Falcons of several species, including Peregrines and Gyrfalcons, have served as mascots since the concept was introduced by the graduating class of 1959. MeegsC | Talk 17:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

New photo

Peregrine Falcon

An anonymous IP added a new photo to the article, but left justified it in the Description section, which sandwiched a large section of text between the infobox and the picture. I've removed the photo (seen as a thumb here), as it violated the WP:MOS advice to avoid such sandwiching, but wonder if we might work it in somewhere else in the article. It appears to be a captive bird (and we already have a number of those in the article), but there are no details on the upload page. MeegsC | Talk 17:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The bird is also eyes left and so it would belong on the right of the page. It would need a suitable caption though. Polyamorph (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Speed, revisited

I removed the following from the "Description" section for being misplaced within the article, and for its non-NPOV tone:

Hopelessly unscientific claims are rife regarding the bird's diving speed, with supposed measurements exceeding that of a crossbow arrow in flight. Measurements made by competent scientists put its diving speed in the range of 80mph. Claims of anything over 90mph serve only to discredit the methods and scientific acumen of the observer. Even National Geographic has allowed its reputation to plummet by buying into to this modern superbird mythology. [Please do not post any diving velocity claims that you cannot back up with the most rigorous measuring methods, described in detail.]

Information on stoop speed belongs in the "Ecology and behavior" section, where it already appears, not "Description". I punched up that area to address the questionable nature of 200mph claims, and wholly agree that sound sources are needed before anyone edits a 200mph claim into fact. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

National Geographic had a special on peregrine terminal velocity with a skydiving falconer/pilot, a trained peregrine, and a team of experts, who clocked the bird at 242 MPH--with equipment on it (so it could have likely gone faster with less drag). Source: http://operationdeltaduck.com/blog/2009/11/a-peregrine-stooping/ (I also own a copy of this DVD.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.30.91 (talk) 01:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I added this (non-scientifcally) measured speed 242 mph to the article. It is reported by National Geopraphic. The references to other speeds do not refer to any measurements (scientific or not), so I think this one is not less importnant. Of course wind (shears), downbursts, and other factors might (positively) influence the result. However, many of the bird max speed numbers are in fact estimates (from the half of the 20th century). --WikiHannibal (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Video and other media of Peregrines

I move to delete this section of the external links. There are dozens of peregrine webcams out there, easily found with a quick Google search, and listing them all here does nothing for the article. A brief mention (somewhere in the "Relationship with humans" section) that many assisted nesting sites include webcams, would suffice. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Support jimfbleak (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Support but maybe ok to have a couple of link collection pages like http://www.bsc-eoc.org/links/links.jsp?page=g_6 . Shyamal (talk) 14:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Telecom Tower

There's a pair of peregrines nesting on this in London. Probably not worth mentioning in the article but people might be interested.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 13:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

citation for pulled statement

Statement added to speed section Speeds of over 290kmh(180mph) have, however, been recently observed in nature documentaries (by the BBC and National Geographic). This needs actual citations, please. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Boy was that difficult. ¦ Reisio (talk) 07:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is hard. Harder than using a BBC news story about the species to cite a fact that in tangential to the story. A BBC factoid in a story is not more reliable a peer reviewed paper on the subject. The article states that the "commonly known speed" doesn't match up to what scientists have recorded. If you are going to provide cites to contradict a peer reviewed journal it needs to in the form of another peer reviewed journal, or a news story that reports a new finding in that field. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Nah; also in 1986 people still talked about Brontosauruses & Pluto was still a planet. ¦ Reisio (talk) 09:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That is hardly the same, nor is nah an answer. More recent papers have not found any higher speeds. There needs to be a better reference than the one provided or the statement is not verifiable. A BBC article on how they fly that fast is acceptable, but not one where it is a throwaway factoid. Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a clear purpose in WP:RS and as far as scientific facts go the reliable sources have to be scientific journals or suitable books, not newspaper reports or TV/movie commentary. Shyamal (talk) 10:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC

Per WP:RS I have removed it again. I did a lit search and found no more recent papers that quoted a higher figure, and there have been more recent studies. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Predators

I doubt an owl could kill a falcon unless it was injured. Owls of any kind prey on ground quarry and can't go as high or as fast as any falcon. Can someone confirm the taking of a falcon as prey by an owl please.

I know that European Eagle Owls will not tolerate other raptors in its territory and kills other birds of prey. I do not know for certain whether this would include peregrins but it wouldnt be out of the question. --LiamE (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm the killing of a white gyr falcon by a great horned owl. (As a falconer)

No, owls can't kill them. They are great defenders and can kill even bald eagles when defending nests, but their speed is too fast for any eagle or owl to chase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.249.94.70 (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Great Horned Owls certainly take young Peregrines, particularly at hacking sites. (They were a big problem at North American reintroduction sites when the Peregrines were being re-introduced to areas from which they'd been extirpated). And there are records of Snowy Owls taking young Peregrines as well. MeegsC | Talk 02:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

A Great Black-backed Gull can kill a Peregrine. I've seen it happen. Raptor may be strong but the gull has much cunning. They can do that floaty, lazy, nonthreatening, languid thing while all the time swimming closer to a bird on a riverbank that's not really paying attention or seeing it as a threat. GBBGs can 'wake up', lunge forward and grab a neck a lot faster than you'd think. The Peregrine was dragged into the water and had its head held under until it drowned. There was little it could do once the gull had it exactly where he wanted it. Then it was plucked and partially eaten. Is this a rare occurance? --95.148.104.185(talk) 03:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I do agree that young peregrines are taken by the owls and eagles, but I don't really agree that full grown Peregrines can be taken so easily. Full grown Peregrines are too fast and great defenders. Also that black backed gull must have killed a young one, too. Full grown could easily attack it by Aerial attack (which it's too good at).

Capitalization of the name

While a case can be justified for the title—Peregrine Falcon—I see no reason whatsoever why it is capitalized all throughout the article. For God's sake, it's not a proper noun. The same goes for many other zoology articles of Wikipedia, e.g. Siberian Tiger instead of Siberian tiger, or White Rhinoceros instead of white rhinoceros. — 71.190.81.70 (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It is correct per Wikipedia:MOS#Animals.2C_plants_and_other_organisms. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Was correct. Rich Farmbrough, 22:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC).

Is correct. The text at WP:MOS reads:

Common (vernacular) names of flora and fauna should be written in lower case—for example, oak or lion. There are a limited number of exceptions to this:

• For particular groups of organisms, there are particular rules of capitalization based on current and historic usage among those who study the organisms; for example, official common names of birds.

MeegsC | Talk 15:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Peregrine Falcon in popular culture merger

I've suggested merging Peregrine Falcon in popular culture into this article (possibly in the relationship with humans section) because, removing everything that is unsourced at that article, it looks like just trivia and a synthesis of editor pickings, not enough for a full-fledged article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This article used to have a cultural references section, but it was removed with the summary "this is an FA, unreferenced/incorrectly referenced/bulleted text removed". Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 07:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so any issue with merging it back but only the sourced stuff? No sense throwing the baby out with the bathwater. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

My last edit was just a head-up that you might encounter resistance to having a section like that in a featured article. I personally support the merge. Though I'd suggest the merged section be named "Cultural references" or similar – this is about nation's coats-of-arms, not pokemon. Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles provides some guidance. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 04:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. As indicated the main article is an FA, but the suggested merge material is largely unreferenced trivia, which would endanger the status of this article and nullify the efforts of those who put so much into reaching FA standard Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you have an issue if we removed the unreferenced stuff and just merged the two referenced points (the Idaho quarter and My Side of the Mountain)? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If this trivia is going to be reinserted, it needs to be in paragraphs, not a bulleted list! And it is trivia; who cares whether a motorcycle is named after a bird?! MeegsC | Talk 20:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If a bird or animal is iconic, it will be used as a symbol for a number of products and brands and every one of those definitely does not need mention. Likewise we do not need every webcam to be included in the external links. Only links that are long-lived will fulfill WP:EL. Shyamal (talk) 03:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If that article is unreferenceable, just redirect it. If it is referanceable, then leave it. If someone wants to add those two sentences, that's fine to. Or just leave them out. (I use my real name as my username!) - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Big Problem

Most of the article appears to have been copied verbatim from the Encyclopedia of Life's article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.119.25 (talk) 05:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

More likely to be the other way round - is it an on-line encyclopaedia? Does it have all the references that are in our article?

Yes, it is clearly marked as content from Wikipedia and they seem to have lost out on inline references that are on the WP article ! Shyamal (talk) 07:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Current status in London

Peregrines are going from strength to strength in London now. There are now thought to be 22 pairs in the inner city with one pair nesting on Parliament. Feral pigeons still make up 90% of their diet but analysis of their droppings has shown they have also taken a teal, several ducks and even an African grey parrot! A change in their behaviour has also been noticed in that they are now thought to be hunting by night which has not been observed in the non-urban bird although it has been speculated they might have done this by the light of a full moon. It is thought the birds are taking advantage of London being illuminated artificially all night. (I don't have a link for any of the above but it was all reported on the BBC's nature programme Autumnwatch this evening [October 7th] Editors may watch this on www.BBC.co.uk/iplayer for the next few days but it will be available for long.) It will be interesting to see if this same behaviour of night-hunting is also observed in other urban peregrines populations such as those in New York etc. There seems no reason why not. SmokeyTheCat 20:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Straightline speed and max alt.?

It is nothing crucial to the document, but it would be nice to know what the Peregrine Falcon's srraight-line speed is. Also, what is the ceiling altitude that the peregrine falcon reaches naturally? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.123.31.144 (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Bird article improvement programme

The 7th Basic Ornithology Course, Pune run by Ela Foundation and Abasaheb Garware College of Arts and Sciences has committed to improving bird articles on occasion of the Tenth Anniversary of Wikipedia. This is an experimental venture on behalf of the course. For more details about the project see this page. The edits of the Wikipedia article on Peregrine Falcon by User:AshLin on 7th January at19:08 have been carried out in conjunction with the Ornithology Course.

For any observations as regards the editing of Peregrine Falcon by the course, please post on this page. Other queries may be put forth here.

AshLin (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Country based sections

The current status section sounds like a magnet for news-like additions, webcams and so on. If the country specific sub-sections are required then there would be a need to include a large number of countries (so that there is no regional bias) - on the other hand there is little reason to have these country-wise sections as the status can be summarised across locations in a single paragraph. Shyamal (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Reference/footnote 66 is not a reference!

66. ^ Trade in wild-caught Peregrine Falcons and their eggs and young is illegal in most jurisdictions. Falconers are advised to demand valid documentation even if they are able to legally purchase this species.--Tallard (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

cultural things

I organized and prioritized the bulleted list. Also added an image. I can convert this to para(s) later. For now, I will wait until it clears the main page. Was a recent addition by an IP. If anything, when people are adding info, it's easier when it's bulleted like this. I can go over it all later.TCO (talk) 07:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The cultural section is in a very sorry state right now. Merely listing a small list of factoids about appearances of the article subject in random... stuff does not qualify it as FA standard. I tried to make a quick search on Google Books for some relevant facts and added at least something about Native Americans. As it stands, however, the bullet list has to go as quickly as possible. Please don't waste any effort on "improving" by adding more factoids or referencing existing ones. If it can't be made into a cohesive, generalized text, it should be removed.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You can't just remove material because it doesn't neatly make a well-rounded essay. This is a pretty notable and oft-written about bird. There should be something around....Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Removing unreferenced, irrelevant trivia is something that is encouraged by the community as far as I know, especially in TFAs. Please note that I actually added something that makes an attempt to contextualize and explain, so there is something around even if we remove the bullet list altogether.

This type of material has with good reason been rejected by other users (see #Peregrine Falcon in popular culture merger above). And who would tolerate similarly inane statements about taxonomy or breeding habits about an animal? Cultural studies, art history, etc. isn't a random collection of factoids piled together. Readers are not really helped by random statements about national birds, motorcycles and appearances on Idaho quarters.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we are all in agreement. Just need to convert those bulleted items into a single paragraph on modern usage. At least they are ordered now (state icons, commercial use, literature), so it is easy to write the paragraph!

I like the stuff on early usage. Very strong content addition!

I hope you like my quarter! Actually I just got somethin in there...as an image kinda really "proves" that the thing has cultural usage...in even more a direct "show me" way than a footnote! But I just grabbed the one I could find that seemed to have gravitas and not be quirky.TCO (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with Peter. But I don't agree why leaving the motorcycle is fine, but the train is not. Either keep both or remove both. I would say, remove both, why should anyone care how someone named their product, or restaurant or a baby. As for reference, click on the train link and there is an article about it. No need to provide reference for an existing wiki article. Anyway, either remove both or keep both. Mikus (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I would lean to inclusion of both, if sourceable, but no biggie. Obviously if we had too much, we would need to prioritize them. Or maybe cut them if local businesses. But for something like a major motorcycle or a major train, I would lean towards inclusion. It;s not like this article is dying under a weight of non-biology.TCO (talk)

I don't want to be disrespectful to any editor who's worked on the article. When it comes to the biology, economics, conservation, etc, the article appears to me to be very strong. But as TCO points out above, the article is pretty much devoid of cultural content. Patching that issue over with shallow observations about product names, however, does not solve the problem in any way.

Expressions of human cultures that involve animal symbolism and the likes are supposed to be explained in more general terms (with occasional illustrative examples). You never explain culture through isolated examples alone. The only reason I didn't remove the whole bullet list on sight was because I wanted to at least point out the problem here. Since it's now freely admitted that it is substandard content, and since this is a TFA, I see no reason to keep the bullet items all. Please bring the culture section up to the same standard as the rest of the article instead of playing on technicalities and insisting that factoids are better than nothing.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Work needed

Hello everyone! This article currently appears near the top of the cleanup listing for featured articles, with several cleanup tags. Cleanup work needs to be completed on this article, or a featured article review may be in order. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

no tags left. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Jimfbleak has said he is planning to work on the article, so here are a few more comments:

• Obviously: the tags - two citation needed tags, a page numbers needed banner, two dead links.
• Standardize English variation used - it seems to be mostly American but I see a few British spellings (grey vs. gray being the most prominent one)

• Article was started in BE, so that should be standard. Changed "gray" to "grey", "mustache" to "moustache".

• A couple other places that could use references: the two sentences beginning with "The distance between nests..." in Reproduction section, second paragraph of Captive breeding
• Barbary Falcon - why does the sentence "Barbary Falcons breed at different times of year than neighboring Peregrine Falcon subspecies," need seven references?
• Formatting of references - see differences between #38 & #39 or #40 & #41 for example. Also, check publishers - #62 (Falcon Facts) is published by the Raptor Resource Project, not raptorresource.org.

Just some quick thoughts for now... Dana boomer (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• I have run through a couple of times, I'll go to project to see if we can sort page numbers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Stoop speed

It's a real pity that only mere anecdotes are given as references for speed. Please see at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1474-919X.1987.tb03207.x/abstract and http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1474-919X.1987.tb03207.x/pdf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.55.161.139 (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Ice-free landmass

The lead states, "[The Peregrine] can be found nearly everywhere on Earth, except extreme polar regions, very high mountains, and most tropical rainforests; the only major ice-free landmass from which it is entirely absent is New Zealand." New Zealand has glaciers. I presume this should say something like "the only major landmass not covered in ice" or similar, but I don't have the ref: Ferguson-Lees, J.; Christie, D.A. (2001), Raptors of the World, London: Christopher Helm, ISBN 0-7136-8026-1. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Peregrine falcon chick.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Peregrine falcon chick.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Peregrine falcon chick.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

G-forces

I was wondering how they handle G force when they pull out of a dive. Pilots pulling out of a dive at over 200 miles per hour when not wearing a G suit black out. Nhog (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)Nhog

It's not the speed that blacks you out it's the deceleration. If pilots slowly decelerated from 200 mph to their cruising speed or gradually change from a dive to level flying they would not black out. I assume birds also gradually decelerate so there is no problem. Col. Stapp reached high G-forces in rocket sleds but it was the rapid acceleration and deceleration that caused the problems. Dger (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks I forgot it was the deceleration but still if when they dive they have to rapidly decelerate when pulling out of a dive or they will crash so it is still the same problem. Nhog — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhog (talk • contribs) 17:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

They don't come to a full stop after a dive. That would be death. They gradually decelerate. Of course, they don't fully collide with their prey either that would also be disastrous. They hit to one side and strike only with their talons. One source mentions a 10 g force. Col. Stapp, as I recalled handled 40, but he was temporarily blind for a time and was wearing an anti-G suit. Dger (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks though still even when they gradually decelerate they must pull a few G's. Nhog (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC) I am mainly talking about this on the Wiki project birds in the chat so just transfer over there if your talking about this. Nhog (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Raptor organizations and other bird organizations

If you need to know about raptors or raptor conservation and other bird organizations here are some organizations that can help. I will be adding more. The Peregrine Fund, Asian Raptors, Australasian Raptor Association, Belize Raptor Research Institute, The Bird Group, The Canadian Peregrine Foundation, CECARA, Coastal Raptors, Eagle Conservation Alliance, Endangered Wildlife Trust Bird of Prey Working Group, Falcon Research Group, Fondo Amigos de Buitre, Fondo Peregrino, Fonds d'intervention pour les rapaces, George Miksch Sutton Avian Research Center, The Golden Eagle Trust Limited, The Hawk Conservancy Trust, Hawk Migration Association of North America, Hawk Mountain Sanctuary, Hawks Aloft, Inc., HawkWatch International, International Birding & Research Centre - Eilat, International Wildlife Consultants, MEDRAPTORS, Middle East Falcon Research Group, Monitoring Greivögel und Eulen Europas, Natural Research, Northeast Hawk Watch, Parque Condor, Percy FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, The Raptor Center, Raptor Association of New Zealand, Raptor Protection of Slovakia, Raptor Research Center, Raptor Research Foundation, Raptor View Research Institute, Raptors Namibia, Scottish Raptor Study Groups, Society for the Wild Animals "Falcon", Sociedad Guatemalteca de Ornitología, S.O.S. Falconiformes, Thai Raptor Group, Veracruz River of Raptors - Pronatura Veracruz, Vulture Study Group, Wildlife Research Institute, Wingspan Birds of Prey Trust, Working Group Birds of Prey Netherlands, World Working Group on Birds of Prey and Owls, Working Group on Raptors of Northern Eurasia. Nhog (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The Tribute of the Maltese Falcon

The following section was added to the article with no references. Since it's difficult to understand, it should be clarified and referenced before it is re-added to this FA article

• This was an annual tribute that the Sovereign Military Order of Malta had to pay to the Emperor Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, for the grating of island of Malta. The Order had to give annually on the All Saints day one falconry trained falcon,which it was paid until 1798 when the Order was expelled from the island by Napoleon.

MeegsC (talk) 05:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Done.--Carrasco (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)