Talk:Peregrine Falcon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Birds Portal Peregrine Falcon 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.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Birds To-do: edit Major taxonomic overhaul (see here) Create Galloanserae

	Peregrine Falcon is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
October 23, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted

Peregrine Falcon 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.

Contents 1 Moved 2 Source for speed 3 Source for being a pest 4 "they live up to 30 years old" 5 Subspecies 6 Heart Rate 7 Perigrine lungs 8 "air intake?" 9 Recovery efforts 10 Upside down 11 Webcam to add 12 Plural or singular? 13 nit pick 14 Which photo? 15 Peregrines should not be a least concern. 16 Medium or large? 17 order of headings 18 Falconry 19 Citations 20 Map 21 Sources 22 Subspecies number 23 Maps 24 barbary falcons 25 Idaho quarter reference 26 US Air Force Academy 27 New photo 28 Speed, revisited 29 Video and other media of Peregrines

[edit] Moved

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

yeah anyway.......falcons would own any of u if they hit u in the head with their talons at full speed :) (no this is not Tannin anymore)

[edit] 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)

---

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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]

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. Jdrewitt (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? Jdrewitt (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. Jdrewitt (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 Jdrewitt (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? Jdrewitt (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! Jdrewitt (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. :) Jdrewitt (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 Jdrewitt (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. Jdrewitt (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. Jdrewitt (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? Jdrewitt (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] New photo

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. Jdrewitt (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)